From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 10:29:39 +0200 Message-ID: References: <8fhe90du5vo81rpud5nap9fs8npclkb47q@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083744911 1627384 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:265 Date: 2004-05-05T10:29:39+02:00 List-Id: On Wed, 5 May 2004 00:34:05 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich" wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> >> >> > there are international organizations and national organization in various >> >> >> >countries (some of then actually are international - like ACM and IEEE) >> >> >> >dealing with software as well. What else you want? Are you participating in >> >> >> >at least one of those organizations? >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you remember the last time CNN mentioned IEEE in its news block? >> >> >> UN-bureaucrats are aired each day. >> >> > >> >> >So your understanding of democracy implies that any substantial influence, >> >> >even in complex scientific/technical matters, can be performed only by bodies, >> >> >of which general public is well aware through mass-media? >> >> >> >> Absolutely. To be prepared for concessions (science is an expensive >> >> thing) public has to be aware of what's going on. >> > >> >Great. Do you think that general public (in USA) was well aware of RAND >> >Corporation in 60th? Do you think those battalions of think tanks, which >> >emerge in recent decades either do not influence anything significantly or >> >are well-known to general public? >> >> Are you disagree with me? > >Yes, I believe that your viewpoint is way too simple and therefore inadequate. It is not a viewpoint. It is a statement: "public should know". >Recall the notions of "visibility", "information hiding" and "encapsulation", >apply them metaphorically to public informational structure of society - and >you'll see some opportunities, and perhaps even necessities. These principles tell that irrelevant, non-essential information has to be hidden from user/decision maker. So what follows from your, now viewpoint, is as simple as "science is irrelevant". Well it is quite adequate to the common mood. You accept it, I don't. >My point is that if you are not just a citizen, but also an established >professional, and if you care about impact of your profession onto society, >then you should pay attention not only for the leading public institutions >of the whole society but also for leading public institutions of your >profession. In the areas of programming and software engineering the latter >are (as far as I understand) ACM and IEEE. This is an ultimately wrong point. Things I talked about require political decisions. The worst ever thing, which might happen is when such decisions would be made in technical circles. >> Can you promise that for MS-Word? > >Can you promise that for any currently standing bridge? One can do it for any given number of years with a very high probability. >As for MS-Word, it is >standing (yes, with substantial maintenance/upgrading) more than a decade, MS dropped product upgrade model. And what is called "upgrade" in this case, has nothing to do with upgrading material things. >You mean that there always will be enough people who will challenge any >problem, including a liability and a threat of jail? Well, possibly it is so, >but how can you know that and rely upon that, not being one of those people, >and not having many friends of this kind around you? So far people keep on crossing roads at great risk of liability if someone would die in accident. Moreover they themselves may be run over. And look, they do it for free! Strange people! >> >> >> Consider a bed-side monitoring system for resuscitation departments. >> >> >> Should a patient die because of software crash, who would be liable? >> >> > >> >> >I can't see a difference (for a user, that is either the patient or hospital) >> >> >between a software crash or hardware malfunction in that system. >> >> >> >> The difference is that next time, other firm would pay more attention >> >> to quality. As you probably know, the most important goal of >> >> punishment is prevention of crime. >> > >> >I still can't see a difference between in this example between software crash >> >and hardware malfunction in the system. The quality is equally involved in >> >both cases. >> >> So why are you for hardware certification and against software one? > >I am against differentiation software from hardware in a single device from >viewpoint of law. Law may require certification of device, certification or >licensing of particular use of the device, liability for vendor or liability >for user, but it should not separate software from hardware in that device. >Even if law needed to speak differently about the fixed part of the device >and replaceable part of it, it should speak exactly about fixed and >replaceable parts, and not about hardware and software - even if the >replacement of the replaceable part can be done over the Internet. LOL. Do you seriously belive that no components are certified until being packed into a car? -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de