Re: Data Constraints Vs Application Constraints

From: FrankHamersley <FrankHamersleyZat_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:32:08 GMT
Message-ID: <I7RYd.195180$K7.48051_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>

Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:31:49 GMT, FrankHamersley
> <FrankHamersleyZat_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>>We don't know its a job done badly yet.

>
> We know.

Sadly for me, I have never ever exhibited any signs of prescience!

>>>No, you are wrong. Incompetents might achieve the results desired by
>>>them: bad results.
>>
>>That would still make them incompetent...and given that the business is 
>>apparently (somewhat) comfortable with the current situation, it seems 
>>to rule out (for the moment) incompetence as abject as you suggest.

>
> ???

Then look at it this way...if I were the said developer and had the ear of the business (by way of having successfully supported their goals no amount of high church theory or lists of qualifications from esteemed institutions would prevent me from getting them to wipe the floor with your ego. This would occur about 30 seconds after you called me an incompetent!

Never ever underestimate the power of the creator's ego - most particularly if they have the high ground. A dogmatic approach is by far the easiest threat for them to shoot down in these types of circumstances.

>>>Do you mean that if you work for a big company this implies that you
>>>do things right?
>>
>>They must be doing something right!

>
> You are not serious!

Sounds like you aren't...as you seem to be espousing the view that big companies are incapable of doing anything correctly - period!

>> Thats how they got to be a big 
>>company.  Of course this particular project may have nothing to do with 
>>the overall success to date.

>
> And this particular people may have nothing to do either!

Who knows - certainly not you or I.

>>No its not - where are the professional bodies issuing sanctions for 
>>malpractice or unethical behaviour?

>
> In the same place as the shoemakers ones.

Now its my turn to say que? Surely you are not referring to market forces! BTW in keeping with the Bohrism (sic) later in this post, since when have cobblers been considered as professionals?

>>>I was not talking about to fix anything and to not be broken does not
>>>imply a well done job. 
>>
>>Sounds like the impetuosity of youth speaking here.  Later on you will 
>>find an apparently inelegant working solution is worth untold more than 
>>the perfect job that is never delivered.

>
> This has nothing to do with what I said.

No of course not - it was pure speculation on my part about your age and experience.

>>>I did not made any judgement, I was talking about probablity taking
>>>into account my knowledge and experience. BTW Jonathan agreed with me.
>>
>>Looked like a firm view being expressed as the probablility was > 0.5 

>
> It seems that you don't know a lot about maths.

True, or so it would seem to an untrained eye...read on.

> If we have 6 possible causes with probablities of:
> 30%,25%,20%,10%,10%,5%, the most probable cause has a probablity of
> 0.3 which is < 0.5

Cute, but no banana - in your original post you didn't mention the other probables. In fact the brevity and emphatic tone of your opening statement IMO can reasonably construe the possible causes you considered were members of a binary set consisting of "incompetent" and "not incompetent". QED you assigned 0.5+ probability to "incompetent" to support your statement. Any other reading looks like an attempt to wriggle off that hook.

>>>That's not apparent desirability only, this is a well stablished
>>>scientific principle.
>>
>>Any how for many years did Bohr's theory of the atom survive?

>
> Bohr's theory is not a principle.

So what - I'm sure there have been many scientific "principles" as well as "theories" that have been discredited by the passage of time.

Come on, either back your position, have the courage to withdraw it or perhaps mollify it...don't split hairs talking about principles vs theories, percentages or my obviously feeble mathematical abilities.

I'm sure we have both seen incompetent failed system developments. I suspect we have both seen successful systems that we feel we could have done a (much) better job on. However branding the latter as "incompetent" is too strong and ...perhaps less than "optimal" would be more appropriate but even then a more cautious approach is usually most likely to effect the desired changes.

Cheers, Frank. Received on Sun Mar 13 2005 - 07:32:08 CET