[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Benjamin Franz <snowhare@nihongo.org> [2004-12-31 16:22]:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> >
> > You must have a sparkling health plan, my friend, because in has
> > been my experience with medicine, especially, that has taught me
> > the meaning of Caveat Emptor.
>
> It could be worse. When licensing of doctors was abolished in the US in
> the mid-1800's it _was_ worse:
>
> <URL:http://www.cl.utoledo.edu/canaday/quackery/quack2.html>
> <URL:http://www.cl.utoledo.edu/canaday/quackery/quack10.html>
First, thanks for the response, I was, ha, ha, only serious.
Er, that is, I thought I had valid point in my quip. Also in the
one about the unlicensed Excel macro programmer.
Part of what makes this thread rediculous, though, is talking
about software at the end of century, and now talking about
medecine at the beginning of the century before last. I don't
feel I can draw any conclusions from an American experience that
proceeded a catastophic civil war, emancipation, and women's sufferage.
Looking at things in any reasonable time frame:
It's so rediculous to think that we're about to embrace some
multi-year certification track for software developers, when so
many companies are falling all over themselves to outsource.
> And I would contend that the current HMO led fiasco's are an example of a
> return to the practice of medicine by the unlicensed: HMO's are not
> required to have licensed doctors make their treatment 'allowed/not
> allowed' decisions nor are they legally liable for bad decisions beyond
> the cost of the denied treatment. Not even if you die because of it.
1) Medicine does not compare to software. Medicine is a service.
Software is a product.
Medicine is a world of liabilities.
(That X-Ray machine story. Tragic. I've heard it before. Same
context. Same point. That software is now a question of
life or death, therefore we must create a guild.
What's the word for purposing a tragic situation toward
an unreleated and economically advantagous end?
Totally escapes me.)
2) You can test software without testing people. The 777 used an
off the shelf Unix for an on board maintianence system[1].
The code passed FAA muster. Did they attempt to go back and
certify the Denis Richie? Doubt it.
3) Programming is part of the HCI. It will continue to be part
of the HCI. So, long as it is part of the HCI, so long as
there is Flash, for example, everyone is a programmer.
This is as it is.
Is not Techo a form of computer programming? Must I go
through your eight-year certification track to screw around
with Garage Band?
What you're positing, an end-of-centry world where computers
have evolved to a where they are the domain of shamen, sounds
like the old "I think there is a world market for about five
computers" remark, dubiously attributed to Thomas J. Watson.
> > Hmm... Maybe if you'd used lawyers as an example.
> Hmmm...
You need a degree to work on the Dreamliner for Beoing, you
don't need one to work on the Dreamliner web site for Boeing.
This should not change. This must not change. Your talk is
dangerous. Akin to confusing patent with copyright. Don't work
against the enabling, democratizing grace of Moore's Law.
[1] http://www.byte.com/art/9601/sec7/art3.htm
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
|
