Re: ::scr Technical Priesthood

[Adam C Auden <adam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, simon wistow wrote:

> Ignoring the fact for the moment that it was built, originally, with
> public money - why the fuck should they be here?

So was UK's nuclear arsenal, but you don't see the big red button being
passed round, do you? [ok, extreme, I know -- What I'm trying to say is
that just because something is publicly funded doesn't mean everyone has
the right to use it.]

I would argue that public funding means it has to be used in the public
interest.  Now, I guess the question is, do we see access for all as in
the public interest, or access for the clueful?

> People seem to think that it's a god given right to get at knowledge.
> I don't think that's necessarily true - I don't have the right to go
> to a footballing school of excellence and that's fair enough. So why
> should some moron go and do a degree in David Beckham studies? By
> doing so he's ensured that I had to get myself into debt to go through
> college.

This is a whole other debate, but I can see where you're drawing
parallels.  The higher education problem in this country is a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

You have to wonder, is this the best use of our tax, letting these people
do a degree in basket weaving at the local uni (ex-polytechnic) just so
they can work in a bar when they realise there is no demand for their
skill. [again, extreme example, but you see my point]

Similarly, what is more in the public interest, the internet as another
mass medium, or as a meeting place for academics and a research tool?  Or
both?

But, then, who is to decide... this brings us nicely on to...

> the inherent problem of a meritocracy

... which is always going to be a sticking point, because it relies on
smart people making the right decision, as opposed to the ones which
benefit smart people.  (For democracy s/smart people/politicians).

> yes, some South American Guerilla group may gain much support by
> publishing their manifesto on the Web but if they can't figure out how
> to set up a connection to their ISP then how are they going to come up
> with a viable political doctrine?

It has to be said, this isn't really a fair test of someones ability to
contribute in a meaningful way to the internet as a whole.  Just because I
can configure networks doesn't mean I produce a decent web page (I would
give examples, however I've removed most of them through acute shame).

Just because someone is a great linguist, you cannot deduce that they will
also be a wizard with watercolour.  It just doesn't work like that.
Everyone has their areas of expertise, I guess all I'd ask is that they
can contribute something more then whining and requests for w4rez.

> Technical stuff is *not* hard.

For us. ;)

[snip lots of OT stuff about my parents, and their inability to grasp why
GUIs work the way they do]

(topic drift)--

I would like it very much if all the content on the internet was
worthwhile, up to date, accurate, relevent, and easy to find.  I would
also like a pony.  Sadly santa can give me none of these things, so I have
to live with a combination of knowing which sites to read, and knowing how
to make google do my bidding.

If that's the price of getting all this nice money pumped into the
internets infrastructure then I think we're getting a pretty good deal.

After all folks, the stoopid people are all paying money for their net
access too, and economies of scale are a wonderful thing. ;)

Adam.

--
aca114