Re: Statistics (was: Re: 55 minute download

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 09/03/04-10:47:50 PM Z
Message-id: <>

>>> It is not an "elitist" idea, it's just the way things are going.

Now let me get this straight... We independent thinkers, original creative
artists, self-actualized personalities, free spirits, proud humanists,
strong-willed searchers, and seekers of truth (etc. etc. and so forth, get
your own thesaurus) are being told to do it because the *majority* are
doing it (possibly, apparently, statistically -- or not).

Like footbinding, or belly button piercing, suttee, or female
circumcision, among "going" ways of other cultures ?

In this culture it's do what the nice corporation tells you to do so CEOs
and merger managers can suck up more millions -- whether or not you
personally feel a need or see a benefit and if you don't you're an
out-of-it luddite unprogressive dorky retard. You're saying that with a
straight face (so to speak)?

Not to mention that in the recent past Sandy King, of all people, has told
us this is the 21st century, so get with the program. Has anyone failed to
notice that the 21st century is (so far) a disaster, worse even than the
20th, which was bad enough?

Is this how lemmings do it? Or call it "manufacturing consent" (I believe
a phrase coined by that spawn of Satan Noam Chomsky, but seems to apply


> Actually that's only true if you use the newer browsers. I use an
> ancient browser that's very fast. I have a newer one on the disk to use
> for websites that won't work with the old browser, but it works slower
> than the dickens and I refuse to use it except when absolutely
> necessary. And even the "newer" one is several versions back.
> I deleted Mateo's mail after a brief glance this morning, because I
> thought I was done talking about bandwidth and all that. But being a
> statistican, numbers interest me and I've been thinking about those
> numbers off and on all day.
> I've emptied the trash and the archives are behind, so I can't look at
> the post again to check the numbers, but the way I remember it, it said
> that by a recent estimate, 63 million (people? connections?) were
> connected by broadband and 61.3 by narrowband, reflecting a 47% increase
> in broadband and a 13% decrease in narrowband from the year before.
> If I've got the figures right, that means that over the year there were
> 20 million more broadband (users, connections, whatever the unit was)
> but only 9 million fewer narrowband units. If this is so, then it would
> be misleading to attribute the increase, or even half of the increase,
> in broadband to people switching from narrowband. I don't know where
> those other 11 million came from, but if these numbers are right, they
> weren't dialup customers moving up.
> This is the kind of thing I think about while driving, sorry about that.
> Katharine Thayer
Received on Sun Sep 5 08:33:23 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 10/01/04-09:17:54 AM Z CST