hmm, on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Ben Calvert said that > the unnamed individual (with such great faith in his mail system that he uses > gmail to correspond with us) is actually performing the valuable function of > helping me compose interview questions to weed out undesirable job applicants, > so let's try to keep this thread going as long as possible.
how is his kind of "certainty" bad from a professional view? it all works on a "good enough" level (for various values of "good"), otherwise we wouldn't be using it at all. nothing is perfect in life, it is always barely "good enough", why would IT be different? not many people go on elaborate ontogenetical discussions what the manual _really_ meant by "atomic operation" or "sql transaction". why don't we go down right to the subatomic level and just say we don't even exist? that you are reading a message that perchance does not exist? if humankind was expected to make things perfect, it would be still working on the wheel.. we build systems that are acceptably reliable inside certain boundaries, made on certain budgets. that these budgets are evershrinking and quality is becoming a verb in past perfect without future tense, that is another sad story. we are cheap. we get what we pay for. -f -- i'm so close to hell i can almost see vegas!
