🚀 go-pugleaf

"Chan" <chan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cgqo5a$o1u$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Signup for your free fast service while offer lasts
> http://www.juiceboosted.com/index.php?RequestId=1&Id=hvh2nbr
>
>

Unfortunately this is a scam!


--
For free calls: http://www.bextech.me.uk/talktalk.htm
For Mobile Phone Offers: http://bextechtelecom.2u.co.uk
For a great discussion: http://www.bextech.org.uk
For a list of current auctions: http://www.bextech.me.uk/auction.htm

"Chan" <chan@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Signup for your free fast service while offer lasts
> http://www.juiceboosted.com/index.php?RequestId=1&Id=hvh2nbr

You should ask yourself: if it's free, how can they afford to pay the
affiliates who spam newsgroups with adverts for the service?  Where does
that money come from?


Jon
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email.

In article <4130f4c9$0$20251$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com>,
 "Central TV" <no.spam@please.ctvuk.co.uk> wrote:

> "Chan" <chan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cgqo5a$o1u$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Signup for your free fast service while offer lasts
> > http://www.juiceboosted.com/index.php?RequestId=xr2701
> >
> >
> 
> Unfortunately this is a scam!
> 
> 
> --
> For free calls: http://www.bextech.me.uk/talktalk.htm
> For Mobile Phone Offers: http://bextechtelecom.2u.co.uk
> For a great discussion: http://www.bextech.org.uk
> For a list of current auctions: http://www.bextech.me.uk/auction.htm
> 
> 

I'd suggest in the future that reporting something as a scam or spam and 
leaving the correct URL in the post is pointless and less than 
intelligent.

Also the fact ythat it is physically impossible to send more data down a 
standard phone line. And if you;re a LOndon you;d also recognise their 
address as being one of the most well known 'mailing address/holding 
services' ever. Unlike PO Boxes where the Post Office will tell you the 
correct street address is you ask nicely, this company 'British Monomarks@ 
have as part of their contract that they will never tell anyone where the 
proper address for this company is. Any address that is shown as 27 Old 
Gloucester Street, WC1N 3XX, is likely to be hiding something.



"Jon S Green" <jonsg@deadspam.com> wrote in message 
news:dot1j0hl3o9ggm5dbcl3od02hd96gs75sl@4ax.com...
> "Chan" <chan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Signup for your free fast service while offer lasts
>> http://www.juiceboosted.com/index.php?RequestId=1&Id=hvh2nbr
>
> You should ask yourself: if it's free, how can they afford to pay the
> affiliates who spam newsgroups with adverts for the service?  Where does
> that money come from?
>
>
> Jon
> -- 
> SPAM BLOCK IN USE! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in 
> email. 

I like the look of the Mail Boxes Etc that are popping up in london in 
the same spaces as subways and easy internet cafes. You can call it 
anything you like, so long as your box number is on it, eg "5th Floor"
G


"Steve" <no.way.r.u.getting.my@email.com> wrote in message 
news:cgs8k7$efe$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Also the fact ythat it is physically impossible to send more data down 
> a standard phone line. And if you;re a LOndon you;d also recognise 
> their address as being one of the most well known 'mailing 
> address/holding services' ever. Unlike PO Boxes where the Post Office 
> will tell you the correct street address is you ask nicely, this 
> company 'British Monomarks@ have as part of their contract that they 
> will never tell anyone where the proper address for this company is. 
> Any address that is shown as 27 Old Gloucester Street, WC1N 3XX, is 
> likely to be hiding something.
>
>
>
> "Jon S Green" <jonsg@deadspam.com> wrote in message 
> news:dot1j0hl3o9ggm5dbcl3od02hd96gs75sl@4ax.com...
>> "Chan" <chan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Signup for your free fast service while offer lasts
>>> http://www.juiceboosted.com/index.php?RequestId=1&Id=hvh2nbr
>>
>> You should ask yourself: if it's free, how can they afford to pay the
>> affiliates who spam newsgroups with adverts for the service?  Where 
>> does
>> that money come from?
>>
>>
>> Jon
>> -- 
>> SPAM BLOCK IN USE! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in 
>> email.
>
> 

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:45:43 +0000 (UTC), "Steve"
<no.way.r.u.getting.my@email.com> wrote:

>Also the fact ythat it is physically impossible to send more data down a 
>standard phone line. 

Data compression makes it possible.

sPoNiX

"Steve" <no.way.r.u.getting.my@email.com> wrote in message
news:cgs8k7$efe$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Also the fact ythat it is physically impossible to send more data down a
> standard phone line.

if it works the same way as 'ONSPEED' - the one i am trying out, it doesnt
send more data down the line. it removes some of the data to make it travel
faster.

with onspeed you can manually set the transfer speed, the faster you go you
the less data you recieve. it removes data mainly from images which makes
them look really crap quality.
they claim to be able to give you near broadband speeds through a dial-up
and i can well believe it. with onspeed switched off it takes probably 10-15
seconds to show a page of search results from ebay and with it switched on
at full speed it takes 1 or 2 seconds which i personally think is pretty
damn good. after all - if looking for things on ebay you dont need to see
printable quality images do you

anyway - thats my say said


chris

sPONiX wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:45:43 +0000 (UTC), "Steve"
> <no.way.r.u.getting.my@email.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Also the fact ythat it is physically impossible to send more data down a 
>>standard phone line. 
> 
> 
> Data compression makes it possible.

The theoretical limit of the number of information bits per 
second that can be sent is determined solely by the signal 
to noise ratio and available bandwidth.

Compression does not allow more information bits to be sent 
down the line - it decreases the redundancy in the data 
stream in order to reduce the number of bits that need to be 
sent.

Compression will not benefit a data stream with minimal 
redundancy - eg will not reduce the number of bits that need 
to be sent for things such as zipped file sets and most 
lossy graphics file formats. Generally, addimg another layer 
of compression algorithm to these data streams will worsen 
the equivalent uncompressed data rate, not improve it.

As channel bandwidth and signal level are fixed, the only 
way to increase the theoretical limit on information bit 
rate is to decrease noise. As that is almost entirely 
determined by ambient temperature, the solution is obvious - 
go join the company making these promises, on whatever 
distant planet they believe they are on.

-- 

Sue

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:48:28 +0100, =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=
<sb382638@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Compression does not allow more information bits to be sent 
>down the line 

Eh?

sPoNiX

spaz@chocks.com (sPONiX) wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:48:28 +0100, =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=
> <sb382638@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >Compression does not allow more information bits to be sent 
> >down the line 
> 
> Eh?

What our palindromic friend meant was that there's no technology that'll
improve your absolute bitrate from V90/V92/whatever the modem's set to.

All that you can achieve is to increase the effective bitrate (not the
same thing) by using compression at both ends of the connection.

The data-theoretic term is "entropy" -- a data-stream's entropic when it
can be compressed no further without loss of information: when the
encoded data are infinitely close to pure random in nature.

The thing is, data created by current image and multimedia compression
techniques are moderately entropic already: you can't get them much
smaller without losing (yet more) information: in other words, degrading
the content they're encoding.

If you're mostly transferring text data, for example email and Usenet
messages, or non-image-containing Web pages, there's a lot you can do
with compression.  The simple fact is, though, that most 'net users
spend most of their time transferring fairly entropic data, so
compression won't gain them much additional benefit.

There is another way you can pretend to achieve higher bitrate, and
that's by spidering content: when you download a Web page, you also
start downloading and caching everything it links to (and maybe even
everything those pages link to).  Needless to say, this is pretty
antisocial, since you'll be downloading maybe 10-20 times more data per
page than you actually want, on the off-chance that you might click on a
link.  Some ISPs really, *really* don't like spidering.

One more thing, whilst I'm thinking about it.  Remember that I was
talking about end-to-end compression?  To make that work, the head-end
has to compress the data being sent to you -- and that's not at your
ISP, that's at the scam^Woops, "free" affiliate-promoted service's
premises.  To do that, they have to have some pretty hefty servers
(since the server CPU usage in compressing the data will be
substantial), and presumably a fairly fat pipe to the Internet.

How can they afford to provide this, for a "free" service?  How can they
afford to pay the affiliates to promote this "free" service?  Food for
thought, no?


Jon
(whose degree thesis was on data compression, by the way)
-- 
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email.

Jon S Green wrote:

> spaz@chocks.com (sPONiX) wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 21:48:28 +0100, =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=
>><sb382638@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Compression does not allow more information bits to be sent 
>>>down the line 
>>
>>Eh?
> 
> 
> What our palindromic friend meant was that there's no technology that'll
> improve your absolute bitrate from V90/V92/whatever the modem's set to.
> 
> All that you can achieve is to increase the effective bitrate (not the
> same thing) by using compression at both ends of the connection.
> 
> The data-theoretic term is "entropy" -- a data-stream's entropic when it
> can be compressed no further without loss of information: when the
> encoded data are infinitely close to pure random in nature.
> 
> The thing is, data created by current image and multimedia compression
> techniques are moderately entropic already: you can't get them much
> smaller without losing (yet more) information: in other words, degrading
> the content they're encoding.
> 
> If you're mostly transferring text data, for example email and Usenet
> messages, or non-image-containing Web pages, there's a lot you can do
> with compression.  The simple fact is, though, that most 'net users
> spend most of their time transferring fairly entropic data, so
> compression won't gain them much additional benefit.
> 
> There is another way you can pretend to achieve higher bitrate, and
> that's by spidering content: when you download a Web page, you also
> start downloading and caching everything it links to (and maybe even
> everything those pages link to).  Needless to say, this is pretty
> antisocial, since you'll be downloading maybe 10-20 times more data per
> page than you actually want, on the off-chance that you might click on a
> link.  Some ISPs really, *really* don't like spidering.
> 
> One more thing, whilst I'm thinking about it.  Remember that I was
> talking about end-to-end compression?  To make that work, the head-end
> has to compress the data being sent to you -- and that's not at your
> ISP, that's at the scam^Woops, "free" affiliate-promoted service's
> premises.  To do that, they have to have some pretty hefty servers
> (since the server CPU usage in compressing the data will be
> substantial), and presumably a fairly fat pipe to the Internet.
> 
> How can they afford to provide this, for a "free" service?  How can they
> afford to pay the affiliates to promote this "free" service?  Food for
> thought, no?
> 
> 
> Jon
> (whose degree thesis was on data compression, by the way)

Nicely put!

-- 

Sue

(who only lectured in the topic at degree and master's level 
- as well as writing the odd paper now and again)