Re: [Pan-users] [OT] Statistical word analysis?

[Aristotle]

See below

On Sat, 2002-04-13 at 00:17, James Hawtin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12 Apr 2002, Aristotle wrote:
> 
> 
> Hay don't get me wrong, I was not complaining, I think they offer a very
> attractive package (after all I use it rather than someone else). Yes I
> might like more of X rather than Y, but over all it all compensates for
> itself.

Didn't think you were - I was agreeing with you (must be that Aussie
lingo of mine)
 
> Personally I am glad everyone is capped, perhaps if my download was twice
> as fast things would take 2 rather than 4 hours But what does that matter,
> I still have to wait and do something else for a while so in the scheme of
> things it would make no difference, I still get enough bandwidth in a
> month to do everything I want to. Having Reasonable caps means that
> other people also cannot abuse the system, and ruin my experience. I don't
> get a static IP, however my "dynamic" one has not changed in 1.5 years.
> Infact I found out from a tech what they do. Basically if you run lots of
> "servers" (you are allowed servers with up to 5 incomming connections),
> like anon ftp or http the only two your not allowed. They Bounce your IP,
> to break them.

I totally agree with you.  From what I can tell - most people are quite
reasonable.  It's the people on the other end who market bandwidth
eating applications to us that cause more of the problem.  Some company
will find a way to make some amazing form of online video and audio
absolutely essential to our daily life.

As for the servers - I think that is incredibly rude to bounce one's
IP's - highly undemocratic - very authoritarian even.  I would sue the
scoundrels if they they tried that on me.  I would not mind however if
they even just sent me a email (automated perhaps?) asking that I remove
the servers within 1 day of a read notice of something - so the customer
is not so bitter after the experience as they can shut down properly. 
Persistently ignoring the request - yes - bounce 'em for all their
worth.

> I would have to agree, and I would like to thank bill for forcing PC specs
> though the roof, when i bought my first PC, I wanted somethging good
> enough to run unix, so it was a 486 DX66 (when it just came out) with 32
> Meg of ram and a 1.3 gig hard disk, also I had a CD-rom (one speed) and it
> cost greater than 3500 UKP. Now I can just go and by normal components and
> they are  more than enough to meet my needs sub 1000 UKP price. Bill has
> saved me lots of money when I think about it, damn I almost sound
> greatful!
> 
> James
> 
> 

And so you should be.  I think Microsoft is essential to Linux, and vica
verca (correct me if I spell that wrong).  Everyone should just get over
it.  I hate M$ hence I use Linux - but I know if it were not for M$ -
*nix would still be populated with newbie-hating geeks and we would
still be swearing black and blue that a text console is the ultimate
experience.