didn't realise that there was a low-quality stream there ... will check
Noah Roberts wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:03:59 +1000, Mark Constable wrote:
but, no - it doesn't seem logical at all, cos even low-quality stream
uses bandwidth ... the reason is purely for advertising and money.
bandwidth should not be an issue for a site like this.
there are *plenty* of ways for getting stuff online ... i mean, i pay
$12.50 US every quarter (that's, like, $4 a week) for a website/ftp
server that has 500mb disk space, 50 GB a month bandwidth, a whole
shitload of subdomains and users etc etc ... there are options that
don't involve shitty mp3 sites, but they usually require personal
effort. it's worth it though.
>Needless to say, though apparently I still need to say it, I provided