Perhaps gp worded it poorly - the "transmission receipt" that is generated is generated once the receiver has signalled "Thanks, got it all".
Well, you basically get the same from email.
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. With email, once you get the SMTP response, there is no legally binding responsibility on the part of the receiving system to keep it - the receiver can simply throw it away.
Your email client gets a "yes I got it" response from the SMTP server it is sending to. The fact that this makes no indication as to whether it actually got to the recipient is pretty much the same as fax - all you know is that something received the email, not that the last server in the chain got it or that the actual recipient got it.
The court does not accept "well, my machine received it but I never got to read it" as an excuse
Umm, are you sure?
Yes. It's legislated and codified into law.
Where the fax has been received by a server and redistributed via another technology there is absolutely no reason to assume that the recipient got it.
You're missing the point - the point is, once a fax sender receives "RX OK", then the courts consider it sent. As long as the phone number is correct, the courts
consider it sent. 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.
I would be very surprised if a court held someone accountable for a fax they didn't receive in this situation.
They do. Its not news. THey've been doing it for decades - this is why faxes have legal standing while emails don't
If your fancy computerised setup is sending "RX OK" before saving the file somewhere, then you got a non-standard machine anyway.
Well sorry, but the only sensible way for fax to email gateways to work is to send an ack before the email has been read by the recipient.
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.
Like I keep saying, as long as the sender got "TX OK" on their fax transmission receipt, they could walk into court and display that the message was indeed
sent. With email, you do not get that - hell, you don't even get bounces sometimes. As a fax receiver, you are expected to ensure that you handle all faxes. 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.
So you're saying that it is better to keep the phone line up until the recipient has read the document? Yeah. that'll work well...
No. The "RX OK" signal says that the receiver received it, not that the receiver has read it. With email, you get neither. As far as the courts are concerned, "if you receive something but fail to read it, thats your own damn fault - you're not a baby, so assume some personal responsibility". With email, you may never receive it, which is why the email has very little legal standing (you don't even receive it, so how can you read it?), with faxes the receipt is guaranteed - its your own fault if you then fail to read it. The legal people have out-thought the IT people on this point.
Seems you've never had to negotiate with an antagonistic party before. Let me try an example: When I got divorced, my ex-wife agreed to let me see
my son on a certain weekend. When I go to fetch him, she's not there - she claims she never made that agreement.
receipt verification is the gold standard guarantee of undeniable success in the chain of communication.
The receipt verification only tells you that your fax was received by the remote fax machine, not that it has actually got to the intended human recipient.
And that is quite a bit more than email tells you, hence fax is superior to email on this point.
The physical paper output assuredly enforces every fax must be ' handled' at the receiving end irregardless how much timeshift it pushes itself onto the receiver.
Not true. As the sender you have no clue whether there was a physical paper output at all. Faxes received by my business certainly have no physical paper output, they are simply received by a fax server and bundled up into an email, so you could've got the same result by just emailing me.
Perhaps gp worded it poorly - the "transmission receipt" that is generated is generated once the receiver has signalled "Thanks, got it all". A this point the sender can gaurantee that the receiver got the message. The court does not accept "well, my machine received it but I never got to read it" as an excuse; the receiver is not supposed to send a "transmission ok" until the data is all handled. Therefore the sender and the court can say "you got the message, you should have read it". If your fancy computerised setup is sending "RX OK" before saving the file somewhere, then you got a non-standard machine anyway.
Right about internal correspondence within a company. Wrong if the other party is an external hostile party.
Faxes are routinely used as evidence of transmission sent. Faxes have legal recognition in legislation, hence can be produced as evidence of a message sent and delivered. Email, even if digitally signed (which some courts don't yet recognise as authentication of sender) doesn't provide proof of delivery/service.
Good luck trying to convince any accounting, legal, admin or HR department to email stuff that they are required by law to send to a hostile and/or antagonistic party. Not gonna happen (if they email it, the receiving party can claim it was never received). If the item in question is faxed, then the fax transmission receipt serves as proof of
delivery (and, in our courts, proof of delivery is proof of service).
I think you'll find that fax will remain in this niche for quite a long time - there is nothing even on the horizon that can replace it.
"It's just a silent commentary as to the quality of MCSE's thrown into a server administration role".
No, actually, he did say that having an MS cert makes someone a bad sysadmin.
Not all, just the ones thrown into it - presumably the ones eased gently into it with the aid of a mentor and possibly supported by organisational processes aren't the bad admins. I grokked the final 6 words as a qualifier - sort of the same thing as saying "It's a silent commentary as to the quality of slashdot participants responding without RTFA".
You're offering up the creationist argument here - I'm not making the assertion that those are FRAND patents, you and ggp are, so you provide the evidence, as I've been unable to find any.
Or, alternatively, perhaps go back to bible studies where arguments like the ones you and ggp are making carry weight.
You should read your own links - "Not Conclusive" is not the same as "OMG THOSE PATENTS ARE FRAND PATENTS".
GP kept going on (5 different posts) about how those patents are FRAND patents - I called him on it, as no court has yet ruled that those patents are indeed FRAND patents (and no one has posted what those FRAND patents are supposed to be). Whats the problem with that? He's [i]still[/i] full of shit because there is [i]still[/i] no evidence that those are FRAND patents.
RTFATitle : "Most important 18 patents" and the potential FRAND encumberance relates to those.
More BS - there are no FRAND encumberances. You've obviously got a fucking agenda here, spouting FUD. Do you get paid for this? Your employers should ask for their money back
(Yeah, I got a bone to pick with google as well (see recent posting history), but at least I've got legitimate gripes with them. I don't go making stuff up)
A FRAND encumbered patent can mostly allow obtaining licensing revenues.
Citation oh so badly needed! AFAIK, no one has yet come forward identifying any of those 17000 patents as FRAND. Last I checked, FRAND patents are few and far between - something on the order of 300k patents for every 1 FRAND patent.
Some of those patents are encumbered by FRAND : Fair, Reasonnable and Non Discrimatory.
You're full of shit - I read the article and nowhere does it mention that. Have you *any* evidence that makes you believe that even one of those 17000 patents are FRAND patents?
I'm actually on the board of a technical standards committee (The South African Bureau of Standards) that does all official standards for our country. FRAND (where I am anyway) *only* applies in cases of standardisation - where implementing a patent is the only way to meet a National Standard *and* the patent holder was part of the standardisation process.
Not sure where you get the idea that FRAND applies to anything that is widely used, or is a defacto/ad hoc standard. It applies only in a very narrow use-case.
I sincerely doubt that email is a National Standard.
What are you saying? That tablets don't matter? Then whats all the fuss about?
I feel they do matter, and I am not alone. Google needs to get their act together. I want to develop exclusively for Android, but I don't care much for exploring innovative and novel marketing techniques in the form of advertising, selling services, etc. I want to sell software, and they won't let me do so on their store.
I don't want to sell advertising, and I'm not alone.
Okay, that explains it - tiny companies don't care about dodging tax authorities. What about Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Paypal? Are they dodging too? FWIW, I checked with the local tax authorities, and there is no problem, we have a tax-treaty with the US, which is how MS, Amazon and the rest are able to make payments to us.
Google very literally doesn't have an excuse for their position. Even if they themselves could not do it, they should at least allow devs to receive payments via paypal. They don't.
Google cannot hope to stay relevant if all it allows from the majority of devs are free apps on its market, and since most users don't care to load other markets, devs aren't going to bother with a platform that doesn't let them sell.
Wow! Are you kidding me?
I don't kid.
And don't call me Wow!;-)
Google doesn't ALLOW devs. to get paid for their work?!?
Not unless you're part of a select group of countries. Link to my blog and spread the word. I'm seemingly the only android dev who isn't blinded by fanboyism to the point that I'd keep quiet about it. No one else is making this an issue, and until it becomes news, google aren't likely to fix the issue.
My Blog Takes A Stand (or something:-)). Searching the 'net shows that no one else apparently cares about this, which makes me think twice about which platform I should be targetting.
Frankly, if Apple weren't such douchebags themselves, I'd target their platform much more quickly. Apple won't even answer your questions until you pay them a $99 fee.
Nope - all the other companies are able to do it, even tiny ones that are essentially YetAnotherAndroidMarket can make payments to me.
If MS, Apple, Amazon, Paypal and a plethora of others are able to do it, then Google has no reason.
Especially as they have local offices in my country (AFAIK).
And you ignore the benefit of having advertising in your app and hence making money like that.
Not everyone's dream is to be a conduit for advertising, and not everyone wants an ad-supported product. In fact, most devs just want to do development, and plenty of people are willing to pay for an ad-free product.
It's unreasonable to ask that devs do more work, open their app UI to a third party *and* waste their users bandwidth simply because they aren't allowed to sell the naked app as it is.
IOW, Google shouldn't be putting up hurdles for no good reason. FWIW, I'd prefer Android development over any of the competition, but why bother if the other platform lets me sell the app but the android platform forces me to give it away and hope that annoying the user with advertisements would make me money.
Yes, you see paid apps in the store, but not all devs are allowed to put paid apps in the store. A minority of countries are allowed. Not many. So, developers who want to get paid for their time have to either do iOS or WP7 apps, as those allow almost anyone to put paid apps in the store.
No, get this straight - Android devs should be able to load paid apps onto the default marketplace for apps.
Its all about the developers. MS right now has a weak (from a technical point of view anyway - perhaps the aesthetics are better) platform, with very little technical merit to it. But if the choices are "Sell software on a weak platform", "Give away software on a strong platform", or "find another job", the WP7 and iOS platforms already look better.
Yes, they do differ - Android has all the strengths and WP7 has all the weaknesses
(Seriously, no multi-tasking? No programs can run in the background and notify the user when something happens? "Tiles" are laughable replacements for notification icons)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps gp worded it poorly - the "transmission receipt" that is generated is generated once the receiver has signalled "Thanks, got it all".
Well, you basically get the same from email.
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. With email, once you get the SMTP response, there is no legally binding responsibility on the part of the receiving system to keep it - the receiver can simply throw it away.
Your email client gets a "yes I got it" response from the SMTP server it is sending to. The fact that this makes no indication as to whether it actually got to the recipient is pretty much the same as fax - all you know is that something received the email, not that the last server in the chain got it or that the actual recipient got it.
The court does not accept "well, my machine received it but I never got to read it" as an excuse
Umm, are you sure?
Yes. It's legislated and codified into law.
Where the fax has been received by a server and redistributed via another technology there is absolutely no reason to assume that the recipient got it.
You're missing the point - the point is, once a fax sender receives "RX OK", then the courts consider it sent. As long as the phone number is correct, the courts consider it sent. 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.
I would be very surprised if a court held someone accountable for a fax they didn't receive in this situation.
They do. Its not news. THey've been doing it for decades - this is why faxes have legal standing while emails don't
If your fancy computerised setup is sending "RX OK" before saving the file somewhere, then you got a non-standard machine anyway.
Well sorry, but the only sensible way for fax to email gateways to work is to send an ack before the email has been read by the recipient.
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. Like I keep saying, as long as the sender got "TX OK" on their fax transmission receipt, they could walk into court and display that the message was indeed sent. With email, you do not get that - hell, you don't even get bounces sometimes. As a fax receiver, you are expected to ensure that you handle all faxes. 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.
So you're saying that it is better to keep the phone line up until the recipient has read the document? Yeah. that'll work well...
No. The "RX OK" signal says that the receiver received it, not that the receiver has read it. With email, you get neither. As far as the courts are concerned, "if you receive something but fail to read it, thats your own damn fault - you're not a baby, so assume some personal responsibility". With email, you may never receive it, which is why the email has very little legal standing (you don't even receive it, so how can you read it?), with faxes the receipt is guaranteed - its your own fault if you then fail to read it. The legal people have out-thought the IT people on this point.
Seems you've never had to negotiate with an antagonistic party before. Let me try an example: When I got divorced, my ex-wife agreed to let me see my son on a certain weekend. When I go to fetch him, she's not there - she claims she never made that agreement.
So,
receipt verification is the gold standard guarantee of undeniable success in the chain of communication.
The receipt verification only tells you that your fax was received by the remote fax machine, not that it has actually got to the intended human recipient.
And that is quite a bit more than email tells you, hence fax is superior to email on this point.
The physical paper output assuredly enforces every fax must be ' handled' at the receiving end irregardless how much timeshift it pushes itself onto the receiver.
Not true. As the sender you have no clue whether there was a physical paper output at all. Faxes received by my business certainly have no physical paper output, they are simply received by a fax server and bundled up into an email, so you could've got the same result by just emailing me.
Perhaps gp worded it poorly - the "transmission receipt" that is generated is generated once the receiver has signalled "Thanks, got it all". A this point the sender can gaurantee that the receiver got the message. The court does not accept "well, my machine received it but I never got to read it" as an excuse; the receiver is not supposed to send a "transmission ok" until the data is all handled. Therefore the sender and the court can say "you got the message, you should have read it". If your fancy computerised setup is sending "RX OK" before saving the file somewhere, then you got a non-standard machine anyway.
Right about internal correspondence within a company. Wrong if the other party is an external hostile party.
Faxes are routinely used as evidence of transmission sent. Faxes have legal recognition in legislation, hence can be produced as evidence of a message sent and delivered. Email, even if digitally signed (which some courts don't yet recognise as authentication of sender) doesn't provide proof of delivery/service.
Good luck trying to convince any accounting, legal, admin or HR department to email stuff that they are required by law to send to a hostile and/or antagonistic party. Not gonna happen (if they email it, the receiving party can claim it was never received). If the item in question is faxed, then the fax transmission receipt serves as proof of delivery (and, in our courts, proof of delivery is proof of service).
I think you'll find that fax will remain in this niche for quite a long time - there is nothing even on the horizon that can replace it.
Wait, what? You're comparing the least-skilled racing (nascar) with the most skilled racing (rally)? Whats wrong with this picture?
Wading bird?
"It's just a silent commentary as to the quality of MCSE's thrown into a server administration role".
No, actually, he did say that having an MS cert makes someone a bad sysadmin.
Not all, just the ones thrown into it - presumably the ones eased gently into it with the aid of a mentor and possibly supported by organisational processes aren't the bad admins. I grokked the final 6 words as a qualifier - sort of the same thing as saying "It's a silent commentary as to the quality of slashdot participants responding without RTFA".
:-)
But, meh - Tah-mah-toe, tah-may-toe I guess
Flamebait much? (And I have mod points, just preferred not to use 'em).
Someone having an MS qualification does not make them a bad sysadmin.
He didn't say that having an MS cert makes someone a bad sysadmin. Touchy, aren't we? :-)
Slashdotted already?
You're offering up the creationist argument here - I'm not making the assertion that those are FRAND patents, you and ggp are, so you provide the evidence, as I've been unable to find any.
Or, alternatively, perhaps go back to bible studies where arguments like the ones you and ggp are making carry weight.
You should read your own links - "Not Conclusive" is not the same as "OMG THOSE PATENTS ARE FRAND PATENTS". GP kept going on (5 different posts) about how those patents are FRAND patents - I called him on it, as no court has yet ruled that those patents are indeed FRAND patents (and no one has posted what those FRAND patents are supposed to be). Whats the problem with that? He's [i]still[/i] full of shit because there is [i]still[/i] no evidence that those are FRAND patents.
RTFATitle : "Most important 18 patents" and the potential FRAND encumberance relates to those.
More BS - there are no FRAND encumberances. You've obviously got a fucking agenda here, spouting FUD. Do you get paid for this? Your employers should ask for their money back
(Yeah, I got a bone to pick with google as well (see recent posting history), but at least I've got legitimate gripes with them. I don't go making stuff up)
A FRAND encumbered patent can mostly allow obtaining licensing revenues.
Citation oh so badly needed! AFAIK, no one has yet come forward identifying any of those 17000 patents as FRAND. Last I checked, FRAND patents are few and far between - something on the order of 300k patents for every 1 FRAND patent.
Some of those patents are encumbered by FRAND : Fair, Reasonnable and Non Discrimatory.
You're full of shit - I read the article and nowhere does it mention that. Have you *any* evidence that makes you believe that even one of those 17000 patents are FRAND patents?
I'm actually on the board of a technical standards committee (The South African Bureau of Standards) that does all official standards for our country. FRAND (where I am anyway) *only* applies in cases of standardisation - where implementing a patent is the only way to meet a National Standard *and* the patent holder was part of the standardisation process.
Not sure where you get the idea that FRAND applies to anything that is widely used, or is a defacto/ad hoc standard. It applies only in a very narrow use-case.
I sincerely doubt that email is a National Standard.
To be fair, the $150k person probably knows excel shortcuts too ;-)
What are you saying? That tablets don't matter? Then whats all the fuss about?
I feel they do matter, and I am not alone. Google needs to get their act together. I want to develop exclusively for Android, but I don't care much for exploring innovative and novel marketing techniques in the form of advertising, selling services, etc. I want to sell software, and they won't let me do so on their store.
I don't want to sell advertising, and I'm not alone.
Okay, that explains it - tiny companies don't care about dodging tax authorities. What about Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Paypal? Are they dodging too? FWIW, I checked with the local tax authorities, and there is no problem, we have a tax-treaty with the US, which is how MS, Amazon and the rest are able to make payments to us.
Google very literally doesn't have an excuse for their position. Even if they themselves could not do it, they should at least allow devs to receive payments via paypal. They don't.
Google cannot hope to stay relevant if all it allows from the majority of devs are free apps on its market, and since most users don't care to load other markets, devs aren't going to bother with a platform that doesn't let them sell.
Wow! Are you kidding me?
I don't kid.
;-)
And don't call me Wow!
Google doesn't ALLOW devs. to get paid for their work?!?
Not unless you're part of a select group of countries. Link to my blog and spread the word. I'm seemingly the only android dev who isn't blinded by fanboyism to the point that I'd keep quiet about it. No one else is making this an issue, and until it becomes news, google aren't likely to fix the issue. :-)). Searching the 'net shows that no one else apparently cares about this, which makes me think twice about which platform I should be targetting.
My Blog Takes A Stand (or something
Frankly, if Apple weren't such douchebags themselves, I'd target their platform much more quickly. Apple won't even answer your questions until you pay them a $99 fee.
Playbook?
:-)
*waits for the laughter to die down
Thank you thank you, don't forget to tip your waiter
Nope - all the other companies are able to do it, even tiny ones that are essentially YetAnotherAndroidMarket can make payments to me. If MS, Apple, Amazon, Paypal and a plethora of others are able to do it, then Google has no reason.
Especially as they have local offices in my country (AFAIK).
But why should one go to WP7 if he can get in a much larger market on iOS?
None whatsoever, in fact I'd personally prefer to go with iOS if android is not available. WP7 has some severe limitations.
And you ignore the benefit of having advertising in your app and hence making money like that.
Not everyone's dream is to be a conduit for advertising, and not everyone wants an ad-supported product. In fact, most devs just want to do development, and plenty of people are willing to pay for an ad-free product.
It's unreasonable to ask that devs do more work, open their app UI to a third party *and* waste their users bandwidth simply because they aren't allowed to sell the naked app as it is.
IOW, Google shouldn't be putting up hurdles for no good reason. FWIW, I'd prefer Android development over any of the competition, but why bother if the other platform lets me sell the app but the android platform forces me to give it away and hope that annoying the user with advertisements would make me money.
Yes, you see paid apps in the store, but not all devs are allowed to put paid apps in the store. A minority of countries are allowed. Not many. So, developers who want to get paid for their time have to either do iOS or WP7 apps, as those allow almost anyone to put paid apps in the store.
No, get this straight - Android devs should be able to load paid apps onto the default marketplace for apps.
Its all about the developers. MS right now has a weak (from a technical point of view anyway - perhaps the aesthetics are better) platform, with very little technical merit to it. But if the choices are "Sell software on a weak platform", "Give away software on a strong platform", or "find another job", the WP7 and iOS platforms already look better.
Yes, they do differ - Android has all the strengths and WP7 has all the weaknesses
(Seriously, no multi-tasking? No programs can run in the background and notify the user when something happens? "Tiles" are laughable replacements for notification icons)