In article <lybanon-F1749C.08100006052008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Matthew Lybanon <lybanon@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article > <doraymeRidThis-A7CA7F.10592106052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article <slrng1ufgr.15qa.g.kreme@cerebus.local>, > > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > > > In message > > > <doraymeRidThis-0B1751.13012903052008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au> > > > dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > what would dialup users or slow broadband think?). > > > > > > Sorry, but I stopped worrying about dialup users 6 years ago when the > > > last > > > person in my family finally got ADSL. I hear there are still people on > > > dialup, but I could not prove it. > > > > Why did you ever worry about dialup? Do you make websites only for your > > family? > > > > > > > > > The advantage is bandwidth and clarity, especially bandwidth. No one > > > > wants to download a 2592 px wide pic if they are only interested in > > > > seeing it at 400px. > > > > > > But they take the same amount of time (that is, 'none') to download! :) > > > > This is not true for many people (not you or your family who maybe have > > superfast), even on what is broadly known as broadband. And it is > > demonstrably false when you take into account a set of pictures. > > Very true. And from another point of view, a channel only has so much > capacity (bits/second). It may be very high, but it is finite. People > who waste bandwidth slow the internet down for everybody.
Well said, I refrained from making this point so as not to sound too moral and goody goody... my enemies would take it as me going soft and gather to launch an attack. But you are quite right!
