Re: OT - Productivity
From: Gordon Burditt (gordonb.m8ibo_at_sneaky.lerctr.org)
Date: 04/27/03
- Next message: Doug McIntyre: "Re: Creating a user with a script"
- Previous message: CBFalconer: "Re: OT - Productivity"
- In reply to: Richard L. Hamilton: "Re: OT - Productivity"
- Next in thread: Rich Teer: "Re: OT Re: Is the 2038 problem solved now?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 27 Apr 2003 03:50:24 GMT
>I think your last sentence may be true since a computer has an immense
>capacity to distract humans with irrelevancies, trivia, and blind alleys
>(consider the typical examples where people produce elaborate yet still
>poorly laid-out documents that are far too trivial (like minor internal
>memos) to warrant the extra time spent on the cosmetics.
Still, computers save a LOT of time compared to typewriters when
you are trying to generate a large document like a thesis or report.
The ability to make corrections and re-print can save days compared
to re-typing, especially to a not-very-good typist. Granted, you
can go font-crazy. It is also probable that a large percentage of
the population would be incapable of producing an error-free 100-page
typed document from hand-written notes, in *ANY* amount of time,
using typewriters without correction fluid or erasing ribbons (which,
when I was in college, weren't allowed or at least they could put
a significant dent in your grade).
>But that doesn't support the earlier premise that only embedded or
>dedicated-purpose devices are productive. I've received (and provided)
>very useful answers via Usenet (and a general purpose computer, although
>there _are_ special purpose e-mail, browse, and perhaps newsreading
>boxes), and as long as I didn't wander off into distractions (like this
>thread), that was productive enough activity. But more than that, all
>sorts of researchers and designers can do much more with general-purpose
>systems than without them.
Consider what accountants and recordkeepers can do with them rather
than without them. I doubt, for example, that modern credit cards
or the modern US income tax (it does cut both ways!) would be possible
otherwise. I think databases and remote access to them make possible
a lot of things that humans just wouldn't be capable of otherwise
(of course, this ability can be misused).
>More than that, a medical imaging device if grossly mismanaged by the
>computer could conceivably be dangerous to the patient (although it's
>probably not likely, and hardware safeguards could probably be
>incorporated).
>I think there have been actual cases of medical imaging devices that at
>least did not produce complete and accurate images due to software
>problems.
I think you will find that medical treatment devices have killed
before, due in one case to a combination software bug and human
interface error causing a massive radiation overdose. Search for
"Therac-25" in Yahoo.
comp.risks has lots of examples of very bad results from software
problems and human-interface issues with things like air traffic
control, train traffic control, airplane control systems like
autopilots, ATM machines, power grid control, and nuclear reactor
control.
Gordon L. Burditt
- Next message: Doug McIntyre: "Re: Creating a user with a script"
- Previous message: CBFalconer: "Re: OT - Productivity"
- In reply to: Richard L. Hamilton: "Re: OT - Productivity"
- Next in thread: Rich Teer: "Re: OT Re: Is the 2038 problem solved now?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
