|
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] zoooom!
| [I] zoooom! [message #299526] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 07:53 |
|
ADSL rocks!
Alana
(Who has just had broadband installed)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299531 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 08:50 |
|
Ian & Alana wrote:
> ADSL rocks!
>
> Alana
> (Who has just had broadband installed)
Yes, for downloading video, audio files, etc. Though, for ordinary web
browsing, I find connection speed not to be the bottleneck.
Initialising the connection with a remote server takes about as long
with broadband as on dialup, and that's more often the bottleneck,
IME.
A big advantage of broadband for newsgroups is that I can idly refresh
any time I want to. For example, if I'm watching television (as I was
for four and a quarter hours consecutively last night) then I can
check for new messages in each and every ad break. This is not
practical on dialup.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299532 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 08:52 |
|
In article <1152856202.196943 [at] ftpsrv1>,
"Ian & Alana" <nainai [at] slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
>ADSL rocks!
Only somet
....
....
....
[2 days later]
....
imes. The BT lines tend to go down without war
....
....
....
ning, leaving you hig
....
....
....
h and dry. But when it's on it's *very* fast, yes.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
"I'd like to be the king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat."
Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299536 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 09:56 |
|
8'FED <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Ian & Alana wrote:
>
>> ADSL rocks!
>>
>> Alana
>> (Who has just had broadband installed)
>
> Yes, for downloading video, audio files, etc. Though, for ordinary web
> browsing, I find connection speed not to be the bottleneck.
> Initialising the connection with a remote server takes about as long
> with broadband as on dialup, and that's more often the bottleneck,
> IME.
I've got a friend who, for a long time at least, refused to switch to
cable or adsl because it was too slow. He played a lot of Quake, which
doesn't use a lot of bandwidth, but long delay will hurt your reflexes,
and apparantely isdn has the least delay.
I'm on cable, and at times I've experienced a delay of 5 seconds over
a simple established telnet connection.
And movies aren't all that fast either.
mcv.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299542 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 11:37 |
|
"The Stainless Steel Cat" <steelcat [at] atuin.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C0DCFDBE9668111930 [at] 192.168.0.2...
>
> But when it's on it's *very* fast, yes.
We've been on dail-up at around 42k (on a good day)
Alana
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299556 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 13:25 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:37:45 +1200, Ian & Alana wrote:
> We've been on dail-up at around 42k (on a good day)
> Alana
For anyone interested :)
Dial up specs:
56K does not mean 56 Kilobytes, it means 56 Kilobits, a byte being 8 bits.
So downhill in a hurricane you would get an absolute theoretical maximum
of 56/8 = 7Kb per second.
However to control the data you need stop bits and check bits. That is
why the common, albeit slightly inaccurate calculation is 56/10 = 5.6Kb
That is pure maths. However the old twisted copper gubbins used in
traditional phone lines can only take an absolute maximum of 53kb/sec so
you're down to 5.3Kb/sec.
Take into account distance from exchange, length of phone line (not
boosted) from main socket, any local interference[1] and where I worked we
deemed a reported speed of 48K to be decent, and anywhere from 44-48K
acceptable.
None of this takes into account data compression [2] so in practise it is
possible to see reported speeds of 54666 etc, but that's just the
compression messing about. Oh, and the speed you see is only the speed
you *connected* at... it can go up and down.
If anyone still on dialup has connection problems I'll upload some of my
old notes from work to my website, maybe they can help :)
[1] A friend once had her radio on a shelf above her modem. When it was
on she got 28.8K. Off she got the full speed.
[2] Squashing it so you get more down the line at once.
--
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299560 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 13:49 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:37:45 +1200, "Ian & Alana"
<nainai [at] slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"The Stainless Steel Cat" <steelcat [at] atuin.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:C0DCFDBE9668111930 [at] 192.168.0.2...
>>
>> But when it's on it's *very* fast, yes.
>
>We've been on dail-up at around 42k (on a good day)
>Alana
>
Welcome to the 90s :)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299565 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 13:58 |
|
Ian & Alana wrote:
> ADSL rocks!
>
> Alana
> (Who has just had broadband installed)
I remember well the day we switched from dial-up to cable. I don't
suppose I could ever go back now. For simple browsing, dial-up is still
generally all right, (Unless the site uses ungodly amounts of Flash.
*shudder*) but for any sort of significant downloading there's simply no
comparison.
As it turns out, I do a great deal of downloading. I also tend to have
very little hard disk space. The two may be connected.
--
Jeff
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299571 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 14:01 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:25:14 +0100, Julian Hall
<lists [at] removethisbit.kaotic.co.uk> wrote:
>
>So downhill in a hurricane you would get an absolute theoretical maximum
>of 56/8 = 7Kb per second.
You know, if you're going to post this sort of thing in a group full of
techies, you need to make sure you don't mix up Kb and KB.
8-)
--
Andy Brown
Hardware, n.:
The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299578 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 14:31 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:01:13 +0000, jester wrote:
> You know, if you're going to post this sort of thing in a group full of
> techies, you need to make sure you don't mix up Kb and KB.
> 8-)
I think the context got the point across. Sadly people don't seem to
stick with the conventions anyway. Much as some people say 1000Mb is a Gb.
--
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299579 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 14:25 |
|
Jeff Howell <notanemail [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Ian & Alana wrote:
>> ADSL rocks!
>>
>> Alana
>> (Who has just had broadband installed)
>
> I remember well the day we switched from dial-up to cable. I don't
> suppose I could ever go back now. For simple browsing, dial-up is
> still generally all right, (Unless the site uses ungodly amounts of
> Flash. *shudder*) but for any sort of significant downloading there's
> simply no comparison.
There's differences between different types of broadband too -- most cable
connections don't have a guaranteed minimum speed (CIR) for either upload
and download, and if many of your logical neighbours are on at the same
time, things can slow down quite substantially.
ADSL comes in two flavours -- with bridged ethernet, or with PPPoE. The
former is MUCH preferable to the latter. With PPPoE, there's increased
latency, smaller packet segments, a connection that goes down if not in use,
and like with cable, no guaranteed minimum speed. It's really only useful
to allow the provider to oversell the capacity.
I'm using both cable and bridged ethernet ADSL here -- load balanced,
mostly, except for for critical services, which uses the ADSL line.
The cable connection has higher maximum speeds. However, the ADSL line has
lower latency, a guaranteed minimum speed, as well as none of the mandatory
port blocks that the cable connection has. And a much higher uptime too.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299580 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 14:28 |
|
jester <usenet [at] jester.nu> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:25:14 +0100, Julian Hall
> <lists [at] removethisbit.kaotic.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> So downhill in a hurricane you would get an absolute theoretical
>> maximum of 56/8 = 7Kb per second.
>
> You know, if you're going to post this sort of thing in a group full
> of techies, you need to make sure you don't mix up Kb and KB.
Many of us are /old/ techies, from back when b meant byte and B meant bit.
The usage swapped around 1988 or so, I'd say.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299587 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 15:01 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:56:41 +1000, a collection of particles arranged in
such a way as to form a person that we would recognise as mcv, influenced
tha intarweb to propagate the following:
> I'm on cable, and at times I've experienced a delay of 5 seconds over a
> simple established telnet connection.
I'm on cable and as a onetime wolfenstein targ^H^H^H^Hplayer I was
frequently kicked from servers for high ping times. OTOH I have pegged my
10base hub downloading from mirror.aarnet(.edu.au). Sorry, blocked to
users outside .oz
C:\>
--
"Where do want to go today?" "I'm thinking http://gentoo.org"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299588 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 15:08 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:25:41 -0400, Arthur Hagen wrote:
> There's differences between different types of broadband too -- most cable
> connections don't have a guaranteed minimum speed (CIR) for either upload
> and download, and if many of your logical neighbours are on at the same
> time, things can slow down quite substantially.
I prefer cable:
Infrastructure is (normally) far more up to date - optical fibre instead
of copper wire capable of much higher bandwidth without new technologies
being invented[1]
Not shared with other services. Although TV and Internet come from the
same source (in my case anyway) it's not the same cable
Contention ratios, assuming the ISP has done its' homework[2] allow for
more reliable constand speed
Generally more robust service. The difference between a service designed
from the ground up *specifically* for a high speed data network, and an
existing network adapted and coaxed to give higher speeds that the
original specification allowed.
Also the detail that (in the UK at least) phone wires go overhead in the
majority of places, while cable is buried. Less chance of interruption
through incident, for example thunderstorms.
[1] the more you stretch the plumbing the more you block up the drains
[2] I know... not all of them do
--
Kind regards,
Julian Hall
"I'm only on the planet because I missed the bus home"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299592 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 15:13 |
|
the Tinfoil Hat of Reason wrote:
> I'm on cable and as a onetime wolfenstein targ^H^H^H^Hplayer I was
> frequently kicked from servers for high ping times. OTOH I have pegged my
> 10base hub downloading from mirror.aarnet(.edu.au). Sorry, blocked to
> users outside .oz
Playing games over the Internet is something that I have thus far
never done. Silly Buggers doesn't count.
Adrian.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299600 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 15:48 |
|
Arthur Hagen said:
<snip>
>
> if many of your logical neighbours are on at the same
> time, things can slow down quite substantially.
Oh, to have logical neighbours.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299604 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 16:04 |
|
Arthur Hagen:
>
> There's differences between different types of broadband too -- most
> cable connections don't have a guaranteed minimum speed (CIR) for either
> upload and download, and if many of your logical neighbours are on at
> the same time, things can slow down quite substantially.
However, if your illogical neighbours are on at the same time, things
may in fact speed up.
IGMC, etc.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299609 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 16:39 |
|
On 2006-07-14 08:01:54 -0500, the Tinfoil Hat of Reason
<ibvtug-xnzcss [at] bcghfarg.pbz.nh> said:
> OTOH I have pegged my 10base hub
Get a 100base switch then?
> downloading from mirror.aarnet(.edu.au). Sorry, blocked to
> users outside .oz
No, it isn't.
--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299646 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 21:23 |
|
The time: 14 Jul 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid>
> Oh, to have logical neighbours.
I know you don't have a TV, but trust me, if Neighbours was
logical, it wouldn't work...
IGMC.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299656 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 22:00 |
|
On 14 Jul 2006 19:23:25 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach
<daibhidchenedelh [at] aol.com> wrote:
>The time: 14 Jul 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
>speaker: Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid>
>
>> Oh, to have logical neighbours.
>
>I know you don't have a TV, but trust me, if Neighbours was
>logical, it wouldn't work...
>
>IGMC.
Ooh, a Neighbours thread :)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299673 ] |
Fr, 14 Juli 2006 23:58 |
|
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:13:53 +1000, a collection of particles arranged in
such a way as to form a person that we would recognise as 8'FED,
influenced tha intarweb to propagate the following:
> Playing games over the Internet is something that I have thus far never
> done. Silly Buggers doesn't count.
I suppose http://psdoom.sourceforge.net/ doesn't count?
C:\>
--
"Where do want to go today?" "I'm thinking http://gentoo.org"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299674 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 00:01 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:39:38 +1000, a collection of particles arranged in
such a way as to form a person that we would recognise as René, influenced
tha intarweb to propagate the following:
> No, it isn't.
Interesting. For a while aarnet was throttled, due to international
traffic. The throttle was subsequently removed, since those responsible
for the site had 'blocked international traffic' or somesuch. I guess
that things have changed (again)
C:\>
--
"Where do want to go today?" "I'm thinking http://gentoo.org"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299727 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 06:03 |
|
8'FED wrote:
> the Tinfoil Hat of Reason wrote:
>
>> I'm on cable and as a onetime wolfenstein targ^H^H^H^Hplayer I was
>> frequently kicked from servers for high ping times. OTOH I have
>> pegged my 10base hub downloading from mirror.aarnet(.edu.au).
>> Sorry, blocked to users outside .oz
>
> Playing games over the Internet is something that I have thus far
> never done. Silly Buggers doesn't count.
I really LOVE this game: http://www.pente.net/index.php I have it in
physical form here at home.
It's simple in principle, but can get complicated and vicious between two
people who're decent at it.
I'd love to play against other afpers. My username is Sable_Paladin.
--
4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse, AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons,
Bondage-happy predator, Speaker-To-Students, SadoMangoist,
AFPMistress to peachy, 8'FED's AFPDeliciousSnack, AFPFiance to A.
Nevill , Graycat's Guttersnipe
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299745 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 11:31 |
|
the Tinfoil Hat of Reason wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:39:38 +1000, a collection of particles
> arranged in such a way as to form a person that we would recognise as
> René, influenced tha intarweb to propagate the following:
>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Interesting.
<snip>
You know, generally I'd say that snipping's good. But in this case
you've removed all context, and as I've just downloaded this
morning's set of scintillating communication from afpland, I have
no idea what it isn't.
So maybe snipping for context would be even better?
Diane L.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299755 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 13:04 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:03:39 -0400, "Anastasia"
<house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>8'FED wrote:
>> the Tinfoil Hat of Reason wrote:
>>
>>> I'm on cable and as a onetime wolfenstein targ^H^H^H^Hplayer I was
>>> frequently kicked from servers for high ping times. OTOH I have
>>> pegged my 10base hub downloading from mirror.aarnet(.edu.au).
>>> Sorry, blocked to users outside .oz
>>
>> Playing games over the Internet is something that I have thus far
>> never done. Silly Buggers doesn't count.
>
>I really LOVE this game: http://www.pente.net/index.php I have it in
>physical form here at home.
>
>It's simple in principle, but can get complicated and vicious between two
>people who're decent at it.
>
>I'd love to play against other afpers. My username is Sable_Paladin.
I would, but I'm guessing that it's like othello/reversi, which I'm
terrible at
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299765 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 14:18 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:31:12 +0100, "Diane L"
<dianenews [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>You know, generally I'd say that snipping's good. But in this case
>you've removed all context, and as I've just downloaded this
>morning's set of scintillating communication from afpland, I have
>no idea what it isn't.
>
>So maybe snipping for context would be even better?
>
>Diane L.
>
Yeah, sorry about that, I was typing too fast and didn't think about
others
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299803 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 20:26 |
|
Jeff Howell <notanemail [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Ian & Alana wrote:
> > ADSL rocks!
> >
> > Alana
> > (Who has just had broadband installed)
>
> I remember well the day we switched from dial-up to cable. I don't
> suppose I could ever go back now. For simple browsing, dial-up is still
> generally all right,
For usenet, email, and the occasional semi-sane website it's perfectly
fine.
> (Unless the site uses ungodly amounts of Flash. *shudder*)
If a site uses ungodly amounts of Flash, I generally don't want to see
it anyway. Ditto for stupid applications of Java, Javascript, and more
of that "interactive" (hah!) or "multimedia" (foh!) rot.
> but for any sort of significant downloading there's simply no comparison.
Yeah, but I can't see the need for that. If you enjoy unreliably ripped
versions of the latest Hollywood braindeader, perhaps, but I don't.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299810 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 21:03 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Arthur Hagen said:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> if many of your logical neighbours are on at the same
>> time, things can slow down quite substantially.
>
> Oh, to have logical neighbours.
Oh to have neighbors who aren't *still* shooting off their July 4th
fireworks in between bouts of rubbing poo in their hair I suppose. :p
Idiots.
Aggie
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299815 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 21:25 |
|
Richard Bos wrote:
> > but for any sort of significant downloading there's simply no comparison.
>
> Yeah, but I can't see the need for that. If you enjoy unreliably ripped
> versions of the latest Hollywood braindeader, perhaps, but I don't.
>
I did a graphics driver update on my dad's machine a few days ago: The
tiny little driver came in a 60 MB installer package... nVidia, IIRC.
Michael
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299833 ] |
Sa, 15 Juli 2006 23:01 |
|
Lister wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:31:12 +0100, "Diane L"
> <dianenews [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> You know, generally I'd say that snipping's good. But in this case
>> you've removed all context, and as I've just downloaded this
>> morning's set of scintillating communication from afpland, I have
>> no idea what it isn't.
>>
>> So maybe snipping for context would be even better?
>>
>> Diane L.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, sorry about that, I was typing too fast and didn't think about
> others
Normally I think young-people-today[TM] should apologise for
everything, on the Vimesian principle that they're almost certainly
guilty of *something*. But in this case, the overly-snipped post
wasn't yours, so I'm somewhat surprised that you're apologising
for it. Unless 'the Tinfoil Hat of Reason' is some sort of pseudonym
of yours?
Nonetheless, I'll save your apology, and apply it if and when I feel
you have something to apologise for. How's that?
Diane L.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299843 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 02:01 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:31:12 +1000, a collection of particles arranged in
such a way as to form a person that we would recognise as Diane L,
influenced tha intarweb to propagate the following:
8<-----
>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> Interesting.
> <snip>
>
> You know, generally I'd say that snipping's good. But in this case
> you've removed all context, and as I've just downloaded this morning's
> set of scintillating communication from afpland, I have no idea what it
> isn't.
>
> So maybe snipping for context would be even better?
>
> Diane L.
My abasements, Diane[0], I was rambling about how I use
mirror.aarnet.edu.au and how they were not accessible for non-.au
browsers. René corrected me on this point[1] 'no it isn't'. Thus we
reach the present. Once again I am suitably chastened and will be more
careful in future, when reaching for the red pen...
C:\>
[0] as well as to anyone else who was inconvenienced by my too-zealous
snippetry
[1]At one stage mirror.aarnet were throtting connections to that site,
subsequently they announced that the throttling was being removed but
with the above restrictions. Things change SMBWR for not checking my
references.
--
"Where do want to go today?" "I'm thinking http://gentoo.org"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299844 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 02:29 |
|
Richard Bos:
> Jeff Howell:
>>
>> but for any sort of significant downloading there's simply no comparison.
>
> Yeah, but I can't see the need for that. If you enjoy unreliably ripped
> versions of the latest Hollywood braindeader, perhaps, but I don't.
I, for one, enjoy being able to download Apple's monthly documentation
updates (200-400 MiB) and several-times-a-year developer tools updates
(last one was over 900 MiB) in less than a week. It's also useful to be
able to Skype relatives^H in Swaziland. So, basically, it depends what
you're doing. :-)
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299856 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 05:32 |
|
Diane L wrote:
> the Tinfoil Hat of Reason wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:39:38 +1000, a collection of particles
>> arranged in such a way as to form a person that we would recognise as
>> René, influenced tha intarweb to propagate the following:
>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> Interesting.
> <snip>
>
> You know, generally I'd say that snipping's good. But in this case
> you've removed all context, and as I've just downloaded this
> morning's set of scintillating communication from afpland, I have
> no idea what it isn't.
>
> So maybe snipping for context would be even better?
>
Overzealous snippetry? Good thing he isn't a mohel!
8o
Aggie
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299862 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 04:51 |
|
Lister wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:03:39 -0400, "Anastasia"
> <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 8'FED wrote:
>>> the Tinfoil Hat of Reason wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm on cable and as a onetime wolfenstein targ^H^H^H^Hplayer I
>>>> was frequently kicked from servers for high ping times. OTOH I
>>>> have pegged my 10base hub downloading from
>>>> mirror.aarnet(.edu.au). Sorry, blocked to users outside .oz
>>>
>>> Playing games over the Internet is something that I have thus far
>>> never done. Silly Buggers doesn't count.
>>
>> I really LOVE this game: http://www.pente.net/index.php I have it
>> in physical form here at home.
>>
>> It's simple in principle, but can get complicated and vicious
>> between two people who're decent at it.
>>
>> I'd love to play against other afpers. My username is
>> Sable_Paladin.
>
>
> I would, but I'm guessing that it's like othello/reversi, which I'm
> terrible at
It's nothing like those.
--
4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse, AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons,
Bondage-happy predator, Speaker-To-Students, SadoMangoist,
AFPMistress to peachy, 8'FED's AFPDeliciousSnack, AFPFiance to A.
Nevill , Graycat's Guttersnipe
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #299893 ] |
So, 16 Juli 2006 12:15 |
|
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:01:18 +0100, "Diane L"
<dianenews [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote:
>Lister wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:31:12 +0100, "Diane L"
>> <dianenews [at] lindquist.plus.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> You know, generally I'd say that snipping's good. But in this case
>>> you've removed all context, and as I've just downloaded this
>>> morning's set of scintillating communication from afpland, I have
>>> no idea what it isn't.
>>>
>>> So maybe snipping for context would be even better?
>>>
>>> Diane L.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, sorry about that, I was typing too fast and didn't think about
>> others
>
>Normally I think young-people-today[TM] should apologise for
>everything, on the Vimesian principle that they're almost certainly
>guilty of *something*. But in this case, the overly-snipped post
>wasn't yours, so I'm somewhat surprised that you're apologising
>for it. Unless 'the Tinfoil Hat of Reason' is some sort of pseudonym
>of yours?
>
Oh, erm, oops...
>Nonetheless, I'll save your apology, and apply it if and when I feel
>you have something to apologise for. How's that?
>
>Diane L.
>
Ah, as you were then :)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #301354 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 00:34 |
|
"Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:
> > the Tinfoil Hat of Reason wrote:
> >
> >> I'm on cable and as a onetime wolfenstein targ^H^H^H^Hplayer I was
> >> frequently kicked from servers for high ping times. OTOH I have
> >> pegged my 10base hub downloading from mirror.aarnet(.edu.au).
> >> Sorry, blocked to users outside .oz
> >
> > Playing games over the Internet is something that I have thus far
> > never done. Silly Buggers doesn't count.
>
> I really LOVE this game: http://www.pente.net/index.php I have it in
> physical form here at home.
Ah... go-bang. So does that mean that you play go as well?
And if you play board games on-line... do you know about the (now sadly
just about defunct) AFP Chess tournament?
> It's simple in principle, but can get complicated and vicious between two
> people who're decent at it.
Which I'm not.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #301366 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 02:53 |
|
On 2006-07-15 22:32:16 -0500, "Aggie Angst" <aggieangst [at] myinvalidway.com> said:
> Overzealous snippetry? Good thing he isn't a mohel!
> 8o
*gasp*
Is that a smiley representing a sucking mohel?
--
I invented a microwave crematory. Way faster, but as it turns out you
have to punch holes in them first. Found that out the hard way.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #301375 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 04:13 |
|
René wrote:
> On 2006-07-15 22:32:16 -0500, "Aggie Angst"
> <aggieangst [at] myinvalidway.com> said:
>> Overzealous snippetry? Good thing he isn't a mohel!
>> 8o
>
> *gasp*
> Is that a smiley representing a sucking mohel?
Nope. Just my most common facial expression.
:)
Aggie
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #301383 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 06:27 |
|
Richard Bos wrote:
> "Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 8'FED wrote:
>>> the Tinfoil Hat of Reason wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm on cable and as a onetime wolfenstein targ^H^H^H^Hplayer I was
>>>> frequently kicked from servers for high ping times. OTOH I have
>>>> pegged my 10base hub downloading from mirror.aarnet(.edu.au).
>>>> Sorry, blocked to users outside .oz
>>> Playing games over the Internet is something that I have thus far
>>> never done. Silly Buggers doesn't count.
>> I really LOVE this game: http://www.pente.net/index.php I have it in
>> physical form here at home.
"Pente" was invented/adapted by a guy who lives here in Tulsa, I'm
pretty sure. He was still in college when he slapped it together, then
sold it for a million bucks. He owns the "Hideaway Pizza" stores here now.
I learned this (hopefully correct) information a few years ago when I
was with the "Red Dirt Rangers" band and we played the annual holiday
party for that company.
-Rock
--
Remember Raccoon's Law: "Nothing is ever always anything."
|
|
|
| Re: [I] zoooom! [message #301831 ] |
Do, 20 Juli 2006 02:40 |
|
On 2006-07-17 23:27:58 -0500, Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> said:
> I learned this (hopefully correct) information a few years ago when I
> was with the "Red Dirt Rangers" band and we played the annual holiday
> party for that company.
>
> -Rock
Hey....do you guys do bluegrass? E-mail me if convenient.
--
You can only win at cheerleading by being the last one standing. The
easiest way is by goosing one of the cheerleaders at the bottom of the
pyramid.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Di Feb 7 11:19:41 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11187 Sekunden |
