On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Lawrence Turner wrote: > I agree with your thoughts on the "middle ground". In my opinion, it has > also been marginalised as communications in our societies has improved - > print media, television, internet etc. The reason being is that > information can be deployed to the majority of the public at break neck > speeds. Politicians often need that small percentage / margine to get > across the line at election time.
Politicians say they "need" an information edge, but why should we give it to them when it's so easily used for partisan purposes? Why should we build powerful geocoding and data cross-referencing engines that can just as easily be used by scammers as by precision marketing professionals? (assuming, of course, that there's a difference.) Why should we care how our clients use what we produce for them? "Because we get paid for it" is the short answer, but why not reach a bit higher? At some point we ought to consider where handing over powerful computer technology to those don't understand or care how it changes our society crosses the line between providing better information and shifting paradigms without a clutch. If society accepts our technology without understanding how it should be used, it's simply following the flight plan of Icarus. At least we should think about what we produce. Hopefully we can leave more from our passing through life than just a few feathers scattered over the sea in a ring of expanding ripples. - Bill Thoen --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 9763
