Posted by dorayme on 10/06/06 23:23

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.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]