bowles@millar.UUCP (05/01/89)
> However, I think electronic banking will make checks obsolete > in the near future. Newspapers and magazines, likewise, are better online > than on paper--take Usenet as an example. There have been variations of "electronic banking" for quite a while, now. Most variations require a terminal/modem to connect to it, you log into their time-sharing system, and do minimal things that include "send message to officer asking for funds from checking account to be put into CD for this long." (A fax machine is as useful, in that case.) Chase Manhattan has a service in which you register and get a password, then can dial up on any touch-tone phone to get into the system. All commands are touch-tone (e.g. "*BAL#" and "*LST#" and so on) and you can only issue checks to merchants whose names YOU have provided, on a paper form YOU signed. This prevents someone using your password and issuing a check to some company you don't know. (The worst thing that would happen is that somebody would send all of your savings to the cable TV company for YOUR account number.) For most merchants, Chase still cuts a check and sends it to the merchant by mail or messenger, but since there's all the information necessary, I look for it to be all electronic in the future. --- Then there's General Motors (GMAC), I believe, which offers a lower percentage rate on car loans if you give them your bank code and account number and let them take out your car payment electronically. --- And banks send propoganda asking for employers to use "Direct Deposit" because it'll save $0.25/paycheck/employee in overhead. --- And so on. --------------------- >However, one must take the security issue into consideration. >I think most people will feel reluctant to use electronic mail >for private and confidentail mail, as it is more vulnerable to >attacks by people wishing to intercept it. More vulnerable to remote attacks. Most mailboxes where *I* grew up didn't have locks. Perhaps it's the felony-class criminal laws forbidding "tampering with the mail" that keep people in their place? Jeff Bowles
janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) (05/02/89)
In article <8905011336.AA23777@lll-crg.llnl.gov>, bowles@millar quotes: > > ... Newspapers and magazines, likewise, are better online > > than on paper--take Usenet as an example. Some example. The content is more interesting than some journals, but the editing is much worse. It's hard to read away from the terminal, and harder to take notes. Bill
zifrony@TAURUS.BITNET (05/02/89)
In his letter from May 1-st (Laborers day), Jeff Bowles discussed electronic
banking in the US. He mentioned the systems allowing you to log in and
perform several transactions types from your home PC.
I want to make people aware that here in Israel the electronic banking is
quite advanced. Between the ATM machines, the special terminals located
in the bank branches and the remote electronic banking (You use a home based
PC to contact the bank services), the non-businessman (an employee in an office,
etc.) need rarley stand in line to approach a live teller.
I do not own a PC, so I am not sure about the services granted to the people
choosing to contact the electronic banking services from their home, but I
use the ATM machines and the bank-located terminals daily, and the following
services are provided by these machines:
1. Check you balance.
2. Check your bonds and stocks status, including their stockmarket value as
of a day back.
3. Check your short term saving accounts, including ammortized value.
4. Check your long term saving accounts status.
5. Check your foreign currency account balance including its value in the
local currency.
6. Invest in trusts.
7. Transfer money to/from a short term saving account.
8. With each of these requests, you receive a printout of many automatic
transactions, such as the list of all your purchases using a credit card
during the last month.
9. Money withdrawl.
10. Checks deposit
11. Check book order.
and more.
We also have an arrangement, called "permanent order" for automatic transfer
of funds from your account each time period (usually once every two months)
to cover your electricity bill, insurance pays, telephone bill, taxes, etc.
The reason for these advanced services is the competition between our banks,
which try to improve service to persuade people to open accounts.
--
Doron Zifrony E-mail: BITNET: zifrony@taurus.bitnet
Msc. Student INTERNET: zifrony@Math.Tau.Ac.IL
Dept. of CS ARPA: zifrony%taurus.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Tel Aviv Univ. UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!humus!taurus!zifrony
Israel CSNET: zifrony%taurus.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@
csnet-relay
--
Disclaimer: I DON'T represent Tel Aviv University. The opinions hereby
expressed are solely my own.jdb9608@ultb.UUCP (J.D. Beutel) (05/03/89)
<2296@titan.sw.mcc.com> janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) writes: >> > ... Newspapers and magazines, likewise, are better online >> > than on paper--take Usenet as an example. > >Some example. The content is more interesting than some journals, but the >editing is much worse. It's hard to read away from the terminal, and harder >to take notes. > >Bill You're quite right. I like Usenet better than newspapers and magazines, but I was comparing apples to oranges. Take AP or UPI as examples instead; those news wires are where most of the news comes from--the newspapers just print it for mass distribution, since most people don't have AP nor UPI feeds. * AP and UPI may be trademarks of Associated Press and United Press International, respectively. I really don't know. -- 11011011 ___jdb9608@ritvax.BITNET or @ritcv.UUCP___ "I am, therefore I am."
ray@pnet01.cts.com (R. Andrew Rathbone) (05/07/89)
> Newspapers are better online.
This argument usually is based on the "easier search" feature of an electronic
newspaper. The flow of extraneous information can be weeded out, and only
those articles containing a "key word" will be sent to the end user.
But when foraging through a newspaper, haven't you found articles and subjects
of interest by accident? Haven't you ever started to read something you'd
never intentionally select, but once finished, been glad you've read it?
Perhaps electronic clipping services should incorporate a "random" clip
feature?
Any thoughts on this?Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (05/08/89)
> From: janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) > Date: 1 May 89 22:14:17 GMT > Organization: MCC Software Technology > Message-ID: <2296@titan.sw.mcc.com> > Newsgroups: comp.society.futures > > In article <8905011336.AA23777@lll-crg.llnl.gov>, bowles@millar quotes: > > > ... Newspapers and magazines, likewise, are better online > > > than on paper--take Usenet as an example. > > Some example. The content is more interesting than some journals, but > the > editing is much worse. It's hard to read away from the terminal, and > harder > to take notes. > If you're right, it is because your software is inadequate. Editing an electronic document can and should be a great deal simpler than editing a paper one. "Away from the terminal". When am I away from the terminal? At the same points when I'm away from any paper. In the car, walking down the street, at the beach. Otherwise my portable with its built-in 19200 BAUD modem is with me, and it's a whole lot lighter than the same 44Megabytes of data would be on paper. Today most people only have access to a computer at the office, or possibly at home. But that is rapidly changing with the advent of the portable computer and high speed modem. We must remember when future-gazing that we can reasonably expect a considerable increase in the generally available hardware capability. =Doug -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (05/08/89)
In article <4160@crash.cts.com> ray@pnet01.cts.com (R. Andrew Rathbone) writes: >But when foraging through a newspaper, haven't you found articles and subjects >of interest by accident? Haven't you ever started to read something you'd >never intentionally select, but once finished, been glad you've read it? This may not be so accidental. It may have something to do with the layout and editorial choices for headlines. The lack of anything similar in electronic media is the real shortfall at the present. Moving, storing, and retreiving text are now relatively easy, but scanning for keywords only works if you know what you want to find. The whole concept of "news" implies that you don't know what it contains. >Perhaps electronic clipping services should incorporate a "random" clip >feature? Random clippings would soon be ignored. What we need is a way for the current technique of newspaper layout to be moved to electronic media. The difference is not just font sizes and shapes, but that someone with experience has put a great deal of effort into arranging things they consider important so they will catch your eye. Les Mikesell
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (05/08/89)
In article <4160@crash.cts.com>, ray@pnet01.cts.com (R. Andrew Rathbone) writes: > But when foraging through a newspaper, haven't you found articles and subjects > of interest by accident? Yes, and I've had the same experience searching through NewsNet using keywords. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
harry@moncam.co.uk (Jangling Neck Nipper) (05/09/89)
In article <4160@crash.cts.com>, ray@pnet01.cts.com (R. Andrew Rathbone) writes: > But when foraging through a newspaper, haven't you found articles and subjects > of interest by accident? Haven't you ever started to read something you'd YES!!! Format is VERY important for browsing or foraging. It's not easy when all you have is a simple terminal and a keyboard, simply because foraging involves scanning lots of info and then picking up (maybe by chance) things of interest, and a simple terminal just *won't* do. A graphics display will be as good as a newspaper if it can be made to be easily browsed; this means having a reasonable expanse of information with different typefaces &c. &c. I would also prefer not getting a headache looking at a screen (I get headaches reading `news' a lot, while I *never* get them reading newspapers, but I accept that this may simply be what I'm used to). Are these just personal gripes? After all, newspaper and book formats have changed markedly over the years. Who out there prefers a simple terminal to a newspaper? Of course, the ideal marriage is the hires screen, 'coz the data can than be scanned by eye *and* some suitable key words. Another point is, not everybody browses, and would find key words preferable. -- ,---.'\ ( /@ )/ Nothing is true. /( _/ ) Everything is permitted. \,`---'
sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) (05/09/89)
In article <8408@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >Random clippings would soon be ignored. What we need is a way for the >current technique of newspaper layout to be moved to electronic media. >The difference is not just font sizes and shapes, but that someone with >experience has put a great deal of effort into arranging things they >consider important so they will catch your eye. As far as random clippings, how about "headlines" of stories that you can scroll through at your leisure--if one seems interesting you can download it. Probably would only be used by people who *want* to learn something outside an immediate area of interest, though. Arrangement could be replaced with one of two ways: 1) if the "paper" comes in as straight ASCII text, order of listing could reflect editorial preference, and 2) if it comes in as PostScript (tm, et al, ad nauseum), layout would be similar to todays broadsheets. >Les Mikesell -- ******************************************************** * Blake "Hey, where's *MY* fancy .signature?" Sobiloff * * sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu * ********************************************************
gls@genesis.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman) (05/09/89)
In <8408@chinet.chi.il.us>, les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > > This may not be so accidental. It may have something to do with the layout > and editorial choices for headlines. ... This is so important that I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up earlier. By the way, there's a great description of what a newspaper's layout *means* in _The Mechanical Bride._ > Random clippings would soon be ignored. What we need is a way for the > current technique of newspaper layout to be moved to electronic media. You're barking up the wrong tree. Newspapers, and indeed all printed works, are technologically obsolete. Even if you could preserve the old techniques, the basic assumptions (standardization, uniformity, stability, authority) fail miserably with the new technology. Stop to think about what it would mean if your neighbor's copy of _Red October,_ the _World Almanac,_ or the New York Times differed significantly from yours. -:- "The goose quill put an end to murder That put an end to talk." --Dylan Thomas -- G. L. Sicherman gls@odyssey.att.COM
mintz@io.UUCP (Richard Mintz) (05/10/89)
Just a note from a 23-year-old curmudgeon, to observe that not all electronic banking "advances" are necessarily beneficial to the customer. Having just done bank shopping to prepare for a long-distance move, I note that many banks--including Bank of America, one of California's largest--are now by default \not/ returning cancelled checks with monthly statements. B of A is willing to do so for an extra $1/month fee. For any customer, of course, they'll supply you with a photocopy of a microfilmed copy of a cancelled check -- for $2 a pop or so. Obviously they save a lot of money by offering this "service". However, I depend on those checks as my receipts, and don't want to have to spend time and an extra $30/year to get copies. In general I'm not against paying a premium for services that matter to me; but as long as B of A has competitors willing to provide the same service for free, B of A won't get my business. You can bet I made free check-return an absolute must when choosing a bank -- and I let the new bank know why I chose them, too. [My housemate took advantage of a B of A promotion (no-fee checking for 3 years on accounts opened on May 6). He asked to have his checks returned to him with his monthly statement. The salesperson spent several minutes trying to sell him on the "convenience" of not having to store his checks. Eventually she gave up and granted his request.] Rich eddie.mit.edu!ileaf!mintz
janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) (05/10/89)
In article <2329.246511C8@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Doug.Thompson@p101 (Doug Thompson) writes: > If you're right, it is because your software is inadequate. Editing an >electronic document can and should be a great deal simpler than editing a >paper one. Perhaps. But only if it is *done*. The problem with Usenet is that the unmoderated groups have a lot of noise. Bill
janssen@titan.sw.mcc.com (Bill Janssen) (05/10/89)
In article <536@genesis.ATT.COM>, gls@genesis (g.l.sicherman) writes: > Stop to >think about what it would mean if your neighbor's copy of ... >the New York Times differed significantly from yours. An interesting point. I was talking to a thoughful person about personalized daily newspapers. He made the point that part of the paper should be un-personalized, so that each subscriber has something in common with the other subscribers, just to give them something to talk about. Bill
dave@celerity.UUCP (Dave Smith) (05/12/89)
In article <2329.246511C8@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) writes: > >"Away from the terminal". When am I away from the terminal? At the same >points when I'm away from any paper. In the car, walking down the street, >at the beach. Otherwise my portable with its built-in 19200 BAUD modem >is with me, and it's a whole lot lighter than the same 44Megabytes of data >would be on paper. > It may be lighter, but is it cheaper? I have no qualms about losing a newspaper or a paperback, even a hardcover is bearable, but losing a portable PC (or spilling a beer in it :-) would be as bad as having my entire library go up in smoke. It has to be portable and _cheap_ to replace paper. David L. Smith FPS Computing, San Diego ucsd!celerity!dave "Repent, Harlequin!," said the TickTock Man
Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (06/05/89)
In a message of <18 May 89 10:53:03>, <Dave Smith> writes: > > In article <2329.246511C8@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.F > (Doug Thompson) writes: > > > >"Away from the terminal". When am I away from the terminal? At the > same >points when I'm away from any paper. In the car, walking down > the street, >at the beach. Otherwise my portable with its built-in > 19200 BAUD modem >is with me, and it's a whole lot lighter than > the same 44Megabytes of data >would be on paper. > > > > It may be lighter, but is it cheaper? I have no qualms about losing > a newspaper or a paperback, even a hardcover is bearable, but losing > a portable > PC (or spilling a beer in it :-) would be as bad as having my entire > library go up in smoke. It has to be portable and _cheap_ to replace > paper. I'm not going to argue against the virtues of low-cost. But, think about the costs of putting 100Kb a day on paper. First you need a printer, and the good ones cost as much as the portable computer. Then you need paper, ribbons or chemicals, and you need time and labour to generate the output. Of course, you need paper too. Given that the data originates in machine readable form and is transmitted in machine-readable form, the "cost" of protecting my portable against loss by leaving it home, and printing out all the data I might need, the cost measured in time, labour and supplies, is hugely greater than the cost of insuring the portable against loss - if you look at the costs over the course of a year, rather than the costs on the first day of operation. Then there is the fact that when I'm away from home and my computer, I can't *get* that data without either a: using the portable to suck it into the local hard disk (very quick, cheap, and convenient) or, having a staff member print out just what I want to read and send it to my by courier. Very expensive, slow and inconvenient. If I'm at a hotel with a FAX machine, I could have it faxed to me too, also slow, expensive and inconvenient, but not quite as bad as the courier. Now, tell me the portable is an "expensive" way to get at information. Of course there are up-front one-time capital costs, and there are maintenance, insurance and repair costs. But television sets cost a fair bit too, and also have repair and maintenance costs. Yet we think of broadcast TV as "free". Add a VCR, make that a colour TV, and the costs are comparable to those of portable computers. But we still think of the rental video as a "cheap" movie. You save your $7 movie ticket, the drive down-town, the parking fees, the gas and oil, the time . . . though you've spent thousands in hardware to accomplish those "savings". PLUS, you get a much wider selection of viewing material. The phone system we use also represents an incredible hardware investment. While my one minute call across the continent may cost 50 cents, I'm using billions of dollars worth of hardware, capital goods, and the labour of many people. So one of the "economic" realities we're dealing with here is that the cost can be reduced by spending money. That is, when you install appropriate hardware, you can slash operating costs. In the first week it's much more expensive. By the 100th week, you've broken even and by the 200th week you're ahead of the game. Meanwhile you have all the non-money advantages of convenience and reduced labour. And as for spilling beer on the keyboard, well I did spill coffee on one once, took it apart, washed it, dried it out, put it back together and it was fine. Now, if I'd spilled that coffee on a book, I'd never get the stain out :-). I had an employee once who spilled coffee with a great deal of sugar in it on an 8 inch floppy one Friday afternoon. By the time I found it on Monday morning, the floppy was encased in a brown, crystalline shell. I soaked it for a few hours in running water, opened the jacket and removed the inner acedate media, dried it, and the data was all recovered. Indeed, after taping up the jacket the disk seemed be none the worse for wear. Obviously there are different vulnerabilities when dealing with computers and computer media than other kinds of information storage. Overall, I'm not sure the computer media are inherently *more* vulnerable. We keep backups of computer data. The paper data cannot be backed up nearly so easily. It's less vulnerable, you argue. Well yes, it's less vulnerable to catastrophic loss through inadvertance or hardware failure. But it is just as vulnerable to fire, sabotage, tornado, etc. And, because it's much harder to back up, it is inherently more difficult to make the data really secure against loss. Multiple copies of electronic data are cheap and easy to make, transport, and store at multiple sites. Ever try printing out 200 Mb of data and put it in your safety-deposit box? Stone, however, is very durable. Anything you really want to be preserved should be carved in stone. Just ask archaeologists! Paper breaks down in time and you lose the data. I wonder how tape and disks endure through thousands of years? I wonder when some manufacturer will build a computer print that carves in stone? :-) :-) =Doug -- Doug Thompson - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!162.101!Doug.Thompson Internet: Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (06/08/89)
In article <2491.248B4D5C@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, Doug.Thompson@p101.f162.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) writes: > But television sets cost a fair bit too, and also have repair and > maintenance costs. Yet we think of broadcast TV as "free". Add a VCR, make > that a colour TV, and the costs are comparable to those of portable > computers. But we still think of the rental video as a "cheap" movie. You > save your $7 movie ticket, the drive down-town, the parking fees, the gas > and oil, the time . . . though you've spent thousands in hardware to > accomplish those "savings". PLUS, you get a much wider selection of viewing > material. But there are substantial qualtiative differences between viewing movies in a theatre and viewing them on a VCR. Much detail is lost on a TV screen (this, of course, may eventually be partially rectified by HDTV), both due to scan methods and screen size differences. The differing height-to-width ratio results in much of the theatre image being chopped off for TV. Directors shoot for the theatre, and their original output is often adulterated for TV formats. There's a different atmosphere, too; watching a movie at home is just too constricting and there are too many familiar distractions. Movies in REAL theatres (not those mall phone booths) are an unmatched romantic experience that can never be duplicated at home. Technological advances may negate many of the theatre's superiorities, but theatres will be around for a long time to come (and tickets here are still under $6, except at the Hoyts Fascistfilm Empire). -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson