Re: [tlug] Speaking of computer usage ....

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:

 > On 2008-03-02 10:53 +0900 (Sun), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > Precisely.  "Professions" as conventionally thought of are represented
 > > by the medical profession and the legal profession.
 > 
 > Let's not forget engineering here.

The "profession" of engineering is pretty weird, actually, as you
point out.  I don't think anybody has a good understanding of where
the "professional ethics" of an engineer differ from mere good
citizenship that those *without* engineering training could perform
within the limits of their knowledge.  Ie, you don't do things that to
your knowledge put others at harm, and you don't lie about it when
your employer does those things.

Note that the reason I post to this thread is precisely to try to
distinguish between professional engineers who do have an ethics of
some kind, and paid engineers; and to try to discourage usage that
would make it hard to identify those ethics.

 > A PE [professional engineer] is required to place the good of
 > society ahead of the good of his client; an attorney is the exact
 > reverse.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the the attorney's ethics.
The attorney is required *by society* to identify his client's good
with the good of society.  As a resident of a country where even
Amnesty International is unable to keep track of death row and defense
attorneys regularly collude with prosecutors to ensure that every case
brought to trial ends in conviction, you should understand why that is
fundamental to preservation of human rights.

 > > It's a kind of euphemism to call somebody a professional merely
 > > because they get paid.

 > Not at all; it's just a different use of the word.

I've acknowledged that it's in the dictionary, and that failure to use
it that way makes me odd.  My point is that of St. Paul: "To me,
everything is permissible, maybe.  But not everything does good."

In a context where you need to distinguish between amateur and
professional, sure, that's the conventional way to make the
distinction.  And it's harmless; there's no invidious comparison
there.

But somebody who can write what Anthony de Boer did is simply an
ignorant snot.  Anybody who has watched M*A*S*H, or a chess champion
playing 50 simultaneous games, is well-aware that sometimes the
professional does work that, under the conditions that amateurs demand
for *their* performances, would be unacceptable.  The whole point is
that the professional is not "performing" for art's sake the way that
amateurs do, she is producing.  The professional is not judged on her
peak performance; often she is expected to sustain production at rates
that do not normally permit peak performances.

And we all know that craftsmen cut corners, too.  Craftsmen come in
all levels: apprentice, journeyman, master.  But a professional is
expected to (try to) go beyond "master".  In the professions, you can
master the "craft" of your field, but you don't ever master the field,
because the field progresses.

So I think that to accept the usage that somebody who gets paid is a
"professional" simply opens the door to careless usage, and to an
attitude that allows one to put others down precisely because they are
more highly paid.

 > > The magic of open source software is quite apparent when you consider
 > > how the aggregate of random responsible actions under voluntary
 > > coordination is something as reliable (ie, responsible on demand) as
 > > the Linux kernel.
 > 
 > Actually, I'd disagree with that. I've not found open source software,
 > in and of itself, to be any less or more reliable in some given instance
 > than commerical software.

I compared open source to commercial in a different post.  What I
actually had in mind here was NetBSD, to be honest.  Bazaar
vs. cathedral, you know.