ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images



Austin writes:

> I do not believe that.

OK.

> No, you have not shown that to be true.  Provide
> proper substantiation to this claim.

What is "proper substantiation"?

> You want to claim that current modem
> technology is only 33k, when in fact,
> it is 48/50k.

It is difficult to achieve speeds that high on most lines.  This is one reason
why 56K modems have not been as big a splash as once hoped.

> You also want to compare hardwired modems in
> the past to regular phone line modems of today.
> That is just absurd.

No, they are one and the same.  The only difference is that you can unplug a
modem today because it incorporates a modular jack in the cord.  In the olden
days, you weren't allowed to just plug stuff into the wall, and a
telephone-company technician had to come out and permanently connect your modem
to the telephone line, by attaching wires on the line to screw terminals on the
modem.  Functionally, however, the two types of modem are identical.

> Even if there were 2400 baud modems in 1971,
> that's 20x slower than today, NOT 10, so no
> matter what, your claim is just wrong.

Actually, it would be 20.4167 times slower, based on your own figures, but since
these figures are all within an order of magnitude, I don't see a reason for
concern.




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.