>
> An 'interesting' article entitled:
>
> Is the Internet doomed?
>
> Massive increases in traffic have triggered debates about the 'Net's fate
>
> is worth a gander:
>
> http://cnnfn.com/digitaljam/9609/05/internet_crash_pkg/index.htm
>
> - paul
#define RANT_MODE 1
Am I the ONLY one who thought it was *absolutely priceless* that
the first 2 paragraphs were arranged like this:
NEW YORK (CNNfn) -- Traffic on the
Internet, particularly on the World Wide Web,
has positively exploded in the last two years,
and this has triggered heated debates over the
system's vulnerability.
Data traffic on the 'Net today is already 25
times what it was just two years ago, and there
appears to be no reliable way to predict how
fast that demand will increase.
(2.07 MB QuickTime Movie)
Yes, that's right.
Right after complaining that data traffic is on the increase, they
have a link to a 2MB QuickTime movie to _illustrate_ that traffic
is increasing.
I wonder if they bothered to study how much extra traffic that silly
2MB quicktime movie they included was generating on its own, and
how much they could have delayed the "imminent collapse" of the
Net simply by leaving off the movie?
Don't they understand that the only reason the Net is having these
problems is that _Everyone_ is doing stupid things like adding
unnecessary quicktime movies to web pages without thinking about
the consequences, and without being held responsible for the
extra bandwidth they will consume?
*sigh*
I guess you've just got to laugh at cases like these, because if
you don't, you'll end up quitting, and taking off for the next
unbesmirched horizon...
#undef RANT_MODE
Matt Petach
trying not to be bitter...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -