from Clarence Verge:
>I've been using the download of this image to test my connection speed
>on DSL and it seems pretty poor to me:
> http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2000-000938.jpg
>It's 1,787,955 bytes and the best time I can get on DSL is 2:20 (140 Sec).
>That's with A1.66 and Bel
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, L.D. Best wrote:
> Clarence,
>
> I cannot believe you actually believed you would get the promised speeds
> of DSL. :>
When I signed up, my cable provider promised 256kbps
down and 128kbps up. I was getting better than that.
Then when they changed from Speedway to Metroc
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Clarence Verge wrote:
> > What we need to do, is stop passively "allowing" idiots to run
> > M$zz windows, and go on the aggressive attack to hammer and
> > yammer that M$zz MUST be removed from the internet, because IT
> > is the virus...not the minor exploits being slapped t
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Clarence Verge wrote:
> Thanks, Steve. Those ARE nice numbers - but they are cable.
>
> > > Does my DSL speed suck or is this normal ? They claim up to 1.5 Mb/sec.
> >
> > "Up to" could mean you have to pay extra for a
> > commercial account. Somewhere in your literature,
L.D. Best wrote:
>
> Clarence,
>
> I cannot believe you actually believed you would get the promised speeds
> of DSL. :>
I'm not QUITE that big a sucker, but I was, and still am, expecting rates
in the 500-600 kbits/sec range (at times). I did that test 8 times.
> Is my modem broken? Do I ne
Also, the program catdoc, which is freeware unlike view, does quite a
good job of converting MS Word docs into formatted, plain text. It may,
however, not do what view can with images, etc.
Clarence,
I cannot believe you actually believed you would get the promised speeds
of DSL. :>
I have cable modem capable of 10Mbs down, with all other links T1 or
better.
It took 1:54 [114 seconds] to download & render that Hubbard pic; 2 sec
were used in converting the jpg to bmp, so download
Gregory J. Feig wrote:
>
> What we need to do, is stop passively "allowing" idiots to run
> M$zz windows, and go on the aggressive attack to hammer and
> yammer that M$zz MUST be removed from the internet, because IT
> is the virus...not the minor exploits being slapped together to
> exploit it..
Bastiaan Edelman wrote:
>
> Hi Jake... you are right. Tesco was a delight to me after I struggeled
> with Ibay and a local auction to sell my boat.
> Both companies had a lot of Java script and other crap... even Internet
> Explorer failed to get my boat on the auctionlists.
> A total of 90 minut
Steve wrote:
>
> Using cable service (now Metrocast, formerly Speedway),
> and Linux A4.1.66, I get it in 25 seconds.
>
> With Netscape 3.04, I get a d/l rate of 109K/sec,
> which means I must have gotten it in 16 seconds.
>
> Hmmm
>
> Clean arachne cache, try again. 0:20.
> Cle
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 02:15:19 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> When I receive a questionable attachment and recognize who it came from, I
> normally query the sender. If I recognize the attachment as a virus, I let the
> sender know. But then I usually don't have any contact with the sender's
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 08:17:12 +0100, Joerg Dietze wrote:
> Hi Clarence,
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 01:23:22 -0400, Clarence Verge wrote:
>> Hi All;
>> I've been using the download of this image to test my connection speed
>> on DSL and it seems pretty poor to me:
>> http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MED
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:29:30 +0800, J. J. Young wrote:
> A year or so after I was given "short shrift"
> by someone on the Tesco web team for complaining
> that their site sent Arachne to a "bad browser"
> whinge page... they seem to have got it mainly
> right.
> See: http://www.tesco.com/access
Thomas wrote:
>There is an open-source program, wvWare, to convert MS-Word .doc to HTML. I
>don't know if they've done everything for DOS, though I remember seeing it in
>the NetBSD packages collection, and it was also available for OS/2, so it would
>in all likelihood be available for all Unixes
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> When I receive a questionable attachment and recognize who it came from, I
> normally query the sender. If I recognize the attachment as a virus, I let the
> sender know. But then I usually don't have any contact with the sender's
> father.
>
> Curre
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Clarence Verge wrote:
> http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2000-000938.jpg
> It's 1,787,955 bytes and the best time I can get on DSL is 2:20 (140 Sec).
> That's with A1.66 and Bell high speed internet connection.
NOTE: kbps = kilo-bits per sec
K/sec = Kilo-Byt
Hello Clarence,
Tuesday, August 07, 2001, 1:23:22 AM, you wrote:
CV> Hi All;
CV> I've been using the download of this image to test my connection speed
CV> on DSL and it seems pretty poor to me:
CV> http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2000-000938.jpg
CV> It's 1,787,955 bytes and the best
Thomas wrote:
>Why do you/we want RTF on the WWW?
Its advantage is in sharing documents with non-Netizens (who get their
secretaries to write a Word doc and attach it to an email). I remember
when I first got a CD drive and was annoyed at the number of HTML pages
on magazine disks, with no simple
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, "Clarence Verge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Bastiaan;
> There can never be a problem with a worm disguised as a .gif when
> running Arachne. She does not 'run' the .gif. She runs a part of
> herself which converts the information in the .gif to an image,
> and then she d
19 matches
Mail list logo
