the royal society is going to publish papers from this meeting - the talks are being made avaiallbe on a best effort (NOT distributed to people, but made availabe) which seems to me to quite a different thing from unsolicted unreadable content if you care, the draft paper and talk i gave are at ftp://cs.ucl.ac.uk/darpa/royal-society-network-modelling.ps.gz http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/jon/rs/ frank kelly's much more interrsting paper (as announced at the meeting) is via http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~frank/smi.html ("Models for a self-managed Internet ") In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, L loyd Wood typed: >>jon crowcroft writes: >> >>> i dont care what SIZE it is - i only care whether i have the >>> application to view it - microsoft users sdjhould be educated in the >>> simple fact - not everyone has word or powerpoint or wants to buy >>> them - so NEVER EVER send a word or ppt or excel attachment except >>> to someone you are co-authoring a paper/talk/expense claim with and >>> have agreed the package in advance by text mail >>But distributing a file in an unspecified version of powerpoint which >>then appears on the web to be downloaded by an reader base with an >>unknown toolset is perfectly acceptable? see the word _attachment_ above. >>http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/%7Erichard/research/topics/royalsoc1999/crowcroft.html >>[Royal Society 'network modelling in 21st century' two-day symposium >>http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/%7Erichard/research/topics/royalsoc1999/ >> diffserv, router design, optical and Internet economics stuff. alas, >> neither the slides Van Jacobson prepared nor the slides he actually >> whipped up and gave in response to other presentations are available >> yet. And you'll need powerpoint for some, in the absence of >> postscript files rendered from them.] >>> publically avaialble standards exist for the excchange of text and >>> graphics, and we do not need to tolerate a monopoly who fails to >>> serve the maximum public good by failing to publish their >>> interchange formats. >>We don't need to tolerate them. We don't have to promote them, either. >>But then that's a matter of convenience; a measure of the difference >>between individual and societal good. sure - and we could not even bother giving out the talks in any form - would be nice if people said _thanks_ ever. cheers jon
