Re: 55 minute download

Yes; ther are plenty of free or very inexpensive photoblogs out there.
That is the place for things like this.

Jan

Schuyler Grace wrote:

>The problem is that a lot of folks still can't get/afford a high bandwidth
>connection, and on a dial connection, these attachments could easily take
>anywhere from five minutes (at the very best) to an hour to download. If
>this message was the first one received since the last time messages were
>checked, that would keep all the newer messages bottled up until it got done
>downloading (ah, I remember my dial-up days well). Remember, these photos
>were 16,000,000 bits (2MB) total (roughly), and some phone systems are doing
>well to provide 9,600 bits per second.
>
>Another (and probably more serious) problem is that the attachments could
>have contained a virus or worm, which could have infected the machines of
>those opening the attachments. So, even if the attachment opened in two
>seconds, it would have taken even less time to infect your PC.
>
>The solution is to find a free place on the Internet--there are plenty of
>hosts out there--to park pictures and put a link to them in your e-mail.
>That way, no viruses (virii?) get spread around, and anyone can stop the
>download if it takes too long.
>
>-Schuyler
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 3:25 PM
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: 55 minute download
>
>
>
>With regard to Ryuji's comments about the "unsubscribe" requests, I
>don't really believe he is that naive.
>
>But what is the big deal about the attachments? They downloaded on my
>system in less than two seconds. If your ISP requires 5 - 55 minutes
>it might be time to consider changing provider and joining the rest
>of us in the 21st century. Just a thought.
>
>Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
>>Subject: Re: 55 minute download
>>Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 10:47:49 +0000
>>
>>
>>
>>> Heck, why would they see the instructions not to send attachments
>>> any more than they see the instructions about how to unsubscribe?
>>>
>>>
>>For some reason I always thought that those deliberately
>>misdirected/misformatted unsubscribe requests are signals that tell
>>"we've had this thread for long enough."
>>
>>--
>>Ryuji Suzuki
>>"You have to realize that junk is not the problem in and of itself.
>>Junk is the symptom, not the problem."
>>(Bob Dylan 1971; source: No Direction Home by Robert Shelton)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Fine art photography of Jan Kapoor at www.jankapoor.net
Pinhole, large format, alternative printing processes and digital.