« Virtual Machine’s are not the answer to everything | Main | The Personality of Computers »
License to Compute
By sparky | August 29, 2009
An Australian criminologist, Russel Smith, thinks that ‘first time’ computer users should have to get a license:
“There’s been some discussion in Europe about the use of what’s called a computer drivers licence – where you have a standard set of skills people should learn before they start using computers,”
This has been something I’ve discussed with a number of people in the past.
My main drive was frustration at people’s ignorance, or just lack of knowledge of how to use the tool that they either want – or have – to use.
The other reason was that people seemed to not want to learn, or didn’t know how to learn.
I’m in two minds about this.
Mind 1: I think making people study for a license could be beneficial: Both for the individual, but also for society in general. It would make these people understand a little more about how computers really work – and that it isn’t just a heap of ‘voodoo’ in the ether that makes their electronic message get to their long lost relative across the globe.
However, who decides on the things that are needed to be taught, and subsequently graded? How shallow or deep would such a training go. Would you have a series (like with a car license – Learner and Probationary)? How would you enforce it? And what would be the ‘punishment’ for someone browsing without a license?
Mind 2: Computers were designed by highly intelligent people – scientists, mathematicians, physicists – for use by the very same people. They were originally designed as scientific instruments, to process ‘data’ and spit out answers. Their workings are complicated, and only became more common place in the late 80′s / early 90′s due to the shift in form factor (size).
How they are used now, and what they’ve been ‘made’ to become is different from their original intended purpose. They can now be used by anyone to do any number of things.
It’s important to raise at this point the idea of systems. A system that is open and flexible to being changed is better suited to those who know what they’re doing, and wish to ‘improve’ parts of those systems: But in the hands of the unknowing, this can cause more problems than good.
However, a system that is more locked down [better suited to the dim-witted and unknowing] will provide the functionality that is needed, but limits what can be changed by the ones who know what they’re doing.
Conclusion – We need two systems.
System 1: This one is simple, unbreakable – Safe. Where a user can browse the web without fearing that by accidentally clicking on a banner they will unwittingly download a virus. Or, in the case that they do – the virus cannot be installed or executed due to the restricted nature of the system. More like the current Apple Operating System – only even further restricted.
System 2: This one is more complicated, open to modifications, and can only be sold to people with half a brain. The system wouldn’t be vastly different to what is available now (Windows / Linux) however, you will need to prove that you’re up to the challenge of using it.
This would solve 90% of the technological problems of the world. Possibly.
Topics: General | No Comments »