|
|
Posted by Luigi Donatello Asero on 10/06/06 23:39
"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:doraymeRidThis-F56DA8.09234107102006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610060748020.26785@ppepc87.ph.gla.ac.uk>,
> "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, dorayme wrote:
> >
> > > [btw. Alan Flavell has a philosophy behind the idea of hard rote
> > > work, that it offends against human dignity...
> >
> > [ warning, off-topic ]
> >
> > I don't care whether it's hard or easy - *rote* work that can be done
> > with the computer is inappropriate to be done manually.
> >
>
> I don't really disagree with anything you go on to say. It does
> not really matter whether it is an ethical stance. It is sure
> sensible to get the machine to do things auto as much as
> possible. I am a big fan of automation, I know it sounds absurd,
> but, first time, I had to force myself not to watch (in
> fascination) my computer do a big batching process in Photoshop.
> There it was, the machine at its best, opening and altering and
> saving files all by itself! Yes, it lierally opened things on
> screen. Now, that is what a computer is for, I thought.
>
> But, if I may just make this point again, not all jobs are worth
> the effort of "tooling up" to do things automatically.
>
> As you describe, it is often useful to get a big percentage of
> the job done with auto processes. But in many jobs, the push for
> turn-key operational success brings in diminishing returns. Not a
> bad maxim is:
>
> Automate what it is easy to automate and get ready to roll up the
> sleeves for the rest.
Strange as it may sound to you, I share your opinion.
Automation makes sense when there is already a big amount of work to do, not
for every little thing.
--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
谢谢你, спасибо, tack så mycket!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|