Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computer says no

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Computer says no

#31

Post by agl »

thwarted wrote: post #26
agl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The server is misconfigured: it's missing intermediate certificates in its chain. Chrome 6.x should be able to work around this on all platforms at the cost of making the site slower. Additionally, the server is open to prefix attacks. For a bank, that's a pretty miserable state of affairs.

Chrome 6.x should be able to work around this on all platforms at the cost of making the site slower. This sounds, uh, weird. Got a link to more information? I'd like to see the rationale for having the browser subvert misconfigured servers; this would seem to undermine the already precarious SSL state we're in.

Chrome 6 uses NSS on all platforms and NSS will download missing intermediate certificates via HTTP, if the URL is given in an AIA extension.

This is pretty much standard browser behaviour I'm afraid. One of the many unfortunate realities of the web.

Re: Computer says no

#32

Post by adw »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
rick_2047 wrote: post #4

This really creeps me out you know. Money has a first person ontology. Paper, metal, gold or bits are money because we believe its money. But if the reported numbers for the bank’s exposure were regularly billions of dollars adrift of reality then now can I believe that what I have is not going to disappear in a glitch or is created because of a glitch. Disclaimer:I am not an economist nor do I earn anything right no…

It's really no surprise. If a bank is processing data all the time in various, non-connected systems then the only way to know the actual state is to stop accepting input and to let all processes synchronize to the point where you can total things up. Anything else is going to almost certainly miss a bunch of stuff that is in the midst of being updated on one system, but not yet available on another, or counted doubl…

Classic example: the entire clearing system is eventually consistent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance)

Re: Computer says no

#34

Post by aswanson »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #2

" . . . isn’t Vernon Hill, one of the bank’s founders, tempted to build an IT system of his own? I hate programmers, replies this dyed-in-the-wool entrepreneur. They only cause trouble." Spoken like someone who's been there on a few projects.

I'd pay exorbitant hidden fees to see the results of Mr. Hill's efforts.

Re: Computer says no

#36

Post by aswanson »

gaius wrote: post #17
shrikant wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did. Pretty much all of it.

To whom? Accidenture?

How in the world do companies like that stay in business being so incompetent? At some point, don't a series of epic disasters at least _begin_ to tarnish a reputation?

Re: Computer says no

#37

Post by DrJokepu »

aswanson wrote: post #36
gaius wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To whom? Accidenture?

How in the world do companies like that stay in business being so incompetent? At some point, don't a series of epic disasters at least _begin_ to tarnish a reputation?

If the integrity of these companies and their clients wasn't so unquestionable, I might even suspect that the answer was "by corruption and bribes".

Re: Computer says no

#38

Post by Tamerlin »

aswanson wrote: post #36
gaius wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To whom? Accidenture?

How in the world do companies like that stay in business being so incompetent? At some point, don't a series of epic disasters at least _begin_ to tarnish a reputation?

You could say the same about most government contractors. I suspect that there are a lot of kickbacks involved, because none of the projects I was ever involved in at government contracting firms ever went well -- ALL of them had a lot more people than necessary, and underutilized the best talent they had.

The one thing that they had in common with the commercial companies I worked for is that instead of jettisoning the least competent so that the rest of us could do our jobs, they promoted those folks and put them in charge.

Re: Computer says no

#39

Post by InclinedPlane »

nkassis wrote: post #23

I like how old mainframe apps are always blamed in these articles. These apps written ages ago are in my view quite incredible. How many of us have written software that will be used 30 years from now? Every time I hear about great rewrites of mainframe application (Air control fiasco of a few years ago) I just am amazed at what the original programmers managed to build which is still in use. Rewriting that stuff mea…

I'll pick one nit in this: rewrite fiascos aren't necessarily a testament to the timeless talent and genius of the original programmers.

Rather, they are a testament to the difficulties of replacing running software and the problems of managing any software project.

The original software was written in an older age for older hardware, it thus must have much simpler functionality. Because the ability to build larger systems may not have existed back then, and the ability of the hardware to cope with anything beyond the basic functionality was perhaps minimal at best. Given those requirements the devs banged out a simple system which then sat in constant use for ages (the best form of testing) and was patched up over time.

Now along comes a big, well funded project to replace the aging old system. Of course mountains of new requirements get piled onto it (because computers are so much faster and our programming tools are so much more capable). And then the project goes over budget and over schedule, the death march eventually produces a barely functional replacement and of course it's full of bugs because they cut corners rushing to get the thing shipped and nobody seemed to appreciate the enormity of the testing and defect removal needs for a new more complex system to match the robustness of a system that has had literally decades of real-world testing to facilitate defect removal.

But note that this sort of trend applies regardless of the talent of the original developers. Even if it took 5 years for that original system, simple as it is, to become robust it'll still look like a work of genius compared to attempted re-writes that fall victim to all the problems listed above.

Re: Computer says no

#40

Post by gaius »

adw wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really no surprise. If a bank is processing data all the time in various, non-connected systems then the only way to know the actual state is to stop accepting input and to let all processes synchronize to the point where you can total things up. Anything else is going to almost certainly miss a bunch of stuff that is in the midst of being updated on one system, but not yet available on another, or counted doubl…

Classic example: the entire clearing system is eventually consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance)

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_linked_settlement
Post reply on HN