Blast from the past: 'If it's good enough for a person, it should be good enough for a machine'

I happened on this September 18, 2004 post — yes, I know, you weren't even born then... gimme a break, will ya? — just now during a failed search for something way back when.

I re-read it and thought it was more interesting than whatever it was I was looking for, so here it is.

If it's good enough for a person, it should be good enough for a machine

Below, the email I just sent to my local Mac Users group after a computer crash.
...............................................

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Not two minutes ago, I was happily working here at home on my iMac G4 17" running OS X 10.3.5, when all of a sudden the screen went black and the CD I was listening to ("Bladerunner" sound track, if you must know, one of my favorites) stopped playing.

Huh.

I looked at my Epson printer, plugged into the same multiple-outlet device, and saw its green light was still on, so I knew there was power.

I looked at my Adelphia cable modem box, and green lights were still on, so the internet was still there.

Huh.

As you may recall from my previous posts, I get a gray screen of death/"kernel panic"/computer shut-down about once or twice a week, which I deal with by pushing the "On" button to restart my iMac.

None of the super-sophisticated stuff my betters amongst you do when that happens.

"Quick and dirty" is what we do in the OR, with people, so why wouldn't it be the way to go with a meaningless machine?

So I responded to my suddenly-dead machine just now the same way I always deal with kernel panics: I pushed the "On" button.

It started right up just fine, and Bob's your uncle.

Now, what can we learn from this?

Well, not much on my part, but perhaps it will save those amongst you seeking answers to "Why?" the time and trouble of doing so in the future.

Who cares "Why?"

In the OR, I learned long ago that if a machine (read computer) crashes in the middle of a case, you don't try and fix it or figure out why it happened.

There's a patient lying there: paralyzed, unconscious, their respiratory and circulatory status and brain function completely my responsibility.

Doesn't that person deserve my undivided attention?

Wouldn't you want me to handle an anesthesia-machine-related problem, if you were that patient, precisely this way?

So perhaps you see a little more clearly now why it is I deal with computer malfunctions outside the OR the same way I do inside.

If it's good enough for a person, it should be good enough for a machine.

And nothing any of you techno-wizards tell me will ever, EVER, convince me otherwise.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Hey — who moved my shrimp?