eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (07/19/90)
>Please consider cross-posting all fax postings to alt.fax as >a matter of course.] isn't computerfax a real enough technology to warrant a comp.fax newsgroup? someone take a vote! -- /eli eli@spdcc.com
brian@haddock.ima.isc.com (Brian Holt) (07/19/90)
In article <3411@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >>Please consider cross-posting all fax postings to alt.fax as >>a matter of course.] > >isn't computerfax a real enough technology to warrant a comp.fax newsgroup? > >someone take a vote! >-- >/eli >eli@spdcc.com Hmm, actually, it probably should be comp.dcom.fax -- brian@ima.isc.com US 617-661-7474 x206 near the Charles River
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (07/20/90)
In article <17120@haddock.ima.isc.com> brian@haddock.ima.isc.com (Brian Holt) writes: >In article <3411@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >>>Please consider cross-posting all fax postings to alt.fax as >>>a matter of course.] >> >>isn't computerfax a real enough technology to warrant a comp.fax newsgroup? >> >>someone take a vote! > >Hmm, actually, it probably should be comp.dcom.fax Actually, it should probably be ignored as yet another environmentally destructive fad yuppie nuisance toy in hopes it will go away soon. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- Oh, well, but thanks for correcting me. -- Jeff Martens
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (07/20/90)
In article <3411@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: | isn't computerfax a real enough technology to warrant a comp.fax newsgroup? No. | | someone take a vote! That's why it doesn't rate a group. The people who want one are too lazy to go through the CFD and CFV procedure. They're too lazy to write letters, too. Yes I'm kidding a little, but my font doesn't have a quarter smiley ;-) --- 4 -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (07/20/90)
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>> >>>isn't computerfax a real enough technology to warrant a comp.fax newsgroup? > >Actually, it should probably be ignored as yet another environmentally >destructive fad yuppie nuisance toy in hopes it will go away soon. hey now! computerfax ain't environmentally destructive, unless you think phone calls destroy the environment. with computerfax, nothing has to be printed unless you like the way it previews on your workstation. and voila -- a thermal-paper tree is saved. -- /eli eli@spdcc.com
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (07/20/90)
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: > >| isn't computerfax a real enough technology to warrant a comp.fax newsgroup? > > That's why it doesn't rate a group. The people who want one are too >lazy to go through the CFD and CFV procedure. They're too lazy to write >letters, too. oh yeah, Bill, that must be it. it's the fault of "those people"! you forgot to mention that "those people" don't feel like reading the control-freak ranting in news.groups. > Yes I'm kidding a little, but my font doesn't have a quarter smiley neither does mine, twit. 1/8 :) -- /eli eli@spdcc.com
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (07/21/90)
In article <3424@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: | > That's why it doesn't rate a group. The people who want one are too | >lazy to go through the CFD and CFV procedure. They're too lazy to write | >letters, too. | | oh yeah, Bill, that must be it. it's the fault of "those people"! | you forgot to mention that "those people" don't feel like reading | the control-freak ranting in news.groups. If telling you to stop wasting bandwidth asking *someone else* to get to work on group creation makes me a control freak so be it. If you're not too lazy to do something a lot harder than posting flames, then read the guidelines and follow them. It will take about 40 hours of your time, and you will have to stay motivated for at least two months. You will also get a lot of flack from many people, and if you are so thin-skinned that you can't take something as polite as my last posting, then you are in for a serious set of bruises to your ego. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (07/21/90)
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
[about creation of a fax group in the comp.* hierarchy]
!
! If telling you to stop wasting bandwidth asking *someone else* to get
!to work on group creation makes me a control freak so be it.
so it be. not only are you freaking about news.groups, now you're
freaking about w a s t i n g n e t . b a n d w i d t h.
!If you're
!not too lazy to do something a lot harder than posting flames, then read
!the guidelines and follow them.
sing "control freak" to the tune of the mickey mouse theme song, Bill.
if there's sufficient discussion and interesting an a comp.dcom.fax
group, or some such, and IF i have access to an internet or usenet
machine which is reliable enough to be a vote-taker, then i'll be
quite happy to be the vote taker. for now, i'll try to generate
more discussion with a "call for discussion", ok, buddy???
!It will take about 40 hours of your
!time, and you will have to stay motivated for at least two months.
yes, boss man sir. whatever you say. you must be the boss, alright.
! You will also get a lot of flack from many people, and if you are so
!thin-skinned that you can't take something as polite as my last posting,
!then you are in for a serious set of bruises to your ego.
the same goes for you, honey bunny!
thick skinned and thick headed,
/eli
--
/eli
eli@spdcc.comxanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (07/25/90)
In article <3423@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: > > xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>>> >>>>isn't computerfax a real enough technology to warrant a comp.fax newsgroup? >> >>Actually, it should probably be ignored as yet another environmentally >>destructive fad yuppie nuisance toy in hopes it will go away soon. > >hey now! computerfax ain't environmentally destructive, unless you >think phone calls destroy the environment. with computerfax, nothing has >to be printed unless you like the way it previews on your workstation. >and voila -- a thermal-paper tree is saved. Sure, but why go to all that trouble to raise the cost of email from $0.0025 (batched transmission) to $2.50 (long distance call)? Fax is what you do when you're too lazy to hack the politics of making email work right. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (07/25/90)
In article <1990Jul24.221621.2509@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >In article <3423@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >>hey now! computerfax ain't environmentally destructive, unless you >>think phone calls destroy the environment. with computerfax, nothing has >>to be printed unless you like the way it previews on your workstation. >>and voila -- a thermal-paper tree is saved. >Sure, but why go to all that trouble to raise the cost of email from $0.0025 >(batched transmission) to $2.50 (long distance call)? I'd get a new LD carrier. AT&T's rates are no more than .25/minute peak to USA, .15/minute off peak to USA, .65/minute off peak to Europe. You can move at least 1 page at those rates, or 2-3 pages for twice that. It gets there (anywhere), reliably. But, there's no 'r'(reply) key, which is FAX-as-EMAIL's biggest drawback. Since I'm not likely to send two items to the same place at the same time, the EMAIL phone call would cost the same as FAX. It wins big if I've got lots of pages to send, and loses big if I've got a newspaper clipping to send. >Fax is what you do when you're too lazy to hack the politics of making email >work right. Within any particular company, it is possible to get it to work right. Including moving more than just text. As soon as you go outside that realm, you have no control. IMHO & experience, the entire system we have using UUCP & the Internet as transport, domain addresses, and all the currently used mailers need to be tossed out. The addresses are unparseable by humans. The headers get mangled in twisty little passages, all different (so much for the 'r' key). The transport is flaky at best, downright unreliable at worst. To continue to hack on this system will insure the stagnation of EMAIL. Its not just the politics that make EMAIL faulty. Its the technology, too. EMAIL needs to step back to square one, and suffer through childhood again, in order to emerge as a fully functioning adult. To be fair, G3 FAX has many warts that are being addressed by standards hacking. I don't put much stock in this approach, either. The installed base of ~12 million in USA isn't going to change anytime soon. I think both systems will be saddled with the past for a long time to come (probably until death). I think the next major advance won't happen until ISDN connectivity starts to snowball. You buy a hypothetical I-MAIL box, that comes in standalone, SCSI, and Ethernet flavors. Does everything that FAX and EMAIL do today, plus everything we thought they could do. And with any luck, the standards for the box won't be cast in concrete until the last possible moment before the explosion. Oh yeah, it can't cost any more than the tip the US mailperson expects at year end (currently $1000). :-) -Rick -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ??? Ask About: |Mention PC Research,Inc.| FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) |FAX# for uunet!pcrat!rick| FaxJet - HP LJ PCL to FAX (Send WP,Word,Pagemaker...)|Sample (201) 389-8963 | JetRoff - troff postprocessor for HP LaserJet and FAX|Output
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (07/25/90)
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >i wrote about computerfax: >>and voila -- a thermal-paper tree is saved. > >Sure, but why go to all that trouble to raise the cost of email from $0.0025 >(batched transmission) to $2.50 (long distance call)? that's a real intense cost analysis you've got there, KPD. >Fax is what you do when you're too lazy to hack the politics of making email >work right. what cogency! what an astute analysis! what a M A R O O N ! p.s. what are the "politics of making email work right" ??? are we talking about "email political correctness"?? guffaw. -- /eli eli@spdcc.com