On 27/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-A&Mi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We already live in a technocracy - and look where that has got us - the > amount of idiocy has if anything increased
I can only say that I disagree that we live in a technocracy, the majority of people who hold power are technologically inept. when was the last time a government IT project went right? "mass entertainment" is not the same as "Macdonalds". its patronising and > elitist to dismiss popular tastes. I disagree, I see no difference between Big brother and McDonalds. In excess, One's bad for your body, the other for your mind. Not that it's bad to treat yourself now and again [if you consider Big brother anything other than boring] so software engineers don't have to obey the law of the land? - when any > group thinks they are above the law problems start I didn't say that, I said it's not their job to consider copyright law reform, it's their job to recommend the best solution for the project they are working on. For example when considering server technologies they have a duty to consider the LAMP stack on a par with Microsoft technologies without even considering the licences. For some problems, LAMP will be the answer, for others it will be MS. Once the best technological solution has been found, then the lawyers and accountants can deal with the licences and funding. > All I will say about Firefox is that I had it on my desktop - it was a > pain in the arse - it kept blocking sites and I had to get it deinstalled - > I know you lot love it but to an ordinary joe like me it's just another > obstacle I know a number of "ordinary joe"s who use Firefox (IIRC it now has 20% world wide market share) with no problems. How exactly did it "keep blocking sites"? All it does by default is block popups, IE7 does the same. I've not found a page that it doesn't render correctly for a long time. Investigative journalism is not an attractive proposition for advertisers > - especially as they may be the ones being investigated It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows, one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of journalism as a public service rather than to make money. > > Strange definition of elitism - one I have never heard before - if the > result of what you want really meant that everyone got "the best of > everything" then I would support it - but if all that happens is a small > group of people like yourselves benefit and everybody else loses out then we > will be no further forward Not the best of everything, but the best of anything, i.e. the cream of the crop, the best of the best etc. That's the result I want, the best of everything gives you mediocrity. You're not one of those people who moans about Oxford and Cambridge being elitist are you? That's the whole point! Elite means best of the best, and we only want the best of the best going there. In the same way I only want the best of the best on my PC. That means I have to be elitist.
