Slashdot Mirror
Google's Megan Smith Would Be First US CTO Worthy of the Title
theodp writes: Bloomberg is reporting that Google X's Megan Smith is the top candidate for U.S. Chief Technology Officer. With a BS/MS in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, and experience ranging from General Magic to Google, Smith would arguably be the first U.S. CTO worthy of the title (the outgoing U.S. CTO has a bachelor's in Econ; his predecessor has a master's in Public Policy). "Smith joined Google in 2003. As vice president of business development, she oversaw many of its most important acquisitions, like Keyhole, the service that underlies Google Earth. She has led the company’s philanthropic division, Google.org, and served as a co-host for Google’s Solve for X forum, where distinguished thinkers and scientists brainstorm radical technology ideas with Google executives."
From the link BY THE FUCKING CONTRIBUTOR HIMSELF:
Prior to his career in government, Park was the co-founder of two successful health information technology companies.
So a man who started two IT companies by the age of 35 doesn't have a background in Technology, because he got a graduate degree in business?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Are the other applicants less qualified? Do any of them have degrees in mechanical engineering? We don't know, because the only person mentioned is Megan Smith. We can't fairly judge whether or not she'd be a good fit because we have no idea what the alternatives are.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Pfft. She's more likely to be discriminated against because of the uppity black man who nominated her.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Because while she is quite qualified for the position I can bet that some in Congress will not only have an issue with her gender but also her sexual orientation.
Note that I do not believe this should be an issue at all, but reality is often different from what we would hope.
Trust me, congress doesn't give a crap about who or what she is. What they care about is if they can use her to hurt their political opponents.
Well, these days, it's the lefties who poison the well of every issue with race and sex to justify passing laws that legislate privilege;
Since she's gay, I would assume what you're ranting about in this case is the "privilege" of being allowed to marry the person you love.
Nice.
I hate to see things like this happen.
What appointing a CTO based on the fact that the CTO is actually substantially more expert in technology than any of the previous CTOs appointed in that position?
Appointing her just because she is female cheapens what I've done.
You seem to be assuming that the reason she's being picked is something other than her track record---a track record which is impressive. That reflects more on you than on her or the people who picked her.
Just as the joke of a new CEO of Microsoft who was picked for his race pisses off my Indian friends, this is the same deal.
If your friends are claiming that Microsoft would poor candidates based on race then I'd advise to inquire how they think Microsoft chose Ballmer. He's white in case you hadn't noticed and was terrible.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Who the hell modded this shit up?
This story isn't about gender issues, it's about tech issues. Smith seems to be the first candidate for the CTO who actually has a damn clue about the Tech in the Chief TECHNOLOGY Office position.
Previous appointees have been from tech businesses but have had a business background. Smith has an engineering background and has been working actually doing tech.
I mean, when was the last time you heard there isn't enough men employees in female dominated industries?
How about every single fucking time this topic comes up on slashdot and people post scads of links about campaigns to do exactly this in order to counter this ridiculous and pernicious piece of misinformation?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There is no doubt that she has the chops and anyone would be lucky to snare an executive with her background and talents. But the article's focus on what degree she has is just silly. The brightest developer I ever knew had a degree in chemistry. The best Director of development I ever hired was an Air Force tech. The best COO I ever worked for was a lawyer / polysci major with no business classes under his belt. The best Director of IT I ever had earned an associates degree and got her A+ certification to get her first job.
Meanwhile, the worst Director of Development I ever had was an MS of CompSci with an MBA. Guy was a tool and an idiot. The worst COO I ever had was an MBA with top grades from a top school. The worst CFO I ever worked with was a chemistry major. OK, that one kinda goes against my point. Forget about him.
Still, my point stands:
If you are still worrying about your degree 20 years out of college, you haven't done anything.