🚀 go-pugleaf

James R. Bunch wrote in message <70neiu$3ka$1@nnrp02.primenet.com>...
>R H Braddam <rbraddam@aic-fl.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>: You don't have to know how to make a calculator chip to use a calculator.
>: You have to know what you want to do, but your objective is finding the
>: solution to an arithmetic problem that you could find without the
>: calculator.
>
>[more snip]
>
>You are not totally incorrect, at least so far as J. Random Luser is
>concerned.  Lots of folks do just fine with "out of the box" systems.
We agree on that. Literally millions of J. Random Users are getting the job
done every day. I feel sorry for all the J. Random Lusers out there who
think they can't do the same thing because someone tried to explain how to
write programs to them, or told them they had to know how a word processing
program worked to enable them to be sure that the word processing program
would not be a liability instead of an asset.
>Trouble is, if they happen to get into an area where they encounter the
>limitations of their turnkey system they are clueless as to what to do
>next.  Worse, they often don't know that they've been had by a bug in
>the software or an inherent limit of the system.  Till they get that
>nasty letter from the IRS, or the lawyers hired by the customer who
>bought the system they used cad to design, or ...
>
A letter from the IRS or a lawyer is far more likely to come because of bad
input data than because of a program error or system limitation. If you
enter data into TurboTax or TaxCut which you do not have receipts for, and
you are audited, you might even go to jail, depending on the seriousness of
the situation. Odds are, if you are using TurboTax you already know how to
do your return, and any false information is intentional. On the other hand,
a newcomer to tax preparation will encounter the interview procedure, which
will generate the proper return only if truthful answers are given to the
questions. The correctness of the return depends on the information provided
by the program user, just as when using an accountant.

I've used AutoCad and MicroStation PC, and with both of them I found that
they only added things to the drawings that I selected and placed. They put
lines between points A and B that I selected, and did not inject anything
into the drawings themselves. Any errors in the drawings were my doing, and
not that of the program. I have some computer and electronics training and
experience, but that has nothing to do with the CAD work I did. The point
is, the programs didn't do any design work, they only provided a graphical
representation of a design in progress. It wasn't even my design, I just
made the drawings.

I've also played around with a circuit board layout program and a logic
diagramming program. Again, in both cases, the programs only made
connections I selected. They didn't design anything, they just made drawings
of my design, faster and more accurately than I could have done by hand.

And that is how millions of J. Random Users are using computers today.
Computers are easier for them to use now because of the graphical user
interface and the common feature access and selection mechanisms in
standardised menu bars. If not knowing how the underlying computer hardware
and software accomplishes their goals makes them losers, then they are
losers. I suspect they think they are winners, though.

>It's very important indeed to know the workings and limitations of the
>technology you use if you don't want to end up with crisped fingers.
>
It seems to me that the depth of knowledge required is related to the way
you use the technology. Does anyone perform non-destructive testing of every
possible failure point in a PC every time they turn it on? I suspect not.
Does anyone know and understand the source code for every program they run
on their computer? I suspect not. That is me taking "know the workings and
limitations of the technology you use" to one extreme. I don't believe I am
taking it to the other by promoting the casual use of computers by ordinary
people who can be characterized as "computer illiterate". Some people may
use computers for 10 years, and at the end of that time still be computer
illiterate, but be quite expert at the use of a particular program. Others
may investigate the workings of their machine, develop an interest in it,
and advance the level of technology. One is a winner for him/herself, the
other for us all.

Rick