Re: Alternatives to icky polluted snailmail, was Re: fighting Anthrax w/ Dr. Strangelove

From: Michael M. Butler (
Date: Sat Oct 20 2001 - 12:58:04 MDT

Delivered, sure, but _read_? Efficiently?

Remaining problem: overall, screens still suck. One can speed read _clean_ paper
(not talking about low res faxes here) considerably faster than one can speed read a screen.
This is well substantiated by research done at Xerox PARC, MIT Media Lab and elsewhere.
If one is in the business of dealing with lots of mail, there will be a huge productivity
hit if one is limited to 72-100 dpi screens for reading.

Get me one of those new copper-matrix IBM flat-panels, and I might be able to tolerate
reading paper mail that's been scanned. AFAIK, they're not in mass production yet.

Dan Clemmensen wrote:
> I would estimate that at
> least 90 percent of sealed mail could be delivered by image
> (If you've ever worked in the mailroom, please comment on this.)
> If you are a venture capitalist, please fund this development :-)

My moronic mnemonic for smart behavior: "DICKS" == 
diplomacy, integrity, courage, kindness, skepticism.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:14 MDT