• Frans (unregistered)

    Now that was a few good years. I remember.

  • (cs)
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.
  • Spudley (unregistered)
    my day job is a Software Developer at Inedo

    Heh. Every time I read that, my mind sees it as "Innuendo".

  • No (unregistered)

    Everyone who reads this comment, please use your spare time to buy me coffee.

  • No (unregistered) in reply to frits

    What a cold, heartlsss man.

  • Hatterson (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

  • Neo (unregistered)

    Maybe I am missing something, but what if a particular device actually NEEDED to be recalibrated in 1999? That is, what if for some devices the "99" date wouldn't mean "never", but rather, for example, the year 1999?

  • (cs) in reply to Hatterson

    you know, I thought about doing something like that to help everyone here. Like a massive DELETE FROM * query.

  • anon (unregistered)

    Many moons ago I was working on-site and noticed that someone in the office where I was working seemed to be using a spreadsheet and a calculator. It was none of my business, but I noticed she was entering values at the bottom of many long columns of numbers. When I asked what she was doing she explained that she was using the calculator to work out each column's total was. When I showed her the "sum" function she was overjoyed. She spent 2 hours a day doing a spreadsheet - she could now do it in 15 minutes. The poor girl had just been told to get the figures into a spreadsheet without any training whatsoever. Rarely has many months of work been appreciated as much as the 2 minutes of help I gave that day (but no - there were "benefits in kind").

  • Anomynous Coward (unregistered) in reply to Neo
    Maybe I am missing something, but what if a particular device actually NEEDED to be recalibrated in 1999? That is, what if for some devices the "99" date wouldn't mean "never", but rather, for example, the year 1999?

    I assume that this happened in 1988 and the devices needed to be recalibrated after at most 10 years (or 1993 and 5 years or whatever), so there was currently a crop of devices coming up for recalibration in 1998- it was therefore being changed at that point because next year it was going to start introducing ambiguity?

    Presumably if all else failed they'd hire a temp in November to work on the database 8 hours a day, but why pay an extra person when you can just exploit current employees?

  • (cs) in reply to Hatterson
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    +100 Contradiction points!

  • Chip (unregistered)

    Good story. I worked in local government for a couple of years and the question of meaning popped up quite frequently. One of my coworkers used to say the one thing he did that made him feel like he'd saved the taxpayer money was turning the lights off when he left the building.

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    Ahh yes, I remember this classic WTF. But it's not a verbatim classic, is it? No no, something has definitely changed... oh, I see, it's the plug for your BuildMaster software! No time for a new self-promoting article? No problem, just insert some self-promotion into an old one! But no complaints here, I'm proud of you guys for proactively exploring enhanced revenue streams.

  • Ken B (unregistered) in reply to Hatterson
    Hatterson:
    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.
    I think you've got that backwards. Remember when people who used computers need to actually know how to use them?

    Now, it's just one big Dilbert cartoon.

  • Right Wing-Nut (unregistered)

    It is quite common for devices to need recalibration every 90 days. It all depends on the environment, sensitivity, and cost of the item.

  • arms (unregistered)

    Where was his Request for Change? Impact/Risk Assessement? Change Specification? Code QA? User Acceptance Testing? Release Control?

    Meaninglessness seems so apt ...

  • Kairo (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    +100 Contradiction points!

    Not really a contradiction. If someone has no skills to speak of, or has an obsolete skill (which may as well be no skill at all for most purposes), then it is indeed time to update one's skillset. That's just life.

    Think of telegraph operators; when machines were developed that could translate code to text that would be readable by most humans, and translate character input to code, knowledge of Morse Code kind of became a quaint non-skill for the most part. It's still useful for a handful of purposes, but teletype machines put hundreds or thousands of people who used to do nothing but listen to and transcribe the clicks into messages, and translate messages into taps of a key, out of work. Or, more likely, they just learned to operate and maintain the teletype machines rather than doing everything manually.

  • (cs) in reply to Chip

    I call bullshit. No government worker tries to save taxpayer money. If you run out of money, raise or create new taxes. If you're in the federal government, tell the treasury to print more money.

  • Kairo (unregistered) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    Hatterson:
    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.
    I think you've got that backwards. Remember when people who used computers need to actually know how to use them?

    Now, it's just one big Dilbert cartoon.

    It's a rising tide. Now people who used to use ledgers, adding machines, and typewriters, have mostly learned to operate computers (I use the term "operate" rather liberally). Those who had the aptitude to use old-school computers are often systems administrators and other support personnel, rather than mere users.

  • (cs) in reply to Kairo
    Kairo:
    frits:
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    +100 Contradiction points!

    Not really a contradiction. [...snipped unrelated counter-argument...]

    [...snipped unrelated long winded example...]

    It isn't?

  • thesleeper (unregistered)

    The real WTF is how many people think 'recalibrate' is a word.

  • Hatterson (unregistered) in reply to Kairo
    Kairo:
    Think of telegraph operators; when machines were developed that could translate code to text that would be readable by most humans, and translate character input to code, knowledge of Morse Code kind of became a quaint non-skill for the most part. It's still useful for a handful of purposes, but teletype machines put hundreds or thousands of people who used to do nothing but listen to and transcribe the clicks into messages, and translate messages into taps of a key, out of work. Or, more likely, they just learned to operate and maintain the teletype machines rather than doing everything manually.

    I think people confuse a skilled task with one that requires training (no matter how extensive). It took a large amount of training to operate a telegraph machine, but it wasn't a 'skilled' job. At least not by todays standards.

    Perhaps a better phrase would be: "Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it eliminates (rote) tasks"

    If your job is made up entirely of rote tasks it will eventually be replaced by a machine of some kind. At that point it is time to update your skillset, either to include a slightly more difficult set of rote tasks or to include something of actual skill.

  • Hatterson (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Kairo:
    frits:
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    +100 Contradiction points!

    Not really a contradiction. [...snipped unrelated counter-argument...]

    [...snipped unrelated long winded example...]

    It isn't?

    I didn't say it doesn't eliminate the need for a given job, there's no arguing about that.

    However technology doesn't eliminate jobs in the overarching sense. People are needed to design, implement, build, etc. all of that technology. It transforms a low tech job filled with rote tasks into a more skilled one. If your skill set doesn't match up with that new job then you have some work to do to ensure you can find employment.

  • (cs)

    Finding a more efficient way to do things is always good for the economy. Don't make we whip out the Broken Window Fallacy.

  • gotta put this oed subscription to some use (unregistered) in reply to thesleeper

    has been in use since at least 1883

  • A Gould (unregistered) in reply to arms
    arms:
    Where was his Request for Change? Impact/Risk Assessement? Change Specification? Code QA? User Acceptance Testing? Release Control?

    Meaninglessness seems so apt ...

    Why would you need any of those things?

    The assignment was "change field X for each device from '99' to '50'".

    Instead of opening each record individually and making the edit (as they were doing), he did a search/replace. Same result, less effort (and frankly, less insulting to the poor buggers stuck doing the work.)

  • The Web is the Root of All Info (unregistered) in reply to Hatterson
    Hatterson:

    If your job is made up entirely of rote tasks it will eventually be replaced by a machine of some kind. At that point it is time to update your skillset, either to include a slightly more difficult set of rote tasks or to include something of actual skill.

    Ah...So that's my motivation.

  • (cs) in reply to Hatterson
    Hatterson:
    Kairo:
    Think of telegraph operators; when machines were developed that could translate code to text that would be readable by most humans, and translate character input to code, knowledge of Morse Code kind of became a quaint non-skill for the most part. It's still useful for a handful of purposes, but teletype machines put hundreds or thousands of people who used to do nothing but listen to and transcribe the clicks into messages, and translate messages into taps of a key, out of work. Or, more likely, they just learned to operate and maintain the teletype machines rather than doing everything manually.

    I think people confuse a skilled task with one that requires training (no matter how extensive). It took a large amount of training to operate a telegraph machine, but it wasn't a 'skilled' job. At least not by todays standards.

    Perhaps a better phrase would be: "Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it eliminates (rote) tasks"

    If your job is made up entirely of rote tasks it will eventually be replaced by a machine of some kind. At that point it is time to update your skillset, either to include a slightly more difficult set of rote tasks or to include something of actual skill.

    Technology can eliminate the number of skilled workers required by a company. An example: It used to take 10 technicians to to handle service and calibration of a line of Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators. Skippy, the new engineer, writes a suite of test programs that eliminate most of the rote tasks performed by the technicians. Production control figures out pretty quickly that they only need 4 technicians. Next, the company lays off 7 technicians (they really believe in Skippy, and know he create out more process improvements).

    Now you see how technology can play a part in job elimination.

  • Mike (unregistered)
    We saved MegaCorp shareholders millions each year in labor costs, and we got a fantastic bullet point to put on our resumés. But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.

    Why is the floor of nice, hardworking people more deserving than MegaCorp's shareholders?

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to A Gould
    A Gould:
    arms:
    Where was his Request for Change? Impact/Risk Assessement? Change Specification? Code QA? User Acceptance Testing? Release Control?

    Meaninglessness seems so apt ...

    Why would you need any of those things?

    The assignment was "change field X for each device from '99' to '50'".

    Instead of opening each record individually and making the edit (as they were doing), he did a search/replace. Same result, less effort (and frankly, less insulting to the poor buggers stuck doing the work.)

    Need to get that sarcasm meter recalibrated. (And yes it's a word.)

  • V (unregistered)

    What bugs me is that they spend all this time looking at the code on these devices and trying to find the individual lines to update from 99 to 50 and they never noticed that it was making called to dBase???

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to thesleeper
    thesleeper:
    The real WTF is how many people think 'recalibrate' is a word.
    This warrants no response beyond http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recalibrate.

    Captcha: dignissim, as in, why did I even bother to dignissimify this idiot with a reply (sorry but it had to be done!)

  • ted (unregistered)

    Were these embedded devices?

  • SR (unregistered) in reply to V
    V:
    What bugs me is that they spend all this time looking at the code on these devices and trying to find the individual lines to update from 99 to 50 and they never noticed that it was making called to dBase???

    2 stockroom guys in "their last few working years before retirement" and you expect them to approach a problem like an IT pro?

  • zing! (unregistered) in reply to Hatterson
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    Kairo:
    frits:
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    +100 Contradiction points!

    Not really a contradiction. [...snipped unrelated counter-argument...]

    [...snipped unrelated long winded example...]

    It isn't?

    I didn't say it doesn't eliminate the need for a given job, there's no arguing about that.

    [...moar snips...]

    the troll - she wins!

  • (cs) in reply to Kairo
    Kairo:
    Ken B:
    Hatterson:
    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.
    I think you've got that backwards. Remember when people who used computers need to actually know how to use them?

    Now, it's just one big Dilbert cartoon.

    It's a rising tide. Now people who used to use ledgers, adding machines, and typewriters, have mostly learned to operate computers (I use the term "operate" rather liberally). Those who had the aptitude to use old-school computers are often systems administrators and other support personnel, rather than mere users.

    Makes me want to reread Vonnegut's Player Piano.

    Please excuse my ignorance if reread is also not a word.

  • Squidfood (unregistered) in reply to Neo
    Neo:
    Maybe I am missing something, but what if a particular device actually NEEDED to be recalibrated in 1999? That is, what if for some devices the "99" date wouldn't mean "never", but rather, for example, the year 1999?

    In the pre-fix system you wouldn't be able to distinguish real calibrate-in-99s from the "nevers" anyway, so no information was lost.

  • Patrick (unregistered)

    The nice, hardworking people would have quit their jobs eventually once they realised that what they were doing was meaningless.

    I live by the mantra "why should I be doing what the machine should be doing for me?" If that reason is simply that the machine doesn't know how, then it's time to fire up the IDE.

  • V (unregistered) in reply to SR
    SR:
    V:
    What bugs me is that they spend all this time looking at the code on these devices and trying to find the individual lines to update from 99 to 50 and they never noticed that it was making called to dBase???

    2 stockroom guys in "their last few working years before retirement" and you expect them to approach a problem like an IT pro?

    Yeah I guess that's a good point, I guess I didn't really look at it that way.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    Hatterson:
    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.
    I think you've got that backwards. Remember when people who used computers need to actually know how to use them?

    Now, it's just one big Dilbert cartoon.

    FTFY.

  • sirlewk (unregistered) in reply to frits

    TTWTF is, as always, frits.

  • shimon (unregistered) in reply to Maurits
    Maurits:
    Finding a more efficient way to do things is always good for the economy. Don't make we whip out the Broken Window Fallacy.

    But what we are witnessing is that Microsoft actually stimulates the economy a lot by shipping broken windows for decades, making both malware creators and malware fighters flourish!

  • Matt (unregistered) in reply to Hatterson
    Hatterson:
    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    You've clearly never worked for a Union before.

  • Matt (unregistered) in reply to Maurits
    Maurits:
    Finding a more efficient way to do things is always good for the economy. Don't make we whip out the Broken Window Fallacy.

    Or even better, Bastiat's Candlemakers Petition

    http://bastiat.org

  • Hatterson (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Hatterson:
    Kairo:
    Think of telegraph operators; when machines were developed that could translate code to text that would be readable by most humans, and translate character input to code, knowledge of Morse Code kind of became a quaint non-skill for the most part. It's still useful for a handful of purposes, but teletype machines put hundreds or thousands of people who used to do nothing but listen to and transcribe the clicks into messages, and translate messages into taps of a key, out of work. Or, more likely, they just learned to operate and maintain the teletype machines rather than doing everything manually.

    I think people confuse a skilled task with one that requires training (no matter how extensive). It took a large amount of training to operate a telegraph machine, but it wasn't a 'skilled' job. At least not by todays standards.

    Perhaps a better phrase would be: "Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it eliminates (rote) tasks"

    If your job is made up entirely of rote tasks it will eventually be replaced by a machine of some kind. At that point it is time to update your skillset, either to include a slightly more difficult set of rote tasks or to include something of actual skill.

    Technology can eliminate the number of skilled workers required by a company. An example: It used to take 10 technicians to to handle service and calibration of a line of Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators. Skippy, the new engineer, writes a suite of test programs that eliminate most of the rote tasks performed by the technicians. Production control figures out pretty quickly that they only need 4 technicians. Next, the company lays off 7 technicians (they really believe in Skippy, and know he create out more process improvements).

    Now you see how technology can play a part in job elimination.

    What about the people who trained Skippy, or who built the software suite that Skippy used to create said test programs, or the people who built Skippy's hardware?

    Just because your job, or any specific job, was made redundant by technology, doesn't mean that technology has eliminated a job, it's simply transfered it.

    It's not technology's fault that the company hired 10 technicians to do the work of 4 technicians and 6 trained monkeys.

  • ideo (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Ken B:
    Hatterson:
    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.
    I think you've got that backwards. Remember when people who used computers need to actually know how to use them?

    Now, it's just one big Dilbert cartoon.

    FTFY.

    Thanks, that annoyed me, too XD

  • sino (unregistered) in reply to sirlewk
    sirlewk:
    TTWTF is, as always, frits.
    Is it?
  • Some Wonk (unregistered) in reply to zing!
    zing!:
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    Kairo:
    frits:
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    +100 Contradiction points!

    Not really a contradiction. [...snipped unrelated counter-argument...]

    [...snipped unrelated long winded example...]

    It isn't?

    I didn't say it doesn't eliminate the need for a given job, there's no arguing about that.

    [...moar snips...]

    the troll - she wins!

    Look. An argument isn't the automatic gainsaying of anything I say.

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    +100 Contradiction points!

    Not to drag this into a riff about Economics 101, but every job 'eliminated' is a an added number to the supply of labor, bringing the cost of labor down. An exaggerated example would at some point make labor cheap enough to do it 'the old way', though in the case of manually changing numbers from 99 to 50 that's unlikely, but the point is still valid.

    Witness China, who's labor is so cheap that American chicken producers--even with high-teck butchering equipment--find it cheaper to send container loads of of freshly killed/frozen chickens to China for manual butchering, then ship the result back here for consumption at Sam's Club, Hooters, et. al.

    (...yes, the digression was deliberate)

  • cod3rgirl (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Kairo:
    frits:
    Hatterson:
    frits:
    TDWTF:
    But we also put an entire floor of nice, hardworking people out of work.
    I never worry about this type of thing. Because if we don't do it, our competition will--then we'll all be out of work.

    Technology doesn't eliminate jobs, it simply moves them from the unskilled to the skilled.

    If a computer system has eliminated your job, and there are no other similar jobs available, then it is time to update your skill set.

    +100 Contradiction points!

    Not really a contradiction. [...snipped unrelated counter-argument...]

    [...snipped unrelated long winded example...]

    It isn't?

    I think he means that technology doesn't reduce the number of jobs. It certainly does eliminate certain individual jobs, but it creates others to replace them, and those newly created jobs will probably require a new skillset.

Leave a comment on “Classic WTF: Meaninglessness”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article