I no longer love IT work. I've been at it for 14 years now, and the shine is definitely off the apple. That being said, I don't hate it. It's not fulfilling anymore, but I don't dread going to work, either.

My current job allows me to travel a minimum of 8 months per year, often 10 or more, with long stretches at the work site, so it really is enjoyable travel, not the land-getjobdone-boardplane-flytonextjobsite travel that makes for a miserable experience versus a very enjoyable one.

So while I love the framework my job is in, I no longer love the job itself. It's a peculiar place to be, since it's easy to leave miserable situations, but much harder to leave pretty good situations, even though the next stop might be fantastic.

Though I've heard of this phenomenon, and am sure it is true in certain niches of the IT world (such as game coders), I've never seen it in person.

Personally, I *love* seeing the old guy come on the job site, because he'll probably know every little quirk there is to know about the system he's working on, since he's been at it for the last 25 years.

We had to deal with an Alcatel IP phone build-out on a site, and it was new technology at the time, and our saving grace was Bob. Overweight to the point where the impolite would call him fat, gray bearded, thick glasses, unfailingly calm, and was the only person we could find on the planet who knew how to make this system work, and the rest of us weren't IT slouches. Or Sande, the 60-something tech who saved one of our hotels from a complete phone outage, twice, as he was the only person in the city who knew how to work on a Hitachi HCX-5000.

The idea that old guys are of limited value in the IT industry is patently false. You can have the college grads, I'll take the grampas.

I have nothing against advancing robotics, whatsoever.

But, many of the problems with the elderly being physically infirm can be treated with steroids. Society has this bizarre view of steroids of being a horrible drug causing anything from cancer to rage to psychotic episodes. The DEA has it listed as a Schedule III drug, which carries a worse fine for possession than Xanax, Rohypnol, Valium and Halcion. Anabolic steroids are on the same DEA classification as LSD. From a legal standpoint, they view as equal what is essentially a drug that increases the rate at which proteins fold to the most powerful hallucinogen known to man.

Give the elderly steroids, and let their doctors monitor them. Keep going with robotics, but steroids are here now.

If you're curious where your drug of choice lands on the DEA schedule, here's a link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

"See...just how far you can free-dive, and then push a bit further."

I freedive quite regularly, and have experienced two shallow water blackouts. I can tell you, assuming you have done proper breathe-ups to rid your system of CO2 before the dive, it would be an extremely peaceful way to go. Both times I blacked out, I wasn't even aware of what happened until it was showed to me on film. One second I'm ascending, the next, out cold. No pain, no discomfort, no fear.

If I ever off myself, that is probably how I'll do it.

1987 called. It wants its lame joke back.

You're referring to the individual programmers, artists and game designers. I know many in the industry, and yes, they love the design aspect of gaming. But Blizzard, the corporation, only cares about game quality to the extent that it positively affects their profits.

New invention: Feetbelts. Straps on the floor that you fit your fit into, like those found on snowboards.

I started playing WoW from Day 1. I leveled, the old-fashioned way, a Warrior from 1-60 (and with the original Hit% bug with Warriors, I can not exaggerate how painful that was), then over the next several months, a Rogue, a Druid, and a Shaman, all the 'intended' way.

By then I was *so*sick* of doing the same quests over and over, I decided to start dual boxing.

Lo and behold, the game was new again.

Used my 60 Warrior, who was very well geared by this point (BWL gear) and used him to level up a Mage, Priest and Warlock through instance grinding.

FAR more fun than mindless quest grinding.

Then TBC hits. I role a Paladin and get him to 55 with my Warrior leading the way.

I then realize I can 'solo' most TBC instances if I triple box with 1 Tank (my Warrior), a healer and an AoE class. So I start triple-boxing.

Game is new yet again!

Use this arrangement to get all my toons to 70. Did every quest in Hellfire and Zangarmarsh, then all the rest of the XP came from instance grinding. I left the remaining quests from higher lvl zones for gold because by this time the XP -> gold from quests implementation was in the game.

So now there is Refer-a-Friend triple XP, the 10% XP shoulders, zone buffs when towers are captured for more XP, festival buffs, etc. etc. etc.

Blizzard knows how much leveling sucks, and they are giving people many ways to make it less painful, but even with all this, IT STILL SUCKS.

I don't play anymore, but I never saw any problem with giving people who obviously know the game and their class a huge break when it comes to leveling. Say 10 free levels for every 60 toon you have on your account, or something along those lines.

I do not need, nor want to do any more Azeroth or TBC quests again, ever.

As for the "original vision" of the game, the original vision, as with every single video game produced by large companies, is to make money, and WoW did that incredibly well. It's a business. Period. Their customers are the players. If the players want 55 free levels, faction changes, name changes, welfare epics, and on and on and on, and are willing to pay for it, either through a direct fee (name changes, faction changes) or by virtue of continuing to pay their monthly fee, they will keep getting it because at the end of the day, Blizzard, and every other major game manufacturer cares about one thing and one thing only: MONEY.

"Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place."

The problem I've found, even since my first debate class in 10th grade, is that the vast majority of people have no interest in what the 'right' answer is. They only care that their perspective is correct, and if an inconvenient counterpoint is presented, they discount, rail against, or outright ignore it.

In addition to this, the people presenting the counterpoints often do it in such a condescending manner, any slim hope there was of the other person considering an alternate viewpoint is evaporated in a blast of indignation.

The most productive problem solving I've ever done, and still do, is when I'm surrounded by smart people who don't believe their personal ego should factor into any decision made. We sit down at a table, drink lots of coffee, joke around, and at the end of the day, have solved most of our problems in elegant, efficient ways. We even laugh at our own dumb ideas when we've overlooked something that should have been obvious. I've also been in groups where you are crucified for uttering something that isn't completely accurate. This environment simply leads to a large amount of CYA, because once a person commits to the decision, he then MUST follow through, even if later he realizes it wasn't the best choice, because the environment he's working in is completely unforgiving. Basically if he admits there was a better option, it costs him his job. It's best to not have that type of fear, because no matter how hard you are on people, they will still make mistakes, even the brilliant ones.

The same holds true for personal philosophies; solving the problems that being alive presents. When you are listening to other people, you should actually listen to them. Try to see things their way. Don't bash them, even if you disagree. It doesn't hurt. It can often help. And when you're presenting a counterpoint, be genteel about it. Tact goes a very long way.

The Dude said it best, "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an ASSHOLE!"

Well, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. I was envisioning a monkey in a cage in the corner of the living room that screamed obscenities at company.

However, I was aware of Koko, though it has been years since I've read anything about her. I'll read up on what they are doing with her, and if the project seems worthy, I'll donate :)

One of the more interesting aspects of basal ganglia is that it, along with the thalamus, make up the limbic system. Located below the cerebral cortex, this is the area of the brain where base emotions are generated, such as aggression and impulse.

While researching speech in relation to the brain, it was discovered that while regular, everyday speech originated from the pars opercularis and pars triangularis of the inferior frontal gyrus, cursing originated from the basal ganglia.

We know intuitively that cursing 'feels' different than regular speech when you do it, at an emotional level. They have proven that it actually is different, at the biological level.

What's supercool about this experiment, is they increased the mouse's capacity to curse .

What I wouldn't pay for a mouse that could curse. Or good god a monkey. Give me a cursing monkey and I'll tithe you every paycheck 'til I die.

"A billion years ought to be enough for anybody." - Me

This is a sidebar in relation to something she said, "LÃpez said in an interview that the Internet had given her a new lease of life and in one of her last posts, published in February, she wrote; 'When I'm on the internet, I forget about my illness. The distraction is good for you â" being able to communicate with people. It wakes up the brain, and gives you great strength.'"

I've often thought the Internet would be a fabulous tool for the elderly, though unfortunately, they are the group least likely to embrace it, as any of you with grandparents can attest. You know I love you, grandma, but if you fucking right-click ONE MORE GOD DAMNED TIME WHEN I TELL YOU TO LEFT-CLICK, I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL STRANGLE YOU WITH MOUSE CORD.

Sorry, flashback. Anyway, with nothing but free time on their hands, and declining physical abilities, the elderly have a dirt cheap, incredibly entertaining and mentally stimulating (depending on where you go) alternative to the idiot box, that is merely a phone jack away. My grandfather, who passed before the Internet was popular, would have absolutely loved it. He was very smart. He loved to read. He loved to research things. He tinkered with small engines and held a couple patents related to coloring fiberglass. He made stained glass windows for churches in his spare time. With a tool like the Internet, who knows what he would have done with his final 10 or 20 years of life.

I've seen the vast majority of senior citizens I know wasting away in their recliners, spending their final years listening to Oprah, Judge Judy and reruns of Green Acres. I'm not sure they enjoy it so much as they are simply limited to what they can do at that age. They are usually on a fixed income, physically infirm to some degree, and have declining mental faculties. The Internet is a great way for them to spend their time, if only there was an easier way to get them to understand the technology behind it. Even interactive games would keep their synapses firing a lot more than soap operas and cribbage.

Not every senior citizen would use the Internet to further their education; in fact most wouldn't. But I'd personally rather watch my great aunt ding 80 in Warcraft than have her sit through the 8th rerun of Green Acres where Arnold gets in the vegetable patch.

Good for you, Mrs. Lopez, and rest in peace.

"There used to be a lot of equipment manufactured by various countries (Germany is the first one that comes to mind) that lasted virtually forever..."

I understand the principle you are referring to, but I'm not really sure if it's a case of people remembering, or even imagining things more fondly than they really were. And I mean that literally; I'm not sure.

My grandfather, who passed away 16 years ago, left behind in his garage a lawnmower with a Briggs & Stratton engine. He originally purchased this lawnmower sometime in the late 50's. That lawnmower is *still* in my mother's garage, and still fully operational, some 50 years later. The only maintenance required is a bit of gasoline and a new spark plug every 10 years or so.

*50* years and still running strong

Fast forward to a car I owned in college. It was a 1985 Volkswagen Golf. The car was 5 years old when I got it; my mother owned it before me. It had about 60,000 miles on it when I got it, but it already had a cracked head (faulty radiator), CV joints were replaced 3 times (it was an engineering defect - anyone who owned a Golf or Jetta from about that time can attest to this), faulty fuel injector (it would stick at WOT sometimes when you floored it), headliner collapsed, sunroof broke twice (couldn't open it), and several other minor problems, and this was BEFORE I got it. I owned it for under two years and by then it was such a heap of garbage we decided to simply trade it in on something new, as it was too expensive to keep repairing. Mt grandfather bought me a 1992 Nissan pick-up, the no-frills base model, and it was mechanically the best vehicle I've owned to date, and I'm currently on my 8th automobile. I put over 200,000 (really rough) miles on it, and the only thing that ever failed was a bearing in the transmission, which was most likely my fault for driving it like a dragster. Was only $600 to repair, including parts and labor. Everything else worked great.

Going back in time again, I also have some of my grandfather's toys. They are stored away, and never touched, but the craftsmanship was so delicate, they never would have made it this long if continually played with. Even simple mechanisms like the Jack-in-the-Box readily break.

So taking into consideration the materials used in the past (heavy duty plastic, metal, solid wood) versus those in use today (thin plastic, cheap alloys, synthetic/pressed wood), as well as the business ethics of planned obsolescence (i.e. build something that breaks right after warranty) I would say that overall, if all manufactured products were compared to their equivalent from many decades past, it does seem that a higher percentage of products are now built more cheaply than they once were.

However, considering engineering advances, I'd put my Nissan up against any 1950's Ford or Chevy for reliability. And as has been mentioned by other posters, it's often what you pay and who you buy from. If you buy cheap, you shouldn't expect longevity. Of course there are exceptions to that, as well. My Nissan pick-up in 1992 was $9,000 out the door. The next most reliable car I've owned is my Viper, but it cost 10x as much as my old Nissan.