"Day Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob George wrote: > > [...] > > How much more efficient is it for you to > > post your musings in this format than mimeographing a newsletter > > not all that many years ago? Was your reach nearly as far? Was > > your ability to be heard nearly as cost-effective? How then is > > that not a measure of "productivity"? > how much time do I need to spend on email? as below....
These days? To get your message out as far as you do? Not much. That's the point. You -- Day Brown -- benefit directly from the increases in productivity that have come about thanks to recent innovations, many of which involve networks, and multitasking and multiuser systems. You do not have to be concerned about what system any others on this list use, what the connection type is, what the physical path is to their system. Anyone wishing to do so can subscribe to these lists from a variety of systems, at any time, using a variety of clients. > > > If he dont, then he needs full motion video. > > > Which are absolutely critical for "messages" of the sort being > > tossed about in this thread. I could read about the WTC collapse > > and try to imagine it. Or I could watch the video in disbelief as > > it occurred in real-time, as could millions of others who neither > > speak nor read my language. I think the impact of the latter was > > much greater. > There is a full motion video system available: TV Which reaches how far? On what frequencies? In what corners of the globe? Accessible by who? When? Sorry, TV doesn't provide the ability to view critical events on-demand in any part of the globe. Not to mention the different video systems in use (try sending an NTSC video tape to someone with a PAL system). > > [...] > > Yes, TODAY a 1982-vintage PC can send e-mail just as well as a > > high-end desktop. But it moves over the same infrastructure > > (_access_) as the message generated on the high-end system. Back > > when that PC was new, you maybe got the word out to a few hundred > > BBS users who happened to be on the same (limited) network. > I dunno all that much about survers Bob, but that 'limited' BBS > system had 100,000 BBSes, and the information thruput was a good > deal higher than what I get on the net. Well Day, I do know and I also used BBSen back in the day. Yes, IF they were connected on the same system and efforts were made, they could exchange data. But it was quite limited compared to the transparent reach of today's Internet. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't the same. As long as a BBS operator was willing and able to foot the bill for disk storage and phone lines, you could argue that messages made their way world-wide. The reach and efficiency was NOTHING compared to today. It was something like Usenet news perhaps. As to the quality of information, that's what comes when everyone's weighted the same. No 'sysop' to say who can talk and who can't. It's a double-edged sword. But the point was that the ability of a 1982-vintage PC to generate ASCII text isn't what gets that text out to the world. And what move stuff about is NOT 1982 technology. > AFAIK, it ran on SURVPCs with very limited graphic capability. > It is a case of unintended > consequences. The graphic images I wanted were harder to get, but > then I didnt havta sort thru 50-100 copies of unwanted graphic > SPAM every time I checked my mail. That's what happens when a network opens up. No cops, dissenting opinions, and "trash" (by whatever standard). Unfortunately there's a lot of crap. But hey, you're able to send YOUR "literature" out as well, even if it is considered "trash" by others. But the subject line you posted was "productivity". Stay on it, or I go back to offering hints to your programmer. :) > I grant you that the technology of networking has expanded, but > the sociological truth is that the bandwidth is clogged with tons > of unwanted images. Day, stay on track. The discussion (your subject line) was "productivity". You can now sit down at a 1982-vintage PC and generate ASCII text that THANKS TO RECENT INNOVATIONS can be sent world-wide in a matter of minutes. Show me how your productivity didn't increase. How would you have done that in 1982? > And when I did my email with QWK, I never was > interrupted by the ISP dropping carrier. I was 'offline'. It is > this kind of thing that has an enormous impact on 'thruput'. You realize there are modern offline mailers, right? - Bob To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
