🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul22.140553.24030@news.nd.edu> wessels@thor.cc.nd.edu (Andy Wessels) writes:
>please consider that there may be lives involved  in software.  The actions
>could be devistating.  The idea that NJ wants to convey is some sort of 
>_professional_ standards, based solely upon what I have read in this newsgroup.
>There intentions are to promote solid software, and not screwed up hack jobs
>written by fly-by-night operations.  Consider that Disk-Jockeys working at
>stations over 100 watts _must_ be liscenced by the FCC.  As the transmitter
>power goes up, so do the requiremnents.  And the DJ may  not have anything
>to do with the station outside of his little room.

o How does licensing accomplish this task?
o If you don't require *everyone* who writes software to have a license,
  then how do you determine who does and who doesn't?
o How do you test them?  Software is not a science, it's an art.  There
  isn't *one* way to do something, there are millions.  Who's to say which
  is right?
-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/497-2922                    |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.