The harder you declare a technology dead, the more obvious is its enduring existence. So no anger here, all these things are still needed. But it's obvious, that there are technologies and practices that are less important that they were a few years ago. Here's Computerworld's list. It includes: Cobol, nonrelational database management systems, non-IP networks, cc:Mail, ColdFusion, C programming,
PowerBuilder, certified NetWare engineers, PC network administrators, and OS/2.
Got any of these? Some more suggestions?

A recent study at Indiana University states that (simulated) phishing attempts were much more efficient when phishers purported to be "friends" of the same community. Overwhelming 72% of all addressees were willing to return personal data (their university ID and password) when they thought the phishers to be friends (a control group that received "normal" spam asking for the same data was less talkative (16%)).
Countermeasures are recommended as usual, but I think for most people this kind of problem is too abstract and they don't get the point that a user's mistrust is her best protection.

300 years ago, Carl Linnaeus was born in Sweden. He was the creator of modern taxonomy and the binomial nomenclature. Extremely influential.

What is a machine made for? To help us in our cumbersome labour. When I'm reading that Japanese and Korean robotic manufacturers are looking for ways to meet manpower shortage, meaning that robots "will be able to look after children and the elderly, do routine housework, guard criminals and hunt down terrorists" (Source), I'm asking myself, whether these tasks better should be done by humans and if not the dull and boring work should be given to robots instead. I remember very old phantasies where people weren't forced to work because machines would save them from that. Men would have leisure and enough time to care for children and the elderly and much more.

The 2007 Godel Prize for outstanding papers in theoretical computer science at the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing honours two computer scientists, Alexander A. Razborov and Steven Rudich, for proving that there is no "Natural Proof" that certain computational problems in cryptography are hard to solve, and though they are thought to be unbreakable, there is no natural proof that they are secure.
Razborov, a mathematician and computational theorist, is a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Science Steklov Mathematical Institute in Moscow, Russia. Rudich is Associate Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa., an editor of the Journal of Cryptology - and accomplished magician. (Source)

Number of web sites Google researchers identified as being able to launch "drive-by downloads", malicious software pushed to the client immediately on the first request. Another 700,000 sites are potentially compromised. (Source)

Isch bin dä Schmitze Jupp! Un isch wütt misch jern vorställe. Paß op: Isch kumm uß Kölle. Un drink jähr ä Kölsch un bin enne löstije Jung, wah. Ming Marie is äh läcker Mähtsche, ävver se säht, isch wöhr enne Suffkopp. Un dat is nit nett vun ihr. Nät? (Voice. Thanks.)

Microsoft Research's project MyLifeBits promises to record every sensation of your complete life. A small webcam shooting images the whole day long is your constant attender, an audio recorder saves all spoken words and sounds, other devices detect your body's life signals. In the end, almost every part of your life becomes digitized and after commenting all the data your saved life is a very big data base you may browse through. Nothing is forgotten, everything is browsable and if you want to recall the events of a certain date there is nothing that deters you.

In this Scientific American article (unfortunately only for paying customers, here's the open German version) some sample scenarios were described to prove that system's fitness. The stories deal with situations where people use their digital brain extender to overcome typical everyday problems: a market maker is warned by his system that he's wasting time with ineffective businesses, a student proves that his learning method is better than that demanded by his parents, an old lady's medical data is permanently recorded even when she's at home in oder to give her a warning when she's drinking too few and so on.

Many questions remain unanswered. The market maker is warned by the system, so his employer controls the data. What happens when the market maker wants to leave his company? Will he be pressed to erase his company-related binary memories or to leave them at his former company? Who determines when a certain procedure is getting ineffective? Where is the student's benefit if the system proves that his parents are right? Sure, the systems tells the truth, but what if the student misses his football match? Who controls whom - does the memory system help you or is it just another tool to put the curb on you?

Another thought: the old lady from the example above uses her spare time to refresh her memories of former times. At a certain age, dementia becomes a serious issue, so brain work is a useful thing. But is the permanent preoccupation with one's own memories healthy? Could this be another form of narcism when nothing but one's own history remains important? Will there be enough time and room to learn new things and people?

Kathryn Bigelow's underrated movie Strange Days (1995) tells a crime story in the near future. The story's hero is addicted to his own memories, this is made possible through devices that store one's feelings and visual impressions on disks. It is very difficult for him to let go his memories of his former girlfriend and solve his problems. The plot shows various crimes effected by misuse of this device (excessive memory feedback, trauma induction, 'snuff' memories), thus pointing at the ambiguity of that technique.

With the total recall device, scenarios like these might come true. This system doesn't allow you to forget, even if your memories aren't that enjoyable. Why should you want that (besides all interesting technical questions)? Will a system like that make you free, happy and self-determined?

"It seems plausible that with technology we can, in the fairly near future, create (or become) creatures who surpass humans in every intellectual and creative dimension." _{Vernor Vinge, retired San Diego State University professor}

And they're invisible as well! Old men from past decades of boundless technical plans resign. "Mind children" hushing through the networks as sort of atheistic hereafter. (Source)

Tonight, strange glowing clouds in the sky. Quite large, couldn't note any sky beamers or similar devices. Half an hour later, the structure got broader and pale and eventually vanished completely.

This interesting article descripes changing job descriptions of developers and software engineers. According to that, the one-person-does-all developer is as dead as the 'real' developer, as coding will be done in far-off countries. Instead, architects and people intimate with business logic will replace coders as we know them.

At least for big international companies, I think, this will come true. Possible cultural bareers aren't that diffcult to overcome in technical professions. After all, it's mathematics and money, languages everybody knows. This change doesn't even mean that there will be less work for Westerners to do. The neccessary investments to make an international team work will include several project managers as well as eductated people who will do the brain job.

But in this world, teamwork is the key. And no person involved will be able to say: "I have done that from the beginning to the end. People are using my ideas and my code. I alone am responsible for this." Now everybody has to be a member of a group and to share his work and knowledge. A lot of tension in IT jobs is based upon this constellation, I think.