🚀 go-pugleaf

R H Braddam <rbraddam@aic-fl.com> wrote:

: James R. Bunch wrote in message <71086q$7e3$1@nnrp02.primenet.com>...


: I don't remember seeing a command to do interference analysis on AutoCad's
: help screen, so I assume you are referring to a Lisp function available as
: an add-on package. I would not use a package unless I could trust the
: provider and I understood the operation of the package. However, AutoCad is
: not a program J. Random User would have or need. I was only trying to show
: that even sophisticated programs could be used successfully by someone who
: was not expert in their use. I may not have used 5% of AutoCad's capability,
: but I accomplished 100% of the job I had to do.

Hmmmmmmm.  I won't go into interference analysis right now, just say that it's
a procedure by which a designer checks to see whether two or more parts he has
designed will fit together, assemble, and function without having metal hit
metal.  Autocad is not the preferred tool for this, but does work and is often
the only tool available that can do the job.  The designer uses it to put the
math models of the parts on, for example, common a axis, then "slides" them
into place along the axis and checks to see that there is adequate clearance.
Naturally, most cases are somewhat more complex than that.

You say you would not use the package unless you could trust the provider and
could understand the operation of the package.  That is _exactly_ what I and
others have been pointing toward:  One should never use a package which one
don't understand.  I'm assuming here that you hold the same standard for
yourself as for other users.

The percentage of Autocad you used is (I believe) irrelevant here.  What
matters is that you made some rational analysis of Autocad, decided that
your understanding of it was adequate for you to trust it, then went
ahead and used it to complete your task.  You did not simply assume that
Autocad would do the job because it was available, and someone had said
you should use it.


: My remark above applies equally to this. In addition, in both cases, I
: already had the information pertaining to the design, I only needed to
: portray it graphically. Consider also that the learning curve associated
: with a package like Spice would preclude using it for a one-off application.
: It was a small project, and not exposing myself to the joy of EAD enabled me
: to prototype the project, test it, and build 300 units for field testing in
: less time than it would have taken me to learn all the intricacies of using
: Spice. Field testing showed that the units performed precisely as intended.
: BTW, the project was a headset radio which contained an FM broadcast
: receiver and a crystal-controlled UHF FM receiver (450MHZ). The wearer
: normally listened to an FM broadcast station, and was automatically switched
: to the UHF receiver when a UHF signal was received. Not low frequencies.

Graphic portrayal is one thing, design analysis another.  I would presume that
you or some other experienced RF designer had already done the grunt work of
grinding the various equations by hand, perhaps modifying an existing design
which was known to work.

Over the years I've seen a good bit of heated discussion in the engineering
community over the use of Spice and similar packages.  Some folks have
gotten burned and won't use them at all, while others swear by them.  YMMV.


: >I suspect that 95% to 99% of the time the folks you call winners are, if
: >not winners, not yet losers.  Many of them may never lose in this game.

: And if so, are ultimately winners.

Ahhhh, no.  Risk takers who have not yet been unlucky enough to be losers.

: >and some of those hits have serious consequences.  Most busted gamblers
: >were "winners" at some point.  They just ended up as losers because they
: >failed to understand that over the long term the house always wins.

: I guess the house, in this case, consists of the system manufacturers and
: program sellers, and the wager is the purchase price. Then the users are
: betting what they spend that they will be able to use the system and
: software to accomplish their goals. I applaud all those who overcome their
: initial fear of something new and unknown, and learn the necessary skills to
: use a computer system. They will probably stick to commercial word
: processing, bookkeeping, or Internet browser programs, and not have any
: problems with their systems. One man I know communicates with his married
: daughter half-way around the world several times a week by email. Before he
: got on the Internet, he did good to send or receive one letter per month.

Be careful of seeing a metaphor where none exists.  I used the term "Gambler"
because I was referring to Gamblers ... the sort who drive to Las Vegas in
a $20,000 car, but come home on a $100,000 bus.  The odds favor the house in
(IIRC) all common games except craps and 21 (and in 21 you have to count cards
to get an advantage).  Play against the house long enough and you will lose
all you have to wager.  But during the process of loosing it is likely that
you will find yourself ahead (relatively if not absolutely) from time to time.
The naive gambler who never bothered to study probability eventually looses.
The business man who owns the casino wins by knowing how his tool works.

: >The question boils down, I think, to one of risk exposure and assessment.
: >Anyone who attempts to use a tool he does not understand exposes himself to
: >some degree of risk.  If circumstances limit the possible negative outcomes
: >to the trivial, then no harm can be done.  If, however, the tool user is
: >exposed to significant risk of major adverse consequences, and proceeds in
: >using a tool he only partially understands, that user is a fool.


: Which are you referring to as a tool, the operating system, the application
: program, or the hardware? While we have been discussing applications, I get
: the impression that the operating system is the actual subject.

For me, the "tool" is the combination of all those elements.  The (somewhat
over rated) Pentium Bug is an example of something one might want to know
about the hardware layer.  The operating system usually has only minor
impact on results -- either you get your output or you don't.  Operating
system issues tend to impact things like whether or not a file is
written properly, or whether or not an applications pipeline to a resource
can be established.  These can be of interest to the user from time to time.
:)))  Finally, the application itself -- yes, it's the big can of potential
worms.

: >When folly is easy to avoid, one is doubly the fool for not doing so.


: Easy for who? And at what cost? What level of training or education should
: be required for operation/use of a computer system? Where and how do
: beginners begin?

Ah!  Here we get into imponderables.  Each case is unique.  But we can
probably see a few guidelines:

	Beginners begin at the beginning.  Most importantly, they need to
	be aware that they _are_ beginners, that they will need to find
	more experienced workers on whom they can rely.

	The level of training required is that which will equip the user
	to competently use the tools he is about to take up.  Each user
	decides this for him or her self.  In some cases the state will
	set a standard, or some licensing body will, but for most cases
	it's up to Joe User.  If Joe decides poorly, he gets his
	metaphorical fingers burned.

	Ease of gaining competence varies, of course.  Some try with all
	their hearts, and never learn what's needed.  Others do it in a
	snap.

	And finally, the cost.  Like everything else here, it's a variable
	coefficient in the equation.  The question, in my view, is: What's
	the cost of incompetence?

: Sure, it would be foolish for me to sit down to a computer and try to design
: a space shuttle. I don't know anything about space shuttles. I recognize my
: limits there. But they are my limits, not those of the system. I won't try
: to give legal advice, either, or to do corporate taxes, not even with a
: computer system and a program written for that application. Not because the
: computer system or program can't do it, correctly, but because I can't. I
: could get the education and training to do any of those things, but I don't
: have an interest in them, so I won't.

You're close to the point here.  Recognizing one's limits.  But the
uneducated and inexperienced user _doesn't know his limits_!  He exposes
himself (and perhaps others as well) to possible risks, the very existence
of which he is unaware.  You know (at least some of) your limits, and
chose not to violate those boundaries.  But what of the ignorant or
inexperienced user who has yet to discover those limits?  That's the one
we're concerned with.

: Please don't think my remarks are intended to refute the points you've made.
: I recognize them as valid and important points. I only attempt to provide
: another point of view. My admittedly limited observations seem to indicate
: that most  programs have far more features than most users use.
: Consequently, they don't even use them to their fullest capability, much
: less try to push them to their limits.

I don't believe it's a matter subject to either proof or refutation, at least
in the strong sense.  It seems to me that you are more optimistic than
perhaps you should be.  I suspect you find my position excessively pessimistic.
In the end it comes down to individual assessment and choice.  I've seen
enough bad outcomes caused by failure to understand the limitations of a
chosen tool to be wary of "unwarranted optimism".

In any community there will be some folks who will insist on misusing the
tools they find at hand, whether those tools are software packages or
steam engines.  I'd just like to avoid becoming part of the resulting
mess, and I'd prefer not to have to pay the cost of cleaning it up.

-- 
-----------------------------
James R. Bunch         "A Byte is a terrible thing to waste ... 
jbunch@primenet.com     ... a MByte 1048576 times worse"

PGP Key available via finger
PGP Key fingerprint =  B5 31 10 77 BF B0 FD B2  10 54 CB E6 13 7C 26 58
------------------------------