Re: 55 minute download

Well said, Katharine!

And by the way, the original poster of this behemoth has yet to say
anything for himself, much less apologize.

Jan

Katharine Thayer wrote:

>Sandy King wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Now there's a fine "American" attitude: Let them eat DSL!
>
>(Actually, Sandy, I've seen the 21st century, and I'd rather stay
>where I am, thanks.) ;-)
>
>The whole point of the way the list is set up is to accommodate people
>with all kinds of hardware and software and internet connections. Text
>works for everyone, but besides that, don't you think it's just a bit
>illogical to suggest that one should be willing or able to "join the
>rest of us in the 21st century" in order to be part of a group
>discussing 19th century photographic processes?
>
>I stayed on the cutting edge of computer and imaging technology through
>most of the 90s; in 1998 I realized that I had spent many tens of
>thousands and could easily spend myself into the poorhouse if I
>kept on keeping up. So I stopped at that point, and have bought no
>software or hardware (except for a scanner to replace my ancient 300 dpi
>flatbed) since 1998. The way I feel about the whole technology thing is
>"been there, done that." People who have joined the digital revolution
>more recently have inherited the field from those of us who adopted
>early and burned out early. Perhaps only those who are independently
>wealthy or have an insitutional or corporate budget at their
>disposal can be so complacent as to suggest that the rest of the world
>should quit dragging their feet about keeping up with the latest in
>technology. (And as more than one person has pointed out, not everyone
>has the option anyway, and besides, people get their mail on cell phones
>as well as on a number of different kinds of connections.) It seems to
>me that the list should be inclusive, not exclusive, and that respecting
>the list rules is the way to keep it that way.
>
>There's nothing wrong with my ISP, but I'm only allowed 10 MB on my
>ISP's server, including incoming mail and my website. I don't know
>exactly how much of the 10 MB is used by my website, but enough that a
>4MB file coming in is going to create a serious problem. I wish the ISP
>would simply bounce big mails, but instead something big like that just
>sits there and clogs up the works; it won't download but it won't go
>away either, and I can't download anything else until it's gone. It
>brings my whole operation to a standstill until I can get it off the
>ISP's server. But the problem is space, not speed; I don't think getting
>a faster connection or a faster computer or whatever gizmo John was
>recommending would help my basic problem; I simply don't have room for a
>4 MB incoming file. But it shouldn't be necessary to explain or
>apologize for my inability or unwillingness to receive a 4 MB file; the
>point is that there's no excuse for a 4 MB file coming through the mail
>at all, much less through the list, and the fact that there were some
>people for whom it wasn't a major inconvenience doesn't change the fact
>that for many people it was, as well as being a violation of list rules.
>
>Yeah, it's true that I once inadvertently sent a picture to the list
>myself, but at least it was compressed for transmission, so it was only
>30 K or so and took almost no time to download, even for me; no harm was
>done except for my embarrassment when the picture I thought
>I had sent to one individual popped up on my screen addressed to the
>list. What happened today is on a whole other level.
>My 20cents,
>
>Katharine Thayer
>
>
>

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