Cox Communications drops Usenet
in [Design]
|
Prev: voltage divider calcs
Next: TVS used as a zener
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Apr 2010 06:07 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:38:55 -0400, Bill Palmer <Biiil(a)none.not> wrote: > does not allow you to retain any >self-confidence. I did more in the last two weeks to make the world a better place than you will in your entire pathetic life. Of that, I am 100% confident. One doesn't need much more than that to get a serious laugh at a putz like you.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Apr 2010 06:08 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:38:56 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Glenn Gundlach ><stratus46(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Apr 21, 7:22�pm, AtTheEndofMyRope >><AtTheEndofMyR...(a)AtTheEndofMyRope.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:10:49 -0700, Jim Thompson >> > >> > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> > >Isn't that 30Mbps (bits, not bytes :-) >> > >> > > � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �...Jim Thompson >> > >> > � Your hard drives don't even transfer between themselves at that >>rate. >> > >> > � Use some common sense. �Larkin obviously doesn't. >> >>What kind of Model T computer do you use? Sounds like one of those >>machines wit Same Day Boot. I routinely move 11Gig files across the >>LAN in 3 minutes. Sound like more than 30 mega bits to me. Moving that >>same file from drive 1 to drive 0 in the same machine goes at the same >>rate and these are garden variety SATA drives from Frys. >> >>G� > >We're talking Cox/AT&T, not drives. > > ...Jim Thompson No, retard boy. We were discussing transfer rates of hard drives in this particular set of posts. Learn to read, you retarded, filtering PUTZ!
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Apr 2010 06:20 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:04:08 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >http://i40.tinypic.com/iw0oz4.png > >Nice ;-) Not really. I get 1.8 regularly. Many of mine settle out at no lower than 1.3MB/s
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Apr 2010 06:21 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:14:41 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >Starting? STARTING!!!??? Yes, john. Something the engine between your ears still has yet to do.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 27 Apr 2010 06:23
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:27:11 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:04:08 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: > >[snip] >> >>Another good one is. >> >>http://speakeasy.net/speedtest/ >[snip] > >I get... > >24.62Mbps download > >6.76Mbps upload > >:-] > > ...Jim Thompson Horseshit. Do the COX test, and you will get real numbers, dumbfuck. I can get burst numbers from that pathetic site too. But the REAL, sustained number is that obtained via the Cox tests. Try all three types and see. Then do the false test you just did again, and you will see that it merely grabs a packet burst and that does NOT give real numerics. |