Every work-based situation is unique. I obviously shouldn't have used the term 'agile' as it has become a polluted by XP evangelists and so on in the past. Pragmatism would suggest that you look at what you are doing and work on improving the processes to allow you more structured control of your 'agility'. Normally in the software world we are trying to do the reverse, go from a rigid inflexible system to one that is more 'flexible' (and again, this is achieved only by looking at all processes and improving them one by one, with greater agility as the end goal. Forget the hype). In this case the situation is reversed; there is plenty of agility, but low quality, Fortunately, many of the techniques that have been developed to enhance 'agility' in software development are applicable in these situations as well. I refer to Test Driven Development (which is a simple technique that many of us employed long before it was formalized, it's just little test programs basically), different design patterns that allow easily changing things without having to re-write everything (inversion of control is great here, because it solves the spaghetti wiring problem), and dividing work into chunks (iterations just help keep you focused on the goals, and asks you review your processes regularly. It's a feedback loop looking at how your working, that's all). This stuff is all light weight, and will not slow you down, just help with some of the problems. You should always be looking at how you work with an eye to improving.
Agile is just a big catch all word that has lost all meaning. Let's say "not waterfall". Whatever you thought I meant is irrelevant, but the fact remains that "rapid prototyping" is all these guys are doing. This is not a unique situation. I used the term 'agile' to indicate that there are a range of processes and development techniques, that have come about to help improve speed and quality in these situations (and they happen to fall under the umbrella of 'agile'). If your work involves regular creation of software, it would be smart to get familiar with these techniques.
How this was modded up in a place like/. astoundes me. Let me address your points one by one.
Not only that most researchers are not proficient in programming language, they shape their codes more like prototypes so that they can modify the codes easily as the science progress.
News flash! Everyone who is writing software that is "new" is "prototyping". This is not a new problem, this is why we have design patterns and TDD.
Conventional programmers will be frustrated with this approach since they want every single spec set in stone
I take it you know very few programmers, maybe at IBM? Managers want "specs", many of us developers want to work on something interesting. If there were all these lovely specs set out in stone, it wouldn't be much of a challenge now would it?
...will never happen in research setting since research progresses very rapidly and specs can change dramatically in most cases
Hey! That sounds just like the software world! Look up "agile software development".
If you can set the spec in stone, it is usually a sign that the field has matured and is getting transitioned to engineering-type problems. Once the transition happens, it's no longer research, it's engineering. Then you can "make the code better"
Mistakenly thinking that software development was engineering is what has caused more than one company to fail. Software development is team based creative problem solving. Waterfall is dead for a reason. Still, there are ways to rapidly prototype while creating high quailty easily adapted code. This is what all modern software development techniques are about. Your problems are nothing special, you're just ignorant of the solutions.
Does "agile" software development allow scrapping 100% of the code and radically change the spec (and thereby everything else) every about 6 months just because of new scientific publication?
Yes! Every iteration (month) you can throw the whole lot away and start again. You won't though, because there are always certain building blocks you can re-use.
If we take time to "structure" our code, before we know it, we have to redo it all over again.... So, we really don't have incentives to "beautify" the code.
I see these arguments in all kinds of contexts. All it is excuses for poor work. The funny thing is that doing things 'right' the first time generally ends up taking less time overall. I wonder how much time you waste fixing broken code, or mistaken logic? Getting two hacks to work together? Perhaps if you stopped cutting corners constantly, you would learn some of the techniques that make rapidly changing prototyping, quick and painless. Nobody has time to "beautify" their code, but you are making the age old mistake of assuming your circumstance is "unique", and forgetting to learn from others. Your circumstance is not unique, you are essentially doing what any start-up/web based company would do code wise. You need techniques like TDD, patterns such as 'inversion of control', and agile methodologies. That's if you wanted to go faster and have reliable code. It would require you to consider that you could do things better, and others may have something to teach. It might require you admit that you could be wrong...
We are so far away, that it's pretty unlikely that we would see anything small. So let's make a few assumptions and extrapolate to the absurd.
1) Intelligent life is fairly common.
2) We are somewhere in the middle of the bell curve advancement wise.
3) Really advanced races harvest stars for their energy and matter.
Thus, all we need to do is look for stars disappearing in an orderly fashion, and we've got the proof (and then we should hope like heck they don't stumble across our solar system with its moist chewy centre)
I think you, and a previous poster, misunderstood me. I am not advocating socialism or social conservatism, I was simply trying to demonstrate that many varied approaches are taken to solve the same fundamental problem. I strongly afirm the right of each society to determine their own approach in these matters. The point I was trying to make is that in the west, we have bought into the idea that economic growth is the key to solving these issues, and have missed the bigger pictures. This approach crosses the political divide, so I do not see it as a debate between big and small government. When I refer to greed, it is with the implication that the focus of economic growth has shifted from the betterment of society at large to the betterment of the few. The increasing divide between rich and poor is evidence of this. I am concerned that we have lost focus on what improving economic conditions was intended to acheive. Much like focusing on the use of speed cameras as they are useful for raising revenue can lead to worse road safety due to fewer police cars on the road.
In reference to the following:
Nothing lessens poverty more than not having government "help."
Although I completely agree that throwing money at impoverishment does nothing but harm (if you look again at my post, the whole point is that good parents are the fundemental requirement, and how do you make them?), I could not disagree more strongly with this statement. You seem to be implying that doing nothing is the most effective solution? To me, this is simply throwing up our hands and admitting defeat. If you accept that some people are born into a disadvantaged situation, then the rational response is to look for ways to address the disadvantage. This could and does take many different forms (work for benefits, scholarships, micro-loans, basic health care). We should not look at a failed example and simply respond "it is better to do nothing". We simply need to keep working on finding solutions that work.
Which makes perfect sense as soon as we go back to employing children. The article is not about adults (who would presumably have substantial motivation when applying for a job). The IQ test has not gained an extra dimension of significance, so your argument is without merit.
If you couple this with the research that shows a high correlation between self-control and success (much higher correlation than IQ), then an inescapable conclusion results. It is not the brilliant mind that is destined for success, but rather the motivated well-disciplined mind. So how does one achieve such a mind? The research suggests that having parents who provide routine and discipline, a stable environment, and have a loving relationship. This is why social problems are so difficult to resolve; the child needs certain things from the parents, but the parents cannot provide. Consequently, the child grows into a poor parent and the cycle repeats. This cycle is very hard to break (even with the state system designed for this purpose, schooling). On a related note; the increasing gap between rich and poor globally is of grave concern. Increased financial pressures lead to an increase in the number of problem home environments, and the problems take such a long time to resolve. Here is where you end up with different philosophical views. Social conservatives will suggest that we must focus on unchanging structured social environments (e.g. No gay marriage, a support community via religious involvement, if religious etc). Socialists and left leaning will suggest a government provided support network is essential. The politically right will focus more on options to enable individuals to break free of the cycle. Personally, I think we as a society in the west have lost our way. Reducing economic stress was key to relieving a primary cause of social problems, however economic growth is only one component. As we now place economic growth as higher importance than societal health, we neglect that which is fundamental to the health and success of our societies. We risk letting greed destroy us, I can't put it more plainly than that.
Well, I think you'll find that they often can be bothered (in fact I know these guys take this stuff very seriously). If thats all you need to ensure the air-conditioner is secured, whats the problem?
Solution: don't connect your air-conditioning system to the Internet..:)
Every time I see a slashdot post on network weaknesses with infrastructure I always see the line above. "Don't connect X to the Internet; problem solved". So here's a question, what do you mean when you say this? Do you mean make sure the network the air-conditioner is on is physically isolated from the Internet? Or do you just mean "isolated" via some router magic or other. I say this knowing that the situation on the ground is that there is hardly a network in any system that is physically isolated. Pretty much every mine, every water treatment plant, every power station, every building, has a physical connection between networks, and often a communications link from SCADA to business networks. A lot of work goes into securing the end points, but there is generally little security inside. Is this not good enough? Can these external entry points not be secured?
Ahh I see; moderator access has become synonymous with "petty tyranny". Tell me, have you ever considered employment as a government bureaucrat? Mod me down big man! I laugh in the face of your rebuke! May your friends continue to despise you, and a meaningful life ever elude you. May your early hair loss and burgeoning waist line increasingly repulse potential mates. Finally, may you live a long life alone with your pettiness, so that even beggars in the street may look on you with pity! So I curse you! Despised amongst men.
How can the first post on an article be modded redundant? But thank you mister opening poster, you answered the first question that came to my mind as an iPhone user. Not having to jailbreak to install non-blessed apps sounds pretty good to me.
A couple of C++ compilers? Which? RTTI and exception handling hardley fit your definition of "standards that are impossible to implement correctly" Look, you're entitled to have your preference on programming language, but whatever your pain in compiler implementation; it's hardly a rational reason.
This is what I call the lawyer talk. I don't want a run around. I am not checking for size() == 0. I need to know the number of elements in the list. The standards allow splice() to be O(N). Most people expect size() to be O(1) that is how they interpret the standards. Making splice() O(N) to give size() in O(1) is the reasonable and user friendly thing to do. Hiding behind opaque english, using lawyer talk and blaming the user is antagonizing the user.
Mate, you need to pay attention to your own sig. The C++ standard is clear on where big O performance is prescribed. Where it is not, don't make assumptions. This is not some grand conspiracy against you, just suck it up and fix your code.
This is not about the academic veracity of a creationist position, or prevention of others from denigrating and refuting such; this is about protecting the rights of such individuals against workplace discrimination in academia. It is a reaction to ideas such as this. Dawkins on workplace discrimination due to creationist beliefs. I disagree strongly with the ideas outlined in this article by Dawkins, as it is akin to suggesting "if you do not conform to the currently excepted norms of correct thinking; descrimination is acceptable". Indeed, descrimination against atheists has been similarly common in the not so distant past. We need tolerance for the humanity of man, even if their private beliefs appear foolish to us.
The Mad Hacker handed Alice a cup of custard-like substance and a spoon. "Here," he said, "what do you think of this?"
"It looks lovely," said Alice, "very sweet." She tried a spoonful. "Yuck!" she cried. "It's awful. What is it?"
"Oh just another graphic interface for UNIX," answered the Hacker.
They'll probably change them to a polymer based note (like here in Australia and much of the rest of the world), so the microwave will destroy the note. I am sure there will be other ways though. High voltage spark from one of those firelighters perhaps?
Actually now that I think about it, surely the brain must store and process all images in some symbolic fashion. The amount of data would otherwise be ludicrous, imagine developing such a naive image recognition system. I suspect that what happens is that visual people such as yourself can rebuild (an approximation) of the original picture from the stored symbols. My brain is just broken in that way, and works in with the raw symbols. Gave me an advantage with maths though.
I too am a programmer, but cannot see things in my head. To answer some of yor questions, I hear all written words as I read them. I am equally curious about how a visual person tackles abstract thought. There are many concepts that cannot be pictured (for instance in mathematics), how do your grapple with them? For me, all thought that is not text is symbolic (closest word I can think of to get the gist), so things like algebra came very easy. Do you revert to a different mode of thought if you can't picture something?
Hey there brother! I too have the same problem as you. I see stuff in dreams, but cant picture anything awake. Kind of makes the descriptive stuff pretty pointless in books. I do find that I can "picture" (for want of a better term) somehow symbolically. As in, I can map directions in my head, or work out where everything is in my house in my head. I just can't do it visually, it's more like doing math. Do you experience anything like that? I also find I have a lot of trouble explaining things visually (as in with diagrams) to people at work (I'm a developer). Which I think is related. Feels like a disability some times, I think these visual people must be wielding enormous amounts of brain power to picture this stuff. I often wonder what it's like, what kind of resolution people see things at, whether the image is static... In some ways I think I may remember pictures more accurately because it is again symbolic. I can describe the picture to you, not from my minds eye, but because the description is how I remember it. Anyway, enough rambling; just glad there is someone else like me!
No, your logic is flawed. There is nothing inherently broken (economically) in a closed system were all employment for a single entity that also taxed. Your issue is that you fail to understand the concept of money, which is just an adjunct to the underlying financial system, and whose value is not fixed. Go study some economics. Now, as to your other point about the inherent value, and ease of duplication of non-physical goods, I share your concern. Our economic system is not based around the concept that I can simply take the goods you produce, and create exact duplicates for zero cost. This is an unsolved problem in the new digital economy, and I think a huge liability for economies that are leveraged to depend on these type of goods. I disagree with your assumption that the strong military has much to do with the US economic strategy however, as at this point in time they appear to be able to use pressures related to trade to coerce less willing parties into line on IP laws. The strong US military does nothing in the economic struggle with China for instance, and the trade leverage is gone from that relationship.
The system is not closed. You make money buy selling stuff to other countries. Still, it's not like anyone is ever advocating for "100%" government jobs (outside of the old failed soviet states perhaps). Just pointing out the flaw in your logic. And if you want to look big picture the concept of money is just a shared dream; we can't really "create" wealth, we're just playing with numbers in a very sophisticated barter system.
I was with you up to your complete ignorance of spreadsheets. A spreadsheet is like a database, data manipulator, scripting language, and reporting tool all rolled into one. To suggest people replace their spreadsheets with a database is to completely miss the point. We use spreadsheets to avoid having to have a database.
Spreadsheets continue to be THE number one productivity enhancement tool in use in organizations today. Ask and project manager or systems engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
Every work-based situation is unique. I obviously shouldn't have used the term 'agile' as it has become a polluted by XP evangelists and so on in the past. Pragmatism would suggest that you look at what you are doing and work on improving the processes to allow you more structured control of your 'agility'. Normally in the software world we are trying to do the reverse, go from a rigid inflexible system to one that is more 'flexible' (and again, this is achieved only by looking at all processes and improving them one by one, with greater agility as the end goal. Forget the hype). In this case the situation is reversed; there is plenty of agility, but low quality, Fortunately, many of the techniques that have been developed to enhance 'agility' in software development are applicable in these situations as well. I refer to Test Driven Development (which is a simple technique that many of us employed long before it was formalized, it's just little test programs basically), different design patterns that allow easily changing things without having to re-write everything (inversion of control is great here, because it solves the spaghetti wiring problem), and dividing work into chunks (iterations just help keep you focused on the goals, and asks you review your processes regularly. It's a feedback loop looking at how your working, that's all). This stuff is all light weight, and will not slow you down, just help with some of the problems. You should always be looking at how you work with an eye to improving.
Agile is just a big catch all word that has lost all meaning. Let's say "not waterfall". Whatever you thought I meant is irrelevant, but the fact remains that "rapid prototyping" is all these guys are doing. This is not a unique situation. I used the term 'agile' to indicate that there are a range of processes and development techniques, that have come about to help improve speed and quality in these situations (and they happen to fall under the umbrella of 'agile'). If your work involves regular creation of software, it would be smart to get familiar with these techniques.
Not only that most researchers are not proficient in programming language, they shape their codes more like prototypes so that they can modify the codes easily as the science progress.
News flash! Everyone who is writing software that is "new" is "prototyping". This is not a new problem, this is why we have design patterns and TDD.
Conventional programmers will be frustrated with this approach since they want every single spec set in stone
I take it you know very few programmers, maybe at IBM? Managers want "specs", many of us developers want to work on something interesting. If there were all these lovely specs set out in stone, it wouldn't be much of a challenge now would it?
...will never happen in research setting since research progresses very rapidly and specs can change dramatically in most cases
Hey! That sounds just like the software world! Look up "agile software development".
If you can set the spec in stone, it is usually a sign that the field has matured and is getting transitioned to engineering-type problems. Once the transition happens, it's no longer research, it's engineering. Then you can "make the code better"
Mistakenly thinking that software development was engineering is what has caused more than one company to fail. Software development is team based creative problem solving. Waterfall is dead for a reason. Still, there are ways to rapidly prototype while creating high quailty easily adapted code. This is what all modern software development techniques are about. Your problems are nothing special, you're just ignorant of the solutions.
Does "agile" software development allow scrapping 100% of the code and radically change the spec (and thereby everything else) every about 6 months just because of new scientific publication?
Yes! Every iteration (month) you can throw the whole lot away and start again. You won't though, because there are always certain building blocks you can re-use.
If we take time to "structure" our code, before we know it, we have to redo it all over again. ... So, we really don't have incentives to "beautify" the code.
I see these arguments in all kinds of contexts. All it is excuses for poor work. The funny thing is that doing things 'right' the first time generally ends up taking less time overall. I wonder how much time you waste fixing broken code, or mistaken logic? Getting two hacks to work together? Perhaps if you stopped cutting corners constantly, you would learn some of the techniques that make rapidly changing prototyping, quick and painless. Nobody has time to "beautify" their code, but you are making the age old mistake of assuming your circumstance is "unique", and forgetting to learn from others. Your circumstance is not unique, you are essentially doing what any start-up/web based company would do code wise. You need techniques like TDD, patterns such as 'inversion of control', and agile methodologies. That's if you wanted to go faster and have reliable code. It would require you to consider that you could do things better, and others may have something to teach. It might require you admit that you could be wrong...
1) Intelligent life is fairly common.
2) We are somewhere in the middle of the bell curve advancement wise.
3) Really advanced races harvest stars for their energy and matter.
Thus, all we need to do is look for stars disappearing in an orderly fashion, and we've got the proof (and then we should hope like heck they don't stumble across our solar system with its moist chewy centre)
In reference to the following:
Nothing lessens poverty more than not having government "help."
Although I completely agree that throwing money at impoverishment does nothing but harm (if you look again at my post, the whole point is that good parents are the fundemental requirement, and how do you make them?), I could not disagree more strongly with this statement. You seem to be implying that doing nothing is the most effective solution? To me, this is simply throwing up our hands and admitting defeat. If you accept that some people are born into a disadvantaged situation, then the rational response is to look for ways to address the disadvantage. This could and does take many different forms (work for benefits, scholarships, micro-loans, basic health care). We should not look at a failed example and simply respond "it is better to do nothing". We simply need to keep working on finding solutions that work.
Which makes perfect sense as soon as we go back to employing children. The article is not about adults (who would presumably have substantial motivation when applying for a job). The IQ test has not gained an extra dimension of significance, so your argument is without merit.
If you couple this with the research that shows a high correlation between self-control and success (much higher correlation than IQ), then an inescapable conclusion results. It is not the brilliant mind that is destined for success, but rather the motivated well-disciplined mind. So how does one achieve such a mind? The research suggests that having parents who provide routine and discipline, a stable environment, and have a loving relationship. This is why social problems are so difficult to resolve; the child needs certain things from the parents, but the parents cannot provide. Consequently, the child grows into a poor parent and the cycle repeats. This cycle is very hard to break (even with the state system designed for this purpose, schooling). On a related note; the increasing gap between rich and poor globally is of grave concern. Increased financial pressures lead to an increase in the number of problem home environments, and the problems take such a long time to resolve. Here is where you end up with different philosophical views. Social conservatives will suggest that we must focus on unchanging structured social environments (e.g. No gay marriage, a support community via religious involvement, if religious etc). Socialists and left leaning will suggest a government provided support network is essential. The politically right will focus more on options to enable individuals to break free of the cycle. Personally, I think we as a society in the west have lost our way. Reducing economic stress was key to relieving a primary cause of social problems, however economic growth is only one component. As we now place economic growth as higher importance than societal health, we neglect that which is fundamental to the health and success of our societies. We risk letting greed destroy us, I can't put it more plainly than that.
That's about 20% more.
No. (35-30)/30 = 5/30 = 1/6 =~ 16.7%.
Or roughly; 20%
Well, I think you'll find that they often can be bothered (in fact I know these guys take this stuff very seriously). If thats all you need to ensure the air-conditioner is secured, whats the problem?
Solution: don't connect your air-conditioning system to the Internet .. :)
Every time I see a slashdot post on network weaknesses with infrastructure I always see the line above. "Don't connect X to the Internet; problem solved". So here's a question, what do you mean when you say this? Do you mean make sure the network the air-conditioner is on is physically isolated from the Internet? Or do you just mean "isolated" via some router magic or other. I say this knowing that the situation on the ground is that there is hardly a network in any system that is physically isolated. Pretty much every mine, every water treatment plant, every power station, every building, has a physical connection between networks, and often a communications link from SCADA to business networks. A lot of work goes into securing the end points, but there is generally little security inside. Is this not good enough? Can these external entry points not be secured?
Ahh I see; moderator access has become synonymous with "petty tyranny". Tell me, have you ever considered employment as a government bureaucrat? Mod me down big man! I laugh in the face of your rebuke! May your friends continue to despise you, and a meaningful life ever elude you. May your early hair loss and burgeoning waist line increasingly repulse potential mates. Finally, may you live a long life alone with your pettiness, so that even beggars in the street may look on you with pity! So I curse you! Despised amongst men.
How can the first post on an article be modded redundant? But thank you mister opening poster, you answered the first question that came to my mind as an iPhone user. Not having to jailbreak to install non-blessed apps sounds pretty good to me.
A couple of C++ compilers? Which? RTTI and exception handling hardley fit your definition of "standards that are impossible to implement correctly" Look, you're entitled to have your preference on programming language, but whatever your pain in compiler implementation; it's hardly a rational reason.
This is what I call the lawyer talk. I don't want a run around. I am not checking for size() == 0. I need to know the number of elements in the list. The standards allow splice() to be O(N). Most people expect size() to be O(1) that is how they interpret the standards. Making splice() O(N) to give size() in O(1) is the reasonable and user friendly thing to do. Hiding behind opaque english, using lawyer talk and blaming the user is antagonizing the user.
Mate, you need to pay attention to your own sig. The C++ standard is clear on where big O performance is prescribed. Where it is not, don't make assumptions. This is not some grand conspiracy against you, just suck it up and fix your code.
This is not about the academic veracity of a creationist position, or prevention of others from denigrating and refuting such; this is about protecting the rights of such individuals against workplace discrimination in academia. It is a reaction to ideas such as this. Dawkins on workplace discrimination due to creationist beliefs. I disagree strongly with the ideas outlined in this article by Dawkins, as it is akin to suggesting "if you do not conform to the currently excepted norms of correct thinking; descrimination is acceptable". Indeed, descrimination against atheists has been similarly common in the not so distant past. We need tolerance for the humanity of man, even if their private beliefs appear foolish to us.
The Mad Hacker handed Alice a cup of custard-like substance and a spoon. "Here," he said, "what do you think of this?" "It looks lovely," said Alice, "very sweet." She tried a spoonful. "Yuck!" she cried. "It's awful. What is it?" "Oh just another graphic interface for UNIX," answered the Hacker.
They'll probably change them to a polymer based note (like here in Australia and much of the rest of the world), so the microwave will destroy the note. I am sure there will be other ways though. High voltage spark from one of those firelighters perhaps?
Actually now that I think about it, surely the brain must store and process all images in some symbolic fashion. The amount of data would otherwise be ludicrous, imagine developing such a naive image recognition system. I suspect that what happens is that visual people such as yourself can rebuild (an approximation) of the original picture from the stored symbols. My brain is just broken in that way, and works in with the raw symbols. Gave me an advantage with maths though.
I too am a programmer, but cannot see things in my head. To answer some of yor questions, I hear all written words as I read them. I am equally curious about how a visual person tackles abstract thought. There are many concepts that cannot be pictured (for instance in mathematics), how do your grapple with them? For me, all thought that is not text is symbolic (closest word I can think of to get the gist), so things like algebra came very easy. Do you revert to a different mode of thought if you can't picture something?
Hey there brother! I too have the same problem as you. I see stuff in dreams, but cant picture anything awake. Kind of makes the descriptive stuff pretty pointless in books. I do find that I can "picture" (for want of a better term) somehow symbolically. As in, I can map directions in my head, or work out where everything is in my house in my head. I just can't do it visually, it's more like doing math. Do you experience anything like that? I also find I have a lot of trouble explaining things visually (as in with diagrams) to people at work (I'm a developer). Which I think is related. Feels like a disability some times, I think these visual people must be wielding enormous amounts of brain power to picture this stuff. I often wonder what it's like, what kind of resolution people see things at, whether the image is static... In some ways I think I may remember pictures more accurately because it is again symbolic. I can describe the picture to you, not from my minds eye, but because the description is how I remember it. Anyway, enough rambling; just glad there is someone else like me!
No, your logic is flawed. There is nothing inherently broken (economically) in a closed system were all employment for a single entity that also taxed. Your issue is that you fail to understand the concept of money, which is just an adjunct to the underlying financial system, and whose value is not fixed. Go study some economics. Now, as to your other point about the inherent value, and ease of duplication of non-physical goods, I share your concern. Our economic system is not based around the concept that I can simply take the goods you produce, and create exact duplicates for zero cost. This is an unsolved problem in the new digital economy, and I think a huge liability for economies that are leveraged to depend on these type of goods. I disagree with your assumption that the strong military has much to do with the US economic strategy however, as at this point in time they appear to be able to use pressures related to trade to coerce less willing parties into line on IP laws. The strong US military does nothing in the economic struggle with China for instance, and the trade leverage is gone from that relationship.
The system is not closed. You make money buy selling stuff to other countries. Still, it's not like anyone is ever advocating for "100%" government jobs (outside of the old failed soviet states perhaps). Just pointing out the flaw in your logic. And if you want to look big picture the concept of money is just a shared dream; we can't really "create" wealth, we're just playing with numbers in a very sophisticated barter system.
I was with you up to your complete ignorance of spreadsheets. A spreadsheet is like a database, data manipulator, scripting language, and reporting tool all rolled into one. To suggest people replace their spreadsheets with a database is to completely miss the point. We use spreadsheets to avoid having to have a database. Spreadsheets continue to be THE number one productivity enhancement tool in use in organizations today. Ask and project manager or systems engineer.
So let me think this one through. We start with razor teeth, killer claws, and end up with... A chicken. I think I'll stay unevolved thanks ;)