Re: 55 minute download

Thank you Katharine Thayer!

I certainly don't need that attitude! I work on this computer 12 hours a day, a
lot of it through the internet. I also live in a rural area. NO cable and NO DSL!
Do YOU want to pay for a dish hookup here plus the monthly charges???

So now to belong to this list, we have to have DSL or cable? Sorry, I didn't
know it was so exclusionary... Well, as soon as you fork over the money for
the dish, I'll run right outside and take a picture of it with my pinhole camera,
POP print it, then scan it and send it over the list for everyone to 'enjoy'...

Rich, who prefers to spend his hard earned money on photo equipment
instead of flushing it down the digital bucket...

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:12:37 -0400, Jan Kapoor wrote:

>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.
>
>
Received on Wed Sep 1 20:45:00 2004