Your point is mostly true, but I think there are legitimate cases to call out internet permissions. I have installed a password manager that doesn't have internet permissions. If it did have it, then it could send the passwords to an internet server someplace. So I honestly checked that the program did not have internet permissions, and would not have installed it if it did have them.
My point is fully true - I went to the android market now and did a search for "password manager" - of the first five (ordered by relevance) results, only ONE (Yes, you read that correctly) does not allow internet access. Let's call them A, B, C and D and see how they compare:
A - internet access required, 100k to 500k installs
B - no internet access required, 10k to 50k installs
C - internet access required, 100k to 500k installs
D - internet access required, 10k to 50k installs
E - internet access required, 100k to 500k installs
Now, I'm not going to go through all the apps found for searching password manager", but you can see from the above that your decision to check the access is not something done by the majority - even for their passwords. The apps that come with the ability to rape privacy are more popular than those that come without it.
Seriously, why bother - users don't actually care whether an app needs internet access or not, they just use the app anyway. For example, I've developed an app doesn't require internet access, yet it is still less popular than a similar app (which has less functionality) that happily uploads your private data to it's servers.
Honestly, if the users themselves don't mind sending something like their menstruation data to a third-party, why bother with an app that guarantees privacy? The privacy apps will just make less money due to having less marketing info from the users, and being unable to mine that data.
The market for users who care about their privacy is way too small to count. All users will happily allow something like "Angry Birds" to have internet access, even though it is obvious that it doesn't need it.
I know enough people who have had a run in with the law where there was zero evidence. Not a single one decided to fight it and none of them were on charges sex related/child porn.
Then you know idiots (no personal offence meant).
I've had three separate criminal trials (for violent crime), in front of three different magistrates in three jurisdictions for a total of (about) 15 court appearances. I represented myself for all three trials. I plead not-guilty all three times, and I was acquitted all three times.
To make things more interesting, my ex-wife (we were in the middle of a divorce during the times that all these trials were happening) was a prosecutor, her brother was a prosecutor and all her friends were the magistrates in all three jurisdictions. Yet, I still represented myself and was acquitted, and never even considered a guilty pleading to a lessor charge.
So, yeah, if you know what you're doing, and you're boned up on legal research, you can very easily run rings around the state as they make their case. The prosecutor, after all, is merely a lawyer too stupid to make it in private practice.
Sometimes talent shines through, regardless of the technological hurdles. See "12 Angry Men" and, if you're up to an emotionally ragged piece of work, "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf". No movie I've seen in the last 5 years has come anywhere close to "12 Angry Men".
You said Apple treats it Devs/Users like crap and is better at creating Stockholm Syndrome than anyone else. You also didn't say anyone else treats their users like crap. Just Apple.
From my original post:
If I had mod points, you'd get it. Until there was pressure from iOS and Android, both RIM and MS treated their mobile devs like crap. Which I find confusing, 'cos Apple also treats their iOS devs like crap (not much different from the way they treat their users, come to think of it:-)), but it seems that Apple is better at creating Stockholm Syndrome than RIM was.
If you were to group the most successful companies, you'd find that a healthy percentage of those companies rely on Stockholm Syndrome with both their customers and their partners to stay in business.
Are you so blinded by fanboyism that you cannot even read? I wrote four very long sentences, of which three called SS on companies in addition to Apple, and of which one called SS on Apple.
Just how blind are you?
There was no actual content to the criticism. Just "treats like crap" and imply they only like them because of some kind of mental disorder (AKA Stockholm Syndrome).
You are doing a very good job of displaying that particular mental disorder, especially by reading things that aren't there. I called SS on many companies, not just Apple, but OH NOES!!!! HE CALLED APPLE BAD THINGS!!!
Congratulations. Point made, just not for the reason you intended.
Point made indeed, and you are the one who made it. I called SS on a bunch of whiny losers, and you show up to provide evidence of them.
I have not seen a broken microphone in my 20 year IT career.
I've got a broken mic on this laptop that I'm using to type this message out on. In keeping with my near-darwin-award-esque personality, I very stupidly plugged my guitar amp into the mic port of this laptop to see if it could handle it.
I found out that it couldn't. YMMV, so go ahead and try it.
Funnily enough, that got modded up. And, I did not draw a comparison only between Apple and their users/partners, I said that that would be true of many successful companies. Look at Sony, or vendor Lock-In from MS. Actually, your post very accurately displays the knee-jerk reaction of fanboys, regardless of whether they are Apple fanboys, Google fanboys, RIM fanboys, Nokia fanboys, MS fanboys, or even Fanboy fanboys (do such things exist)?
The PlayBook doesn't need another device to get online. It just needs WiFi, you can connect to home WiFi no problem.
Well, that kind of attitude is why RIM is spiralling the drain. It can't use internet unless you already *have* internet? Your home WiFi is useless to a portable computer that would get used on a train, while travelling, or even at the supermarket. Very Smart Indeed.
Now if you're talking about it not having a 3G/4G connection I'd argue that no one really cares and the sales figures of iPad and other tablets 3G/4G versions would back up my argument 100%.
Really? The WiFi-only iPad was available for less than a month before the 3G tablet was released. Have you the sales figures for both versions?
Forcing people to buy two devices instead of one was a very, very stupid approach
Your understanding is wrong.
Playbook works just fine without a BlackBerry over WiFi. It has access to any web-based email system, just no on-device support for Email/Calendar at this point.
Currently I believe that currently the PlayBook can use the WiFi hotspot features of an Android phone/iPhone for Internet access while you are away from a WiFi network.
During the setup of a playbook, one of the first things you do is set up a WiFi network for it to pull in updates; after that it allows you to set up a bridge to a BlackBerry phone for email/calendar/bbm functionality.
For what it's worth; I do have a Playbook connected to a BlackBerry, and it does continue to work without the phone in range, I just don't have access to my corporate email/calendar/network resources.
How exactly is the GP wrong? PB has no way to go online without some other device to piggyback on. You still need to get another device to actually get online!.
Bring it on. I'm looking for a reasonable tablet for mounting on the wall of my house to control my home automation system.
A 7" Android 2.2 tablet can be had here in SA for R1000 (+-$135). At that price you've got your home automation controller, or your automobile heads up display controller, or your media-viewer controller, or your medical system controller, or your industrial system controller.
In fact, as the prices will only go down (not up), using a tablet as a controller to any other system (even a desktop) makes sense
The smartphone market was (until Android appeared) one of status - people boasted their BB's 'cos it made them look and feel important. Enter iPhone, which did achieved the same functionality for people, only better. Android entered to clean up the bottom end of the smartphone market (those who want the functionality but can't afford the exclusivity) and even make tiny inroads into the upper end.
There is no space for RIM in this world, unless they focus on taking on *either* iPhone or Android in their respective markets. WP7 hasn't a chance either, but at least they're focused - they're going after the Android space, not the "status and exclusivity" space. RIM doesn't know what to focus on, and they're (unsurprisingly) doing a bad job of going anywhere.
For its part, RIM has recognized this , and it has been in the labs cooking up a new software platform dubbed QNX, a central piece of its efforts to restore the company
While their secrecy is killing them, their open-ness regarding future products will not doubt contribute an Osbourne-effect-ish... uh... effect to their demise. I've no real love for any of the players in this market (see my posting history).
btw: Note to the mods - it's really funny that I get modded down for a post that criticises iOS, then get modded down for a post that criticises Android, then get modded down for a post that criticises WP7. I expect my posts critical of RIM are going to get the same treatment?
If I had mod points, you'd get it. Until there was pressure from iOS and Android, both RIM and MS treated their mobile devs like crap. Which I find confusing, 'cos Apple also treats their iOS devs like crap (not much different from the way they treat their users, come to think of it:-)), but it seems that Apple is better at creating Stockholm Syndrome than RIM was.
If you were to group the most successful companies, you'd find that a healthy percentage of those companies rely on Stockholm Syndrome with both their customers and their partners to stay in business.
You seem to miss the salient points of this issue:
1. No extra work is required to use a fax as evidence - your tx receipt you get at the point of fax and your phone bill which is mailed to you each month is enough.
2. Extra work is required to use email as evidence - you need to request the logs as well as pay an expert witness; when the case is decided on papers only (as in th UK, for example), you don't even get to use your expert witness, and the court will dismiss the logs (it has happened in UK cases before, look it up).
3. There is a world of difference between criminal convictions (beyond reasonable doubt) based on logs+expert witnesses, and civil litigation (preponderence of evidence). Certainly many people have been convicted of crimes using email as part of the evidence - the fact that those are criminal cases and I had not touched upon that issue (with good reason) seems to have escaped you.
4. "Trail of evidence" requires that forensics teams need to get the logs you seem to think are so similar to fax receipts (warrants and summons may be needed, as well as testimony fomr the ISP technical staff). With the phone bill, it can be corroborated by the tax revenue services, without having to summon or issue warrants to the phone company.
Despite the misconception you seem to be labouring under, email as deemed by the courts and laws, who have taken into consideration teams of technical experts in this area, is not as easily provable as faxes. Faxes provide proof of delivery at no extra cost during discovery in litigation, while emails do not provide the same (the oppositions expert witness simply needs to cast doubt to sway the "preponderance of evidence" issue).
Hard as this may be for you to believe, the courts did not simply dismiss email out of hand - they consulted technical people on the subject, and in *my* country, I know that both IBM and Sun (Micosoft too, IIRC) were on the standards panel that investigated giving emails the same status as faxes. The panel recommended "no" for all the reasons I listed, and recommended that faxes were still more admissible as evidence than emails.
When you get to court, good luck with calling them stupid when they've already been advised on this by people smarter than you. I'm sure that will turn out well for you.
No, you don't. With fax, once you have a "RX OK" from the receiver, its a legally binding fact in court that the receiver got it.
I would hope that any reasonable court would not uphold a case on such a bogus piece of evidence.
They do, it's legislated after all.
If they did then there is something very wrong with the legal system and an expert witness should be brought in to explain to the court just how bogus that evidence is.
Sure, for a large case - for a dispute of a few hundred dollars its not worth it, and the court may refuse, because recognition of faxes are part of law. You need to have evidence that a particular fax was fabricated, not evidence that it might have been.
You're right, there is no reason to assume that the intended recipient got it (whether it was printed or not), the point is that the organisation itself got it.
Not true. Certainly my organisation uses a third party fax gateway.
And this is then considered your proxy, or your representative, hence your company "got it"!
The ack would simply indicate that the third party gateway had received it, from there on in it is delivered over SMTP across the big bad internet.
Like I said, you're missing the point - the system should, for example, save the file to a raid array before acking it; this prevents loss of a fax that was acked.
What good is storing the file in some directory on a raid array that no one is ever going to look at? If everything works then it'll be delivered by email, if things fail then no one will notice it broke and the file will never be seen.
The fact is that the sender can prove that your system accepted it - its up to you to read it; with faxes you get this evidence, with email you don't, hence email is an unsuitable replacement for faxes (unbelievable, I know, but the courts are actually correct on this one).
An ack only has value if it reasonably shows that *someone* connected with the recipient would've seen it.
You're still confusing "you received it" with "you read it" - as far as the courts are concerned, faxes provide proof that you received it, while email does not.
What you are proposing doesn't do that, so is worthless.
Furthermore, if what you are saying is true and that the courts would uphold this regardless, I would be inclined to do everything I could to ensure that the fax was *not* stored in this way since an expert witness would probably do a much better job of convincing the court that the fax hadn't been received if it had truly been lost. This now becomes about damage limitation - there is no value to me as the recipient in having a fax saved in this way because the only time it's going to be seen is under a court investigation. So at best the saved fax has no value to the recipient, and at worst it is damaging - best to get rid of it.
This is why the courts rule that if your system sent an ack, you go it - no excuses; it prevents this exploit that you want to do that is currently doable with email.
This is enforced by the courts in that they never entertain any claims of "well, my machine received it, but I never saw the paper in the tray, and then the receptionist accidently threw it away, and thats why your honour I never read it". You'll be laughed at if you try it.
And here in sane parts of the world, the courts require you to employ a process server to deliver legal documents and ensure they get to where they are going rather than just faxing and hoping.
Look up your local laws - only documents delivered in the service of the court need to be delivered in person by a sheriff (summons, etc). Correspondence between parties that may later be used as
Slashdot Mirror
Your point is mostly true, but I think there are legitimate cases to call out internet permissions. I have installed a password manager that doesn't have internet permissions. If it did have it, then it could send the passwords to an internet server someplace. So I honestly checked that the program did not have internet permissions, and would not have installed it if it did have them.
My point is fully true - I went to the android market now and did a search for "password manager" - of the first five (ordered by relevance) results, only ONE (Yes, you read that correctly) does not allow internet access. Let's call them A, B, C and D and see how they compare:
A - internet access required, 100k to 500k installs
B - no internet access required, 10k to 50k installs
C - internet access required, 100k to 500k installs
D - internet access required, 10k to 50k installs
E - internet access required, 100k to 500k installs
Now, I'm not going to go through all the apps found for searching password manager", but you can see from the above that your decision to check the access is not something done by the majority - even for their passwords. The apps that come with the ability to rape privacy are more popular than those that come without it.
Seriously, why bother - users don't actually care whether an app needs internet access or not, they just use the app anyway. For example, I've developed an app doesn't require internet access, yet it is still less popular than a similar app (which has less functionality) that happily uploads your private data to it's servers.
Honestly, if the users themselves don't mind sending something like their menstruation data to a third-party, why bother with an app that guarantees privacy? The privacy apps will just make less money due to having less marketing info from the users, and being unable to mine that data.
The market for users who care about their privacy is way too small to count. All users will happily allow something like "Angry Birds" to have internet access, even though it is obvious that it doesn't need it.
I know enough people who have had a run in with the law where there was zero evidence. Not a single one decided to fight it and none of them were on charges sex related/child porn.
Then you know idiots (no personal offence meant).
I've had three separate criminal trials (for violent crime), in front of three different magistrates in three jurisdictions for a total of (about) 15 court appearances. I represented myself for all three trials. I plead not-guilty all three times, and I was acquitted all three times.
To make things more interesting, my ex-wife (we were in the middle of a divorce during the times that all these trials were happening) was a prosecutor, her brother was a prosecutor and all her friends were the magistrates in all three jurisdictions. Yet, I still represented myself and was acquitted, and never even considered a guilty pleading to a lessor charge.
So, yeah, if you know what you're doing, and you're boned up on legal research, you can very easily run rings around the state as they make their case. The prosecutor, after all, is merely a lawyer too stupid to make it in private practice.
You could, and you'd both be right ;-)
All the commentators seem to be saying the saying the same thing - "YAY! If I work harder I'll be in the top 20%" :-)
Hilarious.
No, proving a hypothesis makes you a pretty good lawyer. Scientists attempt to falsify their hypothesis.
Really? They should start to worry only now? If I were them, I'd be right in the middle of worrying, not simply starting to do it.
Sometimes talent shines through, regardless of the technological hurdles. See "12 Angry Men" and, if you're up to an emotionally ragged piece of work, "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf". No movie I've seen in the last 5 years has come anywhere close to "12 Angry Men".
I'm used to using emacs shortcuts, and ctrl-w doesn't generate any warnings before it closes the tab (well, not on FF 3.6.17, anyway)
Thanks, it figures :-(
Appreciate the suggestion.
You said Apple treats it Devs/Users like crap and is better at creating Stockholm Syndrome than anyone else. You also didn't say anyone else treats their users like crap. Just Apple.
From my original post:
If I had mod points, you'd get it. Until there was pressure from iOS and Android, both RIM and MS treated their mobile devs like crap. Which I find confusing, 'cos Apple also treats their iOS devs like crap (not much different from the way they treat their users, come to think of it :-)), but it seems that Apple is better at creating Stockholm Syndrome than RIM was.
If you were to group the most successful companies, you'd find that a healthy percentage of those companies rely on Stockholm Syndrome with both their customers and their partners to stay in business.
Are you so blinded by fanboyism that you cannot even read? I wrote four very long sentences, of which three called SS on companies in addition to Apple, and of which one called SS on Apple.
Just how blind are you?
There was no actual content to the criticism. Just "treats like crap" and imply they only like them because of some kind of mental disorder (AKA Stockholm Syndrome).
You are doing a very good job of displaying that particular mental disorder, especially by reading things that aren't there. I called SS on many companies, not just Apple, but OH NOES!!!! HE CALLED APPLE BAD THINGS!!!
Congratulations. Point made, just not for the reason you intended.
Point made indeed, and you are the one who made it. I called SS on a bunch of whiny losers, and you show up to provide evidence of them.
Congratulations.
Ah - any ideas? I'm open to suggestions :-)
I have not seen a broken microphone in my 20 year IT career.
I've got a broken mic on this laptop that I'm using to type this message out on. In keeping with my near-darwin-award-esque personality, I very stupidly plugged my guitar amp into the mic port of this laptop to see if it could handle it.
I found out that it couldn't. YMMV, so go ahead and try it.
Funnily enough, that got modded up. And, I did not draw a comparison only between Apple and their users/partners, I said that that would be true of many successful companies. Look at Sony, or vendor Lock-In from MS. Actually, your post very accurately displays the knee-jerk reaction of fanboys, regardless of whether they are Apple fanboys, Google fanboys, RIM fanboys, Nokia fanboys, MS fanboys, or even Fanboy fanboys (do such things exist)?
The PlayBook doesn't need another device to get online. It just needs WiFi, you can connect to home WiFi no problem.
Well, that kind of attitude is why RIM is spiralling the drain. It can't use internet unless you already *have* internet? Your home WiFi is useless to a portable computer that would get used on a train, while travelling, or even at the supermarket. Very Smart Indeed.
Now if you're talking about it not having a 3G/4G connection I'd argue that no one really cares and the sales figures of iPad and other tablets 3G/4G versions would back up my argument 100%.
Really? The WiFi-only iPad was available for less than a month before the 3G tablet was released. Have you the sales figures for both versions?
Yeah, I know you were aiming for funny mods, but I was hoping that most people would parse "+-" as "approximately" :-)
Forcing people to buy two devices instead of one was a very, very stupid approach
Your understanding is wrong. Playbook works just fine without a BlackBerry over WiFi. It has access to any web-based email system, just no on-device support for Email/Calendar at this point. Currently I believe that currently the PlayBook can use the WiFi hotspot features of an Android phone/iPhone for Internet access while you are away from a WiFi network. During the setup of a playbook, one of the first things you do is set up a WiFi network for it to pull in updates; after that it allows you to set up a bridge to a BlackBerry phone for email/calendar/bbm functionality.
For what it's worth; I do have a Playbook connected to a BlackBerry, and it does continue to work without the phone in range, I just don't have access to my corporate email/calendar/network resources.
How exactly is the GP wrong? PB has no way to go online without some other device to piggyback on. You still need to get another device to actually get online!.
Bring it on. I'm looking for a reasonable tablet for mounting on the wall of my house to control my home automation system.
A 7" Android 2.2 tablet can be had here in SA for R1000 (+-$135). At that price you've got your home automation controller, or your automobile heads up display controller, or your media-viewer controller, or your medical system controller, or your industrial system controller.
In fact, as the prices will only go down (not up), using a tablet as a controller to any other system (even a desktop) makes sense
The smartphone market was (until Android appeared) one of status - people boasted their BB's 'cos it made them look and feel important. Enter iPhone, which did achieved the same functionality for people, only better. Android entered to clean up the bottom end of the smartphone market (those who want the functionality but can't afford the exclusivity) and even make tiny inroads into the upper end.
There is no space for RIM in this world, unless they focus on taking on *either* iPhone or Android in their respective markets. WP7 hasn't a chance either, but at least they're focused - they're going after the Android space, not the "status and exclusivity" space. RIM doesn't know what to focus on, and they're (unsurprisingly) doing a bad job of going anywhere.
FTFA
For its part, RIM has recognized this , and it has been in the labs cooking up a new software platform dubbed QNX, a central piece of its efforts to restore the company
While their secrecy is killing them, their open-ness regarding future products will not doubt contribute an Osbourne-effect-ish ... uh ... effect to their demise. I've no real love for any of the players in this market (see my posting history).
btw: Note to the mods - it's really funny that I get modded down for a post that criticises iOS, then get modded down for a post that criticises Android, then get modded down for a post that criticises WP7. I expect my posts critical of RIM are going to get the same treatment?
If I had mod points, you'd get it. Until there was pressure from iOS and Android, both RIM and MS treated their mobile devs like crap. Which I find confusing, 'cos Apple also treats their iOS devs like crap (not much different from the way they treat their users, come to think of it :-)), but it seems that Apple is better at creating Stockholm Syndrome than RIM was.
If you were to group the most successful companies, you'd find that a healthy percentage of those companies rely on Stockholm Syndrome with both their customers and their partners to stay in business.
I probably won't be buying this anyway.
> and lay down every time Microsoft waived money in her direction?
LIE down. This is not difficult. LIE.
Wait, what? You take issue with (the perfectly correct) "lay/lie", but ignore the "waive/wave"?
You seem to miss the salient points of this issue:
1. No extra work is required to use a fax as evidence - your tx receipt you get at the point of fax and your phone bill which is mailed to you each month is enough.
2. Extra work is required to use email as evidence - you need to request the logs as well as pay an expert witness; when the case is decided on papers only (as in th UK, for example), you don't even get to use your expert witness, and the court will dismiss the logs (it has happened in UK cases before, look it up).
3. There is a world of difference between criminal convictions (beyond reasonable doubt) based on logs+expert witnesses, and civil litigation (preponderence of evidence). Certainly many people have been convicted of crimes using email as part of the evidence - the fact that those are criminal cases and I had not touched upon that issue (with good reason) seems to have escaped you.
4. "Trail of evidence" requires that forensics teams need to get the logs you seem to think are so similar to fax receipts (warrants and summons may be needed, as well as testimony fomr the ISP technical staff). With the phone bill, it can be corroborated by the tax revenue services, without having to summon or issue warrants to the phone company.
Despite the misconception you seem to be labouring under, email as deemed by the courts and laws, who have taken into consideration teams of technical experts in this area, is not as easily provable as faxes. Faxes provide proof of delivery at no extra cost during discovery in litigation, while emails do not provide the same (the oppositions expert witness simply needs to cast doubt to sway the "preponderance of evidence" issue).
Hard as this may be for you to believe, the courts did not simply dismiss email out of hand - they consulted technical people on the subject, and in *my* country, I know that both IBM and Sun (Micosoft too, IIRC) were on the standards panel that investigated giving emails the same status as faxes. The panel recommended "no" for all the reasons I listed, and recommended that faxes were still more admissible as evidence than emails.
When you get to court, good luck with calling them stupid when they've already been advised on this by people smarter than you. I'm sure that will turn out well for you.
No, you don't. With fax, once you have a "RX OK" from the receiver, its a legally binding fact in court that the receiver got it.
I would hope that any reasonable court would not uphold a case on such a bogus piece of evidence.
They do, it's legislated after all.
If they did then there is something very wrong with the legal system and an expert witness should be brought in to explain to the court just how bogus that evidence is.
Sure, for a large case - for a dispute of a few hundred dollars its not worth it, and the court may refuse, because recognition of faxes are part of law. You need to have evidence that a particular fax was fabricated, not evidence that it might have been.
You're right, there is no reason to assume that the intended recipient got it (whether it was printed or not), the point is that the organisation itself got it.
Not true. Certainly my organisation uses a third party fax gateway.
And this is then considered your proxy, or your representative, hence your company "got it"!
The ack would simply indicate that the third party gateway had received it, from there on in it is delivered over SMTP across the big bad internet.
Like I said, you're missing the point - the system should, for example, save the file to a raid array before acking it; this prevents loss of a fax that was acked.
What good is storing the file in some directory on a raid array that no one is ever going to look at? If everything works then it'll be delivered by email, if things fail then no one will notice it broke and the file will never be seen.
The fact is that the sender can prove that your system accepted it - its up to you to read it; with faxes you get this evidence, with email you don't, hence email is an unsuitable replacement for faxes (unbelievable, I know, but the courts are actually correct on this one).
An ack only has value if it reasonably shows that *someone* connected with the recipient would've seen it.
You're still confusing "you received it" with "you read it" - as far as the courts are concerned, faxes provide proof that you received it, while email does not.
What you are proposing doesn't do that, so is worthless.
Furthermore, if what you are saying is true and that the courts would uphold this regardless, I would be inclined to do everything I could to ensure that the fax was *not* stored in this way since an expert witness would probably do a much better job of convincing the court that the fax hadn't been received if it had truly been lost. This now becomes about damage limitation - there is no value to me as the recipient in having a fax saved in this way because the only time it's going to be seen is under a court investigation. So at best the saved fax has no value to the recipient, and at worst it is damaging - best to get rid of it.
This is why the courts rule that if your system sent an ack, you go it - no excuses; it prevents this exploit that you want to do that is currently doable with email.
This is enforced by the courts in that they never entertain any claims of "well, my machine received it, but I never saw the paper in the tray, and then the receptionist accidently threw it away, and thats why your honour I never read it". You'll be laughed at if you try it.
And here in sane parts of the world, the courts require you to employ a process server to deliver legal documents and ensure they get to where they are going rather than just faxing and hoping.
Look up your local laws - only documents delivered in the service of the court need to be delivered in person by a sheriff (summons, etc). Correspondence between parties that may later be used as