| This question <35|66> overall <61|63> Marlin: <57|254>. |
| Question 22: Are there things which can be useful without being in the exclusive possession of the user? |
| [62] Marlin: An example is the e-mail I am using right now. It is just as useful to myself as it is to someone who can sit at home on their own computer. Many things can be useful to people who do not own them directly. |
| Hans: What do you mean by not owning the e-mail directly? There are two components involved. On the one hand the software: Once the software is produced, many users can use it without crowding each other. This is very different from food or living space etc. The computers which you are using and the hardware necessary to transport the e-mail across campus or across the world have also become so efficient that they can accommodate many users at a modest cost. |
| [62] Marlin: I am not exactly sure what you are expecting for answers as far as length and content. If you have suggestions please send me a message. |
| Hans: I'll have to see more of your questions before I can say something in this respect. |
| [62] Marlin: (datestring)Tue, 24 Jan 1995 15:35:27 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) By owning directly, I am merely using e-mail as an example. I believe that things can be useful to someone without being in the exclusive possession of the user. For another example the UTA bus system. None of us has exclusive possession of it. We may pay for it through taxes and ride fares but no one can just hop on a bus and drive it to their own personal destination. As far as my use of e-mail for an example, in the computer lab at the university I may pay for its use through tuition, but I do not have exclusive ownership rights of either the software or the terminals. Any material items may be like this and need not be related to food or other necessities for survival. |
| Hans: Good. I agree. |
|
|
|||||