Re: This is the seed that will spawn Big Brother


Posted by Pasti on Jan 30, 2004 at 11:58
(67.69.190.147)

Re: This is the seed that will spawn Big Brother (Measurement)

"I understand your point, I just don't think it's a very strong one."

I agree with you it might not be. But as I said before,it is necessary to provide counterarguments in order to disprove it.On the other hand, I can't think of any better ideea to make statistics and map the net than a subscription list.Ad companies do it all the time.Does this ring a bell?

"It also does nothing to clarify AR's point about being 1984ish."

Actually it does, and I refer to point c).It gives you a possible alternative.

"a) if itís a dumb idea, then why are others doing it so successfully? Clearly, it is not as 'dumb' an idea as you make it out to be. It may be a day late/dollar short idea, but that doesnít make it dumb."

Meas.,you simply don't want to understand or consider alternative ideas or arguments.Why would anyone spend money on redundancy, when there are companied doing it much more successfully than the government could do it now?
Remember when we discussed the space program?Read your own arguments.At that time you said that NASA is the only game in town ,and therefore you go with that because there are no viable alternatives.
And yet,you have more viable alternatives,but for some reason (not to mention logical inconsistency)you are now trying to tell me that in fact the new kid in town is a hell of a good idea.

The point is not if providing alert is a good idea or bad idea.The dumbness resides in the redundancy of the government action,and in the waste of time and money for this redundancy.

"b) all government services are PR. In fact, all government is PR. Government=PR. That's what government is. That doesn't make it useless. You may find this particular aspect or service useless but others may disagree."

You are right, it does not make it useless, just much harder to "control" and develop a correct opinion regarding its actions. One more reason to be circumspect about this list, I would argue.

"c) Each subscriber to this service believes it to have at least a level of usefulness equal to the effort each made to subscribe to that service."

I thought we excluded the morons from this argument.There are also people who refue transfusion,or who subscribes to MSN just because it comes with the computer, or who breastfeed their babies while driving 80mph.Somehow,I think that crass ignorance does not constitute an argument.

"There are other aspects worthy of consideration, particularly as expressed in your a)"

Because the ideea is dumb? I'll take your word for it...

"Is it the function of the government to provide at least rudimentary security services to the general populous? By golly! I believe it is."

Yes, it would be.But why only now?Virus attacks are at least 10 years old, during which time the government hasn't done anything, while others have.
So instead of starting more or less from scratch(a new department, more paperwork,development, etc.), why not use what already works? Because in this case the AV companies are more interested to offer better quality services than the government,they have much more at stake.And considering the speed with which the government reacts to everything, including the services they "provide",the redundancy becomes even more hilarious.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:


[ Forum ] [ New Message ]