Comments on: the proverbial really does happen

By: Danny Schechter — Say Goodbye To The Stock Exchange

Danny Schechter — Say Goodbye To The Stock Exchange — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:43:57 +0000

[...] Baxter, a professor at Duke University, writes that this technology is [...]

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:54:22 +0000

Loved your comment, Miss Honeychurch! Yeah, seems like there is amazingly little realism in the common bromides (and “black swans” is a good one there, Mr Baxter!).

I’m SOOOO glad I’m employed and not on the job market where tons of capable people are deemed unemployable, but I know I am just lucky.

By: Lucy Honeychurch

Lucy Honeychurch — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:04:58 +0000

Shall we even approach the gorilla in the room?

The so-called ‘Structural Unemployment Problem’ blamed in all quarters by a handwringing, shoulder shrugging confederacy of dunces for the pitiful state of the US economy. But which has largely been created by now ubiquitous software programs that can’t match Candidates with Open Positions even if you write a CV with the job description itself in the body text?!

Oh, I forgot. We’re in Blame The Victimland. Where greedy Main Streeters screwed the global economic system by taking advantage of those poor Wall Streeters at origination, and where MILLIONS of people ‘just don’t have the right experience’, gosh darnit!

By: Fran Miller

Fran Miller — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:42:35 +0000

This phenomena is so embedded in large scale systems development that it has taken on the appearance of tragi-comedy. Consult Brook’s “Mythical Man-Month” or any of the gurus. They universally suggest 80% of these projects fail, come in over-budget or don’t deliver a pay-off. I have been doing management reviews as a consultant for 35 years and could count on one hand the number of well-executed projects worthy of admiration. And don’t think you can C.Y.A. by hiring Deloitte, IBM,et al. They are screw-ups on a logarithmic scale; most disgruntled clients keep their mouths shut after the first million $$ in fees. There are only a few Frank Lloyd Wrights in any era and software is no different. The really good stuff is the lengthened shadow of a single man uniquely capable of fielding a class A team on the field. Ditto for football, reversing a recession, building Apple or a Microsoft, fighting a war, or rebuilding the Pentagon. We idealize the few who can do it,as if they are ubiquitous, not realizing 90% of IT folks are by-and-large members of a Confederancy of Dunces. I suggest re-reading the “Chronicles of Doo-dah” if you don’t get it.I know the truth seems painful but failure is death.

By: @euonymous

@euonymous — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:36:37 +0000

Oh, dear. Background: Years ago I built a software company that developed and sold software for the express purpose of software configuration management; that means tracking/managing changes and bug fixes in big software. Customers included major banks, Ford, Wal-Mart and folks of that ilk. So I do know software. Big software will always have bugs. True. Testing rarely covers all possible paths which real world interactions might take. But, all that aside, if the details were managed in ledger books with armies of people, errors would presumably also be made. Possibly different types of errors, but errors nonetheless.

My question to you is… haven’t the Bank of China and the Bank of Japan been valuable partners to their countries and their economies? Could that value be achieved with a host of smaller banks? Huge banks have credibility and weight that enable them to stabilize otherwise fragile environments. They are imposing and sometimes a bit threatening. The difference being that those banks are tied to their governments in ways ours are not. I would like to think that one or possibly two big banks could be valuable to the US, but given our national experience, it doesn’t look like we can have that advantage without a host of disadvantages and dangers that big banks pose. Tis a puzzlement.

By: Scott near Berkeley

Scott near Berkeley — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:20:25 +0000

Having bounced around Bank of America as a contract programmer in the 1990s, I can agree with your comments. The problem is the same as describing some large animal in a pitch-black room. You get five seconds to feel, then you have to leave…come back, another five seconds…out of all the “feels” you’re suppose to describe how you will make the beast do something useful, to management. And since management never gets inside the darkened room, always…OK!!!