RE: Statistics (was: Re: 55 minute download

From: Shawn Curry ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 09/04/04-06:35:11 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Not to sound like the list cop here, but this thread is now way off
topic and should be taken off the list for further discussion. So
please do so.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Statistics (was: Re: 55 minute download
> From: "Judy Seigel" <>
> Date: Sat, September 04, 2004 12:47 am
> To:
> >>> 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
> here).
> Judy
> > 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 08:39:23 2004

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