 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:47:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
>
> partly, I am printing things about once a week or less. I used to print
> 3-4 documents a day. I do most of my revisions on screen.
Sure, we're getting closer, but I don't think we'll get 100% of the way
there. There's too much dependency on the "old" way of doing things
(financial records, for example, in the US have to be kept for 7 years,
and many of those are paper. Expense reports at my last employer
couldn't be handled without physical receipts being turned in, etc.)
> I do know these issues. As a matter of fact I often do receive faxes
> with ECG's on the fax in my room. That it happens does not mean that
> this scanning of paper versions is the common thing to do. By far most
> of my communication is digitally. So I am not paperless, but paper is
> only about 25% of my world now and that number is reducing fast.
Yes, but *the* world is where it's important. :)
> I was not talking about what you have, but about what you normally read.
> I also have many books printed before digital, just to show my age, but
> I don't read them as often as I do read things printed later.
> Also I don't see you wanting to scan any of those books. The point of
> having these is having these, not the reading. In 5 years time you will
> be reading them digitally if you want to read them again.
Many of them I do have in digital format, yes.
>> Can you read files in Envoy format? I've got some materials in that
>> format as well - good luck finding a system that can read them. ;)
>
> But do you also have the dead tree version of those?
One or two of them, yes.
> Do you want it as it was printed at the time or just the content?
The content is obviously the important thing. But my point wasn't that
we *could* be digital with stuff, but that we're not a paperless society,
and the chance of us getting fully paperless are not that good until
things that legislate hard copy or physical signatures on paper are
done. Given the speed with which the US legislature does anything, I
expect it'll be a couple hundred years before the US has a chance at
being paperless.
But then again, our legislature (at the national level) is somewhat
regressive, maybe if we get more progressives in, we'll get there sooner.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 23:52:19 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
> > On 3-9-2012 22:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:15:10 +0200, andrel wrote:
> >>
> >>> Why on earth would you want to do that? The thing is meant for a
> >>> paperless society.
> >>
> >> Paperless society is a myth,
> >
> > like flat screens won't happen. Oh sorry we do have them now. They were
> > a myth for a large number of years and then suddenly within a few years
> > they replaced all CRTs.
>
> I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
I see a society hungry for greay meat junk food packed in paper carton.
Most people at workplace print like mad. Doesn't matter that most of them can't
read well let alone correctly interpret text.
As for myself, I've been reading books like I've never read before ever since I
bought a smartphone (soon enough on e-ink reader too). I get my news from the
web, not from newspaper. I don't print documents, I read them on screen (also
much better for the occasional copy-n-paste). I pay most of my bills either
with a credit card, online in the bank or with coins (bus).
Signing perhaps is the only thing that still requires me handling paper in any
significative way.
can't speak for others, but I don't think most of my generation feel otherwise.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:20:12 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>> I don't see a paperless society in place. Do you?
>
> I see a society hungry for greay meat junk food packed in paper carton.
Indeed that's true.
> Most people at workplace print like mad. Doesn't matter that most of
> them can't read well let alone correctly interpret text.
LOL, I hear ya there.
> As for myself, I've been reading books like I've never read before ever
> since I bought a smartphone (soon enough on e-ink reader too). I get my
> news from the web, not from newspaper. I don't print documents, I read
> them on screen (also much better for the occasional copy-n-paste). I
> pay most of my bills either with a credit card, online in the bank or
> with coins (bus).
>
> Signing perhaps is the only thing that still requires me handling paper
> in any significative way.
I sometimes will print documents out if I want to look at them in a
format larger than my screen can display - for example, a project I'm
working on right now involves redesigning documentation for a product to
make it more maintainable. I'm using a mindmap to do the organization,
but to see the whole thing, I needed to print it out and assemble it in a
9x9 grid of 8.5x11" sheets.
Which of course is now outdated because I've made changes to the doc.
But I also find that even though I do a lot of authoring electronically,
it's still sometimes easier to mark up a hardcopy.
> can't speak for others, but I don't think most of my generation feel
> otherwise.
I know my stepson tends not to print stuff out - probably doesn't hurt
that he doesn't currently have a printer. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/4/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I sometimes will print documents out if I want to look at them in a
> format larger than my screen can display - for example, a project I'm
> working on right now involves redesigning documentation for a product to
> make it more maintainable. I'm using a mindmap to do the organization,
> but to see the whole thing, I needed to print it out and assemble it in a
> 9x9 grid of 8.5x11" sheets.
>
And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the thing
down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain in the
ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other document,
and the application you are reading it, to try to understand. Few times
I really wish I had gotten a Kindle Fire, for that reason, except that I
would still have the problem of, "Some front ports on your machine will
shut down, if only charging a device." I mean, what idiot came up with
that idea for a USB hub?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/09/2012 05:47 PM, andrel wrote:
> I do know these issues. As a matter of fact I often do receive faxes
> with ECG's on the fax in my room.
Fun memory: Visiting the doctor, who pulled up the scanned copy of my
ECG, and then sat there looking at his computer screen with his head
sizeways. (Seriously? There isn't a button to rotate the scanned image?)
Whatever. He seemed to think there's nothing wrong with my heart. (He
also told me that "your blood prezzure is egzelent".)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/3/2012 1:07 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 17:28, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The same identical, save in electronic form,
>> technology is at the center of cell tower systems.
>
> Well, no, not really.
>
Odd then that, a few years back, she was recognized, finally, for having
invented the idea, and it was attributed as one of the key features that
make cell phone networks possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr
"Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for
modern spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth,
COFDM used in Wi-Fi network connections, and CDMA used in some cordless
and wireless telephones."
So, OK, you may be generally correct, in that a lot of modern phones
don't use CDMA any more. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Not only that, but the few times I've actually been on Twitter, half the
>> posts are replies to other people's posts, and there is LITERALLY NO WAY
>> to find out what they're replies to. (!) Seriously, the most basic, most
>> immediately obvious thing, the very first thing I tried to do, Twitter
>> can't do. WTF?
>
> I don't know if it's your eye-sight, or you are overlooking an obvious
> feature just for the sake of a good rant, but you can "unroll the
> conversation" to see exactly what they are replying to. If it's not
> there, them the person you are following was not really replying to
> anything someone said on Twitter. They might have "replied" to something
> the person said on tv or in a newspaper.
>
> Also, the strength of Twitter is not following certain individuals,
> although that can be interesting in the case of public figures or
> journalists, but following keywords (or hashtags), this way you can see
> what everyone has to say about topic X. This come especially handy in
> fast moving situations or live events, where no one has a complete
> picture of what is going on.
I looked at the Twitter pages for the cast of QC. Every single post was
a reply to something one of the other cast members had said. (Then
again, they're all fictional characters, so...) Literally, an entire
page of half-conversations. Mostly between multiple unpeople.
I just went back to look, and holy hell, they've added a button to
follow whole conversations. Not why the heck didn't it have that 2 years
ago?? It's the single most obvious thing you would want! It's the second
thing you'd implement, right after the ability to create an account and
post stuff.
Now, if the real reason for using Twitter is to follow stuff that's
happening in real life, then yes, I guess to me the system would be
completely useless. I can't think of anything that happens in real life
that I would actually give a damn about...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 10:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I sometimes will print documents out if I want to look at them in a
> > format larger than my screen can display - for example, a project I'm
> > working on right now involves redesigning documentation for a product to
> > make it more maintainable. I'm using a mindmap to do the organization,
> > but to see the whole thing, I needed to print it out and assemble it in a
> > 9x9 grid of 8.5x11" sheets.
> >
> And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the thing
> down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain in the
> ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other document,
> and the application you are reading it, to try to understand.
how is that different from having several printed documents scattered over each
other on your desk, hmm? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> And, unless you have like two screens, and/or some way to port the thing
>> down to an eReader, or something, sometimes its just a major pain in the
>> ass to flip between a web page, or help file, or some other document,
>> and the application you are reading it, to try to understand.
>
> how is that different from having several printed documents scattered over each
> other on your desk, hmm? ;)
You don't have to file the stuff away afterwards. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-9-2012 20:41, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 05:47 PM, andrel wrote:
>> I do know these issues. As a matter of fact I often do receive faxes
>> with ECG's on the fax in my room.
>
> Fun memory: Visiting the doctor, who pulled up the scanned copy of my
> ECG, and then sat there looking at his computer screen with his head
> sizeways. (Seriously? There isn't a button to rotate the scanned image?)
I knew a doctor who would read ECG's upside down. If anyone dared say
something about that he would reply that he would not be distracted by
his expectations of what an ECG of a normal person should look like.
> Whatever. He seemed to think there's nothing wrong with my heart. (He
> also told me that "your blood prezzure is egzelent".)
If he can see that from you ECG he should be practising alternative
medicine.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
