Others have said it already in this thread, but I'll repeat that you might be happier leaving your high tech company and doing internal software development for some other kind of estabilshed company, university, or government. You're likely (though not guaranteed!) to work a bit fewer hours, and it's possible to stick around for a while.
The trick will be to make yourself not just a techie in that company. You'll need to learn their business, and after several years your acquired domain knowledge will be extremely valuable to the company. Business knowledge seems to have an inverse relationship to technical knowledge that way--being around a long time accumulates better knowledge, not just out-dated knowledge.
I'm not sure from your post if you're using a unix/linux box or a windows box, but if you're using a windows box you might be interested in gotomypc.com. It's basically pc anywhere, except about 1000 times easier to setup and use. And it's reasonably secure.
I don't think the effect of vendor lock-in can be underestimated. Until there's a standard for accessing and bulk-loading/querying OODBMS like JDBC or ODBC, we're not going to see wide adoption of them for several reasons:
1) If your database isn't performing up to snuff, you can't switch to another vendor without re-writing tons of code.
2) If you need to integrate with another piece of software (ie. your company just bought another company and wants to incorporate that company's product into its own) you're out of luck.
3) If you have a large volume of legacy data you need to roll over into your system, loading it in and querying it will be a painful exercise.
We have a home-grown OODBMS-ish system at my company that we have to build our systems on and consequently it is very painful to integrate with anything from the outside world.
There are very few rare species and very few extremely common species and mostly sort of common species. I don't think the graph counts the number of *animals* IN a species, I think it counts the number of *species* IN an ecosystem.
For example, a given ecosystem might have only 2 rare species, say a tree frog and a spotted owl, and only 2 common species, say a brown mouse and a blue jay, but a whole truckload of species that are neither rare nor common.
What they're saying is that there are more different rare species than we think.
Slashdot Mirror
Others have said it already in this thread, but I'll repeat that you might be happier leaving your high tech company and doing internal software development for some other kind of estabilshed company, university, or government. You're likely (though not guaranteed!) to work a bit fewer hours, and it's possible to stick around for a while.
The trick will be to make yourself not just a techie in that company. You'll need to learn their business, and after several years your acquired domain knowledge will be extremely valuable to the company. Business knowledge seems to have an inverse relationship to technical knowledge that way--being around a long time accumulates better knowledge, not just out-dated knowledge.
I'm not sure from your post if you're using a unix/linux box or a windows box, but if you're using a windows box you might be interested in gotomypc.com. It's basically pc anywhere, except about 1000 times easier to setup and use. And it's reasonably secure.
I don't think the effect of vendor lock-in can be underestimated. Until there's a standard for accessing and bulk-loading/querying OODBMS like JDBC or ODBC, we're not going to see wide adoption of them for several reasons:
1) If your database isn't performing up to snuff, you can't switch to another vendor without re-writing tons of code.
2) If you need to integrate with another piece of software (ie. your company just bought another company and wants to incorporate that company's product into its own) you're out of luck.
3) If you have a large volume of legacy data you need to roll over into your system, loading it in and querying it will be a painful exercise.
We have a home-grown OODBMS-ish system at my company that we have to build our systems on and consequently it is very painful to integrate with anything from the outside world.
I thought the graph worked like this:
There are very few rare species and very few extremely common species and mostly sort of common species. I don't think the graph counts the number of *animals* IN a species, I think it counts the number of *species* IN an ecosystem.
For example, a given ecosystem might have only 2 rare species, say a tree frog and a spotted owl, and only 2 common species, say a brown mouse and a blue jay, but a whole truckload of species that are neither rare nor common.
What they're saying is that there are more different rare species than we think.
IMHO