 | | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved —Jim Baker
|
| | | Also sprach Todd Lehman: : Anyway, I sure didn't expect there to be 2000 people per day accessing these : 1999 catalog images -- pushing the bandwidth out of the hundreds-of- : Megabytes-per-day range and into the Gigabytes-per-day range. And still (...) (26 years ago, 8-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) There were something like ~16,000 hits on the JPEG images, from ~2000 unique IP addresses... --Todd (26 years ago, 8-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | (...) Take into account that a lot of those hits probably were from Star Wars fans that are not necessarily lego fans. I sent the 1999 url to a friend who appreciates lego, tho doesn't own any sets yet, but loves Star Wars, and plans to buy SW lego (...) (26 years ago, 8-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved —Jim Baker
|
| | | | | Also sprach Todd Lehman: : There were something like ~16,000 hits on the JPEG images, from ~2000 unique : IP addresses... <boggle> / _ _ / _ _ I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all ()(-(//((-/ nervous and give the wrong answers. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) At least three of which were me. :) (26 years ago, 10-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
