18 Nov
2000
18 Nov
'00
6:38 p.m.
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!