Couldn't agree more. We seem to live, and have lived for awhile, in a culture where convenience trumps absolutely everything. But there are some things that are more important than convenience. At least I seem to remember one or two, I think..............

Sounds like management-speak. Confusing show and substance. If the Help Desk does its job no one cares about forward face or point of contact. They know the job gets done. That's substance. Uniforms are show, and degrading show at that. But maybe if you have really stupid clients they'll confuse the show of uniforms with the substance of solving the problem. I doubt it though. Clients do know when they're getting show not substance.

This is one of the most pitiful things I've yet seen in IT.

I'd ask yourselves this question: do you think you need to 'promote visibility and unity'? It sounds like most people already know who you are. Do you need 'unity' then? Is this how you'd prefer to 'promote unity'?

My guess it that the answer is no. In that case I'd ask management to have enough guts to tell you what they really want. If they think you dress like slobs they should tell you so. I have no sympathy at all with gutless management and you shouldn't either.

In other words, get out and see the world!

When it comes to being dumb, never say never!

I'm not sure why someone would say Cnet when all Cnet does is paraphrase the article that ran in WSJ yesterday. Why not just go to the source?

Yep the answer is a threat, not another safeguard. Couldn't be simpler. Philadelphia had the good sense, finally, to make the use of a cell phone on almost any vehicle illegal just the other day.

But this is all obvious and has been obvious for years. The only reason that nothing was done has to be the lobbyists for the phone industry, and politicians who love their own cell phones, and have caved in to the lobbyists.

I know this sounds like the typical crap you read in comments: it's all a conspiracy by so and so. But in this case I just can't see it any other way. I wish this weren't true but I think it is. I can't think of anything in recent memory that has made me more cynical about government and it's easy co-option by business.

On my most frequently used computer slashdot is my home page. But it doesn't make any difference! With saved tabs each time I open up the browser I have at least 8 pages online at a time. Which one of them is really the 'home' page? So I answered 'blank.'

Did you say 'news'?, and then.................say 'cnn', in the same sentence? I suppose once upon a time they covered the news but it's been awhile I'm sad to say. I'd have to agree with the person who says he listens to NPR instead. I read a newspaper, or two.

I do not expect to find the news on the web however.

You've made good progress in explaining this.........

Not trying to be sarcastic here but let me try to get straight what you are saying:

1)Application standpoint -> Perl's bad
2)Programming language -> Perl's bad
3)Advanced scripting language -> Perl does that really, really well.

So I assume that 1 and 2 are more or less the same. Programming languages are used for applications and Perl is not a real programming language and thus bad for building applications. Not trying to put words in your mouth here but just making sure I understand you.

On the other hand Perl is great at advanced scripting.

Don't you think that the line between advanced scripting and an 'application' can sometimes be very thin? Do you see them always as very far apart?

What do you think about what seems to be the rising popularity of scripting languages? Is it possible that some users think that programming languages for applications might be beautiful but aren't always as practical as advanced scripting languages? I realize I could be wrong about the 'rising popularity' of scripting languages. It's based more on what I read than on actual experience. Still it does at least look like there is a trend towards dynamic scripting languages.

I was looking forward to reading this book based on the thread above. But you're right, Peter Deutsch's comment about perl is less refeshing than asinine. I'd love to see a thoughtful analysis of perl compared to other languages, because sometimes, even though it's the language I use most frequently, it drives me nuts. But calling it 'an abomination' doesn't quite qualify as thoughtful analysis. And it certainly doesn't consider that it must be doing something right to still be used in so much functioning code.

As essay or two on elegance and reductionism versus practicality would be nice to see in the book.

don't you think it's the Opera Company that looks dumb here? This seems like the most desperate, and obvious, attempt in the world to widen its audience. You can't go anywhere or do anything anymore without being invited to 'follow us on Twitter.' When I'm bombarded that often by the same advertising I have to think that the product being peddled is hopelessly out of date. Everyone seems to want to get on the Twitter bandwagon regardless of whether it has anything to do with them or their business.

There was a time in the arts where it might have been somewhat bold and refreshing to engage the audience in some way. But that was about 40 years ago. To suggest that tweets from the public will be used for a libretto seems, to me anyway, to be far more about getting on a bandwagon and hoping for the best, than it does about art. Sometimes I wonder if the world can get any sillier. Then I have my answer.........

I'm in complete agreement. I can't stand reading anything on an electronic device. Not only is it unpleasant but it's actually harder to focus on what you read. As far as I'm concerned I know that I don't concentrate as well when reading anything online. It's just not conducive to focusing.

Even worse newspapers, who once wrote lengthy explanatory articles, are now writing shorter ones because that's the style of the web: short. So now it's getting harder and harder to find, and read, an in-depth explanation of anything. I'm sometimes wonder if future generations are just not going to know what in-depth means. I'm sure every generation criticizes younger generations and I realize I'm part of that tradition. Still I really do think that we're becoming a society that no longer knows how to explore anything in depth. That's what books excel at.

As Anonymous Coward says: take a book and read it next time you're in the library.

I'm not quite sure how the desk calendars work but I got one a couple of years ago. Dullsville! But I've also been subscribing to the New Yorker for last three years or so. The cartoons in the magazine are much funnier. Maybe these calendars have this in small print:
'Rejects from', and in large print 'The New Yorker.'

As far as the drawing I'd be willing to bet that cover wouldn't have been published if it had not been drawn on an iphone. And I'd be willing to bet the 2nd, 3rd, ...400th drawings done on iphones probably won't get published anywhere. Their interest is their novelty. This is quite different from New Yorker articles which often are substantial.