Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: news.stargate Subject: Re: A modest proposal Message-ID: <7945@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Apr-87 11:45:37 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.7945 Posted: Tue Apr 21 11:45:37 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Apr-87 11:45:37 EST References: <1369@ncc.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 96 Keywords: It isn't that easy to scan the news > 1) I would be very distraught as Stargate's attorney (not me, no sir ;-) if > I thought that articles were being read at 500 wpm for culpable legal > problems. I _might_ agree that an analysis to avoid legal problems could > done, by an expert in libel and such stuff, at 5 wpm. Experts in libel and such are far too expensive for Stargate, or for that matter for newspapers and radio stations, who seem to manage fine without. (And who almost certainly read their material at faster than 5 wpm!) > 2) As a submitting author, I would be _very_ upset if my article, making > several subtle points in the philosophy of consciousness, were evaluated > and discarded, at 500wpm. I might let an expert try to make that decision > at 50 wpm and several rereadings... Somebody at Stargate might give the article a quick scan for legal trouble, but the question of whether the article is subtle or just stupid would presumably be made by somebody competent to resolve such issues, namely the moderator of the group. Whether he reads it at 500 or 50 is not too relevant, since he's only doing one group, although I would recommend 500 if he's going to try to keep up with the traffic! Note that he does not have to understand everything you are saying, just enough to decide that it's worth sending out. I doubt that Rich Salz reads every line of mod.sources. > 3) As a moderator, ... I would rarely > be content with just _reading_ an article; most of them are edited for > publication... On the contrary, most articles posted to moderated groups are not edited for publication, and there is no good reason why they should be -- most of them don't need it. > For example, we have one netlander publishing worthwhile, > cogent articles whose .signature includes: "Debbie's cat house, where the > customer comes first." I have to be paying enough attention to notice what > that really says (not at 500 wpm after 7 hours, I won't), then I have to > stop and edit it out... Why? I can see that some moderators might prefer to edit out noisy signatures (for example, Peter Neumann routinely edits down my modest signature for mod.risks postings), but unless the above example draws objections from the management of Debbie's cat house, it doesn't need special attention because of its contents. (He who tries to edit out anything that *somebody* might object to will end up publishing nothing; compromises are necessary.) > 4) Also, as a moderator, I have to consider the value of the article: does it > contribute something new to a discussion, or is it the same old stuff, from > the same tired arguer in a lost cause. This slows me down a lot. As a news reader, it seldom takes me more than a fraction of a second to decide this! :-) Granted that moderators bear a greater responsibility to avoid unnecessarily harsh decisions, it is nevertheless true that an article which looks boring probably is. Any commercial author knows that style of presentation is just as important as content; bouncing an article which says worthwhile things in such an obscure way that nobody would bother to read it is legitimate, proper, and desirable. > Are the savings going to be worth the hardware investment, the time spent > revising the news software, and the extra administrative hassle of taking > care of two systems, if all Stargate is willing to carry is one sixth of > the news? Can they safely carry more until they have taken the legal steps > required to confirm common carrier status? If it's the best one-sixth, sure it's worth it. Remember that the other five-sixths will not be around indefinitely, because our current network cannot accommodate its inexorable growth forever. There will come a time when fed-up payers of phone bills pull the plug on things like talk.religion! Note that there are no "legal steps required to confirm common carrier status", unless you are thinking of lengthy and expensive legal battles that Stargate could not possibly afford to fight. There is no foreseeable way of getting common-carrier status for Stargate. It's not possible, period. > However, and happily, I notice, perhaps in reaction to the reactions to the > Stargate plan, that a new "how to do it cheaper" experiment, called UUNET > (sp ?), has been publicized in this newsgroup... The idea has been kicking around for quite a while, actually; I think you are reading too much into a coincidence of timing. I agree that UUNET is interesting. > Another great way to reduce > costs would be for all the sites to install one of the new "9600 baud on a > voice grade, unconditioned line" modems recently discussed in the fidonet > newsgroup... Many of us have been aware of them for quite a while, actually. They do have their problems, like lack of standardization, substantial prices, and trouble when used for things like uucp. (Being spiffy for interactive work is not sufficient to make them viable for bulk data transfer.) They are promising but not magical. -- "If you want PL/I, you know Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology where to find it." -- DMR {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry