Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!princeton!njin!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: To much for the reader? (was: Re: Unbiased moderator volunteers)
Message-ID: 
Date: 29 Jun 88 17:41:35 GMT
References: <2805@rpp386.UUCP> <28.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP> <4542@gryphon.CTS.COM> <385@teletron.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 22

In article <385@teletron.UUCP>, andrew@teletron.UUCP (Andrew Scott) writes:
>...
> It's not just a matter of computing horsepower as to why I think we should
> attempt to cut volume, although it is an important factor for many sites.
> The net is just too big to handle as a *reader*.
>  You are correct in saying that the S/N ratio is about the same as it was two
> years ago, but the doubling of net bandwidth in that time means that twice
> as much N has to be waded through to get to the S.  I simply don't have the
> time to read as much as I would like.

You know, I was down at the Library Of Congress the other day and noticed
that they had more books than I could read in a lifetime (even if I
stopped reading the net).  They have just gotten way too big to handle
as a *reader*.  Why just to read thru their entire card catalog is a
major undertaking.  I think it is about time we make it illegal to write
books -- and at the very least we should stop wasting tax money on the
collection of books that so few people will ever have a chance to
actually read.  Note also that these books are hardcopy, so they are
many times harder to search than net messages.  Reading your note, I
can see that I can count on your support in this endeavor.  Welcome aboard.

--- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)