🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul24.124825.18444@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fsset@bach.lerc.nasa.gov (Scott E. Townsend) writes:
>I've been following this thread a bit, but must admit I've lost the original
>intent of the proposed NJ law.
>
>Is it to protect John Q Public from buying/commissioning a program from
>a scam artist?

This is one semi legitimate complaint.

>Is it to protect the public at large from terrible accidents like the
>X-ray machine?

No, It takes a complete idiot not to include a hardware based lock
against this type of accident. Lets hope microwave ovens arn't as carelessly
constructed. It is a fact that a large system will have defects, it is the 
fault of the hardware designers that the software was allowed to to issue
commands that could have been verified as incorrect with a single TTL chip.

Licensing programmers won't make bugs go away, it will only cause false
confidence.
>Is it to increase the NJ treasury?

yes.

>Is it just to get votes at re-election?
 
yes.

>Admittedly, these last two are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the first two
>are valid concerns.
>
>John Q Public may not have the resources to investigate the qualifications
>of possible contractors to write software.  A piece of paper saying that
>the state _thinks_ the contractor knows what they're doing is just another
>(possibly meaningless) "fact" like a diploma from some college.  Treat it
>with a bit less weight than a Consumers Report, but it is another piece of
>data to consider in choosing a contractor.  I feel an OPTIONAL 'license'
>of this kind would be reasonable.

This sounds like a better idea, the licenses should be issued by private 
organizations and only deal with small sections of software. Such as
graphics, databases etc. Testing someones database knowledge doesn't mean
they will be any good at OS programming.

>A contract programmer could consider
>wether the marketing value outweighed other concerns about this licensing
>issue.
>
>Regarding the X-ray accident, I don't see how licensing would have ANY effect
>at all.  Beyond the impossibility of testing all the flavors of programming
>in the world  (I'm an 88000 & C embedded system programmer, with a bit of
>study I could pass a COBOL exam, but you DON'T want me doing your payroll!)
:-)
[stuff deleted]
-- 
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1  
Hackers do it for fun.  |  Being Bisexual squares your         \    / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. |  probability of not getting   \  / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. |  laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p