Jump to content

ghostmaster

Skilled Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,395

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Speed Test

    My Results

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ghostmaster

    Download Speed Test Updated...

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    How is the upload on that ?

    :::.. Upload Stats ..:::

    Upload Connection is:: 17720 Kbps about 17.7 Mbps (tested with 5983 kB)

    Upload Speed is:: 2163 kB/s

    Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main)

    Test Time:: 2008/04/10 - 12:54pm

    Bottom Line:: 309X faster than 56K 1MB Upload in 0.47 sec

    Tested from a 5983 kB file and took 2.766 seconds to complete

    Upload Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 359.07 % faster than the average for host (ecu.edu)

    U-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-E97MW6GS8

    User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648) [!]

    Need a larger test file...

    Download Speed Test Updated...

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    :::.. Download Stats ..:::

    Download Connection is:: 82622 Kbps about 82.6 Mbps (tested with 102400 kB)

    Download Speed is:: 10086 kB/s

    Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main)

    Test Time:: 2008/04/09 - 3:12pm

    Bottom Line:: 1441X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 0.1 sec

    Tested from a 102400 kB file and took 10.153 seconds to complete

    Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 293.78 % faster than the average for host (ecu.edu)

    D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-H3G810MSB

    User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648) [!]

    Finally, I can get an accurate test...

    With some more tweaking, I bet I could get it a little faster.  But yeah, I do enjoy my connection at work lol...

    Download Speed Test Updated...

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    :::.. Download Stats ..:::

    Download Connection is:: 82622 Kbps about 82.6 Mbps (tested with 102400 kB)

    Download Speed is:: 10086 kB/s

    Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (Main)

    Test Time:: 2008/04/09 - 3:12pm

    Bottom Line:: 1441X faster than 56K 1MB Download in 0.1 sec

    Tested from a 102400 kB file and took 10.153 seconds to complete

    Download Diagnosis:: Awesome! 20% + : 293.78 % faster than the average for host (ecu.edu)

    D-Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-H3G810MSB

    User Agent:: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648) [!]

    Finally, I can get an accurate test...

    Average Broadband Speed By End of 2008?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Its a good start. I would have made it 1.5 mbps to start. Tho I say they should make it Expandable, so say every 6 months that number increases by 512kbps or something. This would really keep the ISP on there feet, and get us some real fast internet.

    My only fear of that, is that the ISP's would pass the cost on to the consumer by raising the prices of each standard package.  We need broadband expansion, especially for those in rural, or low pop areas that ISP's won't front the cost to expand to.  Hopefully, the 700Mhz frequencies will be used to provide said services....

    Average Broadband Speed By End of 2008?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I would say that there should be a some regulation here to get improvements, but I'd just get slammed for saying it....

    Why do I say that?  Look at what the City of Wilson, NC did when they got fed up with their private providers...

    http://wilsonfiber.wordpress.com/

    Our City of Greenville did the samething with Utilities.  They created a city run company called Greenville Utitilites Commission.  Which is all about service, and not about making money...

    Barak Obama's Church

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Were on the same page, Just let them work , in whatever fashion , for there moneys. I don't think Obama is up for that, he just wants to make this country more or less  , a take from those who have, and give to those that don't, thats just wrong.

    I haven't seen too much evidence of that.  He does want to put a lot more money into college financial aid, with the requirement of civil service while in college in exchange.  He talks a big game on social initiatives, but the realities of it happening are slim to none.

    Barak Obama's Church

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I'm talking about government assistance here.  Not public service work or anything like that.  I mean when a legit single parent needs help with their children, give them assistance such as food stamps or housing as long as they have a job.  Like a good faith welfare program.  Im completely against funding someone who sits on their ass and has a kid every year to collect that extra check.

    It also helps stir the economy when they have a private sector job not a public service one.

    Barak Obama's Church

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    You a very smart person! I thought there was only a select few here that had the realization of just one example of what socialism can to to a country.

    I'm not endorsing socialism by any means.  There are way too many people abusing the social programs we have here in the USofA.  But the government IS supposed to help protect those that can't, not those that won't.

    Take the USA for example the government which is really controlled by the rich now & maybe always.It's just the rich of the American Revolution had higher ideals.Now they keep enough money flowing to the Average to lower income citizen they are not ready to give it all up & revolt.The same reason for welfare it keeps the poor not ready to attack the money supply.Or did you think it was because the politicians most rich themselves & definitely representing the rich really cared?

    The difference is that the "rich" in the US aren't usually individuals with wealth, its more corporate wealth.  The individually wealthy are usually the ones that are more generous.  The originators of our welfare system (FDR) did have good intentions, however the system has evolved into more of a political tool that anything else.  If there is ONE thing I can agree with GWBush, is that we need a work based national welfare system.

    Barak Obama's Church

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    That really does bring on some new ones for Mexico being poor as they are also.  :uglystupid2:

    It shouldn't.  The problem is, only a select few take in the oil money, or all of the money for that matter.  Thats what happens when you have no government social programs.  If you expect the wealthy to take care of the poor you're shit out of luck.

    I don't feel I have an equal tie to them.If it was up to me oil from the Middle East would be being pumped by the USA as our oil.Due to their part in 911 with the guiltiest being a so called Ally Saudi Arabia.

    Glad it aint up to you then, cause we'd be in the middle of WW3 already. 

    Not that I don't think its coming.

    Barak Obama's Church

    in General Discussion

    Posted

      Point taken, but , info for those who didn't know, Rodham, is not Her middle name.  It is her maiden name.

    I think you were reiterating what I just said, but in-case you weren't, that's what I just said lol....

    Considering the amount of oil we buy from Muslims, I'd say we all have an equal tie to them....

    Barak Obama's Church

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    There isn't a problem with his middle name, and I don't recall Obama making a big deal out of it.  The media, and far left did.  I understand why as well.  The far right, people such as this Bill Cunningham, Sean Hannitty, Rush Limbaugh...so on and so forth, are trying to play to the fears of ignorant people, because they will associate "Hussein", with Muslim, or Sadaam Hussein.  Nobody mentions McCain's middle name, or refers to Bill Clinton, as (William) Bill Jefferson Clinton. 

    George Bush wasn't George H. W. Bush until his son was elected. 

    The only reason Hilary Clinton is referred to as Hilary Rodham Clinton, is because Rodham is her maiden name.  Many professionals women, including lawyers use their maiden name, especially if they used it publically before marriage.

    The point is, nobody on either side should be making a big deal out of his name.  Unless he has gone by his full name for his entire professional career, then we shouldn't start calling him Hussein now. 

    I certainly don't want to be called my middle name thats for sure.  (Hint:  Michael J Fox movie in the 80s where he was an up-and-coming business guy, working in the mail room.)

    And really does anyone actually use the word Honky anymore?  Sanford and Son went off the air decades ago lol....

    Don't let the facts interfere with your spiel

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Thats the bad part of a conversation such as this, who knows what to believe anymore, both sides make great cases, and yet the truth is still unknown.

    That is what is wrong with how debate is taught in this country, you don't have to be right as long as the other person is wrong. "Truth is subjective"  Therefore are we get is a bunch of rhetorical babel.  

    And although I don't agree with some things Obama says (whether or not he means them or even if are his own words), some of the points he makes are valid, we have to reach out to those who disagree with us as well as those who are our allies.  I also agree with some of the things Clinton says, especially with having real discussions about issues, not just rhetoric.  (although discussions involve listening, something she doesn't do well at all)  I like many things about McCain as well.  (he is a true moderate, whether you like it, or not)

    The problem, is that America has created a paradox, in that the people (at least the educated) do not trust the government, yet we are the ones who create it, and have the power to change it, but we don't.

    Don't let the facts interfere with your spiel

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Don't let the facts interfere with your spiel eh?

    1st link is an opinion piece that I've read before, so...meh....

    2nd article is interesting, (although the examples it gives are weather abnormalities, NOT climate events) but there are many factors you have to consider, which are even covered in the article.  Greenhouse gases aren't the only thing that effect the climate.  Solar activity plays a major role, and when that declines, the Earth will cool.  1 year's worth of data proves NOTHING.  (like I said earlier, you would need centuries of data to prove anything) 

    It has been proven however that the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere have been increasing over the years, and they DO contribute to global warming.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

    It is a fact that greenhouse gases are increasing, and if deforrestation continues, what is going to absorb all that carbon dioxide?

    Like I said, even if global warming doesn't exhist, is it really a bad thing for us to cut emissions and reduce the use of carbon fuels?

    Don't let the facts interfere with your spiel

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    link to info on global cooling please?

    AND

    no no no.....Im not on the liberal global warming bandwagon side.....im a pragmatist...

    We only have a small sample size of recorded temperatures over the years to go by, so we can't definatevly prove what is causing the earth to slowly warm...or that it isn't a natureal phenomenon...

    and as John McCain puts it, even if we cut emissions, burn cleaner fuels, and invest in alternative energy, have we really done a bad thing?  Was it really a waste....I think not...

    Don't let the facts interfere with your spiel

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    That wasn't defense, as I have no allegience to defend.  :shock:

    This country will never improve unless we begin rebuilding the middle class.  Sadly though, that won't happen with either party.  The dems will just made the middle class pay for the poor, and the republicans will make the middle class pay for what tax breaks they give the rich.

    Neither side has a good economic plan.  The only way to really stimulate and maintain a national economy, is to create jobs.  It has been proven time and time again.  (see industrial revolution, post depression, etc..)  I believe the next big revolution will be an energy revolution, because the impending oil crisis and global warming will call for it.

    Goverment regulations, and trade agreements aren't going to help the economy. (dems)

    Money will never trickle down (reps) from Big B, or the rich, because the rich want to stay rich, or get richer.  I don't blame them, because it's human nature......

×
×
  • Create New...