[Steve Thompson]

Quoting Sandy Sandfort (sandfort at mindspring.com):
> > But none, or few, of them see it
> > in exactly those terms. They're
> > just angry and frustrated and they
> > don't really know why.
> 
> Why don't they know why?  Can't they read?  I have so sympathy for militant
> ignorance when the world is awash in information about how things work.

I can sympathise with taht sentiment somewhat, but the problem for everyone is
that there is so much information that choosing a priori what might be useful
to know is difficult.  This is of course why technologies such as artificial
intelligence and consequently, intelligent agents, may eventually demonstrate
their usefulness.

Until we have intelligent agents which can sift through the morass that is the
info-sphere to locate truly useful and timely information, you might consider
giving the ignorant masses something of a break on this point.  A person
without supplemental information sources may be effectively blind if he relies
only on print and broadcast media -- even Usenet -- and may only have vague
suspicions that something critical is missing from his information sources.


Regards,

Steve 

-- 
``If religion were nothing but an illusion and a sham, there could be no
philosophy of it.  The study of it would belong to abnormal psychology....
Religion cannot afford to claim exemption from philosophical enquiry.  If it
attempts to do so on the grounds of sanctity, it can only draw upon itself
suspicion that it is afraid to face the music.''

      -- H. J. Paton, "The Modern Predicament"