When half the population is unable to get a job because robots were cheaper (faster, more accurate), taxing robots and reducing work hours may be the only way to ensure continued social peace.
The chinese now consider replacing a human with a robot when you make $8,000 or more per year.
Robots will be able to sense green and ultraviolate much better than humans when equipped with the right sensors.
Saw an interesting movie on Netflix about this. A robot at a monestary had achieved enlightenment. And it really scared/angered/freaked out the humans (except the monks who were cool with it). "Doomsday" something or other.
Worth a watch just to think about the possibilities.
More immediate is robots which are not self aware but which grossly exceed human ability to do any work except the most creative kind.
Anything that doesn't involve creating new and novel ideas and products can be replaced by robots or automated processes in the mid term future. I think it will become very apparent in the 2020-2030 period.
It's exacerbated by the tax and legal treatment of robots vs humans. Robots are much cheaper, faster, more accurate, "work" longer hours, AND you can depreciate their expense as capital equipment.
Just because we can't understand how the millions (billions?) of inputs from our unique genetic structure work yet doesn't mean that we won't some day.
Twin studies showing similar actions and choices by separated identical twins point to the deterministic nature of humans too.
True story. We installed an SQL patch and dozens of programs stopped working. It turned out IBM had changed the behavior of one opcode from one legal standard behavior to a different legal standard behavior.
We had to back the patch out. So from that point, we couldn't patch until dozens of programs were adjusted. And then we had a very risky weekend where we put in the patch and installed the updated programs at the same time.
Then we could start patching again.
This spring (after the layoffs), they had to hire several people back who had retired before the layoffs because software broke and no one could fix it. Not the indians, not the new people. And the folks they had laid off all had new jobs and were not coming back (except one person who did and they then fired them in less than a week which really didn't encourage anyone else to come back after that).
The great challenge there is reliably finding resources who can do the work.
Any "cool" or "custom" language is unsuited to complex business rules because in 5 years you won't be able to find anyone who is willing to work in those "out of date" languages which offer no benefit to their career.
I don't have a good answer but I suspect Java plus SQL might be a decent replacement for Cobol plus SQL. The thing to keep in mind is these older systems are enormous and almost pure business logic.
The language is often well written, well documented Cobol + JCL + SQL (or DB2) which was then poorly maintained and ill documented for a decade.
Part of the issue is computer hardware and software goes obsolete on an 18 month cycle these days. Five years is an eternity.
The main problem I see these days is analysis paralysis and cheap cheap cheap business side people who think languages and programmers are generic "glorp".
Rather than fix 10% of the problem, they try to spend 10% on trying to figure out a way to fix 100% of the problem on the cheap with inadequate, often novice ill trained resources (who are highly confident but clueless). At the end of that time, they have spent 10% (or more) and the problem has grown by 5% to 105% of the size. All the novices move on to the next corporation.
For example- we had an aspect of our system which was bad. A series of at least a dozen 2% corrections were proposed and rejected over the course of two to three years-- not enough ROI. Then they brought in contractors (mostly straight out of college) and indians (grunt labor who say yes to anything even if it is really impossible) and wasted about 9 months, several million bucks, and in the end the project failed to produce any improvement at all.
The contractors mostly made all the classic errors. The indians worked really hard until it became clear that it simply wasn't possible to do what they said they could do. Then they started leaving for other companies.
Oh yea... and "C" will probably fail. So return to B and just iterated until one day... after nine years, you realize you finally converted the last system.
Then lay off everyone who helped you get there and take a big bonus for reducing labor costs. (yea-- they did that too).
It's thinking like that which has lead to multiple failures so far. Arrogance and overconfidence. An assumption that there is always a package or off the shelf tools which can be used.
Multiple "decent" software architects have been tilted at this particular windmill and gone down in flaming ruins.
Sometimes... very old systems have enormous amounts of business rules. There are no "off the shelf components". It's not a question of implementing a screen sort. It's a question of recognizing that given this set of data values, apply special business rule #1017 to the data. In order to do this- you have to truly understand the existing code which on mainframes can literally run to *millions* of lines of pure business logic with almost no interface code.
There is really only one way to "get off of it".
A) Build a sufficiently large team that it can develop faster than the current team developing for the platform.
B) Start redeveloping one system at a time. Do not try to "get off the mainframe".. just try to get the quarterly operating company corporate tax rollup off of the machine.
C) Iterate with the next single system until the remaining systems can be understood and then do a project to remove them.
---
The same management that has failed at this three times also set up the SAP project. 2 years of blueprinting (about half of what they needed). "Freezes" which lasted about 30 seconds before development started again. And upon discovering that they had missed 30% of the business rules- they proceeded anyway. Oh and early on they fired anyone that expressed caution very quickly so everyone else on that project got the message. Do not point out problems- keep your damn mouth shut.
It appears to be failing in a particularly spectacular fashion (even for SAP).
It costs money to redevelop a system with 10 years of development. Not 10 years worth- but easily 5 years worth and that's after 3 years of having a smaller staff analyze the problem.
And the new system will lack features.
And the old system will continue to change during development despite promises to freeze it.
At my old company they had a main frame that they have declared three times now since 2000 that they would be "Off the mainframe in 12 months". I hear the latest effort just failed.
Because they do NOT want to hire the 30 programmers and pay them for 3 years to rewrite all the software. And the software is mostly ALL required and irreplaceable with packages.
Papa Johns was going to deny health care to their employees to save 14 cents per pie in expenses.
I disagree with your characterization of my position as smarmy arrogance. While you haven't stated it- it appears you basically support wage slavery and suffering for others as long as you are okay yourself.
Why do you feel that way?
Why do you think a company should be free to treat its employees very badly (ala Darden's) without the customers reacting to that poor treatment?
I also don't like Olive Garden because their portions suck and their pasta content has gone through the roof. Seriously--- it used to be half a bell pepper and 6 large shrimp. Now it's a quarter bell pepper, 3 shrimp halved, and the price has gone from 9.99 to 15.99 in less than 8 years. Way over the rate of inflation.
No. I'm saying that I won't give my money which I spent my time on to support a person I don't like.
There is more entertainment (and more pizza...) than I can possibly consume.
The ideals of the US are free speech -- which means the government shouldn't censor you.
And the best way to confront free speech you do not like is with more free speech. And the supreme court (as you may recalled) drew an equivalence between our money and our speech.
I liked the book.. when I was in my 20s. I read it once. Never reread it.
Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise didn't become bad actors when they showed themselves to be major asshats. But-- after they did, I didn't enjoy their work any more. I can't watch a mel gibson film without hearing that angry racist spouse beater and I can't go to a cruise film without hearing him ragging on Brooke Shields ( a really nice person ) and saying that stupid shit about post partum depression.
I'm not *obligated* to give my money to anyone to support them.
I was simply making the point that in 50 years, gasoline had only gone up an extra 1% per year over inflation. And a lot of that in the last 10 years. And a lot of that was because gasoline got so inexpensive in the 1990's that it crushed investment in new oil and refineries.
I've seen several waves of alternative fuels come and go. They sort of kill themselves. Opec sort of kills them. And natural cyclical prices also kill them. The best thing for alternative fuels would be for gasoline to go to $8 per gallon and stay there.
But instead, it will drop to the high $2 range for a while, then shoot up to $5 and then fall again. If it actually gets up to $8, then so much supply comes online that the price will drop to $1 for several years which kills alternative fuel.
the price of gas has skyrocketed in the last decade. The price this year is close to three times what it was when I started driving (about 12 years ago, bigger difference for older folks I'm sure
I was responding to that.
Look- gasoline runs me $40 per week. If it was 33% less- I would be paying about $27 per week. Sorry but 10 bucks a week is background noise.
Oh... and in the end it's my money so I get to decide where it goes. I reduced my consumption of Domino's Pizza tremendously as a related example.
I won't be a jerk in mixed company- but when I have the choice, I choose another company.
For example- Papa Johns tried to be jerks but relented under tremendous pressure. Darden's (Olive Garden) tried to be jerks and relented under pressure. Your consumer pressure can make the world a better place.
It's an interesting point but isn't there a difference between giving money to someone alive right now who is actively working against your interests and reading the works of someone who has been dead for over 200 years?
I think you need to recast it in other terms.
For example- if you were sick and had to go to the emergency room, would you turn down the assistance of a racist, homophobic doctor?
That copper to home did not mean copper from the plant to home.
In newer areas, the power failed after six hours. The phone company had fiber to a local box which had batteries and copper to the houses.
In my older area of town, the power stayed on to the phone (but we lacked electrical power for 3 weeks and only old dumb phones worked- anything with a power plug didn't).
I think the days of copper to home are going away. Hopefully we can get fiber to the home.
I would prefer to see one wide fiber pipe which all the telephone companies share and use and compete for your service on. I think a pure wireless approach won't work at times.
Well, this shot straight to zero but apparently has been modded back up. I don't think it will stay modded up but we'll see.
Nothing I said in the parent post is untrue.
I'm very pro equality.
If women get off 16 weeks, then men should get off 16 weeks.
I can see some unavoidable inequality-- men don't need a nursing room for example. Women DO require more expensive restroom facilities. That's not an argument that we should pay them less. It's an argument that despite the extra expense, we still pay the same for the same job and work.
Taking a few years off to raise a baby is something entirely different. In that case, anyone who takes a few years off from work should be paid similarly with respect to the work gap and reduced skill set.
And-- and I mean this sincerely-- if women can go around wearing lose shirts unbuttoned below the nipple- then men should be equally free to wear revealing clothing-- or neither gender should.
If there was anything I am genuinely PISSED off about- it was the "Men have to work weekends and nights while the women dont' but then the men have to come in monday for the 9am meeting.". I lived that one and it was extremely unfair.
But I've retired-- I'm out of the situation. Now I can relax, play games, travel, and post on random internet boards. Perhaps I'll take up painting.
The proposed 16 weeks off for females is unequal. If we allow that kind of inequality then we can justify ANY kind of inequality.
The entire situation actually worked out great for me. I was going to retire on January 2nd and instead got laid off on December 31st with severance. I can even claim unemployment which I couldn't if I had retired.
Listen- facts are facts and fair is fair. Nothing I said in the above post was untrue.
If Yahoo is going to discriminate- then anyone can discriminate on any basis.
Fathers should get the same rights as mothers to time off.
Well, then wouldn't it also be equally fair to avoid promoting and giving equal raises to females because they have babies and are much more likely to "mommy out" during hard projects than men? (Last big project- 4 women mommy'd out. They came back a couple weeks then quit to be full time mommies. Number of males who "daddy'd out"- zero.
Wouldn't it be equally fair to consider that females need more expense on restrooms and milk rooms than men so the men get bigger raises?
Wouldn't it be equally fair to say since the mothers are much more likely to stay home or go home when children get sick that it's fair to promote them less and give them lower pay if the individuals in question do so?
If we are going to ignore the extra costs of treating females equally, then we should treat men equally for policies like this.
But you know what I saw? Pretty damn blatant discrimination by women for women. In one lay off, 80% of the male managers went and all the managers retained were female. One had been a manager for less than six months. The executive who decided who would be laid off was female. If a male did that, it would have been an instant lawsuit.
And then there is the lovely, "the weekends and nights are dangerous so the men have to work them and the females get to skip them... but everyone has to equally be there for the 9am monday meeting."
Not to mention women wearing shirts so low you can see their bras while the guys wear polo shirts. Everyone should wear polo shirts. Or a girl showing that much cleavage should told to button up or go home. Cripes- about three years ago one young lady leaned over the table in the meeting and you could see her belly button. If she had complained- the men would have gotten training sessions- not her.
Equal is equal. This isn't equal. Things are not equal. They probably never will be.
I've seen option 2: "Never accept counter offers - it's just a method for them to change the timing of when you leave to something more convenient to them" at least a dozen times in 20 years.
Unless the company really has been screwing you over or really dropped the ball- once you decide to go they feel betrayed (despite the fact they are planning to outsource your job in 18 months anyway). Sometimes even when they realize they were screwing you over, they STILL feel betrayed.
Gartner gives atrocious advice. I get it- it used to be good and then it was good because people did what it said.
But for the last five or six years, it just throws things out there and sees if they stick on the wall.
Former company I worked for followed Gartners advice. It was terrible. But, because it came from Gartner, no one could get fired for following it. Reminds me of IBM.
Slashdot Mirror
When half the population is unable to get a job because robots were cheaper (faster, more accurate), taxing robots and reducing work hours may be the only way to ensure continued social peace.
The chinese now consider replacing a human with a robot when you make $8,000 or more per year.
Robots will be able to sense green and ultraviolate much better than humans when equipped with the right sensors.
Saw an interesting movie on Netflix about this. A robot at a monestary had achieved enlightenment. And it really scared/angered/freaked out the humans (except the monks who were cool with it). "Doomsday" something or other.
Worth a watch just to think about the possibilities.
More immediate is robots which are not self aware but which grossly exceed human ability to do any work except the most creative kind.
Anything that doesn't involve creating new and novel ideas and products can be replaced by robots or automated processes in the mid term future. I think it will become very apparent in the 2020-2030 period.
It's exacerbated by the tax and legal treatment of robots vs humans. Robots are much cheaper, faster, more accurate, "work" longer hours, AND you can depreciate their expense as capital equipment.
Just because we can't understand how the millions (billions?) of inputs from our unique genetic structure work yet doesn't mean that we won't some day.
Twin studies showing similar actions and choices by separated identical twins point to the deterministic nature of humans too.
True story. We installed an SQL patch and dozens of programs stopped working. It turned out IBM had changed the behavior of one opcode from one legal standard behavior to a different legal standard behavior.
We had to back the patch out. So from that point, we couldn't patch until dozens of programs were adjusted. And then we had a very risky weekend where we put in the patch and installed the updated programs at the same time.
Then we could start patching again.
This spring (after the layoffs), they had to hire several people back who had retired before the layoffs because software broke and no one could fix it. Not the indians, not the new people. And the folks they had laid off all had new jobs and were not coming back (except one person who did and they then fired them in less than a week which really didn't encourage anyone else to come back after that).
The great challenge there is reliably finding resources who can do the work.
Any "cool" or "custom" language is unsuited to complex business rules because in 5 years you won't be able to find anyone who is willing to work in those "out of date" languages which offer no benefit to their career.
I don't have a good answer but I suspect Java plus SQL might be a decent replacement for Cobol plus SQL. The thing to keep in mind is these older systems are enormous and almost pure business logic.
The language is often well written, well documented Cobol + JCL + SQL (or DB2) which was then poorly maintained and ill documented for a decade.
Part of the issue is computer hardware and software goes obsolete on an 18 month cycle these days. Five years is an eternity.
The main problem I see these days is analysis paralysis and cheap cheap cheap business side people who think languages and programmers are generic "glorp".
Rather than fix 10% of the problem, they try to spend 10% on trying to figure out a way to fix 100% of the problem on the cheap with inadequate, often novice ill trained resources (who are highly confident but clueless). At the end of that time, they have spent 10% (or more) and the problem has grown by 5% to 105% of the size. All the novices move on to the next corporation.
For example- we had an aspect of our system which was bad. A series of at least a dozen 2% corrections were proposed and rejected over the course of two to three years-- not enough ROI. Then they brought in contractors (mostly straight out of college) and indians (grunt labor who say yes to anything even if it is really impossible) and wasted about 9 months, several million bucks, and in the end the project failed to produce any improvement at all.
The contractors mostly made all the classic errors. The indians worked really hard until it became clear that it simply wasn't possible to do what they said they could do. Then they started leaving for other companies.
Very dilbertish.
Oh yea... and "C" will probably fail. So return to B and just iterated until one day... after nine years, you realize you finally converted the last system.
Then lay off everyone who helped you get there and take a big bonus for reducing labor costs. (yea-- they did that too).
It's thinking like that which has lead to multiple failures so far. Arrogance and overconfidence. An assumption that there is always a package or off the shelf tools which can be used.
Multiple "decent" software architects have been tilted at this particular windmill and gone down in flaming ruins.
Sometimes... very old systems have enormous amounts of business rules. There are no "off the shelf components". It's not a question of implementing a screen sort. It's a question of recognizing that given this set of data values, apply special business rule #1017 to the data. In order to do this- you have to truly understand the existing code which on mainframes can literally run to *millions* of lines of pure business logic with almost no interface code.
There is really only one way to "get off of it".
A) Build a sufficiently large team that it can develop faster than the current team developing for the platform.
B) Start redeveloping one system at a time. Do not try to "get off the mainframe".. just try to get the quarterly operating company corporate tax rollup off of the machine.
C) Iterate with the next single system until the remaining systems can be understood and then do a project to remove them.
---
The same management that has failed at this three times also set up the SAP project. 2 years of blueprinting (about half of what they needed). "Freezes" which lasted about 30 seconds before development started again. And upon discovering that they had missed 30% of the business rules- they proceeded anyway. Oh and early on they fired anyone that expressed caution very quickly so everyone else on that project got the message. Do not point out problems- keep your damn mouth shut.
It appears to be failing in a particularly spectacular fashion (even for SAP).
It costs money to redevelop a system with 10 years of development. Not 10 years worth- but easily 5 years worth and that's after 3 years of having a smaller staff analyze the problem.
And the new system will lack features.
And the old system will continue to change during development despite promises to freeze it.
At my old company they had a main frame that they have declared three times now since 2000 that they would be "Off the mainframe in 12 months". I hear the latest effort just failed.
Because they do NOT want to hire the 30 programmers and pay them for 3 years to rewrite all the software. And the software is mostly ALL required and irreplaceable with packages.
Absolutely with regard to my political views.
Papa Johns was going to deny health care to their employees to save 14 cents per pie in expenses.
I disagree with your characterization of my position as smarmy arrogance. While you haven't stated it- it appears you basically support wage slavery and suffering for others as long as you are okay yourself.
Why do you feel that way?
Why do you think a company should be free to treat its employees very badly (ala Darden's) without the customers reacting to that poor treatment?
I also don't like Olive Garden because their portions suck and their pasta content has gone through the roof. Seriously--- it used to be half a bell pepper and 6 large shrimp. Now it's a quarter bell pepper, 3 shrimp halved, and the price has gone from 9.99 to 15.99 in less than 8 years. Way over the rate of inflation.
No. I'm saying that I won't give my money which I spent my time on to support a person I don't like.
There is more entertainment (and more pizza...) than I can possibly consume.
The ideals of the US are free speech -- which means the government shouldn't censor you.
And the best way to confront free speech you do not like is with more free speech. And the supreme court (as you may recalled) drew an equivalence between our money and our speech.
I liked the book.. when I was in my 20s. I read it once. Never reread it.
Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise didn't become bad actors when they showed themselves to be major asshats. But-- after they did, I didn't enjoy their work any more. I can't watch a mel gibson film without hearing that angry racist spouse beater and I can't go to a cruise film without hearing him ragging on Brooke Shields ( a really nice person ) and saying that stupid shit about post partum depression.
I'm not *obligated* to give my money to anyone to support them.
I was simply making the point that in 50 years, gasoline had only gone up an extra 1% per year over inflation. And a lot of that in the last 10 years. And a lot of that was because gasoline got so inexpensive in the 1990's that it crushed investment in new oil and refineries.
I've seen several waves of alternative fuels come and go. They sort of kill themselves. Opec sort of kills them. And natural cyclical prices also kill them. The best thing for alternative fuels would be for gasoline to go to $8 per gallon and stay there.
But instead, it will drop to the high $2 range for a while, then shoot up to $5 and then fall again. If it actually gets up to $8, then so much supply comes online that the price will drop to $1 for several years which kills alternative fuel.
The parent post said:
the price of gas has skyrocketed in the last decade. The price this year is close to three times what it was when I started driving (about 12 years ago, bigger difference for older folks I'm sure
I was responding to that.
Look- gasoline runs me $40 per week. If it was 33% less- I would be paying about $27 per week. Sorry but 10 bucks a week is background noise.
Oh... and in the end it's my money so I get to decide where it goes. I reduced my consumption of Domino's Pizza tremendously as a related example.
I won't be a jerk in mixed company- but when I have the choice, I choose another company.
For example- Papa Johns tried to be jerks but relented under tremendous pressure. Darden's (Olive Garden) tried to be jerks and relented under pressure. Your consumer pressure can make the world a better place.
It's an interesting point but isn't there a difference between giving money to someone alive right now who is actively working against your interests and reading the works of someone who has been dead for over 200 years?
I think you need to recast it in other terms.
For example- if you were sick and had to go to the emergency room, would you turn down the assistance of a racist, homophobic doctor?
Is that so huh? Well, you can bite my shiny metal ass.
Doo da doo doo doo...
Ooooo. Good enough to get spine tingles here:
Start the john carter inception style video,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED4k_yn85-o&list=PL140490028A81BE64
then immediately flip to the enders game and start it. John carter good because it doesn't have many words- just lots of imagery.
It's the perfect length....
Just have to lay the music over it.
I think older versions of Adobe (or the last non subscription version of Adobe) will be picked first.
I'm hoping that Gimp and Open/Libreoffice Draw will both continue to improve tho.
That copper to home did not mean copper from the plant to home.
In newer areas, the power failed after six hours. The phone company had fiber to a local box which had batteries and copper to the houses.
In my older area of town, the power stayed on to the phone (but we lacked electrical power for 3 weeks and only old dumb phones worked- anything with a power plug didn't).
I think the days of copper to home are going away. Hopefully we can get fiber to the home.
I would prefer to see one wide fiber pipe which all the telephone companies share and use and compete for your service on. I think a pure wireless approach won't work at times.
Well, this shot straight to zero but apparently has been modded back up. I don't think it will stay modded up but we'll see.
Nothing I said in the parent post is untrue.
I'm very pro equality.
If women get off 16 weeks, then men should get off 16 weeks.
I can see some unavoidable inequality-- men don't need a nursing room for example. Women DO require more expensive restroom facilities. That's not an argument that we should pay them less. It's an argument that despite the extra expense, we still pay the same for the same job and work.
Taking a few years off to raise a baby is something entirely different. In that case, anyone who takes a few years off from work should be paid similarly with respect to the work gap and reduced skill set.
And-- and I mean this sincerely-- if women can go around wearing lose shirts unbuttoned below the nipple- then men should be equally free to wear revealing clothing-- or neither gender should.
If there was anything I am genuinely PISSED off about- it was the "Men have to work weekends and nights while the women dont' but then the men have to come in monday for the 9am meeting.". I lived that one and it was extremely unfair.
But I've retired-- I'm out of the situation. Now I can relax, play games, travel, and post on random internet boards. Perhaps I'll take up painting.
The proposed 16 weeks off for females is unequal. If we allow that kind of inequality then we can justify ANY kind of inequality.
No, I was not one of the male managers.
The retained male managers were demoted.
The entire situation actually worked out great for me. I was going to retire on January 2nd and instead got laid off on December 31st with severance. I can even claim unemployment which I couldn't if I had retired.
Listen- facts are facts and fair is fair. Nothing I said in the above post was untrue.
If Yahoo is going to discriminate- then anyone can discriminate on any basis.
Fathers should get the same rights as mothers to time off.
Well, then wouldn't it also be equally fair to avoid promoting and giving equal raises to females because they have babies and are much more likely to "mommy out" during hard projects than men? (Last big project- 4 women mommy'd out. They came back a couple weeks then quit to be full time mommies. Number of males who "daddy'd out"- zero.
Wouldn't it be equally fair to consider that females need more expense on restrooms and milk rooms than men so the men get bigger raises?
Wouldn't it be equally fair to say since the mothers are much more likely to stay home or go home when children get sick that it's fair to promote them less and give them lower pay if the individuals in question do so?
If we are going to ignore the extra costs of treating females equally, then we should treat men equally for policies like this.
But you know what I saw? Pretty damn blatant discrimination by women for women. In one lay off, 80% of the male managers went and all the managers retained were female. One had been a manager for less than six months. The executive who decided who would be laid off was female. If a male did that, it would have been an instant lawsuit.
And then there is the lovely, "the weekends and nights are dangerous so the men have to work them and the females get to skip them... but everyone has to equally be there for the 9am monday meeting."
Not to mention women wearing shirts so low you can see their bras while the guys wear polo shirts. Everyone should wear polo shirts. Or a girl showing that much cleavage should told to button up or go home. Cripes- about three years ago one young lady leaned over the table in the meeting and you could see her belly button. If she had complained- the men would have gotten training sessions- not her.
Equal is equal. This isn't equal. Things are not equal. They probably never will be.
I've seen option 2: "Never accept counter offers - it's just a method for them to change the timing of when you leave to something more convenient to them" at least a dozen times in 20 years.
Unless the company really has been screwing you over or really dropped the ball- once you decide to go they feel betrayed (despite the fact they are planning to outsource your job in 18 months anyway). Sometimes even when they realize they were screwing you over, they STILL feel betrayed.
Gartner gives atrocious advice. I get it- it used to be good and then it was good because people did what it said.
But for the last five or six years, it just throws things out there and sees if they stick on the wall.
Former company I worked for followed Gartners advice. It was terrible. But, because it came from Gartner, no one could get fired for following it. Reminds me of IBM.
You don't think people will listen to their music while wearing google glasses?