Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 11:51 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:8191f$455b2020$49ecfcb$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Don Bowey wrote: > >> On 11/14/06 9:02 PM, in article >> Rbx6h.6426$Sw1.3046(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com, "lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net" >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>news:MPG.1fc459ba145f0210989b5d(a)news.individual.net... >>> >>>>In article <Lzv6h.6398$Sw1.5307(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>> >>>>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>>news:MPG.1fc3cb5179e833c9989b43(a)news.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>>>(of course I don't have a phone line, >>>>>>so...). >>>>> >>>>>Well, that latter would be the real issue then, not the distance to a >>>>>hub. >>>> >>>>No, you ditz! I choose not to have a phone line (too expensive), >>> >>>Actually, the phone company will run a line to your house for free. >>>There's >>>nothing saying you have to get phone service using the line. >>> >>>Eric Lucas >>> >> >> >> Very interesting - who is your Telco? >> >> Among the ex-Bells and Verizon, a phone line will not be run to a >> residence >> unless someone pays for it. That can be be the house's building >> contractor. >> Otherwise the Telco requires a Service Order, and there are costs >> involved. >> >> Nothing for free. > > If you pay attention you'll see that Lucas makes > up stuff to suit his arguments or yank someone's > chain. No, that would be you.... Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 12:00 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455B23F4.DEBD35D1(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far from >> >a >> >population center to get decent DSL. >> >> I live in a town. There is no DSL line strung. >> You people are starting to get really annoying. > > DSL comes down an ordinary telephone line ! Well, in fairness, the way it's being implemented in the US, it does need fiber optic to the local neighborhood green box (the word for these green boxes escapes me at the moment). From there, copper to your house is fine. However, the phone companies have been running that fiber optic like madmen, and have most of the country covered , except the very most rural areas. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 12:03 Don Bowey wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> When I bought the service DOS 6.0 and Win 3.11 was the usual > >> ISP software run. These guys were running Unix on Alphas. If > >> there was a glitch on my end, I could call their help line, ask > >> the guy if the systems were up. He would yell across his office > >> wall if there were any problems and get an immediate answer. > > > > I pretty much get that from my ISP too. > > > > > >> There wree no 500-Q&A sales mazes to go through before getting > >> my question answered. That was worth $30/month for not spending > >> my time on bullshit. > > > > I don't have that problem either. I'm paying ?17.99 p.c.m. but that is for an > > 8Mbps connection. > > > > Graham > > What is the bitrate upstream? 384k with this one. Another ISP with their own kit in BT's exchange offered a theoretical 448k but downstream is the same. The 8M is the sync speed. I've actually transferred data at about 6.5Mbps max in practice. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 12:05 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > > On the positive side it will help a bit with global warming if there is > > no more cheap Saudi oil to run all those ugly gas guzzling SUVs. > > And wouldn't the roads be a far more pleasant place to be, without having to > deal with those damn things. I find it especially irritating to be caught behind one as you can't see past them ( or through them ) to see much of the road ahead. Graham
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 12:03
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455B272F.A606B0DD(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >$30 a month is massively expensive for USENET. >> >> >> >> I don't think so. The service provided was 7x24, never down >> >> and the people knew what was going whenever something odd >> >> was happening. When I said I got what I paid for, I meant >> >> that the service was superb, timely, and absent of all bullshit. >> > >> >I pay $2.95 for news access and it seems just fine too. 24/7 is the >> >norm. >> >> When I bought the service DOS 6.0 and Win 3.11 was the usual >> ISP software run. These guys were running Unix on Alphas. If >> there was a glitch on my end, I could call their help line, ask >> the guy if the systems were up. He would yell across his office >> wall if there were any problems and get an immediate answer. > > I pretty much get that from my ISP too. Me too. From both Verizon and SBC. They bend over backwards to help their customers get the most out of their DSL and dialup service. They know that people can (and will) vote with their feet. >> There wree no 500-Q&A sales mazes to go through before getting >> my question answered. That was worth $30/month for not spending >> my time on bullshit. > > I don't have that problem either. Me neither. ERic Lucas |