From: Gregory Alan Bolcer (gbolcer@endTECH.com)
Date: Sat Jul 29 2000 - 14:34:51 PDT
The point is you want to remove the human out of the loop.
Humans are fallable and biased. In Mexico, for immigration control
and interstate-commerce, they took the inspection agents and turned them into
secondary inspectors. Every tourist or traveler simply goes up
to a stoplight. They push the button and if it turns green, you
get to merrily go on your way, if it turns red, they go through
all your stuff with a fine tooth comb. The decision is taken
completely out of the hands of anyone at the scene, and everyone
has a fatalistic determinism about the whole scenario.
Dave Long wrote:
> > These are the sorts of questions that human judges are normally
> > expected to answer, based on evidence from the scene, says Feu
> > Rosa, and they only need yes or no answers. "If we are concerned
> > with nothing more than pure logic, then why not give the task to
> > a computer?"
> If we are concerned with nothing more than pure logic, then why
> not give the task to humans? After all, if they only need yes or
> no answers, and not diffy-q solutions, a computer is overkill.
> A printed flowchart ought to do the trick, and using one has the
> benefit that everyone involved in the case will understand the
> process used to arrive at the verdict.
> Legal morass and software bloat are bad enough alone; think of
> the potential chaos from combination.
-- Gregory Alan Bolcer | firstname.lastname@example.org | work: 949.833.2800 Chief Technology Officer | http://www.endtech.com | cell: 714.928.5476 Endeavors Technology, Inc. | efax: 603.994.0516 | wap: 949.278.2805
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 29 2000 - 14:35:32 PDT