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
Home | Today's Headlines | Contact | New Sites | Job Centre | Investment Centre