On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:37:55 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
Fastfission said:
Ah yes, but now you are making a claim that it is
better to be
offensive to some than silly to others. Which is worth interrogating a
bit further. ;-)
In this particular case I don't think it's wrong to risk offending people.
Someone who complains about the Pioneer plaque on grounds of offense
taken at the nudity, well it's a bit extreme. Even if there are fifty
million of them, we shouldn't cave in to such excessive prudery.
Well of course not 50 million is hardly a significant number of people
In my opinion, people wwho are easily shocked by
visual images of nudity
or sex should not use their web browsers on the default setting.
Why? for the most part it is pretty easy to avoid these days
We would
be doing them a big favor if we advised them to consult their browser
documentation, because if they took that advice they would never be unduly
shocked by pictorial web content again.
When you can perswade them to stop clicking on email atchments to stop
answering spam and to run decent firewalls I will listen to you untill
the I'm going for the realism option.
For those who favor cost-benefit
analysis (I don't, I'm just a pragmatist who has arrived at the conclusion
that server-based presentation management is broken) this seems like the
optimal path.
How can it be broken? We haven't tried it yet.
Anyway cost benefit (to us which is what we are worried about)
Cost to get people to learn to use all the functions on their
browsers; say £50 a time. Cost of getting people to use this knowlage;
democracy
--
geni