On Personal Responsibility

[hkellick]

One of the major problems with American today, if not the world (certainly America, don't know about the rest) is a lack of personal responsibility.
It really saddens and disgusts me when you see this constant barrage of situations and cases where some responsibility and common sense would make a world of difference.
But hey.. we have no reason to need to be responsible. The law has seen to that.
If I malign lawyers often, it's because.. well, they deserve it. Not all lawyers are terrible corrupt people.. maybe it's even some sort of vocal minority that keep taking these high profile cases of people suing because they couldn't take any sort of responsibility, but the profession as a whole has done NOTHING to try and stop this.
That's why I hate lawyers.
I keep seeing these cases...
People suing McDonalds because they MADE them Fat
People suing companies because they couldn't be bothered to do explicitly what the directions said or use some sort of common sense (If it's small and swallowable, it should not be given to young children. You should not be wrapping it around your neck. etc.)
People suing the big tobacco industry because they "didn't know" how bad cigarettes were for you (Come off it. They've been teaching that to us since grade school. Weren't you watching?)

Why should we use common sense? I mean seriously.
I need money. I'll do something so utterly stupid it's not funny.. then find some nice lawyer to represent me against the company of the product I use, sue them.. hey, i'm rich!
This is acceptable behavior in America. No one's tried to put a stop to it. Lawyers keep taking these stupid cases. People keep making the claims.

You see this in other industries too.
Like Computer Science.
Let's say Manufacturer A creates Program B. Program B is buggy.. it crashes computers, it doesn't work with all hardware, it freezes mid-run.
So what does Manufacturer A do? They put it out anwyays? Then, eventually they'll put out a patch.. for a reasonable price.
It isn't just Windows, folks.. its all sorts of programs.
Why is this sort of thing acceptable? This isn't acceptable in other industries. If Ford put out a car that died half way down the highway or that suddenly blows up unexpectedly, they would be responsible for it.. for quite a few billion dollars worth of damage (Hell, look at the Firestone case from a couple years back)
I'll tell you.. I think they need to start doing with Computer Science what they do with Engineering.
Want to write code? Get yourself a Liscence.
See.. if an engineer designs a building that collapses, he is personally responsible for it. He would lose his job, his liscence, probably do jail time.. because he's liscenced!
If a computer scientists devided a program, however that.. clogs AT&Ts Long Distance for over 12 hours or causes a Space Shuttle to think it's got a problem it doesn't.. or whatever.. then they, too, should be responsible for their mistake. Especially today where the world is becoming increasingly wired.
If Microsoft programs were responsible for the terrible excuse for code they send out (and the even worse patches), then not only would you see upgrades less than once a year, but Windows might actually be a good OS.

Responsibility, people! We need to be responsible for what we do and what we say.

Over here, in Buffalo (probably other places), the city is dying because not only is anyone willing to take responsibility for their stupidity and their politicking, but they're so busy being stupid and playing politics that no one's trying to fix anything.
Our one big hope.. a control board that will take control of our finances (that we can't handle), is being fought with tooth and nail (they're in court on Thursday. Not sure the specifics yet.)

Another example..
Bush? Iraq? That is the fault of EVERY CITIZEN IN THE UNITED STATES.
Yes, I put the responsible exactly where it belongs.. right on your shoulders.
We all allowed Bush to come to power.. by either voting poorly (unfortunately why I liked Nader, a vote for Nader was essentially a vote for Bush) or, worse yet, not voting at all.
Democracy (well, we're a Republic, but that's not the point) is a joke when less than 50% of the population votes (and that's only during President Elections. Other elections get generally 20% less than that.)
Alot of you think "Well, my vote is worthless. No one listens to me again." And you're right, to a degree.. *1* vote is generally meaningless, but votes are like dollars.. collect enough of them and you've got some real power.
Your vote itself may not be enough to mean anything, but if everyone who criticises Bush now (well, everyone America) had voted against him to begin with, perhaps Bush would not be president, perhaps we would not have gotten involved in Iraq or made such a mess of afghanistan.

It's all about responsibility. We make choices every day. Important ones.
We're a fat nation because we CHOOSE not to eat right or exercise
(McDonalds the problem? Ha! If we all went back to eating better again, I bet you'd find that to keep business McDonalds would change their menu to accomodate us)
We're a stupid nation, because we CHOOSE not to learn or keep voting down or taking money our of efforts to help us learn.
We're a dirty and pollution nation, because we CHOOSE not to really care about cleaning ourselves up, especially if it might cost too much money (Heil, the almighty dollar, our King, our god!)

It amuses me that so many Americans are so sure that we're the best country in the world. That all countries on the world should be lucky if they were like us.
Personally, I think we're nowhere near that good. We're a poor, pathetic, dirty, disgusting and MOSTLY greedy little country bent on World Domination.. either through politics, war or business.
And we, the citizens of this country, have allowed it to be so.

Happy (almost) 4th of July.

Comments

[phinnia.livejournal.com]

I agree with you except where the business with computer programming. It's essentially impossible, especially when you're talking about hardware conflicts, to test all hardware on the market with even one program. Pretty much any software manufacturer will put out bugfixes and patches for free. It's only upgrading to the next major version that isn't free, and, well, no one /has/ to upgrade to Windows XP.
The rest of it, I'll buy.

[lite.livejournal.com]

Like I said, it's not really just about Windows. Windows is just an obvious problem.
The REAL problem is with business programs.. programs that places like NASA or AT&T or whatever uses.
When these programs crash, they usually do damage in terms of money, property or, occasionally, lives.
There are (and as a computer programmer, I'm sure you're aware of more than I am) cases like the program that they built the sports dome with that the moment they had any heavy snow, the dome fell in (because they forgot a negative sign) or the AT&T upgrade to long distance in the early 90s that left customers with no long distance for a while.
These are the types of applications I think computer programmers should need a liscence for. Important ones that affect business.

Because, at the moment, if the software is to blame for such an accident, the software company is NOT held liable.
I feel that.. at this day and age when everything is becoming more and more computerized.. it should be. If the software fails, the programmers should be liable.

Understand where I'm coming from?

Re:

[phinnia.livejournal.com]

I can see where you're coming from there, yes. I would actually say that the company heads are more at fault here because they generally make the decisions when to release the software (see also the Challenger disaster when the low level software and hardware monkeys were telling people not to go ahead with the launch but the higherups were saying 'we want to get the first schoolteacher into space, so we're going ahead with it' and people died.) At least some of the blame needs to be put on the shoulders of marketing and so forth, and the company execs, that crack the whips.

[lite.livejournal.com]

Your point is fair.
The people who make the decisions are at least somewhat to blame too.
At the same time.. again.. with engineers... the engineer himself is still liable, no matter what marketting and the bosses say.
I'm sure it's boggling to you to imagine how that works out... making the engineer himself liable and not the bosses, but trust me that it works...

I think there should be a Head Comp Sci guys, liscenced, who is inevitably responsible for any product he (or she) puts out.
And if the product itself fails, then it's his responsibility and his arse on the line.
Like I said.. it works.
It also puts more control under the liscenced computer scientist (it has to meet certain specifications, etc.).. which is probably a good thing.

Re:

[phinnia.livejournal.com]

I can see where you're going here, and I agree to a point ... unfortunately that would really do a number on independent software contractors like, well, my husband, that are more or less trying to make an honest living because it pays better than Burger King but doesn't have much in the way of startup capital. And then there's the problem with something like Linux - people putting out software patches to the OS at kernel level wouldn't be able to be regulated.
The advocate for free software in me says that that might also be a solution ... putting more things within the public domain so errors can be caught and fixed by the general populace rather than leaving it entirely within the hands of one company.

[lite.livejournal.com]

To be honest, while people can still make money on software, I don't really believe putting software in the public domain will be the road we take.
I'm still shocked and surprised Linux got as big as it did.

As for regulations... you have to. Things needs to be regulated.
For example... regulations should exist about software testing. Not necessarily a specific list of procedures to be used in all cases, but a set of steps all software should go through..
Also, perhaps regulations on how you write up notes about your software (what situations it works for, what hardware it's been tested on etc.)

[kolys.livejournal.com]

Spoken like a man who knows his ISO 9000/14000 checks. :)

[coderlemming.livejournal.com]

First, understand that in every piece of code I write, I do my damndest to ensure it's right and test it in all situations. I hold myself personally responsible even if no one else does.

The thing is, though, that computer science and, say, bridge engineering are two entirely different fields. Things aren't done the same way in both fields, or so I must assume by the statements you're making.

Consider:

• Programming jobs are hard to come by in this market and are not always reliable
  
• Bosses don't really understand what is involved in programming, what it takes to get a system working, what time is required, and how easily bugs can happen, much less what their consequences are. They don't understand the importance of quality software testing, nor the huge devotion of resources required to actually do it right (they see something working, so why should it be tested?).
  
• Bosses therefore pressure their programmers to work long hours, often without excess compensation, to release a working program to meet an insanely short deadline (happens ALL the time)
  
• Programmer has a few choices:
  
  1. refuse/complain/explain why it can't be done (possibly lose job, usually doesn't work anyway)
     
  2. code their fingers off trying to get something out in time, working extra hours they aren't compensated for (not always anyway), so the emphasis is on getting it done, not getting it done right.
     
  3. quit. Not an option for most faced with this situation.
     
  
  

Of course, not all projects work like this, and quality software IS produced on reasonable time schedules with adequate testing. But often, a programmer finds himself in the situation above (I have, I chose option 2, unfortunately). It's a tough one. Quality usually goes out the window, or at least slips. Rarely is a seriously low-quality piece of software (like, football stadium collapsing low quality) actually the fault of lazy/irresponsible programming. Management of programmers is often the cause of poor quality software.

[amaterasu.livejournal.com]

;-D

When I listen to people who are blindly nationalistic, I always wonder if they've ever left our shores.

[lite.livejournal.com]

I voted for Gore. I even campaigned a little. Can I still complain?
Yes, you have the right to complain. :)

I think it's those people who never bothered to vote at all who don't have that right.

[amaterasu.livejournal.com]

Oh, good. I always like being able to complain!

[tunoddenrub.livejournal.com]

What about those of us who weren't eligible to vote at the time of the election? Can we who have only recently come of voting age complain as well?

[lite.livejournal.com]

We'll see if you vote when you can vote next :)

Don't kill the messenger

[lawchicky.livejournal.com]

Don't get me wrong, I'm in complete agreeance that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and that in today's society most people blame their problems on everyone else.
As for the lawyers and the stupid cases.. it has little to do with stupid people finding "nice" attorneys. It has more to do with public activists and people who want to raise awareness. Most of these high profile cases with ridiculous theories are thought up by activist organizations who find a couple of suckers and a greedy attorney bent on gaining publicity. Generally, these cases get booted out of the legal system as quickly as they go in, but a whole bunch of people get face time on CNN. Realistically, people do not get rich on these lawsuits... now other kind of lawsuits you can get rich on!

Re: Don't kill the messenger

[lite.livejournal.com]

It depends on the lawsuit, really.

The McDonalds lawsuit (McDonalds made me fat!) will probably get throw out, but.. suing Big Companies is in.. and a great way to get rich.

What lawyers, as a whole, need to do is to show that, as professionals, they don't agree with what these people are doing. Condemn the actions of these greedy lawyers willing to take some of these stupid cases. Divide yourself from them.
Otherwise, people will continue hating you. Because by NOT condemning, it appears that you condone.

[kholnuu.livejournal.com]

My two cents is actually more like .02% of two cents.

License. Not liscense. That is all. :)

Sorry, it was driving me up the wall every time I read it. I couldn't help myself. Blame my mother for making me spell things correctly!!!

And yes, I'm stil very tired so this is making less and less sense as I go on.

I like apple juice.

Hoo boy.

[angiepenguin.livejournal.com]

Okay.

On the issue of people accepting personal responsibility, I agree with you. The lawsuits are pretty ridiculous


On the issue of licensure... that isn't taking personal responsibility. That is the government imposing responsibility upon you.
In a comment above, there was a comment about if the marketing and bosses move on, despite the engineer's recommendations, it's the engineer that gets fired, rather than the boss. All this does is put in place a fall guy. The problem isn't solved, particularly if the boss/marketing people denouncing that particular engineer, and then just hire another one and ignore their recommendations, too. In this case, the government is exacerbating the situation. Why would the boss take personal responsibility when the law says that the engineer is going to get in trouble anyway?
You mention Firestone. I don't know what happened in terms of who got fired within the company, but what happened to their reputation is how the free market should work. The company's reputation must be rebuilt for their profits to return to what they were.

As for Microsoft... now, do *you* still use Microsoft, despite its bad code and flaws? I admit, I do, too. Sure, everyone complains when Windows crashes, and makes jokes about it, but how many of the people that complain actually switch to another OS? Or stop using other MS products? If it does the job that you want it to do, within a level of tolerance that is acceptable to you, then you keep using it.


Now, on voting...
You said "votes are like dollars.. collect enough of them and you've got some real power."
There is a difference between votes and dollars, however. If you vote with your wallet (ie: don't do business with those whose views you don't like), then your vote certainly is counted - in the company's profits. However, in an election, who counts the votes? Why, the government. And increasingly, elections are moving toward electronic ballots. Now, with this, there will be a counting algorithm/program. The person (or people) who creates this program will either be paid by the government or be part of the government. Now, given that the programmer(s) will be paid by the government, do you think that it's possible that they would bend to the governments will, should it decide to want a piece of code in there that would fix the results? And think about a 'recount' in that situation.

[alphabet-k.livejournal.com]

*claps and cheers*

I agree with everything you said.

Thank you for saying it.

[lite.livejournal.com]

Thank you utterly random person ;)