🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 4 Jun 1993 09:37:39 -0500 Paul Beckmann said:
>Cummins & Norman represent opposite sides of what I consider a rising
>debate in technology and its application. When I started "programming"
>in 1964, computers were able to do little more than repetitive
>algebraic operations. With the growth of this and other technologies,
>the public's expectation of the "electronic brain", "electronic slave",
>etc. has always outstripped the capability of the day.
>
>When I am building something with lumber and nails, I pick up a tool:
>a hammer. This tool has been around for quite a while. I know what it
>can do. It does it reliably. I don't ask the hammer manufacturer to
>build me a fuzzy logic-controlled adaptive laser gyro-stabilized
>nail inserter even though it would improve the final result and
>keep me from hitting my thumb every now and then. I wouldn't want to
>pay for or maintain one. My hammer provides adequate "leverage" for
>me with respect to the task.
>
>Often the lists of "wishes", "wants" and "needs" to hardware and
>software manufacturers really miss the mark for the tool. A
>hammer with a head pointed off to the side is hard to use and should
>be fixed. A hammer that lets you hit your thumb every now and then
>is fine from my perspective just the way it is. Careful thought is
>required to discern where your "problem" belongs. An even more difficult
>situation arises when a single product must service both those like
>me and those that need a gyro-hammer. Maybe a stratification of the
>product is the only solution.
>
>Paul J. Beckmann
>Scientist
>Department of Psychology
>U of Minnesota

I agree, but hammers that make you hit your thumb every time in the same
 situation are defective. EndNote knows so much, I wish it knew when there
was more than one ed. !

Robert Wolfe
Centre for International Relations, Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6  wolfer@qucdn.queensu.ca
voice (613) 545-3427 or 545-2383 fax 545-0867