Bush set the precedent. That's what I cannot forgive. I pointed out at the time that aside from the fact that this kind of stuff was wrong in and of itself that administrations change and that a wise person does not prepare weapons for his enemies to use against him, but...
If you think Bush set the precedent, you're not looking very far back in history. There's not a US president since WW2 who hasn't engaged in some pretty sketchy practices, foreign and domestic (okay, maybe not Gerry Ford).
Good point. What he actually did was get the necessary laws passed to make it legal. Most of the earlier presidents simply kept it under the wire.
He's the finest living male American writer of SF and fantasy.
Nope just SF, Gene Wolfe has never written in the fantasy genre although some of his books appear to be.
Part of the genius of Gene Wolfe is the way he makes fantasy ambiguous - for example Soldier in the Mist. Where fantastic things happen, but the protagonist has brain damage, so the objective reality of the fantasy cannot be guaranteed.
Devil in a Forest is another good example. Neither of these works are what I'd call SF, however. At best, they'd be historical fiction.
Or stop trying to be clever and use the fucking number system invented a gazillion years ago to, I dunno, number your versions? Pick a number and start from there; whenever you fuck something up that needs a new compile, increment the number. There you go, fool proof versioning that even works with the age old less than and greater than comparers. The only reason people think they need major/minor/build numbers is because some dumbfuck a handful of decades ago decided that the version number needed to be part af the product name, but he wanted to cover up the fact that he sucked at development and had to tack on a lesser number to not completely outrun the integer system with new builds.
The version number "has" to be part of the product name because different releases of the product can vary radically in both external (user-facing) and internal (codebase) characteristics. Tacking a version number onto the product name aids in supportability by attempting to ensure that all parties are, in fact, talking about the same thing. As a secondary characteristic, it makes it easier to document which features are available in what release, since the version number serves as a reference key.
Ideally, a major version number indicates a significant change, a minor version number indicates a feature release, and a semi-minor number a bugfix release. In practice, even in the best-regulated enterprise this sometimes breaks down.
Of course, you can use other versioning schemes - the SAS Institute preferred putting the release year into its version numbers. For most of us, however, Java 1.5 is an easier reference point to keep in mind than "Java Build #3722". Especially since it's not uncommon for unofficial builds to end up in the hands of preferred customers, which would wreck any attempt to only number the public releases.
That's quite shocking. Where coders that terrible in 2001? The whole point of checking for "this version or higher" is that it will work for this version or higher, not break as soon the version goes up.
Of course, calling windows 7 "7.1" and 8 "8.1" would address this particular issue just as well as "6.1" and "6.2", but they may have had other reasons for being version-conservative.
The problem with simply checking for "version >= X" is that sometimes X.5 breaks the app. The ideal approach would be to be able to certify later releases on an individual basis. However, that would require updating the app.
Can Bush get some of that perspective? Or is he still a monster rather than just a flawed guy in difficult times?
He didn't send the IRS after his political opponents, so he's got that going for him, at least.
Maybe it's time we stopped the blind worship of one politician and the blind hatred of the other one? Have we finally reached that time?
Bush set the precedent. That's what I cannot forgive. I pointed out at the time that aside from the fact that this kind of stuff was wrong in and of itself that administrations change and that a wise person does not prepare weapons for his enemies to use against him, but...
What will it take to teachXXXXX force people to work together instead of against each other?
communism
Fixed it.
If you could teach people to work together, that would be the foundations of communism. However, Communism in the real world had the cart and horse backwards, a lot of cynical hypocrites in charge (who weren't working together) and various other impurities.
Communism, like a lot of philosophies, would work much better if it didn't ignore human nature.
Well, what I wrote isn't a management policy, or a methodology. You can't have a software development process that involves changing requirements practiced by people that react negatively to every change. Emotional maturity, adaptation and professionalism aren't really things I think you need to lord over people. No one wants to work with/for hot-headed people that constantly keep everyone in a state of stress and aggravation.
What I said was a bit acerbic, but the tone of my own frustration was not meant to convey a tone or culture that would be repeated in the workplace. Based on the fact that you had personal reaction, that the tone I used made you feel like bad management, that makes me think that you've heard some manager with poor personal skills raging that people step up their game. I can see how my words may seem like intimidation, but they were not written in the context of Alec Baldwin telling telling everyone in the room what pieces of complete crap they are.
http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
PS
It can make a world of difference when you say "you" versus saying "we" or "I". The exclusionary "you" form is what Management uses to crack the whip.
You can find jerks anywhere, though. Management, Development, Users, whatever. If you're lucky, you can work around them. If you're really talented, you can even harness them. That particular talent, alas, is not mine.
Places that are not NYC also have public transportation
Not Florida.
Yes, most cities have so-called bus systems, but their routes are inconvenient and their schedules are abominable. A few cities have commuter rail systems, which are generally treated as expensive and useless jokes.
Most urban development occurred after the advent of the automobile and the terrain is too flat to force people closer together so the sprawl is horrendous.
maybe you should consider picking up a programming language. it will broaden your
horizons - in the same way that learning a little bit of a french, or the clarinet, or how to
graft fruit trees would.
if i paint on the weekends, maybe i can better appreciate the work of the masters. that doesn't mean i'm a good painter.
i agree that it has little or no bearing on how good you are at your real work (unless you're a machinist, a spammer, a scientist, or some discipline that uses computers intimately)
Let me rephrase it: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
While I think that a basic understanding can be valuable in knowing generally what can and cannot be expected from people in other professions, I can tell horror stories. Like the business analyst who found out that core memory does an erase-read cycle and demanded that the COBOL programmers immediately re-initialize all their variables everytime they read them. Or the tech company executive who insisted that customers buy caching disk controllers long after caching had become something built into the drive, not the controller.
Have some respect. Software development is no more an "All You Have To Do Is..." profession than neurosurgery is. A Boy Scout can bandage your finger or write basic HTML, but do you want him manhandling your liver? Too many people stand at the edge of the pond and think it's the same thing as the ocean.
Instead of everyone getting upset because they have work to do while making adjustments to new changes, how about you just do your damn job and maybe things will get done faster, with better quality. It's not a war, it's software development. If you want to stay relevant, you will do everything in your power to understand this and become better at what you do. In the case you don't want a job, keep getting "pissed" every time changes come down the pike. Consumers don't care about your personal struggle with adapting to change. This isn't a daycare, it's business.
It has been said that the job of a good software manager is less about getting the developers motivated than it is about keeping them going while not de-motivating them. Geeks have a tendency to drive themselves, and often drive themselves harder than they can be driven by others. The challenge is less in getting them to work than in getting them to work on the right things.
I worked once in a company which practised Management By Intimidation, and swore afterwards that no amount of money would ever persuade me to work for another company like that ever again. Pushing phrases like "if you want to stay relevant", "do everything in your power", and "this isn't a daycare" will have me heading for the exit faster than you can scream "You're fired!".
Ultimately, I'm in the profession for 2 reasons. 1: I enjoy what I do. 2: I'm pretty good at it. I'm not really in it for the money. I could make a lot more doing other things in other places, but I like what I'm doing now and it suffices. In that, I think I'm a lot like most of the Linux developers. They have their own agendas, and while Linus may not be the ultimate diplomat, he's a leader, not a manager.
Microsoft, conversely, is a lot about driving the developers rather than persuading them, and if I was to be really cynical, I'd even suggest that their marketing-driven agendas passed on to low-cost developers has a lot to do with their current woes. The Linux developers are often unpaid, but there's never been a "Slaves of the Penguin" book to match "MicroSerfs" and the thought of Linus telling his minions that "if they want to stay relevant..." strikes me as outright comical.
If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.
That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.
At the time, the "previous regime" was still the current regime, and the Boston Tea Party was a message from the taxpayers of that regime to their overseas overlords that if they wanted to levy taxes, they'd darned well better allow the locals some say-so in the process. The general revolt only came after the Crown refused to take the hints.
The majority of the modern-day self-identifying Tea Partiers don't show much understanding of that motivation. At best, they complain about "wasteful" taxation, at worst, what they really want is no taxation at all (just keep yore dam commie socialist gummint hands offa mine Social Securrity!)
Holding that sort of attitude doesn't exactly make the tax people think warmly about you, needless to say.
Nonetheless, targeting people based on their political positions is wrong, regardless of their philosophy.
Or the game creators could just stop being cheap, and record/licence 100 different smashy-glass sounds instead of 3. And don't get me started on that damn squeaky-door noise in movies!
What next? Are you going to bitch about the Wilhelm Scream?
Alright, maybe I'm grasping, but I will say this - if government officials think it's necessary and proper to put citizens on constant surveillance and place our information into a monolithic database, then would it not stand to reason that they should be subject to the same? After all, they are public officials, and if a person has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide, correct?
Problem is, Orwellian also includes doublethink. As in "Innocent people have nothing to hide", but "we cannot do our job effectively if people can watch what we are doing".
A lot of the e-readers are rebadged Chinese designs with custom software (eg. some of the Kobo line) and the Nook may be in the same boat. MS may just be buying the software and the people that have written it.
I think we can safely say that B&N doesn't own any "Nook Factories" that they sold to Microsoft, so it would be the Nook IP and channels that's being transferred. The Nooks are not, however generic devices with a Nook badge slapped on them, however, as you swiftly learn when a cable goes bad.
However much of the insides are commodity parts (and sooner or later, almost everything electronic incorporates commodity parts), there are definitely bits of bespoke hardware, and the Nook OS itself is a secretive version of Android.
If they buy it, i'm dumping my simple touch ( which i do love ). Screw them, and the horse they rode in on.
That's just silly.
Microsoft has owned a significant (but not majority) steak in Nook for some time, certainly when you purchased your unit. And, what does Nook's future direction (into the toilet) have to do with its past when you purchased your unit from Nook who at that time already had a significant Microsoft ownership?
Oh, that's right, fan boys and common sense don't mix...
Not so fast. There are serious ramifications here.
The Nook is 2 things: A) the Nook hardware, which is what Microsoft is apparently buying out. B) the Nook B&N store, which they presumably aren't, since that part effectively is B&N.
Without the B&N store, a Nook loses a lot of what it was purchased for, so if Microsoft should drop that particular function in a future OS upgrade, your entire Nook library effectively gets erased. You may be able to install a Nook app to some other device/desktop/phone, but the Nook unit itself might be left unable to serve as a B&N e-reader. This is even more of a problem when you consider that all but the first generation of Nooks keep their B&N purchases in a hidden space inaccessible to the tablet filesystem.
You wont get Parkinson's because you'll be dead before it could form.
(sardonic)
Not always. Grandpa was a heavy smoker. Lived to be nearly 80. Had Parkinson's real bad, though, so any benefits evidently didn't come through for him.
The legit question is: will I be able to continue to learn faster than a programming robot will advance and eventually replace me? The truth is that the programming robot will learn at an exponential rate, so there will likely be little difference between having 2 years of experience or 20 by the time the robot surpasses your ability. Perhaps the 20-year-programmer will have an extra day or two to try and hack into the robot, and likely that extra experience will help with that goal. But all programmers will eventually be replaced by the robot. Then, at long last, the hardware engineers can again gloat.
Management has been trying to get hold of those hypothetical programming robots for decades, and they never manage to do so. That's why they have to settle for things like under-30s and Third World code monkeys.
Someday, someone probably will manage to make computer systems that can program themselves intelligently. But a lot of predecessor functions need to be automatable first, and so far, little luck on those either. I'm fairly confident that anyone 40 or over isn't in any danger.
In most cases it's just simple straight forward porting of the application and it's no rocket science.
"All You Have To Do Is..."
The most deadly words in Information technology.
Actually, in most cases the new system is NOT a simple port of the old, it's an excuse to load up on gee-whiz features, address major shortcomings that were in the old system, provide an excuse to play with the latest "Silver Bullet" bleeding-edge technology, and heavily line the pockets of all sorts of so-called "experts".
Fred (Mythical Man-Month) Brooks called it the "Second System Effect."
Slashdot Mirror
For many, a Roomba would do.
You're sure a Roomba wouldn't have problems with navigating around the Oval Office? Did they even design it with non-reclangular rooms in mind?
Oh yes. In fact, the ideal Roomba room is spiral-shaped with star-like extensions.
Bush set the precedent. That's what I cannot forgive. I pointed out at the time that aside from the fact that this kind of stuff was wrong in and of itself that administrations change and that a wise person does not prepare weapons for his enemies to use against him, but...
If you think Bush set the precedent, you're not looking very far back in history. There's not a US president since WW2 who hasn't engaged in some pretty sketchy practices, foreign and domestic (okay, maybe not Gerry Ford).
Good point. What he actually did was get the necessary laws passed to make it legal. Most of the earlier presidents simply kept it under the wire.
In full, the Damon Knight Memorial Grand Master Award.
Someday, however, I would not be surprised to hear the announcement of the Gene Wolfe Award.
He's the finest living male American writer of SF and fantasy .
Nope just SF, Gene Wolfe has never written in the fantasy genre although some of his books appear to be.
Part of the genius of Gene Wolfe is the way he makes fantasy ambiguous - for example Soldier in the Mist. Where fantastic things happen, but the protagonist has brain damage, so the objective reality of the fantasy cannot be guaranteed.
Devil in a Forest is another good example. Neither of these works are what I'd call SF, however. At best, they'd be historical fiction.
Dothraki would be a better choice.
I refuse to have anything to do with it unless it supports Rlyeh'an.
Ïa! Ïa! Cthulhu ftagn!
Or stop trying to be clever and use the fucking number system invented a gazillion years ago to, I dunno, number your versions?
Pick a number and start from there; whenever you fuck something up that needs a new compile, increment the number. There you go, fool proof versioning that even works with the age old less than and greater than comparers.
The only reason people think they need major/minor/build numbers is because some dumbfuck a handful of decades ago decided that the version number needed to be part af the product name, but he wanted to cover up the fact that he sucked at development and had to tack on a lesser number to not completely outrun the integer system with new builds.
The version number "has" to be part of the product name because different releases of the product can vary radically in both external (user-facing) and internal (codebase) characteristics. Tacking a version number onto the product name aids in supportability by attempting to ensure that all parties are, in fact, talking about the same thing. As a secondary characteristic, it makes it easier to document which features are available in what release, since the version number serves as a reference key.
Ideally, a major version number indicates a significant change, a minor version number indicates a feature release, and a semi-minor number a bugfix release. In practice, even in the best-regulated enterprise this sometimes breaks down.
Of course, you can use other versioning schemes - the SAS Institute preferred putting the release year into its version numbers. For most of us, however, Java 1.5 is an easier reference point to keep in mind than "Java Build #3722". Especially since it's not uncommon for unofficial builds to end up in the hands of preferred customers, which would wreck any attempt to only number the public releases.
v.8.0.0.8.1.3.5
s/u/\./
That's quite shocking. Where coders that terrible in 2001? The whole point of checking for "this version or higher" is that it will work for this version or higher, not break as soon the version goes up.
Of course, calling windows 7 "7.1" and 8 "8.1" would address this particular issue just as well as "6.1" and "6.2", but they may have had other reasons for being version-conservative.
The problem with simply checking for "version >= X" is that sometimes X.5 breaks the app. The ideal approach would be to be able to certify later releases on an individual basis. However, that would require updating the app.
Can Bush get some of that perspective? Or is he still a monster rather than just a flawed guy in difficult times?
He didn't send the IRS after his political opponents, so he's got that going for him, at least.
Maybe it's time we stopped the blind worship of one politician and the blind hatred of the other one? Have we finally reached that time?
Bush set the precedent. That's what I cannot forgive. I pointed out at the time that aside from the fact that this kind of stuff was wrong in and of itself that administrations change and that a wise person does not prepare weapons for his enemies to use against him, but...
What will it take to teachXXXXX force people to work together instead of against each other?
communism
Fixed it.
If you could teach people to work together, that would be the foundations of communism. However, Communism in the real world had the cart and horse backwards, a lot of cynical hypocrites in charge (who weren't working together) and various other impurities.
Communism, like a lot of philosophies, would work much better if it didn't ignore human nature.
Well, what I wrote isn't a management policy, or a methodology. You can't have a software development process that involves changing requirements practiced by people that react negatively to every change. Emotional maturity, adaptation and professionalism aren't really things I think you need to lord over people. No one wants to work with/for hot-headed people that constantly keep everyone in a state of stress and aggravation.
What I said was a bit acerbic, but the tone of my own frustration was not meant to convey a tone or culture that would be repeated in the workplace. Based on the fact that you had personal reaction, that the tone I used made you feel like bad management, that makes me think that you've heard some manager with poor personal skills raging that people step up their game. I can see how my words may seem like intimidation, but they were not written in the context of Alec Baldwin telling telling everyone in the room what pieces of complete crap they are.
http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
PS
It can make a world of difference when you say "you" versus saying "we" or "I". The exclusionary "you" form is what Management uses to crack the whip.
You can find jerks anywhere, though. Management, Development, Users, whatever. If you're lucky, you can work around them. If you're really talented, you can even harness them. That particular talent, alas, is not mine.
Places that are not NYC also have public transportation
Not Florida.
Yes, most cities have so-called bus systems, but their routes are inconvenient and their schedules are abominable. A few cities have commuter rail systems, which are generally treated as expensive and useless jokes.
Most urban development occurred after the advent of the automobile and the terrain is too flat to force people closer together so the sprawl is horrendous.
maybe if you rephrase it something like -
maybe you should consider picking up a programming language. it will broaden your
horizons - in the same way that learning a little bit of a french, or the clarinet, or how to
graft fruit trees would.
if i paint on the weekends, maybe i can better appreciate the work of the masters. that
doesn't mean i'm a good painter.
i agree that it has little or no bearing on how good you are at your real work (unless you're
a machinist, a spammer, a scientist, or some discipline that uses computers intimately)
Let me rephrase it: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
While I think that a basic understanding can be valuable in knowing generally what can and cannot be expected from people in other professions, I can tell horror stories. Like the business analyst who found out that core memory does an erase-read cycle and demanded that the COBOL programmers immediately re-initialize all their variables everytime they read them. Or the tech company executive who insisted that customers buy caching disk controllers long after caching had become something built into the drive, not the controller.
Have some respect. Software development is no more an "All You Have To Do Is..." profession than neurosurgery is. A Boy Scout can bandage your finger or write basic HTML, but do you want him manhandling your liver? Too many people stand at the edge of the pond and think it's the same thing as the ocean.
Instead of everyone getting upset because they have work to do while making adjustments to new changes, how about you just do your damn job and maybe things will get done faster, with better quality. It's not a war, it's software development. If you want to stay relevant, you will do everything in your power to understand this and become better at what you do. In the case you don't want a job, keep getting "pissed" every time changes come down the pike. Consumers don't care about your personal struggle with adapting to change. This isn't a daycare, it's business.
It has been said that the job of a good software manager is less about getting the developers motivated than it is about keeping them going while not de-motivating them. Geeks have a tendency to drive themselves, and often drive themselves harder than they can be driven by others. The challenge is less in getting them to work than in getting them to work on the right things.
I worked once in a company which practised Management By Intimidation, and swore afterwards that no amount of money would ever persuade me to work for another company like that ever again. Pushing phrases like "if you want to stay relevant", "do everything in your power", and "this isn't a daycare" will have me heading for the exit faster than you can scream "You're fired!".
Ultimately, I'm in the profession for 2 reasons. 1: I enjoy what I do. 2: I'm pretty good at it. I'm not really in it for the money. I could make a lot more doing other things in other places, but I like what I'm doing now and it suffices. In that, I think I'm a lot like most of the Linux developers. They have their own agendas, and while Linus may not be the ultimate diplomat, he's a leader, not a manager.
Microsoft, conversely, is a lot about driving the developers rather than persuading them, and if I was to be really cynical, I'd even suggest that their marketing-driven agendas passed on to low-cost developers has a lot to do with their current woes. The Linux developers are often unpaid, but there's never been a "Slaves of the Penguin" book to match "MicroSerfs" and the thought of Linus telling his minions that "if they want to stay relevant..." strikes me as outright comical.
If your groups is named after the most famous tax revoult in the history of the country I would expect the tax man to pay special interest to it.
That tax revolt was against the previous regime (the British Empire), not the current government (United States of America). The Tea Party advocates for legislative reform of the tax code and containing spending, not revolts against the government. This is clearly a case of abuse of authority by a government agency intervening in the political process for the benefit of the current administration. You've got a pretty big evidentiary burden if you want to try to justify that.
At the time, the "previous regime" was still the current regime, and the Boston Tea Party was a message from the taxpayers of that regime to their overseas overlords that if they wanted to levy taxes, they'd darned well better allow the locals some say-so in the process. The general revolt only came after the Crown refused to take the hints.
The majority of the modern-day self-identifying Tea Partiers don't show much understanding of that motivation. At best, they complain about "wasteful" taxation, at worst, what they really want is no taxation at all (just keep yore dam commie socialist gummint hands offa mine Social Securrity!)
Holding that sort of attitude doesn't exactly make the tax people think warmly about you, needless to say.
Nonetheless, targeting people based on their political positions is wrong, regardless of their philosophy.
Or the game creators could just stop being cheap, and record/licence 100 different smashy-glass sounds instead of 3. And don't get me started on that damn squeaky-door noise in movies!
What next? Are you going to bitch about the Wilhelm Scream?
Find me the blood of a young boy, Smithers... quickly...
Actually, wasn't this process central to the plot of a 1950s Vincent Price/Roger Corman film or something like that? Seems like it rings a bell.
Alright, maybe I'm grasping, but I will say this - if government officials think it's necessary and proper to put citizens on constant surveillance and place our information into a monolithic database, then would it not stand to reason that they should be subject to the same? After all, they are public officials, and if a person has done nothing wrong, they should have nothing to hide, correct?
Problem is, Orwellian also includes doublethink. As in "Innocent people have nothing to hide", but "we cannot do our job effectively if people can watch what we are doing".
A lot of the e-readers are rebadged Chinese designs with custom software (eg. some of the Kobo line) and the Nook may be in the same boat. MS may just be buying the software and the people that have written it.
I think we can safely say that B&N doesn't own any "Nook Factories" that they sold to Microsoft, so it would be the Nook IP and channels that's being transferred. The Nooks are not, however generic devices with a Nook badge slapped on them, however, as you swiftly learn when a cable goes bad.
However much of the insides are commodity parts (and sooner or later, almost everything electronic incorporates commodity parts), there are definitely bits of bespoke hardware, and the Nook OS itself is a secretive version of Android.
If they buy it, i'm dumping my simple touch ( which i do love ). Screw them, and the horse they rode in on.
That's just silly.
Microsoft has owned a significant (but not majority) steak in Nook for some time, certainly when you purchased your unit. And, what does Nook's future direction (into the toilet) have to do with its past when you purchased your unit from Nook who at that time already had a significant Microsoft ownership?
Oh, that's right, fan boys and common sense don't mix...
Not so fast. There are serious ramifications here.
The Nook is 2 things: A) the Nook hardware, which is what Microsoft is apparently buying out. B) the Nook B&N store, which they presumably aren't, since that part effectively is B&N.
Without the B&N store, a Nook loses a lot of what it was purchased for, so if Microsoft should drop that particular function in a future OS upgrade, your entire Nook library effectively gets erased. You may be able to install a Nook app to some other device/desktop/phone, but the Nook unit itself might be left unable to serve as a B&N e-reader. This is even more of a problem when you consider that all but the first generation of Nooks keep their B&N purchases in a hidden space inaccessible to the tablet filesystem.
So there's good reason to get bent here.
You wont get Parkinson's because you'll be dead before it could form.
(sardonic)
Not always. Grandpa was a heavy smoker. Lived to be nearly 80. Had Parkinson's real bad, though, so any benefits evidently didn't come through for him.
The legit question is: will I be able to continue to learn faster than a programming robot will advance and eventually replace me? The truth is that the programming robot will learn at an exponential rate, so there will likely be little difference between having 2 years of experience or 20 by the time the robot surpasses your ability. Perhaps the 20-year-programmer will have an extra day or two to try and hack into the robot, and likely that extra experience will help with that goal. But all programmers will eventually be replaced by the robot. Then, at long last, the hardware engineers can again gloat.
Management has been trying to get hold of those hypothetical programming robots for decades, and they never manage to do so. That's why they have to settle for things like under-30s and Third World code monkeys.
Someday, someone probably will manage to make computer systems that can program themselves intelligently. But a lot of predecessor functions need to be automatable first, and so far, little luck on those either. I'm fairly confident that anyone 40 or over isn't in any danger.
Maybe someone should write the "Fucking Bible":
"In the beginning god created the fucking heaven and the damn earth. And the earth was bloody formless and goddamn empty ..."
Would the Adulterer's Bible do, instead? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible
I too can explain WD's Windows-only SSHD Tech:
NO SALE.
In most cases it's just simple straight forward porting of the application and it's no rocket science.
"All You Have To Do Is..."
The most deadly words in Information technology.
Actually, in most cases the new system is NOT a simple port of the old, it's an excuse to load up on gee-whiz features, address major shortcomings that were in the old system, provide an excuse to play with the latest "Silver Bullet" bleeding-edge technology, and heavily line the pockets of all sorts of so-called "experts".
Fred (Mythical Man-Month) Brooks called it the "Second System Effect."