From: "Donald Bruckman" <bruckmandesign@verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:45:03 -0700
>Don't get anyone started on problems with the medical delivery system in
>this country. While their codes may have a part in it, I doubt it is a
>major contributor.
My intent was to show what happens when government control of a profession
goes haywire. For instance, a New York Times article published on July 4
said that some judge disagreed with a a drug manufacturer's contention that
they were was immune from liability when the Food and Drug Administration
approves their drug label. The drug manufacturer, of course, is appealing.
A May 17 Article discussed the medical community's lack of motivation to
give any guarantees or warrantes. Apparently when they make a mistake, the
patient (or their insurance company) pays more to fix it. All this under
"government" control.
Would you like such immunity if the government approves an engineering code
that you use the same way it approves drugs? That can be scary - there is
then no motivation to do a good job because someone will underbid you.
Would our work product be better without the threat of lawsuits or the need
to give warrantees?
What I said was meant to present a different business model than what's used
in engineering and architecture. There's plenty wrong with that model also,
fortunately much more than the one we labor under. But they all get to
drive a Lexus, so they like it.
As for what is a major contributor to that problem, look no further than
where political contributions to politicians come from.
----Original Message Follows----
>This is particularly true for us architects since we design
>buildings with a wide variety of uses, from apartments to restaurants, all
>of which use different codes.
Engineers have the same problem. The only thing, which is not worth
discussing unless some tea and crumpets are being served, is who has it
worse, and who can cause the most suffering (architects or engineers) when
following it turns out to be a mistake.
>There could be architecture package subscriptions, structural packages,
>etc.
>sort of like an HBO package on TV. That way, all this errata discussion
>this board had last week just vaporizes since the code is on a central
>server that can be updated at any time by the authors much like any
>software
>patch.
>Imagine this. Log onto your subscription, tell the server the location of
>your project, size, type, etc. and the system automatically loads relevant
>codes as well as all the local annotations to the model code; automatically
>loads the seismic proximity constants, fire dept requirements, health
>department annotations,...the list could be endless of how you could tailor
>the thing.
That's an idea. I do have some concerns on how to document what version of
an electronic download was used. (Almost every engineering drawing I've come
across simply says "latest codes" were used, whatever that means, and that
bothers me some.)
>But NO, I have to drive to a bookstore and buy the dang thing like it was
>the latest novel from Stephen King. How 20th century can you get?
19th, not 20th.
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*
http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********