From: The Deviant <deviant@pooh-corner.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 20:49:16 +0800
To: Deranged Mutant <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com>
Subject: Re: Minitel "saved" by hackers?
In-Reply-To: <199607121211.IAA25706@unix.asb.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.960714073235.7387B-100000@switch.sp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Deranged Mutant wrote:

> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 07:55:12 +0000
> From: Deranged Mutant <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com>
> To: Daniel Salber <daniel.salber@imag.fr>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Minitel "saved" by hackers?
> 
> On 12 Jul 96 at 5:51, Daniel Salber wrote:
> [..]
> > As Minow pointed out, this is not the only case of "hijacking". The
> > telephone was first intended as a way to listen to remote concerts. Then
> > users found out they could use it for one-to-one conversations.
> 
> This is innacurate. No, methinks it's wrong.  From every history of 
> telephones I have read and heard, it was never that way.
> 
> The original conception was of using the telephone for broadcasting. 
> It's implementation in most countries was for point-to-point 
> communication... it wasn't a matter of the users 'found they could 
> use it' (at least not in the US).
> 
[SIG skipped]

Umm.. check again... Bell origonally conceived the telephone as a means of
broadband communication, like radio is today.  Bruce Sterling explains
this exceptionally well in his book "The Hacker Crackdown" (Nonfiction)

 -- Deviant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMeijDjAJap8fyDMVAQHObQf+IKVX42WUmnareinWeKoYtvuSXG3+8gB7
+wmxyXkKc6Qs7Xgi7N3PMlLqkdnZhI/Q1JxQmj2FshwvMN1gsVeP3ZUnADrjCJXw
JR6JvXggchkWUR4lANVE8LUmktdcdtmiCPile9fpj5BF07Yi0z9mAesLxnk1SZWm
+M7dYvUgByDjF0QuiEjGu0yTNxHWf9MTZlDkGmFZGgn9oUXalPNHJKcm7Vmg1i5J
I5zFcaG3EnvLSPsLw6rh9HK93QAjeRxnCjKdiCdznp8QjeF8R8Mq1yFidxcEaplO
JW3yx8PASUhAtqDXfte5QT85iqzOehauWQrnDxMqIR+4hN2/r8krhQ==
=1Tzv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----