Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (13388)	5/25/2002 3:11:06 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Thank you. You just can't imagine how relieved I am to now understand that the gov't never screws up. I'm so relieved. I did not say that the gov't never screws up. What I said was that when the private sector screws up in government contracting they blame the government. Ah, but there is a significant difference: the private sector pays for it's screw-ups with their money When your contract went from $n to $20$n that was the taxpayer's money. Not the company's money. Even if your company lost money on that job [and I doubt it] the taxpayer still pays for those losses. Those 'losses' are unpaid potential profit, which companies like to refer as 'losses' or non-reimbursed costs, typically labor costs. But non-reimbursed costs go into overhead, which increases the loading factors on labor. As long as the company continues to have government contracts they get it all back. So not to worry about your private sector company, they get the money from the taxpayer one way or another, either up front or distributed over future contracts. Even in the private sector where we're not talking about government contracts. You think the private sector screws up with their money. That's a damn short-sighted view of the world. Consider the core business of Microsoft and the Windows 9x OS family. Tight, effecient, stable code? I think not. Has Microsoft paid for that monstrosity of an OS with their money? No, the consumer has, and put a nice profit on top of it to boot [no pun intended]. That in no way is a criticism of the business model of MSFT or any other company. That's business. You're in business to make money. If the company screws up, then it's eventually paid for by their customers, which one way or another flows down to the consumers. Sometimes the company has a practice where the consumer pays directly [or subsidizes] for the incompetence of the company after the product is purchased. Software companies are particularly good at this. They charge the consumer for tech support. e.g., I had a MSFT program that wouldn't install; nothing in the Knowledge Base; no help from the 'free' [non-800 number] tech support line on several calls; though I did spend many hours doing what tech support recommended. I whipped out the ol' credit card and called the paid tech support service of MSFT. After explaining the problem, tech support immediately asked, what's your system configuration.....answer...yada, yada. MSFT: Yup, the program will not run with that system configuration, it's not sufficient to meet the system requirements for the software. Dummy Consumer says: My system meets the system requirements as stated on your packaging....MSFT: Well, they're wrong. Dummy Consumer says: Why isn't this little bit of info in the Knowledge Base? It seems pretty important. MSFT: I don't know, buy a new system [and thank you for your $20 tech support call.] Then you're wrong. There was one. This was the software segment.* Funny that I should be wrong on that. When we exchanged posts on this subject months ago you said that there were multiple contract actions and finally the government got fed up and refused to go to Congress to get more funds. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. By the grace of ???, I managed to escape any involvement in any proposals or estimates on this disaster. See the previous comment. I smell a dodge. .......Now that we've sufficiently explored the glories of competency in the private sector, which you so highly touted in comparison the the teaching profession. Let me make an observation and pose a question. Observation: Here it is that: you a 'professional' in software development within the private sector believe that you're competent to dictate whether there should or should not be teacher colleges and what should or should not be in an educational curriculum. Regardless of whether we're talking about elementary school, middle school, or high school. Question: What would you think about a certified public accountant dictating what should or should not be included in obtaining a degree in software engineering? What would be your opinion of that certified public accountant? jttmab