Re: Tired of being called a geek?

"Brad McMillan" <mcmillan_at_viselect.com> wrote in message news:3BC5C586.3917CA26_at_viselect.com... <snip>
> I think a much more important point is that far to many
> technical decisions in America are being made by "managers" who don't know
> their ass from a hole in the ground.

There is obviously some truth to this, we've all been there. On the other hand many if not most technical managers are , surprise surprise, promoted engineers. It is almost impossible to find a problem that has a best solution that is merely dictated by the appropriateness of this or that technical fix. To take your example, yes of course it would be possible to avoid attacks such as the dreadful events of sep11 by automating air traffic control or indeed air travel more. However this fails for the same reason that we still drive our own cars rather than sitting back and letting the computer do it. Customers won't have it. They want a pilot that is qualified, capable and in control, just as when they drive they want to take responsibility for their own journey. It isn't necessarily a good assessment of risk - thousands of people die in auto accidents due to human error each year. It is however a reality. In addition as Norman says people are remarkably good at circumventing automated systems.

> Since Sept 11th, however, we live in a much more dangerous world. Bad
> technical decisions can now have deadly consequences. Anyone in this
newsgroup
> can come up with more than just a few ideas on how the air traffic control
> system could have been designed to avoid the WTC attack. And, if they had
been
> in positions of authority at the FAA with the very credible threats that
the
> terrorists have been making for years, a far more robust air traffic
control
> system would have been in place and the world trade center buildings would
> still be standing.

Absolutely not. This is hindsight. The threats against internal US airfllights were not taken seriously. The risk was considered small by the Clinton administration and only security measures on international flights were revised. On a similar note local giovernment in the UK was being told a year ago not to bother planning for a biological attack because the threat was too small to be credible. Needless to say that is not the position today. In any case if the use of aircraft were to be effectively made impossible then there are other ways of causing mayhem. A suitcase nuke in Manhattan springs to mind. However in a situation where the risk of anyone taking control of an aircraft and using it as a guided missile is considered vanishingly small then a good technical decision is not to over-complicate the systems that run air traffic control by considering excessive safeguards. The risk of failure due to software or hardware failure may well be higher than the risk of terrorist attack.

> Authority flows from respect and, whether we like it or not, we live in a
time
> and place where people develop respect from the images created by the
media.
> The NASA engineers that sent men to the moon and brought them home safely
were
> able to make the best technical choices in an era where their choices were
> accepted because engineers had the respect of their peers, of the
politicians
> that funded them, and ultimately of the American public. If you go back
and
> read newspapers from the 1960s you don't see engineers referred to as
nerds or
> geeks or any other derogatory terms.

Actually you don't in general see engineers referred to as geeks or nerds these days. Only software engineers. Perhaps it is worth considering how that image came about. I'd suggest that the number one way is by promoting technical solutions to business problems.

So on the whole I won't be joining your campaign. At least not while a part of me still finds slashdot interesting and rm -rf /bin/laden funny.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK