JANET and cam.ac.uk cutting Usenet News feed from July
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Mail and trash
Next: Mac Pro problem
From: Rowland McDonnell on 19 Apr 2010 01:20 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Getting 'shitfaced' doesn't sound like a very enjoyable way to spend > > > time on holiday though. > > > > The great swathes of sunburnt drunken British brawlers to be found > > frequenting 'English' and 'Irish' pubs in Torremolinos and similar > > package holiday destinations appear to disagree with you. <puzzled> Who says they're enjoying themselves? One behaves like that - getting drunk and arsing around - when he doesn't know how to enjoy himself and needs some kind of synthetic ersatz pseudo-fun to fill in the yawning chasm of emptiness in his life. And some idiots do so by getting drunk and behaving like arseholes in hot foreign parts. At least these days the British drunken arseholes in foreign climes treating the locals (and each other) appallingly are subject to local laws rather than administering an empire. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 19 Apr 2010 01:20 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > Peter Ceresole said: > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>> And, of course, there's still dialup. I'm back on the wet string for ten > >>> days, and although it's *decent* wet string, as out here I'm using a USR > >>> Courier than which there is no better dialup modem, it's still madness > >>> to try Usenet (or mail) on line. > >> > >> Why? 10 years ago that is what everyone was using, and it worked fine! > > > > Only according to a very, very restrictive definition of 'fine'. I was on ISDN until not so long ago - it was `fine', it really was absolutely fine for what I used it for until OS updates got to be larger than I could download in a couple of hours (auto shut-off after 2 hrs). But you see, I had no ambitions to view streamed video. Okay, the 64 kbit/s I got was a lot faster than can be managed by a `56k' modem, but not in practice much more than twice as quick. > I don't remember people posting DVD rips when there was just dial-up. There has never been a time in the life of the Internet when it was only dial-up AFAIK - dedicated data lines were in use from the start IIRC. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 19 Apr 2010 01:20 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > Although, on the other hand, the good thing about an offline newsreader > > is that it _is_ offline. A dicky ADSL connection can make you quite > > happy about that. > > And, of course, there's still dialup. I'm back on the wet string for ten > days, and although it's *decent* wet string, as out here I'm using a USR > Courier than which there is no better dialup modem, it's still madness > to try Usenet (or mail) on line. That's nonsense. On-line newsreaders and on-line email date back to the dial-up days and lots of people liked working that way. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jim on 19 Apr 2010 02:12 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > No Web forum I've met has had a UI even close to the convenience of a > > > good off-line newsreader. > > > > > > Not even with an order of magnitude close. > > > > Note my use of the word 'almost'. > > Note my use of the phrase `Not even an order of magnitude close' > (mistakenly typed first time around). > > I saw your `almost' and dismissed it as nonsense. That would be your mistake then. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Peter Ceresole on 19 Apr 2010 02:13
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Why? 10 years ago that is what everyone was using, and it worked fine! > > > > Only according to a very, very restrictive definition of 'fine'. > > Where 'fine' is well enough for most of the things that you needed to > do! At the time? Yes. Now? Not at all. The world moves on, and so do requirements. -- Peter |