The assumption being that the value of the business card is measured through its relationship to expression of self-identity and self-worth. Under this assumption, a decline in respect of the business card is explained by observing there are now alternative and satisfactory means to express one's self-identity. From this it follows, a decline in the sharing of business cards.
This assumption is wrong because it is based on an isolated cultural trend that once surrounded business cards, when their popularity especially during the late 80's and early 90's, was mostly about establishing one's self-worth; back then, people had business cards who didn't even NEED them, let alone have good reasons to pass them along. It was just a way to be a part of the crowd, to demonstrate (even brag about) one's professional accomplishments. They were exchanged for personal reasons as often as business reasons. What's changed is the former occurs less now than before; it doesn't mean the latter has faded.
Today there is no superfluous cultural glorification of business cards, but it does not mean they are dead. Their utility has scarcely been diminished, and they are still passed around according to their original useful purpose... business. People who today want to pass along personal contact info will do so with a cell exchange. But I can't see professional business contacts being developed in any better way than business cards.
It's a lot like e-mail, and how they say that is a dying application of the internet. Social networking appears to have reduced a need for e-mail, right? Wrong. It's just caused e-mail to be used for more formal communication. The people that have a reason to use e-mail will always have that reason, and so e-mail can't ever really go away.
Just look at the growth of LinkedIn as evidence that professionals will distance themselves from "alternative" networking trends.
Facebook wants all your messages so they can mine them for any possible personal information and sell it to the highest bidders. Is anyone surprised?
I've read (in print) and heard (from unreliable sources) that Facebook's data mining has been instrumental in custom politicking, or "political engineering" (no, I did not hear this from right-wing types), in particular the site's relationship with the Obama administration involves even personally identifying information being shared through direct channels - rather than through typical avenues afforded the average end-user, such as Obama teams simply monitoring the site like anyone else. Could anyone verify this? Google isn't turning up many answers. Last I heard about this was Facebook wasn't killing its cookies when someone would leave that site for the White House site, which is supposedly a statute violation, but there were no follow-ups after that story broke.
If what this Slashdot user is saying is true, the "highest bidder" would just be the government.... right?
Look, guys. Let's be honest here. NoSQL has been around forever; it's the default approach for data storage unless a relational database is selected as a requirement of the software being written (am I the only one who still writes his own file formats and uses record-based random access for small-time data storage? If you don't need the complexity of XML or SQL, then don't use it...)
That being said, NoSQL is just giving that obvious practice a name as if it is a new phenomenon in the development world. Agreed now that it has a name it tends to mislead developers into discarding SQL DBMS irresponsibly, but it does serve an extremely important purpose in the business world: It superficially inflates an otherwise vacuous business process, which under the guise of "innovation", drives business demand.
The IT world does this all the time. They re-package existing solutions, or disrupt them in favor of "new" solutions which to be honest are often unnecessary and more complex than the original solutions. But it drives business. It creates new hardware, new software, new job positions, new education criteria that academia can sell and creditors and government can tax, new system maintenance and migration hurdles; it turns businesses into consumers, it creates new consumers for those businesses, and justifies continuing relationships with consumers when the last product was already good enough.
The mere hype of IT "solutions", however irrelevant or pointless or unnecessary, perpetuates the industry. A lot of it is utter BS. It's all they can do during times when few real advancements are made... and sadly it works too well... and that is the REAL problem with the NoSQL trend. Not bad programming practice. Just artificial business fuel.
Try "The Annotated Alice" by Martin Gardner.
While Carroll's works have redeeming entertainment value, the truth is they contain considerable social and academic references which are undeniably obvious when placed in appropriate historical context. There is a fair amount of philosophical musings and, yes, mathematical concepts; some of which are mocked, others advanced, others simply mentioned in passing. I can't see how his intent could be misjudged here; it was not to entertain drug-influenced hippies, or amuse little children. His intent was to broadcast a host of sophisticated views on some rather advanced subject matters.
Carroll is not the only person to take this route to deliver philosophical ideas or social critiques under obscurity of allegory and metaphor. Dante did it. Parmenides did it. Well, a hell of a lot of people have done it. *shrugs* There is really no point in arguing about it.
Why would *anyone* politicize software and platform preference? So now, I'm a liberal because I use Linux, or I'm a conservative because I use Windows? The last thing we need is more division and resentment among us.
I like the software (programming) world because as computer nerds we are happily removed from the greater social issues that give everyone else so much consternation. Why would anyone want to ruin this?
Slashdot Mirror
The assumption being that the value of the business card is measured through its relationship to expression of self-identity and self-worth. Under this assumption, a decline in respect of the business card is explained by observing there are now alternative and satisfactory means to express one's self-identity. From this it follows, a decline in the sharing of business cards.
This assumption is wrong because it is based on an isolated cultural trend that once surrounded business cards, when their popularity especially during the late 80's and early 90's, was mostly about establishing one's self-worth; back then, people had business cards who didn't even NEED them, let alone have good reasons to pass them along. It was just a way to be a part of the crowd, to demonstrate (even brag about) one's professional accomplishments. They were exchanged for personal reasons as often as business reasons. What's changed is the former occurs less now than before; it doesn't mean the latter has faded.
Today there is no superfluous cultural glorification of business cards, but it does not mean they are dead. Their utility has scarcely been diminished, and they are still passed around according to their original useful purpose... business. People who today want to pass along personal contact info will do so with a cell exchange. But I can't see professional business contacts being developed in any better way than business cards.
It's a lot like e-mail, and how they say that is a dying application of the internet. Social networking appears to have reduced a need for e-mail, right? Wrong. It's just caused e-mail to be used for more formal communication. The people that have a reason to use e-mail will always have that reason, and so e-mail can't ever really go away.
Just look at the growth of LinkedIn as evidence that professionals will distance themselves from "alternative" networking trends.
Facebook wants all your messages so they can mine them for any possible personal information and sell it to the highest bidders. Is anyone surprised?
I've read (in print) and heard (from unreliable sources) that Facebook's data mining has been instrumental in custom politicking, or "political engineering" (no, I did not hear this from right-wing types), in particular the site's relationship with the Obama administration involves even personally identifying information being shared through direct channels - rather than through typical avenues afforded the average end-user, such as Obama teams simply monitoring the site like anyone else. Could anyone verify this? Google isn't turning up many answers. Last I heard about this was Facebook wasn't killing its cookies when someone would leave that site for the White House site, which is supposedly a statute violation, but there were no follow-ups after that story broke.
If what this Slashdot user is saying is true, the "highest bidder" would just be the government.... right?
haha what? That post was written by a crazy person, am I right? Fox news controls the tea party? Man get real....
Look, guys. Let's be honest here. NoSQL has been around forever; it's the default approach for data storage unless a relational database is selected as a requirement of the software being written (am I the only one who still writes his own file formats and uses record-based random access for small-time data storage? If you don't need the complexity of XML or SQL, then don't use it...)
That being said, NoSQL is just giving that obvious practice a name as if it is a new phenomenon in the development world. Agreed now that it has a name it tends to mislead developers into discarding SQL DBMS irresponsibly, but it does serve an extremely important purpose in the business world: It superficially inflates an otherwise vacuous business process, which under the guise of "innovation", drives business demand.
The IT world does this all the time. They re-package existing solutions, or disrupt them in favor of "new" solutions which to be honest are often unnecessary and more complex than the original solutions. But it drives business. It creates new hardware, new software, new job positions, new education criteria that academia can sell and creditors and government can tax, new system maintenance and migration hurdles; it turns businesses into consumers, it creates new consumers for those businesses, and justifies continuing relationships with consumers when the last product was already good enough.
The mere hype of IT "solutions", however irrelevant or pointless or unnecessary, perpetuates the industry. A lot of it is utter BS. It's all they can do during times when few real advancements are made... and sadly it works too well... and that is the REAL problem with the NoSQL trend. Not bad programming practice. Just artificial business fuel.
Try "The Annotated Alice" by Martin Gardner. While Carroll's works have redeeming entertainment value, the truth is they contain considerable social and academic references which are undeniably obvious when placed in appropriate historical context. There is a fair amount of philosophical musings and, yes, mathematical concepts; some of which are mocked, others advanced, others simply mentioned in passing. I can't see how his intent could be misjudged here; it was not to entertain drug-influenced hippies, or amuse little children. His intent was to broadcast a host of sophisticated views on some rather advanced subject matters. Carroll is not the only person to take this route to deliver philosophical ideas or social critiques under obscurity of allegory and metaphor. Dante did it. Parmenides did it. Well, a hell of a lot of people have done it. *shrugs* There is really no point in arguing about it.
Why would *anyone* politicize software and platform preference? So now, I'm a liberal because I use Linux, or I'm a conservative because I use Windows? The last thing we need is more division and resentment among us. I like the software (programming) world because as computer nerds we are happily removed from the greater social issues that give everyone else so much consternation. Why would anyone want to ruin this?