• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Computer error

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    A tulipload of cash
    but much cheaper than it will be for the post office to compensate those convicted wrongly which hopefully will mean paying out millions and a few numpties being sacked.

    I do feel the industry is ready for a mandatory standard of testing & design for systems handling commercial transactions. The daily slew of stupidity being displayed in my employer alone (who is actually rated quite highly) is quite depressing.
    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

    Comment


      #12
      "More than 100 say they were wrongly prosecuted or made to repay money after computers made non-existent shortfalls." If two people claimed the system ****ed up, then it probably didn't. If 100 report the same problem, it's got to at least raise a 'reasonable doubt'.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by vetran View Post
        I do feel the industry is ready for a mandatory standard of testing & design for systems handling commercial transactions. The daily slew of stupidity being displayed in my employer alone (who is actually rated quite highly) is quite depressing.
        Put any number of testers greater than one (n) in a room and ask what proper testing means; you'll get n^n opinions; we can't agree on a body of knowledge or any such standards, we can't even agree on the intellectual roots of testing or systems design; some look to engineering and associated standards, others look to systems thinking (like me).

        We need skeptical users.
        And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
          "More than 100 say they were wrongly prosecuted or made to repay money after computers made non-existent shortfalls." If two people claimed the system ****ed up, then it probably didn't. If 100 report the same problem, it's got to at least raise a 'reasonable doubt'.
          Nonsense. That's manager thinking; something that doesn't happen very often or isn't very common isn't very interesting or dangerous. Banking worked that way and in 2008 it was shown to be bad thinking. Read Gerald Weinberg's work and Nassim Taleb's books.
          And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
            Put any number of testers greater than one (n) in a room and ask what proper testing means; you'll get n^n opinions; we can't agree on a body of knowledge or any such standards, we can't even agree on the intellectual roots of testing or systems design; some look to engineering and associated standards, others look to systems thinking (like me).

            We need skeptical users.
            problem there.

            Audit trail, checks & balances needed.
            Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by vetran View Post
              problem there.

              Audit trail, checks & balances needed.
              If I'm investigating a system that is known to contain some serious bugs, should I believe what that system's audit trail says?
              And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                If I'm investigating a system that is known to contain some serious bugs, should I believe what that system's audit trail says?
                because it is tested to a reasonable standard and the code is reviewed to ensure accuracy, of course none of these happen and errors occur.

                If we had a Sarbanes Oxley style legislation (written by people who had actually seen a computer) for functionality we could see massive benefits.

                You cannot trust companies to do a good job unless you put senior people at risk of censure/conviction.
                Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by vetran View Post
                  because it is tested to a reasonable standard and the code is reviewed to ensure accuracy, of course none of these happen and errors occur.

                  If we had a Sarbanes Oxley style legislation (written by people who had actually seen a computer) for functionality we could see massive benefits.

                  You cannot trust companies to do a good job unless you put senior people at risk of censure/conviction.
                  I agree on giving 'senior people' the accountability that fits their remuneration, something that's painfully missing in the corporate world, but who's going to write the legislation? Have standards prevented crises? Did Basel 2 prevent banking crises? Did SOX prevent corruption?

                  What is a 'reasonable standard' of testing? I'd love to know; I've been in testing for more than 15 years and the more I learn, the less certainty I have of what constitutes good testing.
                  And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Private Eye have been talking about this issue for years - not only have people lost their homes and been sent to prison, but IIRC at least one was driven to suicide.
                    Best Forum Advisor 2014
                    Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
                    Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
                      Private Eye have been talking about this issue for years - not only have people lost their homes and been sent to prison, but IIRC at least one was driven to suicide.
                      Wouldn't surprise me; all rather Kafkan. A Russian asylum seeker in Holland was driven to suicide a couple of months ago thanks to faults in a justice ministry system and uncritical users.

                      Will perhaps add Private Eye to my 'list of publications that every tester should read', which includes but does not entirely consist of;

                      An Introduction to General Systems Thinking, G Weinberg
                      Perfect Software: And Other Illusions about Testing, G Weinberg
                      The Edge of Chaos, M Waldrop
                      The Quark and the Jaguar, M Gell-Mann
                      The Demon Haunted World, C Sagan
                      The Black Swan, N Taleb
                      The Trial, F Kafka
                      ...and much more
                      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X