Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Ok by me. Systems for choosing the means of choosing, or conserving maximum freedom of choice by choosing wisely: if the choice here is to pick a winner, over enabling choice among alternatives focused on particular aspects, my employer picks whatever Microsoft implements so the local mammals will not waste organizational resources thinking about the solution while making a buck from the user instead of passing it to them. Len 4) I must respectfully disagree w/ Mr. Bullard when he says, On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:18:15 Len Bullard wrote: > >Yes: systems for choosing. If there is only one, >there is no ambiguity. But is that a good thing? >I think it an attractive thing to mammal brains >that strive for closure instinctively and crave >power and esteem physically, but a bad >thing for systems that reciprocally evolve environments. > I think the mammals' requirements take precedence. Systems will evolve in healthier ways when the people that write and use them don't waste a lot of what I call "organizational bandwidth" discussing arcana like ambiguity resolution algorithms. That discussion needs adequate resolution here on this list - or someplace like it. Please don't pass the buck to the users.
|
