Paperless faxing - prices dropping?

[Ken Blake]

Tell that to the Feds and various state offices who seem to prefer
faxing over any other means of communication.

Yes, I know. And not too long ago, I had to send something to
Microsoft, which to my enormous surprise they insisted I fax to them.
As I said, "It's incredible to me."

 

[Peter Jason]

And there's still a call for buggy whips, for
people who drive buggies.

And for curvaceous women dressed in tight red leather and spiked
collars, perched on 8 inch pumps.

 

[Peter Jason]

yes, it is incredibly faster than mail.

Junk faxes can be most annoying, and there's no way to sweep them into
the "junk" folder.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <[email protected]>,

A fax is identified as to source, may contain a signature,
and can be immediately stored away as paper, whatever the
dubiousness of its source, in the files of the recipient
with no intermediate steps subject to any interference.
Like things you shouldn't have said, and pictures you
shouldn't have posted, it's forever there, assuming the
recipient has secure storage procedures.

All of which goes for email.

 

[Char Jackson]

Faster than snail mail, yes. But not faster than e-mail. And it
requires special equipment.

It's incredible to me that faxing didn't bite the dust as obsolete
technology ten years or so ago.

I refinanced my home mortgage late last year and before it was all
said and done we had faxed dozens of documents back and forth. At one
point, I suggested that we simply use email and the lady said, "We
don't consider email to be secure." I didn't even bother trying to
educate her.

 

[Char Jackson]

Not everyone wants to jump into the latest technology or system. Many
times the latest/newest does not fit for them.

I can think of two slogans/platitudes/sayings regarding this, and one is
very old:

1. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
2. Newer is not always better.

Another way of saying #2 is, "Newer is almost always better."

 

[Char Jackson]

A fax is identified as to source,

Easily spoofed.

may contain a signature,

Easily forged/faked.

and can be immediately stored away as paper,

Only because the fax machine automatically printed it. Many email
clients can be configured to automatically print emails that meet
specific criteria, thus erasing that difference, as well.

Bottom line, fax should be a historical footnote by now, but a few
segments of the economy stubbornly hang onto it, such as the financial
segment, the legal segment, and certain parts of the government
segment.

 

[Char Jackson]

Not meant to be an argument, meant to let folks know and be a discussion
that not everyone wants or needs or can use the latest and greatest
technology.

Can we just shun those people?

 

[Ken Springer]

Can we just shun those people?

<grin>You could, but might be a problem if one of them is your plumber.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3

 

[Ken Springer]

Another way of saying #2 is, "Newer is almost always better."

But the truth is, both ways of saying it is true.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3

 

[Ken Springer]

At one
point, I suggested that we simply use email and the lady said, "We
don't consider email to be secure."

<grin> It just occurred to me, if the majority went the electronic way,
hackers are less likely to attack the old way, thus making the old way
more secure during the transmission process.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

Can we just shun those people?

Shunning is old technology. It has been in use for centuries.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Char Jackson]

<grin> It just occurred to me, if the majority went the electronic way,
hackers are less likely to attack the old way, thus making the old way
more secure during the transmission process.

Like the code talkers of WWII?

 

[Char Jackson]

<grin>You could, but might be a problem if one of them is your plumber.

No problem. There are multiple plumbers where I live. Besides, I do my
own plumbing ever since a guy quoted me $650 to install a water
softener. I did it myself for $20 in parts and materials, then invited
him back to inspect my work. He offered me a job on the spot, but I
declined, of course.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

<grin> It just occurred to me, if the majority went the electronic way,
hackers are less likely to attack the old way, thus making the old way
more secure during the transmission process.

A popular view in the Windows 98 'group I also take: they _don't_ say
that it can't be hacked (in fact they'd probably grudgingly admit it is
more vulnerable), they just say that these days it _isn't_ hacked.

 

[Ken Springer]

Like the code talkers of WWII?

Well....... Not quite, IMO. They didn't use an old way that had been
or was being discarded. They simply offered a way that was little
known, but effective, although a lot of words had to be created for the
Navajo language.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3

 

[Ken Springer]

A popular view in the Windows 98 'group I also take: they _don't_ say
that it can't be hacked (in fact they'd probably grudgingly admit it is
more vulnerable), they just say that these days it _isn't_ hacked.

And then, some older systems simply were more hacker proof since the OS
isn't on the hard drive. That left only hacking the installed software.

To be more accurate, the hacker's program had to run at bootup each and
every time, since changes to the OS couldn't be saved to any OS file.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 11.0
Thunderbird 11.0.1
LibreOffice 3.5.0 rc3

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Ken - and Char.

Taking nothing away from the Navajo Code Talkers of WWII, there were also
Choctaw Code Talkers in both WWI and WWII. Other tribes also contributed
code talkers for WWII. And, yes, many words had to be created: Neither
Choctaw nor Navajo had words for "machine gun" or "submarine".

From the first Bing hit on "code talkers":
<paste>
The name code talkers is strongly associated with bilingual Navajo speakers
specially recruited during World War II by the Marines to serve in their
standard communications units in the Pacific Theater. Code talking, however,
was pioneered by Choctaw Indians serving in the U.S. Army during World War
I. These soldiers are referred to as Choctaw Code Talkers.
</paste>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker

My great-grandfather, who died when I was a teenager, was my last full-blood
Choctaw ancestor and, yes, I am proud of my 1/8 Choctaw blood and heritage.
;<)

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3555.0308) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"Ken Springer" wrote in message

Like the code talkers of WWII?

Well....... Not quite, IMO. They didn't use an old way that had been
or was being discarded. They simply offered a way that was little
known, but effective, although a lot of words had to be created for the
Navajo language.

 

[choro]

Sorry for the change of subject but in your message the word...

_don't_ (which appears underlined when I see it in Thunderbird)
versus...
*don't* with the asterisks which will appear bolded

But how do you manage to get _don't_ underlined?

I use Thunderbird but lose the underlining when replying to you.

-- choro

 

[Andy Burns]

_don't_ (which appears underlined when I see it in Thunderbird)
versus...
*don't* with the asterisks which will appear bolded

But how do you manage to get _don't_ underlined?

Surround it with _underscores_ instead of *asterisks*, you won't see it
as you compose the message, but many newsreaders will show it when
displaying the message. You can also use /slashes/ for italic.