Admittedly little used and no recent releases, but there are/have been Darwin OS releases apart from Apple.
IMHO, if you're curious, give it a shot. I personally much prefer FreeBSD as a server operating system. I don't run a Linux/BSD desktop, but if I did, I would probably use Linux.
What about the Newton? What about those brick thick tablets in the 90s/early 2000s that you could draw on?
I have a Kindle and an iPad. I read books on both. The Kindle experience is, imho, far better. The Kindle is great, but the Kindle is not a general purpose tablet. The iPad is. It's absolutely fair to say that the iPad started the current tablet craze.
So if it's "Apple's fault" then why do 29% of Android users believe they already have 4g phones. Whose fault is that?
Consumers are dumb. ALL consumers. People who try to draw these non-existent dichotomies between people based on cellphone choice are just as dumb (I'm not saying that you're one of the people doing this--just a lot of other posts here).
If you had wasted the time to RTFA, you'd see 29% of Android owners think they have 4G phones already. Obviously a few of them do actually have LTE phones, but not many yet. I really don't see why so many people make choice of cellphone an "us versus them" "you're either with us or against us" type moment.
And you're what, the typical Apple hater who is too smug to even RTFA?
34% of iPhone owners think their phone is 4g. Whereas only 29% of Android owners think they have a 4G phone (ok, a few Android owners do have LTE phones). That 5% sure prove how Apple users are dumb and Android owners are elite.
You did get one thing right--someone here is definitely living in a world of "ignorance is bliss," but I won't surprise you by telling you who it is.
The mother brought it on herself....by letting her kid play outdoors? Are you kidding me? That's so representative of the "helicopter" parenting of American today it's horrifying.
Matt Kostolnik then confronted Ardolf, who admitted he had kissed W.K. on the mouth.
I obviously have no more idea than you if this guy is an actual pedophile or not, but given that he admitted to something that the vast majority of Americans would find creepy (kissing a stranger kid on the mouth), has a past record of irrational criminal behavior, and responded to this situation with child pornography and extremely irrational behavior, why give him this particular benefit of the doubt? If nobody denies he kissed the kid on the mouth, why fight that claim? That seems to me incredibly silly.
If you think it *isn't*, you clearly need to take your own advice. Here's a hint - most "libertarians" are conservatives, no matter what they say publicly.
That depends on your definition of conservative. Given that all these political terms are highly jumbled and (duh) highly politicized the meanings can be ambiguous and many people don't know what they're saying. For instance, I would call myself a classical liberal. Most people would call me conservative or libertarian. I'm extremely libertarian/conservative on economic issues (since they frequently align) and libertarian on social issues. Many republicans would call me leftwing on social issues. But this is just what I--like many other libertarians--say publicly. I guess you've caught on to the fact that we're all lying.
One of my friends worked at the Cato institute for a couple years. His observation was that the republican/democrat divide was fairly close. That there were definitely more republicans than democrats (and a third block of non-voters/neither party) but that it was not a huge difference. The libertarian vote does go back and forth. At this point in time I would agree with you that libertarians align far more with republicans than with democrats. Says more about the parties than about libertarians.
I read fewer blogs now than I used to, but I regularly checked out the Volokh Conspiracy, HuffPo, Slashdot, Watts Up, RealClimate, and occasionally if I'm in a masochistic mood, Kos. Slashdot may not be nearly as hateful/seething/leftwing as Kos, but I can think of no definition of "conservative circle jerk" that is remotely applicable. Do this--create two fake accounts and on the next political article post something hateful rightwing screed on one account and a hateful leftwing screed. There's of course a chance both get upmodded or downmodded, but I've done this before several times and in my small experience, the leftwing posts are more likely to get modded up. Random posts that seem to have a rightwing POV get modded down more often. Again IMHO, your mileage may vary.
I have INCANDESCENT bulbs that buzz worse than any of the CFL's I have. In particular I am pissed off at some high-voltage expensive ceiling fixtures designed to light a wall, which we never use due to the horrible buzzing. An outdoor CFL buzzed a bunch but it turned out the socket was bad (it failed, the CFL still worked in other sockets and no bulbs at all work in that socket any more).
I pretty much just have 60w standard bulbs, no special high voltage. Don't think I've ever noticed buzzing from an incandescent. Outdoor was another area where I put two (special outdoor model) CFLs. They made it through the winter but are incredibly dim now. Seems like getting down into the teens a couple nights hurt them badly. Not sure if that's true, but that's what it seemed like.
He didn't mean he saved 20% of his total energy. He is saying that cost of bulbs plus cost of energy is 20% less than it would be for incandescents. Does not sound like a lot to me, but I doubt he is lying.
I see, that makes much more sense. Don't think those numbers worked out for me.
I want LED floodlights so as to never have to replace them again.
Yes, that's because not all of the efficiency clauses have become active yet. The clause that would eliminate 60w doesn't become active until 2014, for example.
Funny. 5 years ago I switched my entire house to CFL's. I have had to replace ONE bulb in that time - and that was not a result of burnout, but a result of a lamp that got knocked over.
I've had to replace several--maybe 3/9-10 in 3 years--(Phillips) because they either died or became incredibly dim. I've changed out at least 2 that started making horrible high-pitched buzzing noises. Some people couldn't hear them but I've always had fairly high-range hearing and it drove me crazy (like those mosquito ring tones). The most annoying thing to me is how dim they become after just a year. I loved them at first, but stuff kept happening (dimming, buzzing, dead). If people like them, fine by me, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to tell someone else what lightbulbs they should be forced to buy. I'll wait for better tech.
I have no idea how you could possibly get a 20% savings from CFLs. If the average incandescent is 60W and the average CFL is 15W that's a 45W difference. If you have 10 bulbs each running 8 hours a day (and that seems like a ton to me; for my household that would be a _big_ overestimate of number of bulbs and hours run) for 31 days a month that comes to approx 111 kilowatt hours. That is far less than 20% of my energy bill. Did I do some of the math wrong?
The real answer is to get rid of our fucked-up "no tariff" situation with GATT/WTO, and stop giving corrupt shithole nations like China "Most Favored Nation" trading status. But that'll never happen as long as the Chinese are happy to buy up the Republican Party.
I think what you really mean is, as long as consumers choose to buy up Chinese goods. Have the Democrats done anything to confront the Chinese at all? Under Clinton? Obama? This is an issue that is the political class vs everyone else. You're just making it a partisan one. Obama even came right out and said "those jobs aren't coming back" (referring to manufacturing). What makes this into such a personally partisan issue for you? It's obvious you loathe the Republicans, why are they worse than the alternative?
Jeez, if you think that slashdot is a "conservative circle jerk" I would suggest you leave your cave a little more often and maybe expose yourself to some opposing viewpoints.
I also wasn't aware that mercury thermometers leached mercury into your mouth. Citation? When I was a little kid I dropped and broke a mercury thermometer. The cleanup was a fairly big deal to my parents...
A somewhat similiar argument I've seen made by many liberals is that when municipalities/malls ban baggy pants they are being racist because black youth tend to wear baggy pants, ergo they're really banning blacks. You're making the exact opposite argument. If even 60W incandescents are due to be banned by the energy restrictions, I think "incandescants are being banned" is a pretty fair statement.
Odd that you don't seem to know what you're talking (but way to go, beating up that imaginary strawman in your imaginary debate). The bill being repealed actually closed a lot of US bulb production. I switched to all CFLs about 3 years ago and have been gradually switching a lot of my bulbs back to incandescents.
Worked out as a non-red voter if you voted for Begich.
I currently live in NC. For where I live, local is solid blue, presidential is usually red (Obama being the exception), governor almost always blue, senators often red, often blue. I think the red state/blue state thing is overplayed.
Both parties are corporatists. The only reason I continue to vote republican is that they at least state they want to cut taxes and limit the government. They may have only marginal success and/or not even try, but at least some of them try. Given that both parties are essentially parties of powerful government welfare, starving the government is the only way I see of limiting the damage.
I do like Alaska a lot. Have considered moving there. You could always try the Free State Project!
Gotcha, I don't really know what you're talking about, but I also don't particularly care enough to go trawling.
Then I assert that you are evil. I have never voted for a winning presidential candidate, and I've voted in every election I could (about 20 years worth now). Voting for the lesser of two evils makes you evil. I vote my conscience, not based on which evil I'd rather see as president. And looking back, I can't see how Kerry or Gore could have been worse than Bush. Bush is probably the worst person to sit that office since Hoover. Or depending on how you feel about Hoover getting too much blame for the Great Depression, maybe back to some of the bad ones in the latter part of the 1800s. But then, since you indicate a libertarian perspective, perhaps that unbridled corruption (laissez faire) isn't as bad as generally accepted now.
So you've never voted for a winning candidate, I'm batting around 40%. The net importance of any of either of our votes? Absolute nil. I personally find your attitude re: good vs evil, you're either with us or against us pretty bleak. Representative of the polarized times we live in I suppose. I spoke with someone once who had worked as a government corruption buster in the office of the IG for about 25 years before quitting and becoming a law professor. He said he had grown weary of the job, partisanship, and constant corruption. Interestingly he said he thought there was little difference in corruption between republicans democrats in terms of quantity, only in type. Under republicans there was a great deal of military fraud, defense contract fraud, etc. Under democrats it was mostly medical-related fraud, with a healthy smattering of interesting group payoffs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't find any problem with picking between two (or more candidates) and voting for the one you're most compatible with. I would worry if I was 100% in agreement with any politician!
I love how all the apple haters lose all sense of rationality when some issue -- no matter how tangentially! -- touches on Apple.
If the only thing that is allowed to use HDMI connectors is HDMI-HDMI...say goodbye to HDMI-DVI. I've got one of those I'm using right now. Illegal? Bah.
Have fun being blinded by your loathing for Apple though while you miss the entire point.
He had no managerial duties, other than to run around and announce his ownership while begging for government handouts.
Hah, so THAT'S what a managing general partner does.
Isn't it interesting that someone against Affirmative Action (someone getting something based on who their daddy is, rather than who they are) got into colleges based on his father? Or that someone who claims he is against welfare worked so hard at getting the government to give him free money?
I basically agree with you, but--from a libertarian perspective--it's not entirely unexpected. One can be against the Government FORCING such decisions while saying that private entities (schools, businesses, etc.) have every right to pick who they want based entirely upon their own criteria.
And no, I'm not Democrat, I'm libertarian and bitter over both parties. The overt hypocritical nature of both is staggering and I can't see how someone who relied on affirmative action and is against Affirmative action, or relies on welfare and is against welfare could be elected to one, let alone two, terms of president, especially given the record during the first term.
I didn't vote for Bush in the primary but did in the generals. While I basically take the same pov as you, the way I ultimately look at it is -- would Kerry or Gore have been better? I think they would have been worse. Doesn't mean I like Bush.
The quintessential manifestation of this pervasive dysfunction in western management was the US President George W. Bush. The man ran everything he ever managed into the ground, and stayed true to form while in office.
Somewhat interesting analysis -- I assume you are blaming the worldwide economic malaise on Bush? If you're talking about his management of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Gitmo, etc), how do you think Obama's governance compares?
What else did he manage or "run into the ground?" Texas Rangers? I thought he was supposed to have done a pretty good job there but can't say I really know. I did a couple google and didn't turn up any complaints or insults about his tenure there? I do agree that as a general pedigree -- rich, top flight boarding school, Ivy, MBA, $$$ -- Bush's path is not desirable nor a good one for the country. Next to Obama I think Bush's management experience is demonstrably higher (and I think it shows in some of the indecision we've seen out of President Obama's administration). Obviously your opinion of who is a better manager -- Bush or Obama -- most likely just boils down to if you choose to put an R or a D next to your name!
I would personally say an equal problem to know-nothing MBAs is the number of know-nothing lawyers in politics (and the US in general). It's like joining a club. To join the elite business club you go to top business schools. To join the elite political club you go to top law schools. I would much rather there be more technocrats, small business people, etc in politics.
While I was attending University of Missouri, Columbia we had to take accessment exams and every year the engineering department would stomp on everyone else in EVERY catagory including the ones they were supposed to be good at.
I'm guessing this test didn't include spelling?:p (and yes I see your sig--I do find your boasting humorous!)
I also think your experience in this particular area would be very different depending on your university environment (top research university, middle grade public, small liberal artsy, etc)
These kind of stereotypes are not helpful and not particularly apt.
For every one of the introverted, insular "ivory tower" type geeks you are talking about I can point to a Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Andy Grove, Larry Page and Sergei Brin, Eric Schmidt, etc. You may not LIKE any of these people and you may find their geek cred lacking, but they all started in the trenches and all have been heavily involved in the day-to-day works of their companies. They are all geeks and business people.
Working in a small business I had to do sales for a time. Prior to this I had been "behind the scenes" guy. Over the years I got to know a lot of the salesmen from other companies pretty well. Very few fit the stereotypes of super extroverted, super suave schmoozers. Yeah, most of them were probably more engaging conversationalists (or at least more willing to hear themselves talk!) than an average engineer geek, but I met plenty of very successful salespeople whose personalities shocked my stereotypes.
One stereotype that I have developed more and more over the years is that an MBA without some kind of background in a field is useless. Ok, if you're a chemical engineering PhD and get an MBA that's one thing. If you're generic poli sci/econ humanities undergrad with an MBA, chances are, you're an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.opensource.apple.com/
http://www.puredarwin.org/
Admittedly little used and no recent releases, but there are/have been Darwin OS releases apart from Apple.
IMHO, if you're curious, give it a shot. I personally much prefer FreeBSD as a server operating system. I don't run a Linux/BSD desktop, but if I did, I would probably use Linux.
What about the Newton? What about those brick thick tablets in the 90s/early 2000s that you could draw on?
I have a Kindle and an iPad. I read books on both. The Kindle experience is, imho, far better. The Kindle is great, but the Kindle is not a general purpose tablet. The iPad is. It's absolutely fair to say that the iPad started the current tablet craze.
It's just fun to gibe people.
I suppose that's true!
So if it's "Apple's fault" then why do 29% of Android users believe they already have 4g phones. Whose fault is that?
Consumers are dumb. ALL consumers. People who try to draw these non-existent dichotomies between people based on cellphone choice are just as dumb (I'm not saying that you're one of the people doing this--just a lot of other posts here).
If you had wasted the time to RTFA, you'd see 29% of Android owners think they have 4G phones already. Obviously a few of them do actually have LTE phones, but not many yet. I really don't see why so many people make choice of cellphone an "us versus them" "you're either with us or against us" type moment.
And you're what, the typical Apple hater who is too smug to even RTFA?
34% of iPhone owners think their phone is 4g. Whereas only 29% of Android owners think they have a 4G phone (ok, a few Android owners do have LTE phones). That 5% sure prove how Apple users are dumb and Android owners are elite.
You did get one thing right--someone here is definitely living in a world of "ignorance is bliss," but I won't surprise you by telling you who it is.
Matt Kostolnik then confronted Ardolf, who admitted he had kissed W.K. on the mouth.
Is there anything else to say?
Matt Kostolnik then confronted Ardolf, who admitted he had kissed W.K. on the mouth.
He admitted it. With no police involvement.
If YOU were in that situation and you DIDN'T kiss the new neighbors' 4-year-old son on the mouth, wouldn't you deny it?
Matt Kostolnik then confronted Ardolf, who admitted he had kissed W.K. on the mouth.
So how many complete strangers kissed your 4-year-old child on the mouth? How many single adult males?
The mother brought it on herself....by letting her kid play outdoors? Are you kidding me? That's so representative of the "helicopter" parenting of American today it's horrifying.
From the court PDF:
Matt Kostolnik
then confronted Ardolf, who admitted he had kissed W.K. on the
mouth.
I obviously have no more idea than you if this guy is an actual pedophile or not, but given that he admitted to something that the vast majority of Americans would find creepy (kissing a stranger kid on the mouth), has a past record of irrational criminal behavior, and responded to this situation with child pornography and extremely irrational behavior, why give him this particular benefit of the doubt? If nobody denies he kissed the kid on the mouth, why fight that claim? That seems to me incredibly silly.
If you think it *isn't*, you clearly need to take your own advice. Here's a hint - most "libertarians" are conservatives, no matter what they say publicly.
That depends on your definition of conservative. Given that all these political terms are highly jumbled and (duh) highly politicized the meanings can be ambiguous and many people don't know what they're saying. For instance, I would call myself a classical liberal. Most people would call me conservative or libertarian. I'm extremely libertarian/conservative on economic issues (since they frequently align) and libertarian on social issues. Many republicans would call me leftwing on social issues. But this is just what I--like many other libertarians--say publicly. I guess you've caught on to the fact that we're all lying.
One of my friends worked at the Cato institute for a couple years. His observation was that the republican/democrat divide was fairly close. That there were definitely more republicans than democrats (and a third block of non-voters/neither party) but that it was not a huge difference. The libertarian vote does go back and forth. At this point in time I would agree with you that libertarians align far more with republicans than with democrats. Says more about the parties than about libertarians.
I read fewer blogs now than I used to, but I regularly checked out the Volokh Conspiracy, HuffPo, Slashdot, Watts Up, RealClimate, and occasionally if I'm in a masochistic mood, Kos. Slashdot may not be nearly as hateful/seething/leftwing as Kos, but I can think of no definition of "conservative circle jerk" that is remotely applicable. Do this--create two fake accounts and on the next political article post something hateful rightwing screed on one account and a hateful leftwing screed. There's of course a chance both get upmodded or downmodded, but I've done this before several times and in my small experience, the leftwing posts are more likely to get modded up. Random posts that seem to have a rightwing POV get modded down more often. Again IMHO, your mileage may vary.
I have INCANDESCENT bulbs that buzz worse than any of the CFL's I have. In particular I am pissed off at some high-voltage expensive ceiling fixtures designed to light a wall, which we never use due to the horrible buzzing. An outdoor CFL buzzed a bunch but it turned out the socket was bad (it failed, the CFL still worked in other sockets and no bulbs at all work in that socket any more).
I pretty much just have 60w standard bulbs, no special high voltage. Don't think I've ever noticed buzzing from an incandescent. Outdoor was another area where I put two (special outdoor model) CFLs. They made it through the winter but are incredibly dim now. Seems like getting down into the teens a couple nights hurt them badly. Not sure if that's true, but that's what it seemed like.
He didn't mean he saved 20% of his total energy. He is saying that cost of bulbs plus cost of energy is 20% less than it would be for incandescents. Does not sound like a lot to me, but I doubt he is lying.
I see, that makes much more sense. Don't think those numbers worked out for me.
I want LED floodlights so as to never have to replace them again.
Yes, that's because not all of the efficiency clauses have become active yet. The clause that would eliminate 60w doesn't become active until 2014, for example.
Funny. 5 years ago I switched my entire house to CFL's. I have had to replace ONE bulb in that time - and that was not a result of burnout, but a result of a lamp that got knocked over.
I've had to replace several--maybe 3/9-10 in 3 years--(Phillips) because they either died or became incredibly dim. I've changed out at least 2 that started making horrible high-pitched buzzing noises. Some people couldn't hear them but I've always had fairly high-range hearing and it drove me crazy (like those mosquito ring tones). The most annoying thing to me is how dim they become after just a year. I loved them at first, but stuff kept happening (dimming, buzzing, dead). If people like them, fine by me, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to tell someone else what lightbulbs they should be forced to buy. I'll wait for better tech.
I have no idea how you could possibly get a 20% savings from CFLs. If the average incandescent is 60W and the average CFL is 15W that's a 45W difference. If you have 10 bulbs each running 8 hours a day (and that seems like a ton to me; for my household that would be a _big_ overestimate of number of bulbs and hours run) for 31 days a month that comes to approx 111 kilowatt hours. That is far less than 20% of my energy bill. Did I do some of the math wrong?
The real answer is to get rid of our fucked-up "no tariff" situation with GATT/WTO, and stop giving corrupt shithole nations like China "Most Favored Nation" trading status. But that'll never happen as long as the Chinese are happy to buy up the Republican Party.
I think what you really mean is, as long as consumers choose to buy up Chinese goods. Have the Democrats done anything to confront the Chinese at all? Under Clinton? Obama? This is an issue that is the political class vs everyone else. You're just making it a partisan one. Obama even came right out and said "those jobs aren't coming back" (referring to manufacturing). What makes this into such a personally partisan issue for you? It's obvious you loathe the Republicans, why are they worse than the alternative?
Jeez, if you think that slashdot is a "conservative circle jerk" I would suggest you leave your cave a little more often and maybe expose yourself to some opposing viewpoints.
I also wasn't aware that mercury thermometers leached mercury into your mouth. Citation? When I was a little kid I dropped and broke a mercury thermometer. The cleanup was a fairly big deal to my parents...
A somewhat similiar argument I've seen made by many liberals is that when municipalities/malls ban baggy pants they are being racist because black youth tend to wear baggy pants, ergo they're really banning blacks. You're making the exact opposite argument. If even 60W incandescents are due to be banned by the energy restrictions, I think "incandescants are being banned" is a pretty fair statement.
Odd that you don't seem to know what you're talking (but way to go, beating up that imaginary strawman in your imaginary debate). The bill being repealed actually closed a lot of US bulb production. I switched to all CFLs about 3 years ago and have been gradually switching a lot of my bulbs back to incandescents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html
Worked out as a non-red voter if you voted for Begich.
I currently live in NC. For where I live, local is solid blue, presidential is usually red (Obama being the exception), governor almost always blue, senators often red, often blue. I think the red state/blue state thing is overplayed.
Both parties are corporatists. The only reason I continue to vote republican is that they at least state they want to cut taxes and limit the government. They may have only marginal success and/or not even try, but at least some of them try. Given that both parties are essentially parties of powerful government welfare, starving the government is the only way I see of limiting the damage.
I do like Alaska a lot. Have considered moving there. You could always try the Free State Project!
I'm not going to dredge up quotes from Bush.
Gotcha, I don't really know what you're talking about, but I also don't particularly care enough to go trawling.
Then I assert that you are evil. I have never voted for a winning presidential candidate, and I've voted in every election I could (about 20 years worth now). Voting for the lesser of two evils makes you evil. I vote my conscience, not based on which evil I'd rather see as president. And looking back, I can't see how Kerry or Gore could have been worse than Bush. Bush is probably the worst person to sit that office since Hoover. Or depending on how you feel about Hoover getting too much blame for the Great Depression, maybe back to some of the bad ones in the latter part of the 1800s. But then, since you indicate a libertarian perspective, perhaps that unbridled corruption (laissez faire) isn't as bad as generally accepted now.
So you've never voted for a winning candidate, I'm batting around 40%. The net importance of any of either of our votes? Absolute nil. I personally find your attitude re: good vs evil, you're either with us or against us pretty bleak. Representative of the polarized times we live in I suppose. I spoke with someone once who had worked as a government corruption buster in the office of the IG for about 25 years before quitting and becoming a law professor. He said he had grown weary of the job, partisanship, and constant corruption. Interestingly he said he thought there was little difference in corruption between republicans democrats in terms of quantity, only in type. Under republicans there was a great deal of military fraud, defense contract fraud, etc. Under democrats it was mostly medical-related fraud, with a healthy smattering of interesting group payoffs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't find any problem with picking between two (or more candidates) and voting for the one you're most compatible with. I would worry if I was 100% in agreement with any politician!
I love how all the apple haters lose all sense of rationality when some issue -- no matter how tangentially! -- touches on Apple.
If the only thing that is allowed to use HDMI connectors is HDMI-HDMI...say goodbye to HDMI-DVI. I've got one of those I'm using right now. Illegal? Bah.
Have fun being blinded by your loathing for Apple though while you miss the entire point.
He had no managerial duties, other than to run around and announce his ownership while begging for government handouts.
Hah, so THAT'S what a managing general partner does.
Isn't it interesting that someone against Affirmative Action (someone getting something based on who their daddy is, rather than who they are) got into colleges based on his father? Or that someone who claims he is against welfare worked so hard at getting the government to give him free money?
I basically agree with you, but--from a libertarian perspective--it's not entirely unexpected. One can be against the Government FORCING such decisions while saying that private entities (schools, businesses, etc.) have every right to pick who they want based entirely upon their own criteria.
And no, I'm not Democrat, I'm libertarian and bitter over both parties. The overt hypocritical nature of both is staggering and I can't see how someone who relied on affirmative action and is against Affirmative action, or relies on welfare and is against welfare could be elected to one, let alone two, terms of president, especially given the record during the first term.
I didn't vote for Bush in the primary but did in the generals. While I basically take the same pov as you, the way I ultimately look at it is -- would Kerry or Gore have been better? I think they would have been worse. Doesn't mean I like Bush.
The quintessential manifestation of this pervasive dysfunction in western management was the US President George W. Bush. The man ran everything he ever managed into the ground, and stayed true to form while in office.
Somewhat interesting analysis -- I assume you are blaming the worldwide economic malaise on Bush? If you're talking about his management of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Gitmo, etc), how do you think Obama's governance compares?
What else did he manage or "run into the ground?" Texas Rangers? I thought he was supposed to have done a pretty good job there but can't say I really know. I did a couple google and didn't turn up any complaints or insults about his tenure there? I do agree that as a general pedigree -- rich, top flight boarding school, Ivy, MBA, $$$ -- Bush's path is not desirable nor a good one for the country. Next to Obama I think Bush's management experience is demonstrably higher (and I think it shows in some of the indecision we've seen out of President Obama's administration). Obviously your opinion of who is a better manager -- Bush or Obama -- most likely just boils down to if you choose to put an R or a D next to your name!
I would personally say an equal problem to know-nothing MBAs is the number of know-nothing lawyers in politics (and the US in general). It's like joining a club. To join the elite business club you go to top business schools. To join the elite political club you go to top law schools. I would much rather there be more technocrats, small business people, etc in politics.
While I was attending University of Missouri, Columbia we had to take accessment exams and every year the engineering department would stomp on everyone else in EVERY catagory including the ones they were supposed to be good at.
I'm guessing this test didn't include spelling? :p (and yes I see your sig--I do find your boasting humorous!)
I also think your experience in this particular area would be very different depending on your university environment (top research university, middle grade public, small liberal artsy, etc)
These kind of stereotypes are not helpful and not particularly apt.
For every one of the introverted, insular "ivory tower" type geeks you are talking about I can point to a Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Andy Grove, Larry Page and Sergei Brin, Eric Schmidt, etc. You may not LIKE any of these people and you may find their geek cred lacking, but they all started in the trenches and all have been heavily involved in the day-to-day works of their companies. They are all geeks and business people.
Working in a small business I had to do sales for a time. Prior to this I had been "behind the scenes" guy. Over the years I got to know a lot of the salesmen from other companies pretty well. Very few fit the stereotypes of super extroverted, super suave schmoozers. Yeah, most of them were probably more engaging conversationalists (or at least more willing to hear themselves talk!) than an average engineer geek, but I met plenty of very successful salespeople whose personalities shocked my stereotypes.
One stereotype that I have developed more and more over the years is that an MBA without some kind of background in a field is useless. Ok, if you're a chemical engineering PhD and get an MBA that's one thing. If you're generic poli sci/econ humanities undergrad with an MBA, chances are, you're an idiot.