Internet Connection

[katharina]

I need to hook up to the internet at home.

I started school, and my professor wants us to e-mail our assignments. I don't have any kind of decent computer, but I have a laptop that has word processor capability and an icon for IE.

I also don't have a home phone line, and use just my cel phone for everything.

Here's my question: What's the best/cheapest way to get connected? Since dial-up would require a phone line, I digure I may as well get.... a non-dialup option. $30 a month? That's not bad.

So, DSL? cable modem? whatever's cheapest? Are they going to have to put new jacks in my apartment?

But... do I need something special for my computer? Do you need more information to give an opinion?

Any and all help would be appreciated.

Thanks
Katie

[fugu13]

You're probably going to want a cable modem; DSL requires an active phone line. Cable internet typically runs around $35 a month (assuming you buy the modem outright) when you don't have cable, or around $30 if you do.

What city do you live in again? Whereever it is, go here: http://www.broadbandreports.com/search and put in your zip code. That will bring up a long list of broadband ISPs that serve where you are. In particular, look for Cable internet.

[GreNME]

Yeah, as fugu pointed out, you need to get a list of the ISPs who can actually serve you before figuring out what the best option is. Broadbandreports is a good place to start.

However, even if you don't already have a phone turned on, you can still get a DSL line activated. The thing is, in the end, you'll probably get off cheaper if you used a cable modem. There's no gaurantee of this, but that's how prices usually work out in most areas. I'm pretty sure that you'll find an overall better deal with the cable company.

[katharina]

Thanks! *hugs her favorite Computer Guys*

[Zalmoxis]

I must have missed something -- what school are you starting, kat? Is this one of the MA programs you wanted to do or something different?

[katharina]

Zal,

I'm taking Foundations of Rhetoric and Composition, an English grad class at UTA. I applied the day school started <oops> on something of a whim, and I got in nicely, which makes me feel like I'm getting away with something, but when I went to talk to the advisor, she told me I was at the wrong school.

<Okay, I'm bragging shamelessly, but dang it, this is good news, it was a shock to hear, I don't get impartial encouragement often (I'm an adult - everyone see that SNL skit with Nicole Kidman and Mike Myers?), and it's GreNME>

I have a good GPA from college, and I got a perfect score on the GRE in Verbal, and 5.5 in the analytical (65 percentile in math, but I'm supressing the memory). My advisor looked over my application and said I had a good chance of getting into the best programs. She advised me to take this class, get my application essays into impeccable order, and (she lowered her voice for this part) apply to the top five schools if it's what I really wanted to do.

And... being in the class for two weeks, I'm not sure it is.

I'm going to reprint something I wrote in a letter to a friend about it:


The class was fascinating - it provided lots of fodder for my internal debate between theory and practice. I like writing, I like figuring out how people use language to shape and be shaped by the surrounding world, and I like teaching, so the rhetoric/academic track seems like it would be a great fit.

But...I can't shake the feeling that these guys are just talking to each other. They figured out 30 years ago that we're teaching students to write in an ineffective way, and nothing's changed. :(

I'm reading some of the history of rhetoric, and I swear, it's like a passionate debate on Ornery. Lots of fun, but no one is listening. I don't think I'm quite self-centered enough to enjoy that for very long - certainly not enough to take it too seriously. What's the point of writing if no one ever reads it?

We're doing the Greek authors right now - Plato and Socrates. I like the experience, because it's mind-stretchy. And man, I can't believe how much I disagree with them. I think what's getting to me is their idea that the ultimately virtuous life is a life of solitary contemplation. I just don't believe it.

I don't know... I just have this feeling that the five paragraph style of teaching English composition eminently qualifies students to write English compositions. :(

I need a balance between theory and practice. Tech writing is boring lots of times, but there is beauty in clear communication, but I want more theory, and my poetry skills are about dead, and I want to teach... oh, good grief, I don't know what I want to do. :(

P.S. I just realized that this entire post might be seen as horribly insulting to at least some people out there. It isn't meant to be. I just don't know if I fit into academia, but it's what I thought I wanted to do for so long (this Dallas/real job thing is a diversion), that now I'm at a bit of loose ends.

[Jon Boy]

I'm kind of having the same problem. On the one hand, I've got professors and supervisors telling me I'm one of the best editors they know. And I like editing; it's very satisfying work, and I think I could enjoy doing it for a living. But on the other hand, I have this dream of becoming a professor. I think I would really enjoy teaching classes on grammar and editing and linguistics. But it's a lot more schooling (which is discouraging, since I'll be finished next fall), and I'm not sure I really want to be a part of academia.

But I think I'll graduate and start working for a little while before I make a final decision. Maybe I'll decide that I hate editing and miss school. Maybe I'll decide it's not worth another the time and money to go back to school. I really don't know yet.

[katharina]

But I think I'll graduate and start working for a little while before I make a final decision. That was my idea. Two years later, I'm still not sure. *broods*

[Zalmoxis]

Kat:

I share your pain. It's a big part of the reason I'm not teaching right now. I'll say more later when I have time, but if you do decide to do composition/rhetoric, it's critical that you choose the right program -- otherwise it's either going to be pedestrian, five-paragraph, narrow, mechanical view of writing or it's going to be refined, pseudo-philosophical self-wanking.

I have the upmost respect for writing teachers who are good, but my guess is that a big part of that is them and not their training. The field itself, imo, is an insecure mess of self-reinforcing delusions. Yes, that description could apply to many academic fields these days, but I think comp takes the cake in this regard.

[katharina]

Dagnabbit, that completely confirms what I was suspecting. *frown*

So... know any good programs?

And what are you up to? I want an update! :)

[GreNME]

I'm reading some of the history of rhetoric, and I swear, it's like a passionate debate on Ornery. Lots of fun, but no one is listening. I don't think I'm quite self-centered enough to enjoy that for very long - certainly not enough to take it too seriously. What's the point of writing if no one ever reads it?
The only thing I'm going to take issue with there, Kat, is the remark about Ornery. Yes, I agree that it seems like no one is listening, and everyone is just (figuratively) blowing hard at no one (or everyone) in particular, but it really isn't so. I'll give you a personal example of why I know this:

I've done my part (read: being me) to be the type of person who confounds and frustrates some people at Ornery, just the same as I did at Hatrack. However, with a few exceptions, there are a few who didn't like what I said, or whatever, but later still told me that they valued what I say. Not in a touching "I care about your feelings" kind of way, but in a "I like the way you disagree sometimes" kind of way. And I've gotten this more than once. At least once, I was compared to someone who plays the part of the enemy to get someone to look at the "meat" of an issue. I'm not quite sure I agree with that, but they made it a point to say they meant it in the nicest way I could take it.

I can understand you not wanting to take part in discussion that way, but when you're talking about rhetoric and passionate debate on things both in theory and in practice, what are you going to measure it by? What you feel is right morally? Emotionally? Civilly? You should know that kind of stuff would get taken apart in seconds—I picture a nerd-feeding-frenzy, or a nerding-frenzy, if you will. But I'll bet you that if you go in there playing just as much "hard-ball" as the rest, they'll listen. They just won't say it. It's that lack of affirmation that can get tiring and draining. There are a few on Ornery who truly don't listen—who are so sanctimonious that the very idea of something against what they know is right can never enter—but there are fewer than you think, and I'd wager they're not all who you think they are. In fact, I've noticed that behavior more in other places than Ornery. Most places just say it in a less straight-forward way.

[katharina]

*nods*

Okay. Leto, you know I adore you, so I've been thinking about this.

Some of my cynicism about Ornery comes from, oh, eight months ago or so. I said something in a thread - I don't remember what - and I got a series of letters from a prominent member - I don't remember who - that basically called me a wuss and dared me to jump in and fight with the big dogs. I wanted to laugh - but not out of contempt for the thinking that goes one there.

I believe Ornery has at least as high a quality of thinking as goes on in the circles with the power to act on that thinking. In my frustration with the academic departments, it isn't that I think they are talking nonsense.

I'm frustrated with their apparent powerlessness to translate that thinking into action. For instance, the 30-years-they-agreed-we-are-teaching-the-wrong-way example from above. If you come up with truth and nothing happens because of it, did you do anything? What are we waiting for here, seeds to bloom?

That's why the frustration with Ornery as well. I couldn't believe this guy daring me to "strive for greatness" in the debate there, because I don't believe in the prize. *thinks* How do I say this without sounding like a jerk? Why should I go through the unpleasantness of playing that troll's game if proving myself is unnecessary (one of the benefits of experience is having nothing to prove), and ascendance is an illusion?

I want my great thinking to be actionable - where can I go that I can possible bring about results? As much as I love debating online, Demosthenes and Locke are not going to come to life. As much as I love learning and creating theory, I don't want to talk to the walls.

But then... there are students. My prof mentioned the danger of rhetoric becoming the next classics department (obsolete), but my classics professors were by far the most influential people of my life outside my parents and mission prez (and OSC, in a roundabout way). I would never, ever say they are talking to the walls - heck, if I have a daughter, I want to name her after the wife of that beloved team. They believed in me, and that made a world of difference. *furrows brow* And that throws me back to my dillemma.

[GreNME]

:) You didn't have to pad that post with the first sentence, if you thought it'd be a bit "rough" on the Ornerians (huh?). But it's nice to be appreciated, so don't remove it.

I'm frustrated with their apparent powerlessness to translate that thinking into action. For instance, the 30-years-they-agreed-we-are-teaching-the-wrong-way example from above. If you come up with truth and nothing happens because of it, did you do anything? What are we waiting for here, seeds to bloom?
This is the exact reason I can't stand intellectualism in any form, and probably one of the few reasons I don't take more of a part in Ornery discussions. If it's not going to be (or cannot be) applied, then as far as I'm concerned, it's utterly useless. Or, rather, if no action is going to be taken outside of a few self-righteous bozos masturbating their egos, then why keep going on about it?

The answer in the "real" world is simply that—mental masturbation. In college, the answer is slightly different—a good grade. We learn to love affirmation in school, then strive the rest of our lives learning how to best do it (affirm) to ourselves.

What practical applications does rhetoric have? Or, more appropriately, what are the things that you do love that you can promote for practical purposes? No sense finding something "you can do" if it's not something you can enjoy doing. The trick is just finding it.*


* Note: I still haven't found my "it," so your mileage may vary.

[Kat]

I'm not sure I have found my "it", either, which is a new development because I thought that I'd had. *frown*

The deadly-serious onerians make me giggle. Provincial onanists with illusions of granduer.

And the statement was up there for padding, but it's also true. I think of you as my breath-takingly honest, sweet friend that I rarely speak to but always trust.

[katharina]

Okay, a question and an observation:

1. It's driving me crazy that I don't have AIM at work, especially since Hatrack is down. Thinking about it, what changed was not the firewall, but that I got a new computer. Is there something on the computer (that I could change?) that will allow Trillian to work?

--and--

2. Class is fun. It's great - it's small, there's good discussion, and it's fascinating. I had a hard time with Plato's Phaedrus - it was like reading a Michael Jackson interview - but the Aristotle was wonderful. I'm also already behind and need to run to catch up. I'm also basically sure this isn't what I want. *sigh* Well, crumb. *scowl*