relationship with our tools? NO.

[Matt Miller]

On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Tril wrote:

> TUNES is not a being.  It isn't any more alive than Linux is.  TUNES is a
> dynamic, evolving software project.  That means it only evolves at the
> whim of its users and coders.  We should not desire the computer to take
> control of its own evolution.  It might be a fun experiment, but the
> purpose of TUNES is to make a useful system.  If the system is not
> completely controllable by the user at all times, how is it useful? 
> 

Its utility for a given task may be decreased, however its total utility
is increased in that the user is prevented from making changes which cause
the system to become unstable.  The trick is not making the system
completely controllable, rather to provide the user with as much control
as he needs for any given task, while not compromising the system.

> HAL was a murderer.

Do you honestly believe that the above follows from the below?

> Because the designers tried to make it/him autonomous.

> David Manifold <dem@tunes.org>
> This message is placed in the public domain.
> 
> 

Matt