- by Paul Murphy, -
The English language is a great tool. It's expressive, powerful, inclusive, and evolves through the democratic and open source processes of accepting change on the basis of common usage. Great, but you know what it doesn't have? Enough swear words.
Think about it, you probably know eight to ten "emotional verbalizations" applicable to a complete and unmitigated, but easily prevented, disaster caused by human laziness or incompetence. Give it some thought and you might make to fifteen before having to repeat entire phrases. That's nothing, a German or Russian wouldn't even be getting warmed up at thirty and a lot of those fairly routinely make into the media where we're limited to one or two acceptable euphemisms.
"Glitch", for example, is the officially sanctified media term for a colossal; well you know, involving computers. It doesn't matter how bad or easily preventable the disaster was; to the mass media the presense of a computer in the scenario absolves management of all responsibility.
Not all dictionaries list the word, those that do tend to describe a glitch as a minor malfunction without an obvious cause; more comical then serious in its consequences. For example, Yahoo's on-line dictionary describes a glitch as "A minor malfunction, mishap, or technical problem" and gives this etymology:
Although glitch seems a word that people would always have found useful, it is first recorded in English in 1962 in the writing of John Glenn: "Another term we adopted to describe some of our problems was "glitch." Glenn then gives the technical sense of the word the astronauts had adopted: "Literally, a glitch is a spike or change in voltage in an electrical current." It is easy to see why the astronauts, who were engaged in a highly technical endeavor, might have generalized a term from electronics to cover other technical problems. Since then glitch has passed beyond technical use and now covers a wide variety of malfunctions and mishaps.
Today (June 4/04) google news returns 1410 hits for a search on the terms "computer glitch" (without the quotation marks).
One of these, a "glitch" at the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) directly glitched the accounts for about ten million people for about a week and shut down its payroll and direct deposit services to thousands of clients - leaving several hundred thousand marginal earners unable to meet their mortgage obligations. By the time this "glitch" fades into history it will have affected roughly a quarter of the bank accounts in the country; but all of Canada's major newspapers concurred in calling it a glitch. Thus "Computer failure RBC -glitch" and "Computer failure 'Royal Bank' -glitch" return no hits.
Meanwhile, over in England a glitch functionally shut down travel in British airspace for a number of hours. No big deal, just a glitch whose ripple effects across the world cost millions of dollars and caused tens of thousands of people to suffer delays or missed flights.
That cavalier attitude seems to extend to all things computer. For example the Pakistan Daily Times, the LA TImes, and Forbes Magazine all describe a tendency for the digital speedometer on some 2004 Honda bikes to under report the actual vehicle speed as "a computer glitch." So some people got tickets they didn't deserve, or got hurt in bike crashes they shouldn't have gotten into. So what? it's just a "computer glitch", can't they just reboot their lives?
Glitches really get around. Google reports attributions to the glitch for things ranging from billings for non existent 911 calls, through missing ballots in the North Dakota special election, to failures in medicaid processing in Georgia and a magical decision by the Boca Raton emergency warning fan out system to drop about 20% of the numbers it should have called, but call most of the other 60,000 or so twice - generally after 11:00 PM.
And in every single one of these cases people's lives were affected while the news media devalued the consequences by describing entire event cycles as mere glitches. That's the Windows mentality at work; in their world, there are no consequences to failure: just reboot and move on.
Sometimes we should just call a cigar a cigar. These weren't glitches, they were the logical and necessary outcome of presure induced incompetence and idiocy at work. Try it first on the production system? Of course. Test on the customer's dime? Efficient! Cut your processing margin so close to zero that you have no capacity to recover when a batch fails? just good asset management, eh?
English just doesn't have the words to describe management failures like these - but , believe me, the standard vocabulary doesn't remotely cover it. Worse, the media's complacent use of the phrase "computer glitch" to defang even the most serious failures and their consequences is a big part of the reason no one ever rethinks the underlying causes or hangs the bosses whose decisions created them.