> > > > I'm starting to really hate all the new computers.
> > > > They've made the algorithms so
> > > > damned conservative that it sucks.
>
> > > Why would that be so?
> > > Why is that a problem with them?
>
> And you wrote:
>
> > Mostly it's a problem because it replaces the owner's judgement with
that of
> > the programmer.
>
> That's an observant comment, never heard it like that before.

I'd like to say it was an original concept, but it isn't.  Unless I
misunderstood very badly, it's something Bob's  been saying for years.  He
beat me to this one by a considerable margin.  My only contributions are 1.
Agreeing with him and 2. Perhaps saying it a bit differently.

> > > Most would know that I'm not one for (diving) computers, that I like
> > > to use what's between my ears, empty or not. In this regard I ascribe
> > > to what Bob, Feesh, whatever moniker he's calling himself today,
> > > appears to say.

> > Last time I dove with Bob and, if I can believe posts by those who have
been
> > diving with him since, he carries more than one computer.  He obviously
> > values the information they provide.  While he is one of the strongest
> > advocates of using the organic computer between your ears, I think
you've
> > misjudged his meaning.  I think that he, and a lot of others, prefer any
> > adjustments to what a tried and true algorithm be done by them, based on
the
> > output from their organic computers and not arbitrarily assigned by some
> > programmer who may not even be a diver.
> >
> > Or maybe I've misjudged your meaning.
>
> I rather believe you have. I suggest that not a few diving computer
> users would have no idea what algorithm even means, that most
> computers have been "dumbed down" to the lowest common denominator
> level as, indeed, have so many other things.

I'm not sure I'd accept "most" but some surely have.  Personally, I don't
think you have to understand the algorithm to be able to use a computer
effectively.  It does, however, help if you have a general understanding of
what it is telling you and how it compares with other planning tools.  For
most, I would think that a computer in one hand and a set of tables in the
other would be enough.

> That most diving computer manufacturers have "dumbed them down" simply
> to save their own skins as far as the law is concerned.

I'm convinced this is the case with mine.  Mine seem to relatively low on
conservatism.  For a square profile first dive, they are very similar to my
copy of the Navy tables (SSI).  For subsequent dives, they are progressively
more conservative, but still not as conservative as some other available
computers.  I'm reasonably sure that the increasing difference is at least
partly the manufacturer's preference for covering his own behind.  I'm OK
with that so long as it does not go too far.  The Suunto line goes too far
for me.  I don't know anything about the Cochran computers.  I don't have
to.  Thanks to Bob and others, I don't trust the company to produce a
quality product and, more importantly, based on the way they handled past
issues, don't trust the company to notify their customers when they discover
they've made  a mistake.

> Actually, I personally consider them extremely brave to even still
> manufacture the things, given the little that we really know about
> pressure related incidents, the increasing prevalence of extremely
> young divers and, dare I say it, the often casual training of new
> divers of whatever other age.

Particularly since there is at least one agency, SDI, I think, that is
teaching their entry level courses based only on computers.  No tables used.

Lee