Following "soap box oratory" was sent [via web based mail] to ABC News this evening. Hope some of you can appreciate the fine points they're likely to miss. l.d. P.S. I was able to save what I sent, and forward it because in v1.66 the textarea.tmp file was still working. ----------------- As one who remembers the traveling GM Motorama shows of the 50's, I thought the look backward on tonight [Tues. 2 Jan] was fairly accurate as far as looking backward. What I found ludicrous is that the most egregious error, made by one of the talking head experts, was allowed to stand without question or commentary. He stated that computers were always failing at the wrong time. This is a falsehood. I have owned computers, from the tiny to my adequate-for-my-needs Pentium, for two decades now. In that time I have never had a computer fail, except once -- after it had been moved three times including cross country over roads that literally shook bolts out of the car I was towing and after it had lived in its most recent home for over two years. In that case the main(mother)board had finally had enough and developed a small short circuit somewhere. I didn't lose any data, and it took me a whole day to set up the new improved system and transfer everything over to it. 99.99% of all "computer problems" are as a result of SOFTWARE failures; there is nothing wrong with the computer. In fact, if MicroSoft didn't have the strangle hold on software development it still retains, even "old and slow" computers could still function just fine. And the newer computers out there would blow the socks off of you. Right now I'm writing from what MicroSoft would consider a semi-adequate computer ... even though it is 10 times faster than the first "IBM compatible" computer I got when I went to grad school. It is 50 times faster, more or less, than the first business computer I bought. And that computer, purchased early in 1982, was more powerful than the original Univac and more powerful than the computer on Apollo 13. My semi-adequate computer I'm sitting at now has more speed, memory and computing power than all of NASA had at the time of Apollo 13! There's nothing wrong with the computers, just with the software. And software doesn't have to be huge and require multi-GIGAbyte hard drives; the software I'm using to write you via the website is running totally without any Windows of any version, in DOS 5.0 [circa 1980 something?] and the software doesn't require a Pentium ... it will run on a 386, a piece of hardware that was made "obsolete" 5 or more years ago. So, although you may never advise your "expert" as to the truth of the matter -- software crashes these days, not computers -- I hope someone at ABC stops to think about the facts of the matter and in future approaches the computer with a bit more respect and the MicroSoft software running on it with a bit more trepidation. And please, make it "office policy" to stop blaming a perfectly functional piece of hardware for mistakes & problems which are generated by software or wetware [geekese for the human brain]. Thanks for taking the time to read this .. l.d. -- Join B'FOR - B'mothers For Open Records <A HREF=" http://www.b-for.org "> B'FOR web site</A> [Associate members of triad also welcome; membership confidential.] Every member counts! We need numbers to produce valid statistics. ******* A proud member of <A HREF=" http://www.phenomenalwomen.com/ "> Phenomenal Women Of The Web</A> -- Arachne V1.66, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
