I thought the discussion had started off on the subject of the size of
files, which then led to the subject of internet connection speed and
download quotas. I could be wrong.
But it is pointless, Ricardo, in trying to have a reasoned and logical
debate on one's own . . .
And I now suspect that those who may be overcome by the exuberance of
their own verbosity will start another discussion, but hey -
Erinnerungen's scans were good, and I enjoyed them, and they actually
confirmed some stories I had been told by a couple of old German
soldiers who had been in Russia. So thank you once again, Erinnerung.
Ta-ta for now :)
<here@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>On 01/02/2015 11:45, none@given wrote:
>> <here@glorious-somerset.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> in some parts of the world it's more than a "handful of
>>> people".
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> However, in most areas of that part of the world where people are
>> going to be interested in this collection in the first place, decent
>> connectivity is the norm.
>
>Nonetheless, there IS considerable variation from place to place and in
>some of which the only choice is take it or leave it as there is no
>alternative.
>
> As is adequate disk space.
>>
>>> Get real.
>>
>> That is the reality. Check the size of the hard disks you have now,
>> compared to what you had back when file size was still an issue.
>>
>
>The comment had nothing to do with disk capacity, so please don't go off
>at a tandem - it was about download speeds.
>
>> This entire collection comes to 412 Mb total. Even USB thumb drives
>> come in 64 Gb sizes now.
>>
>
>I have over 3tb of storage, but that doesn't make one iota of a
>difference to download speed of my internet connection.
>
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|