Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!amdcad!decwrl!sun!calma!radzy
From: radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Rich Rosen costs the net $10,000
Message-ID: <81@calma.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Nov-85 12:09:31 EST
Article-I.D.: calma.81
Posted: Thu Nov 28 12:09:31 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Nov-85 06:47:21 EST
References: <10108@tardis.UUCP> <949@unmvax.UUCP> <2028@phri.UUCP> <1282@jhunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: radzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz)
Followup-To: /dev/null
Distribution: net
Organization: GE/Calma Co., R&D Systems Engineering, Milpitas, CA
Lines: 29

In article <1282@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes:
>                            1/2 disk per site * 4000 sites * $8000/disk=
>$16000000 wasted by the net on blank disk space, or $2000 PER SITE.

Um.  Uh.  .5 * 4000 * 8000 / 4000 = .5 * 8000 * (4000 / 4000)
	= .5 * 8000 * 1
	= 2000		Whups!

Either I've forgotten most of my upper-elementary-school level algebra,
or you did something wrong.

I think this makes much of the original posting invalid.  If Kenneth
makes this kind of mistakes so easily, I wouldn't trust his verbal
arguments much either.  In fact, I think his arguments aren't valid
anyway:

1.  many of the sites which are on USENET wouldn't have
the same disk configurations if they weren't on it.

2.  The assumption that the average amount of disk space which is
wasted is 50% of one disk is stupid.  (no ":-)" here)

3.  Kenneth ignored (or perhaps didn't understand) the idea behind
the original posting, which was to say that people should constrain
themselves to posting only original material.
-- 
Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage
	calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA
	{ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy