<snoopy dance>

Post #333,084 by Another Scott 9/24/10 5:23:34 PM Reply	<snoopy dance> Of course, you don't really give up - you're changing the subject - now to electronic document systems. By your logic, nobody should lose their car due to bad paperwork, either. The state licenses and often collects taxes on cars, so they should make sure the car loan data is correct. And nobody should have their credit rating ruined by bad paperwork either. (I'm sure you're aware that people can lose their jobs by having a bad credit report - e.g. some jobs that require a security clearance.) Maybe the courts should check those things too. After all, we pay taxes. Oh, and nobody should be bankrupted by someone who files a multimillion dollar lawsuit over some lost drycleaning - http://en.wikipedia..../Pearson_v._Chung . Maybe the court should check to see that drycleaning shops have accurate electronic records. :-/ Yes, I understand your position: Nobody should lose their home in a civil suit due to bad paperwork. There should be government-mandated safeguards before the fact. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Our civil court system doesn't work that way. Safeguards happen after the fact. The potential penalties for errors, misstatements, mistakes, and fraud in court filings can be severe. That's the check and the safeguard. HTH. Cheers, Scott. (Who will quit now.)
Post #333,085 by beepster 9/24/10 5:44:19 PM Reply	Re: <snoopy dance> you aren't following my logic. You are ignoring it. Government records don't control the outcome of unhappy dry cleaning. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,096 by crazy 9/25/10 7:53:18 AM Reply	Sure he did He just doesn't believe your "solution" is one that is legally permissible. It opens up way too many doors into additional government control based on possibly faulty records. And puts the judge into an research/advocacy position. And once that happens, each scenario comes up. Slippery slope dude. But even if it wasn't a slippery slope, his 1st point is still valid. He didn't go after the "it's too tough" or "it can't be done". He may have included them as part of the descriptive process, but that's not the core. You, on the other hand, focused on random possibly implementation details, and why it's good, and right, and of course should be done. And bitched about those lazy short-sighted programmers. Which of course set you up for a no win, because you fell into the "shit's easy" trap. It's always easy on paper. And it's always easy for project managers who have to check off if it is done. It's f'ing insanely difficult to actually DO. Given enough time and money, OF COURSE can be done. But you don't account for the reality of the time and money as it applies to the real world, at least in THIS case. You are usually much better at it. You're an idea rat. You pump them out. Sometimes they are great. Sometimes they suck Royal Canadian Moose Cock. This is RCMC quality. Sorry
Post #333,101 by drook 9/25/10 10:49:55 AM Reply	ICLRPD: This is RCMC quality. -- Drew
Post #333,110 by beepster 9/25/10 1:50:34 PM Reply	I might actually agree with you except for that I've seen these systems built and operational in addition to being on the team to do it again. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,139 by folkert 9/25/10 8:37:25 PM Reply	The things you are forgetting... Data Assurance for one. Not only data validation, but data assurance. Very key. If you can't get some(one/company) to make sure the Validated Data to inter-operate 'tween the systems that needs it... and assuring the Data is valid both (or fifty) ways, you have nothing other than an ISLAND of non-minable/usable data. If the court has to verify the data as its presented, it needs to have something to do that in real time... there is no way an ISLAND is going to do that... PLUS, you have to have the data nearly available in at least in the Federal/State/County/City/Township level and you will have to Start at the Township Level. There are already some software packages out there that do this for the TAX Assessor's Office, but they have to have the data keyed in. The company that produces the most popular software in Michigan is: http://www.bsasoftware.com/ and they don't really have anything worth mentioning for scanning. Trust me when I say, this software is very well made to the exceptions that make up 95% of the problems. There is no such thing as standard definitions for property descriptions. I have seen some property description that are 10 pages long single spaced and others being 1/2 line long, as I've previously dealt with it in the mass mail / fulfillment business. It sucks. There is no such thing as a simple problem when dealing with property titles. Automated data input is something of a misnomer. You'll probably get maybe 75% of the incoming data mostly correct. Data Validation, when it comes to the LEGAL property descriptions has to be 100% bulletproof, not 98%, not 99%, not 99.999% but 100%. Relying on submitted data in a form doesn't cut it, you have to have a survey to be submitted separately to confirm the description. Which means handling it at least twice anyway even with automation... and then you have to validate the data additionally. I'm not sure things will be as easy as you seem to think.

Welcome to IWETHEY!