There are innumerable Internet sites bemoaning and laughing at the endless cliches in every movie genre.

Human imagination may be limited, but the other reason is that people feel comfort with what they know.

When the hard-charging new CEO comes riding in on a white horse to save the failing company, his pearl-handled revolvers shoot cliches, the same "sure-fire" solutions used a million times before: reorganize, rethink, reemphasize, innovate.

Even in technology, when the specialists inevitably come up with a "solution" (the use of that term is a subject for another posting, with its connotation of mathematical certainty) that invokes the latest gee-whiz widget/platform/architecture, that is simply a cliche: to them, the best "solution" is the newest "solution."

Bet you thought I was going to come up with something new here...

I owe my wife credit for this one: Our ISP was "upgrading" its servers, which meant we lost the ability to send outgoing emails, and she noted how "upgrading often means downgrading."

Technology has grown so complex that "upgrading" both personal and corporate devices often leads to unexpected problems and outages. Even installing a new piece of software can end up destroying your PC/server. And upgrades from vendors, including especially operating system upgrades, to "provide new and improved features," often act instead like malware.

Vendors who issue upgrades without planning for additional technical support are demonstrating contempt for their customers. This is as true in the corporate world (I have over 27 years experience there) as on your home PC/Mac.

I'm tired of being a beta site for things that should have been tested, and of waiting days for an email response from tech support, or hours on hold.

Time to hold vendors accountable.

In a 25Jul NY Times article by Adam Cohen, about the YouTube presidential debate, he mentions a book by Andrew Keen (I'm not going to include the title so the book doesn't get another link):

• Andrew Keen laments that by pushing amateurs of all kinds to the fore - including, presumably, amateur debate questioners - the Internet "is undermining truth, souring civic discourse, and belittling expertise, experience and talent."

Why does that sound so defensive?

These are the same "experts" that research has shown are wrong 90% of the time in their area of "expertise." These are the same "experts" who get paid a lot of money for that (faulty) "expertise." These are the same "experts," in other words, who have a lot to lose if "amateurs" take the stage.

There are a few places where this might hold. I wouldn't ask an amateur for diagnosis of a medical condition, although there again research has shown that even the "experts" don't come to the same conclusion. I wouldn't ask an amateur to build a complex structure.

However, in so many other areas, the "experts" haven't proven their worth: financial advice, economic forecasts, politics, political analysis, intelligence, technology directions, etc.

I am not saying the amateurs have proved their worth. But the Internet has created an far-reaching market for "expertise." So, since in the US many believe in capitalism, why not let the "invisible hand" determine who the "experts" are who have valuable "expertise," rather than dismissing the "amateurs" and foisting card-carrying "experts" on us?

Windows was built with many unspoken assumptions. One that is especially irritating: every person has a printer attached to their PC, or at least at their desk. And so, when you print, the printer queue in the control panel clears out. But most office workers have to walk to get their printouts. And since there is nothing to indicate that you sent something to the printer, everyone forgets.

This may seem like a minor annoyance, but it is a symptom of a big problem with technology - the people who design and build it don't have to use it.

Hope all you real people appreciate my striking a blow against the uncaring technocrats.

Magazines and newspapers write articles with quotes from "the usual suspects," the same people who present at conferences so often I begin to wonder whether human cloning is already a reality.

These pundits and industry luminaries are featured in pithy soundbites the essence of which is "technology has changed everything because I just said so."

Just one example (honestly not meant to single out someone unfairly): in the 2Jul2007 Businessweek article, "Children of the Web," the co-founder of Ning, Marc Andreesen, is quoted: "A whole new generation grows up used to new technologies, and they're just different."

Well, gee.

Think about that for a moment (as I wish the author of the article had). Every new generation is different; technology has nothing to do with it, unless you believe in Technolgical Determinism (don't ask).

For example, the Romantics of the 19th century were a youth movement all across Europe, opposed to aristocratic, social, and political norms (sound familiar?). They didn't have blogs, or social networking software, but they knew one another, dressed alike, and lived in the same Bohemian (the term was coined then) way. They created new forms of art, music, and literature (sound familar?). They also helped stimulate the nationalist movements of the day, as a number of modern European nations came into being.

OK, just because I said this doesn't make it true. But it does make sense.

No offence meant to Mike Vizard, whose 11Jun opinion in Baseline (http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1540,2140578,00.asp?kc=CIOMINEPNL061107) was subtitled: "New development tools are putting business users in charge..." That could well have been ripped from the headlines when I started in IT, in the early 1980s, when "fourth generation languages" were going to change application development as we know it forever, putting users in charge.

Users still aren't in charge for a simple reason: despite the fact that they are (and always have been) impatient and dissatisfied with IT's productivity and understanding of the business, they are still functional business people, not programmers.

Yes, there are "power users" who sling code, write macros, and have the neatest and latest gadgets. But they are the tail of the curve, always have been, always will. Those under the bell, the 95%, are doing their jobs and don't want to add another one, especially since they are working more hours and enjoying it less as companies have become leaner and meaner.

For IT there is good news and bad news: users don't want to program.