R. D. Davis skrev:
>On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Don Maslin wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Seth wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 06:35:21PM +1030, Geoff Roberts wrote:
>> > > If you just want a dialup thingy for those in your area, probably ok,
>> > > if you have people close enough not to mind the 30c per local call.
>30 cents a call is expensive! Wow! Of course, we've got high taxes
>added onto our flat-rate bills (I still think we all need to stock up
>on tar and feathers to keep the tax-gobbling politicians in line) over
>here in the U.S.
With former state telecom, I pay 10 ?re a minute, which with today's exchange
rates would be about one US cent a minute. And that's only on evenings and
weekends. Double that price daytime. And that's for local calls (which have
now been implemented on a nationwide basis). Oh, and you pay 50 ?re as a
connection charge for each call.
>> > > > But... but... UUCP is
>> > > > half the fun!!
>Long live UUCP! That reminds me, I want to get a machine reconnected
>to the UUCP network; I gave up on UUNET at over US$40/month after many
>years, seemed like a waste of money to keep on with it, but I sure
>hated to drop that UUCP feed.
I think my ISP will still deliver UUCP (it did to some BBSes some three or
four years ago), though I doubt anyone still uses it.
>> > Next Up: Tin-Can-and-Two-Strings-Net, dammit! BWAHAHAHA!
>Neat! I remember using those! We could do digital over those lines!
>Ok, it would be a little slow, but, it would still work. The problem
>is getting around things like zoning regulations if we start stringing
>up string all over the place with electromechanical repeaters in tin
>cans.
How about parabolic transfers? It is wireless!
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
Kyosuke: Jag heter Kurre, Kurre Carlsson!
Jag: Det heter du inte alls!
Received on Sat Nov 18 2000 - 18:38:17 GMT