Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!cdx39.UUCP!jc
From: jc@cdx39.UUCP.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: Re: Computer Ethics (from Risks Digest)
Message-ID: <8607231808.AA28835883@rclex.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Jul-86 14:08:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: rclex.8607231808.AA28835883
Posted: Wed Jul 23 14:08:41 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Aug-86 08:43:39 EDT
References: <8606050428.AA02925@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19
Approved: ailist@sri-ai.arpa

> To quote one of McLuhan's defocussed analogies: "You must talk to the
> medium, not to the programmer.  To talk to the programmer is like
> complaining to the hot-dog vendor about how badly your team is playing."

Whether he was talking about the broadcast or the computer industry, he
got the analogy wrong.

If the subject is broadcasting, the sports analogy to a "programmer"
is the guy that makes the play schedules.  True, that person is not
responsible for program content, much less quality.  But still, the
analogous position is not the hot-dog vendor.

If the subject is computers, the sports equivalent to a programmer 
is the guy that designs the plays, i.e., the coach.  He is indeed
responsible for how badly the team/computer plays.  True, there may
be others that share the responsibility (like the players and equipment
vendor and the cpu and the I/O devices).  But still, in computing, 
a programmer bears at least partial responsibility for the computer's 
(mis)behaviour.