Oh for f*ck's sake, grow up. It's a silly little 1.6 meg video and you
have your panties in a twist.
Since it's obvious the link's for a video, what's the problem? I was on
56K until recently. If I knew I was downloading a video I would put it in
perspective.
Eight minute download? Goodness... end of the world!!! (NOT)
Sheesh.
At 09:57 PM 3/25/04, Namgar Reprints wrote:
><<<snip>>>
>Tab Julius wrote:
> >
> > And your point is... you're unhappy with your connection speed??
><<<snip>>>
>
>Unhappy or not that's all that's available for many in region unless one
>can afford to go satellite. And I am lucky. There are others five
>miles from me that can only connect at 28.8K verses the 51K connect I
>usually get. Heck I can think of a place a mile from here that would be
>limited to tel modem at 28.8K unless they go satellite.
>
>So, my point is don't always assume everyone has the same access or
>availability of anything that's considered common in your neck of the
>woods. If you're going to post a link to a 1.6K file let them know how
>big it is first before we waste our time on something that may not be
>really worth waiting 8 minutes for.
>
>Blake
>North Central South Dakota
>
>P.S. the same problem applies to TV. Two miles from here there are
>three choices. Four channels of broadcast, satellite, or subscribed
>dish cable. Go 30 miles west and you've got Three channels of broadcast
>or Satellite. Go 140 miles west where I hunt grouse and antelope and
>you may or may not even have broadcast reception, so you're left with
>satellite.
|