Readers' Comments

Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 2 August 2001
Note: the comments below are the unabridged submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.

From: Ian
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Knowledge Wave...

As a almost younger member of the IT professionals in New
Zealand it is about time that someone did something instead
of talking about it.

I do think there has been some interesting commentary come
out of the meeting but the question still is, will it
change anything?

From my perspective the country lacks one major thing that
is needed for all of this talk to come together into some
kind of action. That one thing is leadership. We simply
don't have it. Probably because everytime one stands up we
shoot them down. Tall poppy chopping in action.

So, we need strong leaders with necks of iron who are not
afraid to take a few chops here and there.

The other thing that people need is mentors. Good, rock
solid, dependable, knowledgable, inpartial, mentors. Can't
succeed without them.

Until we have both of those in more quality AND quantity,
we might as well all just keep trying to protect our jobs
so we can go home and renovate our houses. Or watch other
people on television renovating houses.




From: David Farrar
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Govt's use of technology

Aardvark said that "the Labour government has shown a
pretty good appreciation for new technology -- even
offering to share the email addresses of its ministers
(well their secretaries actually)."

For obvious reasons I won't share my view of whether or not
the Labour Govt does have a good appreciation of technology
but I should point out that the establishing and
publicising of e-mail addresses for Ministers was done by
the previous Government in 1997/98.  There was an Infotech
Weekly story on it at the time but with the move to Stuff
the archives have disappeared.




From: Brian Harmer
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: The conference

As requested, I call you a tired old cynic, but sadly, I
fear your cynicism is justified. I watched the "debate"
last evening with growing horror, as platitude after
platitude was wheeled out. Tired, failed formulae,
constrained by doctrinaire extremes from both ends of the
spectrum were in evidence.

I was particularly interested in the remarks made by Dr
Pita Sharples (former race relations conciliator) who
regarded the Kura Kaupapa Maori scheme as a successful
model. Leaving aside the question the measures by which the
Maori model has been successful, I think his contribution
highlighted the fact that the conference appears to have no
publicly accepted definition of what actually constitutes
success. Sharples regards the Kura Kaupapa system as
successful because 75% of its participants have gone on to
teriary study. But study in what? Are the outcomes of such
study going to alleviate the conditions which Maori regard
as oppressive?

And then there was the American guy I heard on Radio NZ
this morning, with his "creative destruction" view, and
Craig Norgate of the Dairy industry with his attitude that
we should be more tolerant of failure. Both scared the heck
out of me. Both seemed to have that old "trickle down"
theory underlying their thinking.

I fear that both views lead to more Qantas NZ type
failures, where the brave entrepreneurs get to keep their
big cars and their financial base remains largely intact
while the people to who they owe money lose all they have
to give. We don't need more construction industry "Hartner"
situations where the brave entrepreneurs carry out their
rash gambles with someone else's livelihood.

So, before we decide how to succeed, had we better first
define success?




From: Mark Harris
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Government and the conference

As a private citizen, I'd be pleased if the PM *didn't*
take the conference reccommendations to heart, if the
sentiments I've heard (like Brian, from Morning Report) are
anything to go by.




From: Bede
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: goverment

I would have thought the goverment would throw tvnz a Bone
and give them free broadcast rights or something, as bruce
rightly points out tvnz has the capability to broadcast
things on the web, it could have been a show case for the
money we as tax payers gice to the goverment to keep tvnz
up and running,

I guess they "Over Looked" the capabilites they already had
which does make me wonder if they are after technology for
technologys sake or if they actually realise its just a tool
to get a job done, do you really need one of those electric
tooth brushes or would the standard analog one used by
bilions world wide suffice.

alot of companys already have computer systems and use them,
the majority are already converted to technology, How ever
no one in a small business is going to be able to justify
spending money on anything unless they can see it will help
the bottom line and make life easier.

Thats small Business, thats the way it works.

how ever the only way to get proof a system works is to talk
to some one who has already implemented it and is using
it

these people who have implemented these souloutions in there
own businesses are the only ones who can convert the masses
as bussiness owners with money at stake in the thing holds
hell of alot more clout than the maker of the product.


also you can't expect a company to implement a million
dollar soloution when the money would have been better spent
on say a new recptionist or perhaps better training for the
existing one.

the only technology my parents advanced hotel booking system
requires is a Pencil, ruler and a large A2 pad and no one
could convence them otherwise.




From: Alan Benton
For : The Editor (for publication)
Subj: Propaganda Tsunami

Yes, that's really what it is. We're told it is to help
small businesses ... where's our bloody representation
then eh???? Luckily we're too busy getting on with doing it
rather than just talking about it, as always. We're told
it's to help poor people yet they can't afford to get in ...
or watch the proceedings as you've mentioned. Brilliant
start already. And Shipley / National reckons we need a
government that can deliver on the conclusions of the
conference, apparantly, they say "We can" Yet she released
that comment before the thing started, therefore without
knowing what the recommendations were, therefore its
obvious: it's a semi-intelligent election phrase for them to
bandy about and that'll be all. Oh, but we'll just have to
trust them won't we on that one, because they're "committed"
to an improved future for NZ. Like they were the last time
they got power I suppose, haha. I tried emailing Jim
Anderton 3 times a while ago. Got no reply every time, of
course. Now, if that's what being connected to the
electorate that's going to drive us toward the bigger and
brighter future is all about, I'd hate to see what
constitutes being out of touch.
Now Have Your Say