That is exactly why the network hasn't hit the mainstream media - the name is just so disgusting. The modern media love their hi-tech buzzwords and this just simply doesn't fit it.
I was thinking this yesterday while on eMule. There are over 8m current users on the eDonkey network, far more than ever on Kazaa or Napster, and yet a.) No lay person has ever heard of it and b.) I have never heard a squeek about it in the UK media.
For me this is a very good thing, and is one of the reasons the eDonkey network is the best imho. It is also one of the reasons why it hasn't yet been systematically attacked by the **AA forces.
I have been following anatomic which seems to be a similar project, but uses gnutella as the supernode, and a modified BitTornado client. Looks like Azureus is much more mature though.
Well one has to recognise that scientific dating techniques do develop over time, and so it is good that when someting is potentially incorrect that is dated again. The number of incorrect datings given from early American sites is enough to lose any faith in radiocarbon dating, but over time these will be corrected.
Archaeology is not a true science, and any findings will always be subject to interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
That is exactly why the network hasn't hit the mainstream media - the name is just so disgusting. The modern media love their hi-tech buzzwords and this just simply doesn't fit it.
I was thinking this yesterday while on eMule. There are over 8m current users on the eDonkey network, far more than ever on Kazaa or Napster, and yet a.) No lay person has ever heard of it and b.) I have never heard a squeek about it in the UK media.
For me this is a very good thing, and is one of the reasons the eDonkey network is the best imho. It is also one of the reasons why it hasn't yet been systematically attacked by the **AA forces.
--Richard Malone
I have been following anatomic which seems to be a similar project, but uses gnutella as the supernode, and a modified BitTornado client. Looks like Azureus is much more mature though.
Well one has to recognise that scientific dating techniques do develop over time, and so it is good that when someting is potentially incorrect that is dated again. The number of incorrect datings given from early American sites is enough to lose any faith in radiocarbon dating, but over time these will be corrected.
Archaeology is not a true science, and any findings will always be subject to interpretation.