Well said, Howard.
(You know, I had wondered if anyone
had actually read that thing.)
I'm sorry to hear of your weariness.
> However, even Unix had its share of language wars:
> X-windows introduced an entirely new vocabulary and
> syntax. Many of the built in utilities: RCS, nroff/troff, vi
> became replaced with higher level programs and
> languages put on top of Unix, once there was a gui
> available.
==
== Yes, even in a standards-based system it's
== possible to succumb to the fads:
== (Keeping up with all the latest "gee-whiz" stuff
== may not lead to the best long-term result.)
> In the dot com world, a new language comes
> in about every 2 weeks: . . .
==
== I have found that companies whose heads are not
== "postversely inserted" adopt a language, standardize
== to it, and change ONLY when there's compelling
== reason beyond "gee, the market's going that way."
== ('postversely?' Hmmm -- a new word!)
> Imagine if everyday languages, or languages
> in any of the physical sciences developed and/or
> grew anything like this? There is something
> crazy and distorted about all of this.
==
== It's tempting to make a political statement
== here, but suffice it that, while the *physical*
== sciences don't suffer from "compulsive
== popular vocabulary syndrome," the social
== and psych "sciences" do. And the result
== is something like you might expect.
> On the other hand, some of my friends think
> the computer/internet will go the way of the
> telephone and TV -- having its fad time and
> then settling down after a few decades to
> a stable of urban life.
==
== The internet has traditionally been the
== domain of the literate (that's us, guys, the
== people who actually READ), but with the
== introduction of "more bandwidth than you
== can possibly use" and the consequent
== enabling of multimedia, the door has
== been opened for the use of the 'net as
== a vehicle for mass marketing. Happily,
== unlike TV, the users of the internet can
== also be contributors and have some
== measure of influence on the quality of
== the medium and its content.
It's easy to become cynical about the direction
of management and marketing thought.
In the hands of the greedy, who are convinced
of their own deservedness of whatever they can
acquire, any heads on which they must tread to
elevate themselves are unimportant, and the
methods (technologies) by which this is
accomplished are themselves unimportant
except to the degree these methods improve
the marketability or efficiency of today's scam.
The frenetic pace with which some of these
characters "adopt" new technologies will give
you whiplash trying to track it.
In my observations, point (4) says:
"Align yourself with honest, honorable business
ventures; ethics *matters*" [emphasis added].
I might further have said, "... whose leaders are
stable and sane," but I was trying for something
that could be achieved without the need for any
mind-reading ability.
Howard, it's not the business of computers or
communications or any of their supporting
technologies that burns people out, it's working
for people whose game is not their own and
in the framework of which game they cannot
hope to win.
The only cures I know of are 1) find someone
playing a game with whose rules you can agree
and in which you have the opportunity to win, or
2) start your own game.
Option (3), of course, is to do more of the same.
All the best,
Garry
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
