Two days ago, in a previous question, I told of how I went to the bank to cash a couple of checks and the teller, if I had not stopped him, was about to overpay me my over $600 big ones. Well, here's the problem. Had the teller done things the old fashioned way, by physically processing the check himself, this never would have happened. Today most banks use these check reading devices that does everything automatically. All the teller has to do is insert the check into the machine, where it immediately stamps it and the dollar amount of the check appears on the computer screen. All the teller has to do is give you the money and you are off. This is exactly what happened. However, the machine instead of reading the check as being $69.52, it read it as being $691.52. The teller was in training and his supervisor was right there with him walking him through the process step by step. In the end, the teller had to manually enter in the amount because the machine continued to misread it.
2006-07-26 12:30:53 · 5 answers · asked by cave man 6 in Computers & Internet ➔ Other - Computers
Yes we don't even know how to count out change properly.
It is pitiful.
2006-07-26 12:37:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. I am a computer science major, and constantly work around computers. Granted there are many systems such as the one you just mentioned that could have cost the bank 600 dollars, but to be fair you have to consider the amount of money the bank would lose if they took into account human factors. Such as human error, how many dollars would the bank lose from people misreading checks, which is as likely if not more likely than a computer misreading checks. Also consider the amount of money the bank would have to pay to employ hundreds of more employees to do the thousands of tasks that a single computer can do in half the time. The 600 dollars is a very slim loss compared to the money the bank is saving by paying a 1 time cost for a computer system, employing 1 computer engineer who manages thousands of computer systems, and the negligible electric cost to run the machine.
In general though, computers have their weakness, but far fewer than people, and we can work to make computers better every day, we still haven't eliminated human stupidity in thousands of years.
2006-07-26 19:40:40 · answer #2 · answered by Tyler 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a very minor example of our technology dependence. Consider any city of, say, a million people. Every day, food and water for a million people must be brought in and distributed to where everyone can get it. Every day, waste from a million people gets collected and removed. Think about how much technology that takes. It's not all super high tech, but there are lots and lots of technological pieces that must work together smoothly. Think about what would happen if we didn't have the technology.
2006-07-26 19:41:59 · answer #3 · answered by rainfingers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree. Humans make WAY more errors than computers. Particularly with money. (And, in your story, it sounded like it was the fault of the inexperienced teller or check writer. A computer system may work perfectly, but is still dependant on the input.)
As far as us all being too dependant on technology, I think it depends on your relationship with technology. Part of what makes humans more than animals is our tools. Properly used, technology can make human life far easier and safer. Perhaps there will be a too far, but I don't think we are there yet.
2006-07-26 19:43:23 · answer #4 · answered by Tim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dependant is the wrong word, i think addicted is more like it. some people can't live without it, others don't even know how to use it.
2006-07-26 19:34:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋