Yes, because games like Knights of the Old Republic, the Zelda series, Gran Turismo 4, the upcoming Will Wright game Spore, World of Warcraft, and so on and so on and so on have absolutely horrible gameplay!
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought so.
The best modern games were First Person like Doom 3, UT2K4, and Medal of Honor!
Not this 3rd person or car racing rubbish they keep pushing on us!
Oh wait...
(In seriousness, which game is better is a matter opinion. He likes older games. You like games that are 3rd person like and are mostly for consoles. I like games that are FPS. A game is one of those Eye of the Beholder things. Just because you like something doesn't mean someone else will. Yes... Old schoolers bitch about how gameplay sucks more now, and I will agree that a great deal of games back then sucked, but I will say that we should bitch about future games and let it be known we would rather play good games than bad games and that gameplay should be as important as graphics and vice versa as if your graphics render at 3fps on a console then it doesnt matter if you have the best game play in the world.)
Personally, as an old-skool gamer, I'm hoping that if it ever comes to that, gameplay won't completely be forgotten, as the ratio of gamplay to graphics seems to diminish every day.
Well... The way I see it... Graphics will improve until you cannot tell the difference from what is on the screen and real life.
Which maybe be a while... Maybe not. I'm no futurist predictor mind you.
After that reach that point in which you can generate a video game that looks like real life you can only improve on gameplay since you can't really make anything look more real after a given point (well you can nit pick about artistic value and maybe you could improve the amount of polygons by another 5,000,0000,000 time infinity plus 1, but after a given point the eye can not tell the difference and most people will stop caring as long as the game looks real).
So after a while of creating video games that are indistinguisable from real life, you are left with just making it easier to make games since once you have generated a game engine to create reality and every bit of it's aspect down to atoms you only have to worry about the art.
And thats when they start doing templates where they make tools to say "computer generate me a man 5 foot 4 inches and give him a uniform and a mustache and call him bob. Make him bald and give him an ak-47 and stick him on the street corner two years north of the trash can already there. Use the average soldier AI they scripted a few months ago. K thnkx computer". I mean if everything was programmed in a computer you wouldn't have to sit there and draw it each time. I mean an AK47 can only look like an AK47.
So maybe at this point they will start devoting to game play again.
Then again we might all be in our 90's by then and bitch about the fact that games don't look like rendered polygons like they did on the original Xbox.
(In serioussness I worked in Atlanta. Shame they laid everyone off. Fun company until the board of directors fired McQ. Then they starting imposing policies that were bad for the employees and customers. If you want DSL go Covad or Speakeasy. Basically earthlink is Covad or your local telco but with their logo slapped on it).
I've been doing phone support for the past 5 years for various companies and will totally agree that windows XP is a lord of the dogs pain to actually support on the phone because things may or maybe there.
I have adapted by usually added inclusions to my speach:
"Ok click on start and look for settings? If you don't see it thats ok and then look for control panel. Ok once we are here I want to look in left hand top control panel and look for 'Switch to Classic View' and click it."
Don't get me started on how to describe how to accept all changes in Word 2003 since they removed it from the File, Edit, Format, Tools menu.
"Ok lets check to see if reviewing toolbar is on? Ok it's on? Now look for the check mark on the toolbar. 5th one over from the right. On the same toolbar that says Final Showing Markup. The other one!"
On a Mac at least it's easy to describe it over the phone with the system. Although MS Office on the mac is about the same in difficulty describing where the things are. Oh well.
I wish MS would just include a keyboard shortcut in order to describe things by words rather than Icons. And keep things universal on all platforms...
Oh I can forward ports and configure routers to direct everything to once specific machine, but the main problem is that i share the connection with 3 other room mates in our house.
Fowarding all AIM, Yahoo, and MSN ports to my computer would most likely result in a protest of my room mates. They bitch enough about the fact that I block allot of sites for their own good.
That and have you ever tried to walk a family member or non-technical friend over the phone through configuring a router? (I used to do it for a living with another company.) When you are doing it for free there comes a time that you say "Just send it via email and I'll look at it later."
If pictures of there pets were that important maybe I'd put forth more effort, but maybe that is why the article is right about everyone disinterested in IPv6.
Personally, I would use it mostly for in home web hosting and gaming servers on machines that are mostly locked down. I would agree that for security reason I would most likely make everyone else stay on a hardware NAT.;)
I think the major problem is that most Americans have gotten used to the limitations of NAT.
I for one would like to be able to transfer files once again with friends (you now like pictures or video conference) which I can't seem to do now since everyone is behind a NAT these days.
I would also like to play Hearts of Iron again multiplayer without having to disconnect my room mates from the internet. (No amount of port forwarding and opening ports and using DMZ actually works mind you. Well it sort of does... But not very well...)
But it might be a while before we see IPv6 universally.
Hey, someone keeps breaking in and stealing my wallet. Let's put all of our money under the bed.
I think with OS X the anology would rather be:
Let's put our money in a safe in a basement behind a locked door that actually says "Are you sure you want to open this door?" when I try to open it. I try again and somehow rename the door.
Sorry inside mac humor, but in seriousness the friggin OS is secure a greate deal more than windows. Everytime I want to install something or let something install even though I am logged in as admin it says "are you sure you want to run this?" and if requires system changes it asks me for my password.
Obviously social engineering can defeat this, but you aren't going to surf to a web page and magically find that a gazillion programs installed themselves and you have to hunt down each file in the registry and nuke the dlls and those damn random file names and curse anyways because IE died for the sixtieth time and your tpc/ip stack is now hosed so you have to go to a working computer and hunt down dll files on the net which is nothing but forum messages of people asking for the same file with no reply... *huff* *puff* And to think I fixed the issues all without formatting and got IE to work again (shortly installing firefox on these persons computers).
To make a long story short, the day I find spy ware on any OS X machine (not even my own), I will agree with you that this temporarily avoids the problem. Until then...
However, one must remember that those who are indecisive and are arguing internally are often defeated by groups who put aside their differences to kill a common enemy.
Right, but in space you have an almost unlimited range of detection and line of sight. On earth even at sea you are limited ballistic weapons or missles because the sea and earth make good camoflauge.
The reason why aircraft carriers work so well is because they project military force quickly over the horizon.
In space there is no horizon. In fact you can pretty much project power as far as your missles, velocity weapons, and super-laser's can project.
The question is: Can your pilots move mentally and physically faster than a machine can adapt to track them.
Remember a machine can move faster than what a human body can tolerate in changes in velocity (in real life pilots can't out manover heat seeking missles they can only fire their chaff) and do you think a human can outmanuver a laser? Remember you might not even be able to see but they can track you from a million miles away and make a guestimate of where you will be to get that laser to hit you even though it's going ot take 8 minutes to do so.
That or hit everyone with a mine field of a chain a atomic bombs.
Lack of sound (or echo) for that matter is very disorienting to any hearing/seeing human.
In order to provid more input, your onboard computer would provide feed back of enemey locations via a simulation of their engines in a surround sound system so you could instantly tell that the pilot is behind and to the left of you. Of course you could see that on your radar but you happen to be looking at the other pilot in your targets at the same time.
I guess it would be good for multitasking.
However I would disagree with the concept of fighter pilots in space.
In reality I forsee a great comback of large bulky ships with line of site weapons and banks of AI missles.
Truth be told space battles will be fought at ranges of millions of miles in between ships with little chance closing in on each other.
Pilots with small ships will be just targeted with intense laser fire by computers that can caculate your velocity vs the speed of light and destroy you as such and the person next to you in less than a millisecond.
I think intersteller warfare will be just lengthy and boring the more I think about it.
Actually, HEAT technology is easily defeated by spatial armor or just putting sandbags on your tank. The reason that you can pack such a small punch in a RPG (or any type of shaped charge warhead) is because of the directed blast into a plasma like cone which basically melts the armor.
If the blast detonates prematurely outside of optimal melting point (like hitting thin spatial armor on the outside of the tank before it gets to the solid core) it will just dissipate before causing much damage.
Bazooka's are mostly good for taking out lesser armored troop carriers and destroying tank tracks (but they you still have to deal with an angry immobile tank).
It's why US tanks use SABOT rounds often tipped with Uranium as direct kinetic attack used to punch through any type of armor rather than the HEAT warheads of the Soviet style models.
Or rather... Why in Desert Storm 1 and 2 that when a T-72 meets an M1Abrahms the M1Abrahms is the one that walks away.
Personally, I believe that military use for lasers will more or less be anti-air weapons since aircraft is easier to get a line of sight to and you can't give aircraft massive amounts of armor like you can a ground vehicle.
I'm not agreeing with either of them. I'm just saying none of us can prove anything.
And that to hold a solid opinion on the after life is quite invalid since noe one has actualy come back to say one thing or the other.
To discount any possiblities is the problem most persons have.
Re:Would identical brains share conciousness
on
Download Your Brain
·
· Score: 1
The question is:
Would identical brains share identical conciousness. I mean if one could copy your brain and brainwaves (soul) exactly identical then would you also share conciouness with that being?
There isn't a way to tell now because the changes of 100% exact replicas of souls/brains aren't scientifically possible and the random chance for them to happen in nature is nihl (identical twins come close but just not close enough).
However at the same time what you could combined brains? Would two brains become one?
If you merged your brain with an entity and then your brain died would you still be aware? Would you soul live on? It's all theoretical.
As a humanist I don't believe in any sort of a supernatural soul, so your premise is incorrect.
If you don't believe in it then does it mean it isn't correct?
People believed the sun was the center of the universe for thousands of years, but obviously believing in it didn't make it be.
However, until someone had a method of proving it false then it might as well be since everyone agreeded that it was.
And just because it appears to be so doesn't make it true either. For all we know the stars area computer simulation and radiation and x-rays are just fed to our instruments to make us believe there is a great universe out there.
The problem is we really don't know what happens to your conciousness when you die. We only know through observation is that you cease to function and never come back at least in your current form.
For all I know when you bash me over the head I make wake up in an alien room pulling wires out of my two headed neural cavity shouting: "LIFE? That was a stupid game! I should have hit reset years ago!"
The photocopy would be immortal so it could spend the rest of eternity to figure out time travel and then go back in to when my original was still alive and then prevent me from......oh wait this is about a copy of me?
Well... Then I hope he chokes on those dorritos and dies of exhaustion of playing to much EQ XXIV instead of setting the time aside to revive me!
His boss is the brain force and is quite smart at what is doing which is:
Please stockholders (deceive stockholders), Get bonus, Retire early.
Meanwhile the poor code monkies will suffer layoffs and in the end the entire company will fold in 10-20 years leaving the stockholders with zilch. (Average lifespan of company is 5-10 years if you have happend to ever study economics).
Which leads me to my assertion that the most successful companies are ones that either are:
A.) Not listed on the stock market.
B.) Listed but owned mostly by a person or small group of person which care little minor stock performance gains/losses. (see Bill Gates)
or
C.) Ruled by an authority figure that doesn't give a flip about the stock holders desire to make money, but wants his company to take over the world (see Steve Jobs)
Ah do we have to be Grognards here;) I was just making a point to the crowd who wouldn't know history if it hit them.
But seriously, I would mean the overthrow of the Czar in a sense leading up to the October revolution. Sure, I think World War I was more or less the main reason for the revolutions and the Czars even abolished serfdom and was trying capitalistic reforms and was not in a sense a real free market.
BUT the Czar did little to assist with the economic hardship faced by Russians which led to the major problems which led to the revolution (both of them). Of course in order to address those problems he would have had to sign a peace treaty with the Germans. Something he was unwilling to do.
Ok. Versailles was the main reason for World War 2, but wasn't the main issue. Sure Germany suffered economic hardships because of the retribution payments on their economy to the Allied powers, but had they not had a total economic collapse because of the Great Depression (started by the American stock exchange crash in 1929) it would be unlikely that the NSDAP would have come to power in 1933.
Of course you could debate that the main reason for the electoral victory was the split because the regular Conservatives on the right and then split with the redsReds (wasn't it the SPR? The party that Stalin supported in Germany that broke off with the left I'd have to wiki it), but I think my point is that left to it's own devices economic hardship will lead to totalitarianism.
The same thing could have happened in the west, but FDR introduced our current form of socialism and economic reforms (mind you I do not agree with FDR's policies and economics), but it was one of the main reason there wasn't a right/left wing takeover by the government down the road (which might have never happened since World War II would have happened anyways I think).
Every job or position is just as hard as every other. Say that to yourself over and over, because you're obviously a snob who needs to get over an assinine, overinflated sense of your own importance.
Like the parent, I haven't always worked in IT (I've worked as a grocery store cashier, music cd sales person, been terminally unemployed willingly once, and worked at a video game store), but now I have no problem getting a job in IT but mostly in the past 7 years I have worked IT through and through. However I would rather agree with the grandparent.
Personally, I don't believe there are too many people in the industry (lord knows we need more computer literate people), but the fact there are quite a few people shouldn't be working with computers.
I would have to say the current company I work for is quite an exception because of the high degree of competance required to work here and I love the high degree of technical skill and comradship of my coworkers, but...
I worked for companies in which people obviously shouldn't have been working in an IT field. Many people who decided that computers where was where the money was, but refused and were unwilling to grasp common computer issues that was a basic requirement for their job.
It's not the fact they are taking up jobs, it was the fact that it was making everyone elses job more difficult.
If you are good at IT and can interview well and have the ability to move around the country then by damn you can get a job. I have and I don't have a college degree (before I got my current job I had maybe 8-10 interviews, but I was persistant).
But the truth is a company is the sum of it's employees and when your corporation is filled with people who need to get a clue then it's best to jump ship before the pink slips went out (and they did in the last job).
Note: There is a difference between those who are unskilled, but love their job and are willing to learn and those who are unskilled, and hate their job and have no desire to learn anything except when the next paycheck is.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because games like Knights of the Old Republic, the Zelda series, Gran Turismo 4, the upcoming Will Wright game Spore, World of Warcraft, and so on and so on and so on have absolutely horrible gameplay!
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought so.
The best modern games were First Person like Doom 3, UT2K4, and Medal of Honor!
Not this 3rd person or car racing rubbish they keep pushing on us!
Oh wait...
(In seriousness, which game is better is a matter opinion. He likes older games. You like games that are 3rd person like and are mostly for consoles. I like games that are FPS. A game is one of those Eye of the Beholder things. Just because you like something doesn't mean someone else will. Yes... Old schoolers bitch about how gameplay sucks more now, and I will agree that a great deal of games back then sucked, but I will say that we should bitch about future games and let it be known we would rather play good games than bad games and that gameplay should be as important as graphics and vice versa as if your graphics render at 3fps on a console then it doesnt matter if you have the best game play in the world.)
Personally, as an old-skool gamer, I'm hoping that if it ever comes to that, gameplay won't completely be forgotten, as the ratio of gamplay to graphics seems to diminish every day.
Well... The way I see it... Graphics will improve until you cannot tell the difference from what is on the screen and real life.
Which maybe be a while... Maybe not. I'm no futurist predictor mind you.
After that reach that point in which you can generate a video game that looks like real life you can only improve on gameplay since you can't really make anything look more real after a given point (well you can nit pick about artistic value and maybe you could improve the amount of polygons by another 5,000,0000,000 time infinity plus 1, but after a given point the eye can not tell the difference and most people will stop caring as long as the game looks real).
So after a while of creating video games that are indistinguisable from real life, you are left with just making it easier to make games since once you have generated a game engine to create reality and every bit of it's aspect down to atoms you only have to worry about the art.
And thats when they start doing templates where they make tools to say "computer generate me a man 5 foot 4 inches and give him a uniform and a mustache and call him bob. Make him bald and give him an ak-47 and stick him on the street corner two years north of the trash can already there. Use the average soldier AI they scripted a few months ago. K thnkx computer". I mean if everything was programmed in a computer you wouldn't have to sit there and draw it each time. I mean an AK47 can only look like an AK47.
So maybe at this point they will start devoting to game play again.
Then again we might all be in our 90's by then and bitch about the fact that games don't look like rendered polygons like they did on the original Xbox.
Maybe we'll get better answers than "42".
Yeah! You'd think we would since we keep plugging in "WHAT DO YOU GET IF YOU MULTIPLY SIX BY NINE?"
they probably never will, because Earthlink sucks
Which call center did you work at?
(In serioussness I worked in Atlanta. Shame they laid everyone off. Fun company until the board of directors fired McQ. Then they starting imposing policies that were bad for the employees and customers. If you want DSL go Covad or Speakeasy. Basically earthlink is Covad or your local telco but with their logo slapped on it).
Which may or may not be in classic view?
Mod parent up into the high heavens.
I've been doing phone support for the past 5 years for various companies and will totally agree that windows XP is a lord of the dogs pain to actually support on the phone because things may or maybe there.
I have adapted by usually added inclusions to my speach:
"Ok click on start and look for settings? If you don't see it thats ok and then look for control panel. Ok once we are here I want to look in left hand top control panel and look for 'Switch to Classic View' and click it."
Don't get me started on how to describe how to accept all changes in Word 2003 since they removed it from the File, Edit, Format, Tools menu.
"Ok lets check to see if reviewing toolbar is on? Ok it's on? Now look for the check mark on the toolbar. 5th one over from the right. On the same toolbar that says Final Showing Markup. The other one!"
On a Mac at least it's easy to describe it over the phone with the system. Although MS Office on the mac is about the same in difficulty describing where the things are. Oh well.
I wish MS would just include a keyboard shortcut in order to describe things by words rather than Icons. And keep things universal on all platforms...
Make tech support a whole lot easier.
Oh I can forward ports and configure routers to direct everything to once specific machine, but the main problem is that i share the connection with 3 other room mates in our house.
;)
Fowarding all AIM, Yahoo, and MSN ports to my computer would most likely result in a protest of my room mates. They bitch enough about the fact that I block allot of sites for their own good.
That and have you ever tried to walk a family member or non-technical friend over the phone through configuring a router? (I used to do it for a living with another company.) When you are doing it for free there comes a time that you say "Just send it via email and I'll look at it later."
If pictures of there pets were that important maybe I'd put forth more effort, but maybe that is why the article is right about everyone disinterested in IPv6.
Personally, I would use it mostly for in home web hosting and gaming servers on machines that are mostly locked down. I would agree that for security reason I would most likely make everyone else stay on a hardware NAT.
I think the major problem is that most Americans have gotten used to the limitations of NAT.
I for one would like to be able to transfer files once again with friends (you now like pictures or video conference) which I can't seem to do now since everyone is behind a NAT these days.
I would also like to play Hearts of Iron again multiplayer without having to disconnect my room mates from the internet. (No amount of port forwarding and opening ports and using DMZ actually works mind you. Well it sort of does... But not very well...)
But it might be a while before we see IPv6 universally.
So the PS3 magically reads everything?
Last I heard it could even transmit power wirelessly...
Oh wait wrong console.
You know if Chinese DVDs are pretty cheap, so are the players. Of course I have yet to figure out this remote.
Hey, someone keeps breaking in and stealing my wallet. Let's put all of our money under the bed.
I think with OS X the anology would rather be:
Let's put our money in a safe in a basement behind a locked door that actually says "Are you sure you want to open this door?" when I try to open it. I try again and somehow rename the door.
Sorry inside mac humor, but in seriousness the friggin OS is secure a greate deal more than windows. Everytime I want to install something or let something install even though I am logged in as admin it says "are you sure you want to run this?" and if requires system changes it asks me for my password.
Obviously social engineering can defeat this, but you aren't going to surf to a web page and magically find that a gazillion programs installed themselves and you have to hunt down each file in the registry and nuke the dlls and those damn random file names and curse anyways because IE died for the sixtieth time and your tpc/ip stack is now hosed so you have to go to a working computer and hunt down dll files on the net which is nothing but forum messages of people asking for the same file with no reply... *huff* *puff* And to think I fixed the issues all without formatting and got IE to work again (shortly installing firefox on these persons computers).
To make a long story short, the day I find spy ware on any OS X machine (not even my own), I will agree with you that this temporarily avoids the problem. Until then...
No.
However, one must remember that those who are indecisive and are arguing internally are often defeated by groups who put aside their differences to kill a common enemy.
Right, but in space you have an almost unlimited range of detection and line of sight. On earth even at sea you are limited ballistic weapons or missles because the sea and earth make good camoflauge.
The reason why aircraft carriers work so well is because they project military force quickly over the horizon.
In space there is no horizon. In fact you can pretty much project power as far as your missles, velocity weapons, and super-laser's can project.
The question is: Can your pilots move mentally and physically faster than a machine can adapt to track them.
Remember a machine can move faster than what a human body can tolerate in changes in velocity (in real life pilots can't out manover heat seeking missles they can only fire their chaff) and do you think a human can outmanuver a laser? Remember you might not even be able to see but they can track you from a million miles away and make a guestimate of where you will be to get that laser to hit you even though it's going ot take 8 minutes to do so.
That or hit everyone with a mine field of a chain a atomic bombs.
Lack of sound (or echo) for that matter is very disorienting to any hearing/seeing human.
In order to provid more input, your onboard computer would provide feed back of enemey locations via a simulation of their engines in a surround sound system so you could instantly tell that the pilot is behind and to the left of you. Of course you could see that on your radar but you happen to be looking at the other pilot in your targets at the same time.
I guess it would be good for multitasking.
However I would disagree with the concept of fighter pilots in space.
In reality I forsee a great comback of large bulky ships with line of site weapons and banks of AI missles.
Truth be told space battles will be fought at ranges of millions of miles in between ships with little chance closing in on each other.
Pilots with small ships will be just targeted with intense laser fire by computers that can caculate your velocity vs the speed of light and destroy you as such and the person next to you in less than a millisecond.
I think intersteller warfare will be just lengthy and boring the more I think about it.
just use a bazooka.
t ank
Actually, HEAT technology is easily defeated by spatial armor or just putting sandbags on your tank. The reason that you can pack such a small punch in a RPG (or any type of shaped charge warhead) is because of the directed blast into a plasma like cone which basically melts the armor.
If the blast detonates prematurely outside of optimal melting point (like hitting thin spatial armor on the outside of the tank before it gets to the solid core) it will just dissipate before causing much damage.
Bazooka's are mostly good for taking out lesser armored troop carriers and destroying tank tracks (but they you still have to deal with an angry immobile tank).
It's why US tanks use SABOT rounds often tipped with Uranium as direct kinetic attack used to punch through any type of armor rather than the HEAT warheads of the Soviet style models.
Or rather... Why in Desert Storm 1 and 2 that when a T-72 meets an M1Abrahms the M1Abrahms is the one that walks away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-
Personally, I believe that military use for lasers will more or less be anti-air weapons since aircraft is easier to get a line of sight to and you can't give aircraft massive amounts of armor like you can a ground vehicle.
I'm sorry, but we don't negotiate with terrorists. The files knew the danger when they took the job.
C:\>format c:
I'm not agreeing with either of them. I'm just saying none of us can prove anything.
And that to hold a solid opinion on the after life is quite invalid since noe one has actualy come back to say one thing or the other.
To discount any possiblities is the problem most persons have.
The question is:
Would identical brains share identical conciousness. I mean if one could copy your brain and brainwaves (soul) exactly identical then would you also share conciouness with that being?
There isn't a way to tell now because the changes of 100% exact replicas of souls/brains aren't scientifically possible and the random chance for them to happen in nature is nihl (identical twins come close but just not close enough).
However at the same time what you could combined brains? Would two brains become one?
If you merged your brain with an entity and then your brain died would you still be aware? Would you soul live on? It's all theoretical.
Think Borg.
As a humanist I don't believe in any sort of a supernatural soul, so your premise is incorrect.
If you don't believe in it then does it mean it isn't correct?
People believed the sun was the center of the universe for thousands of years, but obviously believing in it didn't make it be.
However, until someone had a method of proving it false then it might as well be since everyone agreeded that it was.
And just because it appears to be so doesn't make it true either. For all we know the stars area computer simulation and radiation and x-rays are just fed to our instruments to make us believe there is a great universe out there.
The problem is we really don't know what happens to your conciousness when you die. We only know through observation is that you cease to function and never come back at least in your current form.
For all I know when you bash me over the head I make wake up in an alien room pulling wires out of my two headed neural cavity shouting: "LIFE? That was a stupid game! I should have hit reset years ago!"
My favorite quote of all time:
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice." Isaac Bashevis Singer
The photocopy would be immortal so it could spend the rest of eternity to figure out time travel and then go back in to when my original was still alive and then prevent me from... ...oh wait this is about a copy of me?
Well... Then I hope he chokes on those dorritos and dies of exhaustion of playing to much EQ XXIV instead of setting the time aside to revive me!
But like Microsoft, the best work was in the 80's.
Selling a pound of powdered sugar and calling it cocaine carries the same penalty as selling real cocaine.
;)
That's why you call it sugar and *wink*
Actually you're right.
His boss is the brain force and is quite smart at what is doing which is:
Please stockholders (deceive stockholders), Get bonus, Retire early.
Meanwhile the poor code monkies will suffer layoffs and in the end the entire company will fold in 10-20 years leaving the stockholders with zilch. (Average lifespan of company is 5-10 years if you have happend to ever study economics).
Which leads me to my assertion that the most successful companies are ones that either are:
A.) Not listed on the stock market.
B.) Listed but owned mostly by a person or small group of person which care little minor stock performance gains/losses. (see Bill Gates)
or
C.) Ruled by an authority figure that doesn't give a flip about the stock holders desire to make money, but wants his company to take over the world (see Steve Jobs)
Ah do we have to be Grognards here ;) I was just making a point to the crowd who wouldn't know history if it hit them.
But seriously, I would mean the overthrow of the Czar in a sense leading up to the October revolution. Sure, I think World War I was more or less the main reason for the revolutions and the Czars even abolished serfdom and was trying capitalistic reforms and was not in a sense a real free market.
BUT the Czar did little to assist with the economic hardship faced by Russians which led to the major problems which led to the revolution (both of them). Of course in order to address those problems he would have had to sign a peace treaty with the Germans. Something he was unwilling to do.
Ok. Versailles was the main reason for World War 2, but wasn't the main issue. Sure Germany suffered economic hardships because of the retribution payments on their economy to the Allied powers, but had they not had a total economic collapse because of the Great Depression (started by the American stock exchange crash in 1929) it would be unlikely that the NSDAP would have come to power in 1933.
Of course you could debate that the main reason for the electoral victory was the split because the regular Conservatives on the right and then split with the redsReds (wasn't it the SPR? The party that Stalin supported in Germany that broke off with the left I'd have to wiki it), but I think my point is that left to it's own devices economic hardship will lead to totalitarianism.
The same thing could have happened in the west, but FDR introduced our current form of socialism and economic reforms (mind you I do not agree with FDR's policies and economics), but it was one of the main reason there wasn't a right/left wing takeover by the government down the road (which might have never happened since World War II would have happened anyways I think).
Every job or position is just as hard as every other. Say that to yourself over and over, because you're obviously a snob who needs to get over an assinine, overinflated sense of your own importance.
Like the parent, I haven't always worked in IT (I've worked as a grocery store cashier, music cd sales person, been terminally unemployed willingly once, and worked at a video game store), but now I have no problem getting a job in IT but mostly in the past 7 years I have worked IT through and through. However I would rather agree with the grandparent.
Personally, I don't believe there are too many people in the industry (lord knows we need more computer literate people), but the fact there are quite a few people shouldn't be working with computers.
I would have to say the current company I work for is quite an exception because of the high degree of competance required to work here and I love the high degree of technical skill and comradship of my coworkers, but...
I worked for companies in which people obviously shouldn't have been working in an IT field. Many people who decided that computers where was where the money was, but refused and were unwilling to grasp common computer issues that was a basic requirement for their job.
It's not the fact they are taking up jobs, it was the fact that it was making everyone elses job more difficult.
If you are good at IT and can interview well and have the ability to move around the country then by damn you can get a job. I have and I don't have a college degree (before I got my current job I had maybe 8-10 interviews, but I was persistant).
But the truth is a company is the sum of it's employees and when your corporation is filled with people who need to get a clue then it's best to jump ship before the pink slips went out (and they did in the last job).
Note: There is a difference between those who are unskilled, but love their job and are willing to learn and those who are unskilled, and hate their job and have no desire to learn anything except when the next paycheck is.