Napster etiquete?
lhcj...@my-deja.com
appropriate to ask them to go to the website for the song and then
cancel them? I feel it is a waste of my bandwidth to allow the upload
since there is an alternate way for them to get the song, I am a 56k
user and bandwidth is a precious commodity. Forgive me if I am
babbling, I am 8 beers into a 12 pack. Flame at will.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Britbec100
songs from me b/c it slows down the time it takes for ME to download songs. If
it bothers you I think it is a much better Ided to tell them where to go to
down-load the song, b/c it IS rude when people just cut you off w/o saying a
thing. Although a lot of people probably don't know what websites they CAN go
to to download, you'd have to specify!
Frisky
You're selfish. Napster doesn't need users like you. You give Napster
a bad name with the ME attitude you display. What's your username on
Napster anyway? I want to make sure you don't ever get a song from my
library.
Critter
Leland Milton Goldblatt
> If somebody is downloading an mp3.com artists song from me is it
> appropriate to ask them to go to the website for the song and then
> cancel them? I feel it is a waste of my bandwidth to allow the upload
> since there is an alternate way for them to get the song, I am a 56k
> user and bandwidth is a precious commodity. Forgive me if I am
> babbling, I am 8 beers into a 12 pack. Flame at will.
--
Without prejudice; Dr. Goldblatt pontificates:
On your setting, do not allow anyone to download. This will solve your
sandwich problems!~>
Shalom,
Leland Milton Goldblatt
"Ignore 'em, m'dear, they're beneath your dignity." -W.C. Fields
www.miltong.com
http://goldblatt.faithweb.com
..
<lhcj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8s35eb$cs9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Leland Milton Goldblatt
> down-load the song, b/c it IS rude when people just cut you off w/o saying
a
> thing. Although a lot of people probably don't know what websites they CAN
go
> to to download, you'd have to specify!
Without prejudice; Dr. Goldblatt pontificates:
I (Dr. Goldblatt) does not. Please advise Dr. Goldblatt where to go via web
site.
Shalom,
Leland Milton Goldblatt
"Ignore 'em, m'dear, they're beneath your dignity." -W.C. Fields
www.miltong.com
http://goldblatt.faithweb.com
..
"Britbec100" <britb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001012165330...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
Leland Milton Goldblatt
> You're selfish. Napster doesn't need users like you. You give Napster
> a bad name with the ME attitude you display. What's your username on
> Napster anyway? I want to make sure you don't ever get a song from my
> library.
--
Without prejudice; Dr. Goldblatt pontificates:
Dittos you are banned from Dr. Goldblatt's library!
Shalom,
Leland Milton Goldblatt
"Ignore 'em, m'dear, they're beneath your dignity." -W.C. Fields
www.miltong.com
http://goldblatt.faithweb.com
..
"Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
news:39E6325F...@Flash.Net...
> Britbec100 wrote:
> >
> > I find the same problem. It really bothers me when people start
downloading
> > songs from me b/c it slows down the time it takes for ME to download
songs. If
> > it bothers you I think it is a much better Ided to tell them where to go
to
> > down-load the song, b/c it IS rude when people just cut you off w/o
saying a
> > thing. Although a lot of people probably don't know what websites they
CAN go
> > to to download, you'd have to specify!
>
>
>
> Critter
Arthur J. Starling III
take from others without letting them get something back.
Leland Milton Goldlbatt, Ph.D.
"Arthur J. Starling III" <arthu...@NEVEREVERSPAMME.yahoo.com> wrote:
> The idea, the driving principle, is that you use Napster to SHARE,
not to
> take from others without letting them get something back.
When Dr. Goldblatt is in front of the computer, I will put a person on
HOT, then look to see what they are offering. If they do not have
anything to offer. I wait until they 90% done and then I abort there
uploading!
Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D.
The Doctor's homepage: http://www.goldblatt.faithweb.com
Dr. Goldblatt's email: leland...@mail.com
Shadow God
what if that person was a moderator or higher? being we're not allowed to
share music, and really not suppose to download either, but who knows what
they do for testing purposes.
stop being so narrow minded about this stuff. if you dont like it, there is
always ftp.
--ShadowGod--
<Leland Milton Goldlbatt>; "Ph.D." <leland...@my-deja.com> wrote in
message news:8sd91f$37h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
dadiOH
Should I? Shouldn't I? Probably shouldn't...Oh what the hell...
Point of order, Leland. In the quote from below, "I wait until they
90% done and then I abort there uploading!" the word "there" is
possessive and should therefore be "their". I am overlooking the
missing verb in the phrase...this time.
dadiOH
...well, I didn't say ANYTHING about switching from the third to first
person...
=========================
| When Dr. Goldblatt is in front of the computer, I will put a person
on
| HOT, then look to see what they are offering. If they do not have
| anything to offer. I wait until they 90% done and then I abort
there
| uploading!
|
| Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D.
| The Doctor's homepage: http://www.goldblatt.faithweb.com
| Dr. Goldblatt's email: leland...@mail.com
|
|
| Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
| Before you buy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J. Randy Mitchell
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> Should I? Shouldn't I? Probably shouldn't...Oh what the hell...
>
> Point of order, Leland. In the quote from below, "I wait until they
> 90% done and then I abort there uploading!" the word "there" is
> possessive and should therefore be "their". I am overlooking the
> missing verb in the phrase...this time.
>
> dadiOH
> ...well, I didn't say ANYTHING about switching from the third to first
> person...
A man with grammatical observations..I respect that...
:^)
heh
J. Randy
...The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting
something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.
Frisky
Want to make sure I have yours so I can avoid getting files from you on
those times the HotList isn't working for you to see what others have.
Even though you can be downloading from them, it can and will say "No
Files Shared". Kind of blows your theory unless you mean their library
sucks rather than them simply having files to share.
Critter
Leland, Milton, Goldlbatt, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> In article <QawF5.30572$oA2.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
> "Arthur J. Starling III" <arthu...@NEVEREVERSPAMME.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The idea, the driving principle, is that you use Napster to SHARE,
> not to
> > take from others without letting them get something back.
>
> When Dr. Goldblatt is in front of the computer, I will put a person on
> HOT, then look to see what they are offering. If they do not have
> anything to offer. I wait until they 90% done and then I abort there
> uploading!
>
Dav1936531
hard for somebody he pisses off to track him down and put him out of his
misery.
Dave
>From: "dadiOH" ja...@birdland.bop.me
>Message-id: <39ea6312$2...@post.usenet.com>
>
>Should I? Shouldn't I? Probably shouldn't...Oh what the hell...
>
>Point of order, Leland. In the quote from below, "I wait until they
>90% done and then I abort there uploading!" the word "there" is
>possessive and should therefore be "their". I am overlooking the
>missing verb in the phrase...this time.
>
>dadiOH
louiethelizard
your download finished before I abort it! <bseg>
As far as not seeing what they have, they could be behind a mis-configured
firewall.
Louie
Gainesville, FL
"Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
news:39EA6977...@Flash.Net...
> Would you provide your Napster user name please? Mine is FrskyCritt
> Want to make sure I have yours so I can avoid getting files from you on
> those times the HotList isn't working for you to see what others have.
> Even though you can be downloading from them, it can and will say "No
> Files Shared". Kind of blows your theory unless you mean their library
> sucks rather than them simply having files to share.
>
> Critter
>
>
> Leland, Milton, Goldlbatt, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > In article <QawF5.30572$oA2.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
> > "Arthur J. Starling III" <arthu...@NEVEREVERSPAMME.yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The idea, the driving principle, is that you use Napster to SHARE,
> > not to
> > > take from others without letting them get something back.
> >
> > When Dr. Goldblatt is in front of the computer, I will put a person on
> > HOT, then look to see what they are offering. If they do not have
> > anything to offer. I wait until they 90% done and then I abort there
> > uploading!
> >
> > Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D.
> > The Doctor's homepage: http://www.goldblatt.faithweb.com
> > Dr. Goldblatt's email: leland...@mail.com
> >
Mack Bolan
While I agree 100% with what your point of view is I was wondering if you'd
add your 2 cents to something? My experience (being new to Napster) is that
common courtesy is something that needs to go both ways. I have an ADSL
connection and tend to get a large number of 56K users downloading from me
which is fine. What I've done is to disconnect from the server about an hour
or so before I want to use my computer to allow those people downloading to
finish while not taking any new connections. If they also happen to have
additional requests pending, I inform them of what I'm doing and let them
know that once they finish with their current file that I need to kill any
remaining transfers that haven't started.
My "problem" if you can call it that is the time factor involved as opposed
to a bandwidth issue. What I've noticed is that many of the 56K users that
connect to me are also connected to 5, 6 and even 7 systems downloading thus
making the transfer crawl along. I was wondering if you feel if it's
reasonable to tie up someone's system for a few hours while downloading
simply because a user refuses to dedicate the needed bandwidth? What winds
up happening is that I reach my maximum number of allowed transfers and my
system is tied up for hours thus depriving others of what they'd like to
have.
Mack
li...@ork.net
> and what if this person is just now trying to start an mp3 collection?
Of course you are right.
But now...I think...how sad it must be if someone is only now trying to
start a collection. Unless he has DSL and is on 24/7, he's not going to be
successful.
We are all waiting for the executioner's axe to fall.
When did others here start?
Arthur J. Starling III
I did was respond, and now a dozen people are fairly pissed with me, when
I've done absolutely nothing to them at all, and had no impact on their
lives whatsoever.
Anyway, I'm experienced enough to tell when a person is chosing not to share
files, and when the service isn't giving proper information. When you pull
up the user data, if the TIME ONLINE section says 00:00, then disregard how
many files the service indicates they are sharing. You won't be able to add
them to your hot list and download, but if you ru a search and the fates
dictate it, then their files will show up in the search results and you can
easily download from them.
OTOH, if the service indicates that they have been online for some amount of
time, any amount of time, AND the NUMBER OF FILES SHARED indicates 0, then
that person is refusing to share any files. Most of the time I really don't
care. I'm generally happy to email someone a particular file if they have
any trouble downloading.
If you do choose to cancel someone's download, be it at the 90% point or at
the 3% point, you should at least IM them why. That way they'll know not to
waste their time with you.
"Arthur J. Starling III" <arthu...@NEVEREVERSPAMME.yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:QawF5.30572$oA2.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> The idea, the driving principle, is that you use Napster to SHARE, not to
> take from others without letting them get something back.
>
> <lhcj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8s35eb$cs9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > If somebody is downloading an mp3.com artists song from me is it
> > appropriate to ask them to go to the website for the song and then
> > cancel them? I feel it is a waste of my bandwidth to allow the upload
> > since there is an alternate way for them to get the song, I am a 56k
> > user and bandwidth is a precious commodity. Forgive me if I am
> > babbling, I am 8 beers into a 12 pack. Flame at will.
> >
> >
Frisky
>
> Frisky,
>
> While I agree 100% with what your point of view is I was wondering if you'd
> add your 2 cents to something? My experience (being new to Napster) is that
> common courtesy is something that needs to go both ways. I have an ADSL
> connection and tend to get a large number of 56K users downloading from me
> which is fine. What I've done is to disconnect from the server about an hour
> or so before I want to use my computer to allow those people downloading to
> finish while not taking any new connections. If they also happen to have
> additional requests pending, I inform them of what I'm doing and let them
> know that once they finish with their current file that I need to kill any
> remaining transfers that haven't started.
>
> My "problem" if you can call it that is the time factor involved as opposed
> to a bandwidth issue. What I've noticed is that many of the 56K users that
> connect to me are also connected to 5, 6 and even 7 systems downloading thus
> making the transfer crawl along. I was wondering if you feel if it's
> reasonable to tie up someone's system for a few hours while downloading
> simply because a user refuses to dedicate the needed bandwidth? What winds
> up happening is that I reach my maximum number of allowed transfers and my
> system is tied up for hours thus depriving others of what they'd like to
> have.
>
> Mack
<snipped>
Absolutely not to the tying up someone's machine for hours. I am a
stickler for getting only one download at a time. I've posted many
times in this news group and practice what I type ... "get in, get it,
get out".
I have the same thing happen to me. I'm a 56K user, I have other 56K
users come along and start a download and the rate is some ridiculous
doo-doo like .15 k/s and I check and sure enough they're getting 5 and 6
downloads. Most of the time I message them and politely suggest if they
would get fewer at a time they'd wind up getting more because they'd get
a complete song rather than lots of pieces of songs. Many thank me and
say they didn't know. Some put me in Ignore. You can check that by
sending another message and looking at the main chat window. Those are
the only idiots I kick off my desktop. I've done it and will continue
to do it but those are the only ones I do it to. The rest can sit there
and tie up their machine and mine and eventually nuke themselves.
What you're doing telling them you need to go off-line is very kind.
Most don't bother. They log off and that's the end of it. Happens to
me frequently. How do you know they logged off? Easy to find out.
Select "get information" on the user and it shows if they're on or
off-line. We're not discussing those that have an interrupt for one
reason or another like losing connection to their ISP or power going
off. Those things happen. It's happened to me and I've logged back on
and contacted those getting files from me and told them what happened
and apologized.
I realize this is a long discourse to answer your question but some
things need to be explained. You'll find that most of the users don't
answer an Instant Message. They're either away or don't see the IM come
on their screen if they're actively using the PC. My most recent
failure as I call them was some dude getting a song, I told him I had to
go in an hour, he continued to get 3 or 4 files at one time with his
rate fluctuating wildly, I gave fair warning and finally had to go
off-line and shut down with him at 75% done. Couldn't I wait for it to
finish? No. He didn't try to help it get done faster and I had to go
to work so I logged off.
Another user said she gives a warning that she has to log and if they
don't heed her alert she logs off. Can't blame her one bit for that.
Agree totally with her practice and do it myself.
Those 56K users doing the multiple downloads need educated. Why they
think they can download so many at one time with a modem completely
escapes me. I realize it takes time to send Instant Messages but most
of the newbies don't know about news groups and there isn't a better way
I can think of to get the word out to them.
Thanks for your time.
Critter
Fred Salzer
user and my AudioGnome is set up that way. Unfortunately, the Napster
default is 3 and most people downloading from me seem to leave it at that or
set it higher. :( I'm experiencing a problem in taking some users off
remote queue so a lot of them just time out unless they respond to my IM and
fix the limit. I don't have any sympathy for those trying to d/l 30 (I'm not
sure whether they're greedy or just unknowledgeable) at a time, but I try to
help them, too. As I'm many times upload bandwidth limited and have my max
simultaneous u/l's set to 15, 1 u/l per user is also fairer, IMO, since more
people can get their songs.
"Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
news:39EBCB59...@Flash.Net...
dadiOH
But Frisky One...
I and my 56K normally do more than one. Why? Because my d/l rarely
exceed 2K and that is pretty good. More normal is 1-1.5K. Or less.
Now, my modem will easily do 3.5 so I add d/l til the total speed is
around that. As an example...
Start #1...speed = 1.0K
Start #2...speed = 1.5K
Start #3?...maybe
What I'm trying to say is that starting additional d/l won't degrade
the speed of existing ones if the existing ones are poking along
anyway. It is possible that a new start would be faster if the others
weren't already cooking along but c'est la vie.
OTOH, if I happen to get one that has a rate close to max., I agree
with you totally: get in and get out.
dadiOH
===================
<MAJOR snipping>
| Those 56K users doing the multiple downloads need educated. Why
they
| think they can download so many at one time with a modem completely
| escapes me. I realize it takes time to send Instant Messages but
most
| of the newbies don't know about news groups and there isn't a better
way
| I can think of to get the word out to them.
|
| Thanks for your time.
|
| Critter
Pat Wong
music collection? Well, I'll answer both questions, thank you. I started my
music collection in the 60's but I've only been on Napster about two or
three months. To continue a thread that was started some time ago and has
since died out, for me personally Napster if anything will increase the
number of CD's I buy, not decrease it. I remember a remark someone made
recently about being more satisfied with the CD's they purchase now due to
being able to preview the music using Napster. I would second that and also
add that I've expanded my list of artists whose CD's I will buy, all as a
direct result of Napster.
li...@ork.net wrote in message ...
--
~8^) Pat Wong (ICQ #61070813)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"I'm going to listen to my 45's
Ain't it wonderful to be alive
When the rock 'n' roll plays"
Billy Joel - Keeping The Faith
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
megabite
than 1 perhaps 2 songs at a time and appreciate the feedback. Please
understand! I'm in a rural area and our local Phone company isn't going to
be providing dsl for another month yet. When I see someone downloading from
me, I'll immediatley delete the second song so as to preserve Bandwidth. I
can't believe that anyone who can afford a puter and a stereo system would
really desire 56k when dsl becomes available to them. Well.....Republicans
might. ;)
Frisky wrote in message <39EBCB59...@Flash.Net>...
Frisky
> But Frisky One...
> I and my 56K normally do more than one. Why? Because my d/l rarely
> exceed 2K and that is pretty good. More normal is 1-1.5K. Or less.
> Now, my modem will easily do 3.5 so I add d/l til the total speed is
> around that. As an example...
> Start #1...speed = 1.0K
> Start #2...speed = 1.5K
> Start #3?...maybe
>
> What I'm trying to say is that starting additional d/l won't degrade
> the speed of existing ones if the existing ones are poking along
> anyway. It is possible that a new start would be faster if the others
> weren't already cooking along but c'est la vie.
>
> OTOH, if I happen to get one that has a rate close to max., I agree
> with you totally: get in and get out.
>
> dadiOH
> ===================
<snip-snip> <--- Why? Because I CAN muhahahahaha
With MY modem and MY connection I can usually download one song at 3.8,
sometimes 4.2 but average is 3.3 ... when I try to get two at a time
they both drop to about 2.0 or one might be 2.5 and the other 1.5 in
which case it's going to take much longer to get the two. Now, without
doing a lot of math and given the propensity of some to terminate
downloads, for ME it's better to get the one at 3.8 that takes 15
minutes to get than to try to get two at the same time that will take 45
minutes or longer. <--- I did say without doing the math :o)
Whatever works best for you and your system, modem, and loving
relationship with your service provider is the way to do it. For a
modem user to expect to get 4 to 6 downloads and stay connected for
hours on end to get the songs is what that post was about. Better to
(all together now) get in, get it, and get out then go get the next than
try for multiples that you most likely won't get completed before nuking
yourself or being kicked off.
Usual disclaimer applies, your mileage may vary depending on time of
day, time of month, and if you're driving in the country or city :o)
Critter
*the biggest fan dadiOH has :):):):) I really like that guy*
Frisky
cable or DSL if it were available but it's not. You really think some
users prefer dial up modems over DSL or cable? Who? Are they normal
people with average intelligence? From some other dimension or planet
perhaps?
Critter
The Spindoctor
Frisky <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
> dadiOH wrote:
>
> > But Frisky One...
> <snip-snip> <---
>
> Whatever works best for you and your system, modem,
>
> Usual disclaimer applies, your mileage may vary depending on time of
> day, time of month, and if you're driving in the country or city :o)
>
> Critter
> *the biggest fan dadiOH has :):):):) I really like that guy*
I agree with you guys I download a lot of music but limit it to 2 at a time
on a 56k, what I WILL do is vary that depending on the time of day, but I
have recently found that if one is trundling along at 1.8 or so a second
download will get both to pick their feet up and normally both end up at
2.5 - 2,8 don't ask me why I have no idea but it works for me. The only
thing i tend to do is as i am on a free connection is leave it running
overnight, leaving it at 2 downloads but perhaps keying in a song twice on a
list of 12 0r 13 downloads, hell if i get em both I'm lucky and I can always
delete one later !
--
Just my 4d worth :-)
The Spindoctor
(Essex/Thames Border)
Mack Bolan
I got in to the habit of letting people know that I was getting ready to go
off line dates back the early days when I ran a BBS (for those of you that
remember what that is). On occasion I'd have to take it off line to do
maintenance. Perhaps this accounts for my attitude of not needing to get
something from you to let you have something. During the many years I ran a
BBS I paid for everything out of my pocket and never charged anyone for
using the BBS. I never even had an upload/download ratio. If you wanted a
file you were free to take it.
I think you're right when you point out that most 56K users don't realize
that by opening up many connections they're really hurting themselves. As
for your question about why people think they download so many files with a
56K modem I'd agree with you. They don't understand the technical aspects of
how and why things work. Your solution is right on target and it's one that
I practice also. All it takes is a little education. Like you, I've pointed
this out to many a 56K user and my experience has been similar to yours.
Some thank me and some just choose to ignore me. If you choose to ignore me
and want to tie up your system for hours that's fine, but don't expect me to
IM you if I need to take the system down. I don't banish them. I figure that
eventually when enough people cut them off in mid-upload that they'll begin
to get the message.
There are only 2 types of people that I'll banish. The first are those that
have their speed set below their actually speed because they don't want
share. You know the type. I had one the other day that the user information
indicated they were a 14.4K, but it was obvious they were high speed. When I
went in to chat with the person figuring perhaps they just made a
configuration mistake they admitted they do that so that others won't upload
their files. When I suggested they just move the files and not show them as
shared, they indicated they didn't want to do that since some people won't
allow them to download unless they were sharing. To me this is really
ignorant. You either share or you don't. I personally don't care, but don't
be sneaky. Needless to say this person is not only in my ignore list but
since they're using a static IP I also blocked that in case they want to
change their user name. I always give the benefit of a doubt before I banish
someone for this. I always chat with them and if they indicate that it's a
configuration error, I just put them in my hotlist to check the next time
they log on. If they haven't changed it, they're banished by both username
and IP (assuming it's static).
The other type of person that I'll block are those who are uploading from
and me and I decide I'd like to share one of your files at the same time. If
you get your file before I'm finished getting mine from you and you cut me
off without a message you're gone.
Mack
"Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
news:39EBCB59...@Flash.Net...
The Spindoctor
megabite (qoute)
> can't believe that anyone who can afford a puter and a stereo system would
> really desire 56k when dsl becomes available to them.
Hey Mega I also am on a 56k as a "lowlife" and as I keep saying to my
local telephone company "yes I would love the speed of dsl and its available
but why should I pay them £30 per month, when my modem connection is free, I
work from home and can download 24/7 for free.........am i really gonna give
them my hard earned readies to go a bit faster? I don't think so !!!
The Spindoctor
> Funny how people can take stuff so personally in a forum such as this.
OTOH, if the service indicates that they have been online for some amount of
time, any amount of time, AND the NUMBER OF FILES SHARED indicates 0, then
that person is refusing to share any files
Not necessarily true.........I might leave mine connected all day and the
actual amount of downloads from me completed might only be 4 with 20 or 30
peeved people who timed out. The fact that four completed shows I'm sharing
and it is configured properly but 20 to 30 people would say that I am not.
Its not me its down to Napster......go figure! and you can look at any
number of people and it will say 0 files shared ......again its Napster !
Mack Bolan
you're one of those low life blood sucking 56k users. I didn't use those
words and don't understand why you consider yourself a low life blood
sucking 56k user. My message clearly indicates that I have no problem with
56k users. Hell, I started in computers when the standard was a 300 baud
manual modem. Want to talk slow?
Mack
"megabite" <Mega...@tir.com> wrote in message
news:hp1H5.44959$F65.2...@nntp2.onemain.com...
> I'm one of them low life, blood sucking, 56k, users that downloads no more
> than 1 perhaps 2 songs at a time and appreciate the feedback. Please
> understand! I'm in a rural area and our local Phone company isn't going to
> be providing dsl for another month yet. When I see someone downloading
from
> me, I'll immediatley delete the second song so as to preserve Bandwidth. I
> can't believe that anyone who can afford a puter and a stereo system would
> really desire 56k when dsl becomes available to them. Well.....Republicans
> might. ;)
> Frisky wrote in message <39EBCB59...@Flash.Net>...
[snipped to save space]
Mack Bolan
In addition the DSL connections in some areas aren't very stable.
Mack
"Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
news:39ECB699...@Flash.Net...
Frisky
have DSL or Cable. Rather than get into a "poor me living on a fixed
income" debate, let's leave it at those that want it and can afford it
will get it when it becomes available. Will that do? Key words are
"want" and "when available" ok affordable too :oÞ
Someone posted that only 2% of the internet users have broadband. I
don't know where that info came from nor does it really matter other
than the cable users are very fortunate in my opinion. I keep chanting
my mantra daily but it doesn't make the powers that be bring the service
to my area any faster. Until then, a huge Thank You goes out to all the
cable users (and other fast connections) that allow us modem users to
get songs from them.
Thanks for your indulgence.
Critter
:o)
Mack Bolan
After my research I think DSL is the better choice for me. As for DSL, are
you aware that to qualify for DSL you need to be within about 15,000 wire
feet of the CO (wire feet being the key word) and that there are other
technical limitations (no load coils on your line, etc.)? Just because it
may become available in your area that doesn't mean you qualify. I know
people that are right next to CO and because their on the wrong side of the
loop their too far to get DSL.
Mack
"Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
news:39EE319D...@Flash.Net...
Rampart
"Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
> With MY modem and MY connection I can usually download one song at 3.8,
> sometimes 4.2 but average is 3.3 ... when I try to get two at a time
> they both drop to about 2.0 or one might be 2.5 and the other 1.5 in
> which case it's going to take much longer to get the two.
Guess i've been luckier than i thought. I'm usually able to get over 5
and sometimes it even hovers around 6. And i keep it to one no matter how
good my d/l rate is. In fact, if i get a connection going that's shooting
less than 4 or sometimes even less than 5, i'll cancel it and try to find
someone else to d/l it from. Which is somewhat moot right now since i'm
getting connected to cable tomorrow. But that brings me to my question. I'm
relatively new at this so forgive me if it's a stupid one. But is there any
etiquette involved if i cancel a slow download? I'll usually know in the
first 10 seconds if i'm gonna continue with it, but is there any scenario
where the person i'm d/l from would get uptight if i canceled it? Perhaps
someone may stay connected only because i have a d/l going, only to have me
cancel 5 minutes into it? Or maybe some other reason i haven't thought of.
I've never announced when i was gonna cancel a d/l, but now you all got me
thinkin'.
Oh by the way, anyone know what sort of d/l rate i can hope to expect with
the cable modem?
Frisky
> Guess i've been luckier than i thought. I'm usually able to get over 5
> and sometimes it even hovers around 6. And i keep it to one no matter how
> good my d/l rate is. In fact, if i get a connection going that's shooting
> less than 4 or sometimes even less than 5, i'll cancel it and try to find
> someone else to d/l it from. Which is somewhat moot right now since i'm
> getting connected to cable tomorrow. But that brings me to my question. I'm
> relatively new at this so forgive me if it's a stupid one. But is there any
> etiquette involved if i cancel a slow download? I'll usually know in the
> first 10 seconds if i'm gonna continue with it, but is there any scenario
> where the person i'm d/l from would get uptight if i canceled it? Perhaps
> someone may stay connected only because i have a d/l going, only to have me
> cancel 5 minutes into it? Or maybe some other reason i haven't thought of.
> I've never announced when i was gonna cancel a d/l, but now you all got me
> thinkin'.
> Oh by the way, anyone know what sort of d/l rate i can hope to expect with
> the cable modem?
There aren't any guidelines published regarding canceling downloads.
It's a courtesy if you let someone know that starts a download that you
have to leave before it will finish. I regularly send thank you
messages to others but seldom get a response. They may not be at their
desktop to see it but will when they come back. If they respond I'm not
there to see it but the intent was there.
I don't think those you cancel when you're getting a file care if you
stick around to get it or not. It never bothers me when someone starts
one then gives it up. Figure they found another user with a faster
connection and I sure don't blame them for jumping off and trying
another person.
Can't help with answering the cable download rate.
Critter
Frisky
people and cable too trying to get service in my town. Unfortunately
we're a small rural town and not high on their list. We have a better
shot at cable but only if AT&T buys out the local company.
Critter
Jacque Michael
tell you what, I can download 15-20 at a time and average under 5 minutes
each easily on most days. One day, I downloaded a whole album in less than
10 minutes. This is also with15-20 downloading from me.
I can also tell you that I will leave Napster on all weekend and let anyone
have whatever they want, no exceptions.
I also encounter very little problems of any kind, and, I bet that I am
going to jinx myself now...
"Rampart" <Ram...@comdot.com> wrote in message
news:P3sH5.1187$TO4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
>
> > With MY modem and MY connection I can usually download one song at 3.8,
> > sometimes 4.2 but average is 3.3 ... when I try to get two at a time
> > they both drop to about 2.0 or one might be 2.5 and the other 1.5 in
> > which case it's going to take much longer to get the two.
>
Jacque Michael
and have had very good luck with Napster in general. I consider myself very
lucky and do appreciate what I have. This is why I allow anyone to download
what they need without any questions asked. If someone is going to take 5
hours for a song to download, it usually will create an error on it's own
anyway. If I have to get off, I will IM them. I have taken from others, and
I believe that I need to give what I can. Most people who don't have cable
can't help not having cable.
"Frisky" <Cri...@Flash.Net> wrote in message
me
Rampart <Ram...@comdot.com> wrote in message
news:P3sH5.1187$TO4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Greater, I get upwards of 180. It gets lower as you go down the list.
Also, the ping has alot to do with it. I don't usually bother with a 56K
but will try 28's cuz alot of 'em lie about it. I'll also go to a DSL
before a cable cuz alot of the time I'll get low (less than 10) rates there,
as well. At any rate, you will definitely like the improvement! When I
went from 56K to cable, I was amazed. I have the speed now, I just wish I
had some more space! LOL
--
I do 20 sit ups every morning. That may not sound like alot but you can
only hit that snooze button so many times...
To reply, please remove MY PANTIES.
dadiOH
First ~John~, now you. Sheesh!
At least my modem and I don't have to worry about organizing this
abundance of downloads. Not to mention editing all those tags that
have something like "Lost Xmas - Scrooge & The Ghosties.mp3" entered
in the title field.
dadiOH
...."Title" means THE NAME OF THE SONG!!
===========================
| I have had cable since last spring; I get anywhere from 3 to 100.
But I'll
| tell you what, I can download 15-20 at a time and average under 5
minutes
| each easily on most days. One day, I downloaded a whole album in
less than
| 10 minutes. This is also with15-20 downloading from me.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
megabite
to use inference and implication to cloud my reply. I apologize to you for
any such mis-understanding and will choose my words more carefully. It's
just that I realize we 56k'ers are viewed by some (NOT YOU) as leeches and
bloodsuckers because, through no fault of our own, the majority of us are
essentially stuck with 56K due to the diversity of where we live, untill,
such time as the local carriers find it in their big gracious hearts to
provide the technology we would rather have. (Their I go Again) For what
it's worth, I am deeply appreciative of the faster connections for allowing
my slower connection to accomplish its task. Furthermore, I pass on the
patience and tolerance to the 28's and the few 14.4's still out their who
have as much right to any song as anyone else. Additionally, I'm also
keeping an ongoing list of those who have "Errored" me out of the way, so
they can complete their list of 30 downloads at once. "Vengence is mine
sayeth Megabite" :)
Mack Bolan wrote in message ...
>I'm confused. You've quoted back part of my message and indicated that
>you're one of those low life blood sucking 56k users. I didn't use those
>words and don't understand why you consider yourself a low life blood
>sucking 56k user. My message clearly indicates that I have no problem with
>56k users. Hell, I started in computers when the standard was a 300 baud
>manual modem. Want to talk slow?
>
>Mack
>
>
>"megabite" <Mega...@tir.com> wrote in message
>news:hp1H5.44959$F65.2...@nntp2.onemain.com...
more
>> than 1 perhaps 2 songs at a time and appreciate the feedback. Please
>> understand! I'm in a rural area and our local Phone company isn't going
to
>> be providing dsl for another month yet. When I see someone downloading
>from
>> me, I'll immediatley delete the second song so as to preserve Bandwidth.
I
>> can't believe that anyone who can afford a puter and a stereo system
would
>> really desire 56k when dsl becomes available to them.
Well.....Republicans
>> might. ;)
>> Frisky wrote in message <39EBCB59...@Flash.Net>...
>
>
>
Jacque Michael
quickly. I am a very spoiled Napsterite, and I love every minute of it!!!
From the old vinyl to this, who would have thought back in the days when you
had to go find a needle to play music when your old one was toast! Snap,
crackle, pop, skip, and I thought that was great!
"dadiOH" <ja...@birdland.bop.me> wrote in message
news:39ef03b3$1...@post.usenet.com...
Mack Bolan
"I'm better then you because I have a broadband connection" mentality. Even
in your message you seem to imply that most 56k'er don't have broadband
through no fault of their own. Personally I don't care what your reason is.
I refuse to put a condition on who I'll share with and who I won't share
with based on speed. If my system is going to be on-line for say an hour why
should it matter to me who I send files to within that hour? It makes no
sense. Furthermore, why is a 56k'er a leach for downloading files when those
of us with broadband also download files? There have been many times I've
wanted a file and found it on a system that only had a 56k connection. I was
very grateful to not only find the file, but to be able to download it. I
don't think that makes me a leach.
My short experience with Napster has been that the people with broadband are
the least tolerant of all the users I've come across. Most of them expect
that high speed connection to really pump out the file. I have more
broadband connections cancel their transfers because of what I'm assuming is
a slow connection speed then any other "class" of user. That's fine and
their option. What I don't understand is what's so important that you have
to have it now?
Mack
"megabite" <Mega...@tir.com> wrote in message
news:S8HH5.9519$Xc.2...@nntp2.onemain.com...
Vince (AA9TL)
have a faster download speed than upload? I seem to remember reading
somewhere that some high speed connections sacrifice upload speed to
maximize downloading and that, in fact, may have upload speeds not that
much better than 56k. Or am I thinking of something else? At any rate (no
pun intended), I could care less the speed of the d'ler as long as he/she is
polite and understands the nature of dial-up. Please don't get ticked off
because the connection dropped.....we sometimes have to go to work, receive
calls, or maybe there are line problems. Give us a few years and we will all
probably have cable/dsl.
Vince
Mack Bolan <ju...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:sv08p1p...@corp.supernews.com...