On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 11:43, Keith Dowell wrote: > I made this point on a mimedefang list. Some people didn't really like it. > And I made almost the exact same point here recently...
> Computers are too complicated for people to be responsible some said. > IMHO, if it's too complicated, you shouldn't have one. > So I tried equating it to maintaining your car in that, if your car smokes > and causes pollution - it is NOT the manufacturers responsibility to come > fix your car. It's your responsibility to take it to the nearest mechanic. > If it smokes too much the police might just have to remove you from the road > for other peoples safety. > I used the car accident anology: if you have defective equipment that causes an accident, you're liable. End of discussion... > What I got in return to that was - Yeah sure, but doesn't relate. Auto > manufacturers don't put out buggy cars like microsoft puts out buggy > software. > No, but cars _do_ need maintenance. Just like Computers. I submit that Antivirus Software and patching is quite comparable to general automotive tune-ups. > Hmm... good point - but doesn't microsoft put out these things called > patches? Is it not the users responsibility to maintain their software > (vehicle) but obtaining these patches (tune up). > Yup. The sticking point I was presented was this (and I forget who submitted it, but it got me thinking and for that I say "damn you!!!" ;^): If you change the analogy from "You didn't maintain your car and ran into someone/ thing with it" to "Someone _stole_ your car and smashed into something with it" then the comparison of responsibility becomes harder to make. (and I didn't reply at the time cause the thread was WAY OT, but now it's back and I can't resist opening my trap again) However, I think of it like this: If you leave you car sitting on the roadside, in the city, engine running, key in the ignition, and with defective brakes, and some opportunistic scumbag jumps in and promptly clears out an office building, do you not bear at least *some* responsibility? I would argue that you do. If you knew it was unsafe, should you not have turned it off at least, and perhaps garaged the thing so it didn't cause any damage? And to take the noxious fumes analogy further (which I like a LOT): If you don't maintain your car, and it develops a bad habit of belching noxious smoke everywhere it goes, is it your fault? Even if someone else is driving the car (with or without your knowledge), the smoke it's putting out is a direct result of your negligent/ irresponsible patterns of use. So you can't blame the thief for the smoke at all. You can certainly take him to task for stealing your pollution-mobile, but perhaps the thief wouldn't have stolen your car, except that you broke the keys off in the locks, and the windows are stuck down (because you didn't take care of that either), so all he had to do was get in and drive. <rant that I agree with deleted> But the gist of my argument was not so much who's at fault for the car accident/ air pollution, but who should be held responsible for the damages caused by said issue. In the automotive analogy, it would be like receiving a large fine if your car doesn't pass the emissions test (i.e. to pay for the environmental damage your car caused while out of compliance), on top of having to repair it so it passes. Currently, if your rig doesn't pass (in the states where they have emission testing), you simply fail the test, and have to fix the car and test again. I believe that human nature being what it is, it won't take a lot of people getting slapped with a hit to their pocketbook before the masses start taking better care of their equipment. We live in a world dominated by money; so the way to get things done (unfortunately) is to hit them where it hurts: in their bank accounts. After all, isn't that what makes the roads safe? No one wants a ticket from Officer Friendly for their defective equipment. Rubin (who in younger, dumber times, received more "defective equipment" citations that I care to admit) Bennett (shamelessly stealing Chris "thought of the moment" Santerre's idea...) -- Rubin Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RB Technologies
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
