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)