Using Facebook as an example, I think at just Slashdot alone there were probably thousands of developers capable of making what Facebook or Google or Yahoo or what Flickr was in the early stages.
It is more a matter of having a very specific passion and a willingness to win or lose.
Ross Perot --- who founded EDS --- was a super-successful computer salesman at IBM.
Dear goodness --- if you have a lot of passion, there are thousands of ways to leverage technical skills to a successful product --- there are no shortage of new tech products/services that are needed in this world and no shortage of people with the skills to make them.
It takes the willingness to roll dice and put a lot of work into it and take risks. And be competent enough and confident enough to stick with it and adapt.
Zuckerberg used social network and exclusivity as a tool to create demand, and "in-crowd".
For instance, you used to have to be going to a specific college to join (exclusivity) and he came up with ways to goad non-participants to have to join Facebook to see what was being said or voted about them.
Zuckerberg heavily leveraged and extended social marketing techniques.
Meanwhile, MySpace kind of loitered around and sat on their laurels --- then Rupert Murdoch acquired them and let it atrophy.
Myspace was "king" --- sat on their laurels --- and Facebook aggressively pushed for expansion and used very tactical methods to gain members, while extending the conveniences of sharing on the site to whole new levels (I am not a Facebook fan, but have long admired their brilliance).
The difference between male and female is that men generally aren't the ones taking the kids to the doctor/school/daycare/after school activities and such.
I think you are overlooking or brushing over male/female differences.
Men generally can both be married to their jobs and their spouses/family.
Women generally want jobs with stable commitment to have "work time" and "family time". Younger women don't mind putting in a ton of hours and having flexible schedules --- but male and female similarities in those preferences peak at 18 --- and every year after 25 the girls grow in women and expect their job and environment to cater to their needs, not against them.
Your argument is circular: women who are ok with male-like "job first, everything else second" situations should love programming.
But you don't say why or provide why you feel this would appeal to women.
Children are a fixed-schedule, you know, daycare, school, etc.
"I'm not sure that facebook boy deserves to be called a billionaire... but as best I have heard he does not have a billion dollars in actual currency."
What is an example of someone who has a $1 billion dollars in actual currency?
Furthermore, you do realize the awesome way to leverage wealth on paper is to borrow against that value --- therefore avoiding the income tax of actually selling the stock while --- simultaneously --- expensing the interest payments of loan again taxes!
"It's easy for these assholes to talk, they were the extremely lucky ones in a winner-take-all industry which often metes out its rewards in absurd and haphazard ways."
Ha! You think Zuckerberg and Bill Gates just were lucky? Both had to fight tooth and nail against many competitors for several years and fend off many different challenges.
Your whole posts reeks of ignorance of history. Facebook was barely a blip on the radar in 2005. Microsoft in 1981 was certainly no monopoly and their future depended on IBM at the time --- and IBM was constantly out to try to make Microsoft irrelevant (let alone Apple and other companies wanted to knock off IBM).
You really should read some history of the fights and challenges that the builders of the top companies had to endure and their willingness to fight on the business and marketing level --- and especially meeting perceived market demand and shaping that --- is what built their respective companies.
" I think it's one of the more female friendly work environments around, especially since the experience can be so tailored to your interests."
Please explain how it is a female friendly work environment.
In my experience, a female friendly work environment has these characteristics:
1) Fixed schedule. (No)
2) Few strings (No -- tech expects you to be consonantly available even during off hours)
3) Stable (Tech is constantly changing = No)
4) Long time with one employer (Again, no... it can happen, but tech is the opposite of a static environment)
You have the assertion it is a female friendly work environment --- I don't see in what ways this is true. Unless you see something not mentioned (or are referring to tech in a very relaxed and uncompetitive environment like government?)
I hate IE6 -- being a normal sensible human being --- but your statement is so true about the kludge of the level of reliability and consistency of "online software".
(Which is sadly why a lot of it is made in Flash and avoiding browser kludge --- ugh!)
One example: My Android phone's default web browser cannot use the Gmail.com site correctly!
In the TFA it say hydrogen costs $3 for the same equivalent range as a gallon of gas (which is about $3/gallon where I live).
Except that it requires hydrogen --- which is complicated to store --- and requires an infrastructure we don't have in place. And the hydrogen probably takes up more space than a gallon of gas (a guess --- does someone know?).
Questions:
1. What are we destroying to make the hydrogen? Hydrogen doesn't occur naturally --- it would need to be stripped off a molecule. What is the byproduct of this process?
2. Why is investing in a new infrastructure -- hydrogen distribution --- a good thing?
3. The byproduct is "water". Which sounds harmless enough -- but if you go back 50 years ago the idea of carbon dioxide as a byproduct sounded harmless. Does this process change the net amount of water in the ecosystem in a way that would have impact in 50 years?
I ask these because I don't know, and every time I've read about fuel cells in the last 10 years I just never understood what the attraction is supposed to be.
Anyone know? I tried to view the PDF, but it crashes my browser.
Extra: Why is exploiting a browser weakness an offense for a company? If I make a web page that crashes IE6, am I at fault? Anyone know the rationale for why browser settings in this particular case are some sort of "holy grail" that if Google violates there is hell to pay?
Can I now sue Verizon for crapwares that make my phone vulernable?
I guess I am asking others: What line the sand did Google step across?
The US suffers a "inefficiency of scale" problem -- the idea of acting like a citizen.
Many of the continental European countries are more tightly bound in the human spirit and sense of identity and culture than the USA.
The USA suffers from "what's in it for me?" freeloaders and "what's in it for me?" capitalists and "what's in it for me?" politicians --- all of which miss grander and greater human concepts.
Although people in the USA generally have a lot of freedom and very little oversight... and we don't get micromanaged like what happens in European countries...
pros and cons, everyone wants the cake and eat it too...
And you think J. Edgar Hoover was a straight shooter in the 1960s? What about "Carnivore" snooping on all internet activity in the 1990s? Why are there CCTV cameras everywhere in Britain? What are those very tall telephone poll looking structures in the United States on the highways with a little glass dome at the top? (Hint: Cameras!)
Governments are always nefarious and untrustworthy entities when it comes to surveillance.
Not "even in a democracy" but "Especially in a democracy" because keeping tabs on citizens is more important in a democracy because perception affects political distribution of power even more.
This isn't new --- we are just noticing it more...
Apple's path involves the customer paying with money.
Android/Google's path involves the customer paying via advertising --- which means being annoyed with popups and crapwares --- but not having to pay $$$ for features.
You do have to pick one of these 2 options, you know. If Apple were to let go of the walled garden --- they can't be gatekeeper and their devices would be the same as Android for all intensive purposes.
I'm thinking you don't understand that if Apple isn't Apple, the Google/Android way would over-run the experience and very quickly (no supervision = the insane run the asylum).
The only other way is the Linux-style scorched Earth policy that makes it incredibly hard to make money resulting in a barren, but interesting, retro self-help paradise of sorts.
Fast. Cheap. Good. Pick any 2.
Apple is Fast and Good, but not cheap. (Anything you want exists but isn't cheap)
Android is Fast and Cheap, but not good. (Anything you want is free, but comes with unwanted side-effect)
Linux is Cheap and Good, but not fast. (Anything you want exists and is free, but is time consuming and inconsistent).
Slashdot Mirror
Using Facebook as an example, I think at just Slashdot alone there were probably thousands of developers capable of making what Facebook or Google or Yahoo or what Flickr was in the early stages.
...
It is more a matter of having a very specific passion and a willingness to win or lose.
Ross Perot --- who founded EDS --- was a super-successful computer salesman at IBM.
Perl? PHP? Facebook? MySQL? Norton? AutoCad? Twitter? Amazon.com? Yahoo? Netflix? Minecraft? Candy Crush? Skype? E-Bay? Slashdot?
Dear goodness --- if you have a lot of passion, there are thousands of ways to leverage technical skills to a successful product --- there are no shortage of new tech products/services that are needed in this world and no shortage of people with the skills to make them.
It takes the willingness to roll dice and put a lot of work into it and take risks. And be competent enough and confident enough to stick with it and adapt.
There are tons of successful people out there
Zuckerberg used social network and exclusivity as a tool to create demand, and "in-crowd".
For instance, you used to have to be going to a specific college to join (exclusivity) and he came up with ways to goad non-participants to have to join Facebook to see what was being said or voted about them.
Zuckerberg heavily leveraged and extended social marketing techniques.
Meanwhile, MySpace kind of loitered around and sat on their laurels --- then Rupert Murdoch acquired them and let it atrophy.
Myspace was "king" --- sat on their laurels --- and Facebook aggressively pushed for expansion and used very tactical methods to gain members, while extending the conveniences of sharing on the site to whole new levels (I am not a Facebook fan, but have long admired their brilliance).
I'm not seeing the "luck" angle here either.
Gard Kildall didn't fail because of bad luck --- it was bad choices.
IBM wanted to meet with him about his operating system.
Kildall, instead of meeting with IBM, decided to go have some fun flying a plane and have his wife meet with IBM.
How is that luck?
You make your own luck --- Kildall seemingly made some really poor decisions.
Calling technology stable is an oxymoron. Tech skills require constant retooling just as tech companies change/die all the time.
The very idea of technology is that it is perpetual change --- the very antithesis of stable.
Clearly, as you state, technology is using the current tools to solve problems and the "solve problems" part is constant.
But technology, unlike any other sector, skills and tool knowledge requires constant swimming upstream to stay relevant and current.
The difference between male and female is that men generally aren't the ones taking the kids to the doctor/school/daycare/after school activities and such.
I think you are overlooking or brushing over male/female differences.
Men generally can both be married to their jobs and their spouses/family.
Women generally want jobs with stable commitment to have "work time" and "family time". Younger women don't mind putting in a ton of hours and having flexible schedules --- but male and female similarities in those preferences peak at 18 --- and every year after 25 the girls grow in women and expect their job and environment to cater to their needs, not against them.
Your argument is circular: women who are ok with male-like "job first, everything else second" situations should love programming.
But you don't say why or provide why you feel this would appeal to women.
Children are a fixed-schedule, you know, daycare, school, etc.
"I'm not sure that facebook boy deserves to be called a billionaire ... but as best I have heard he does not have a billion dollars in actual currency."
...
What is an example of someone who has a $1 billion dollars in actual currency?
Furthermore, you do realize the awesome way to leverage wealth on paper is to borrow against that value --- therefore avoiding the income tax of actually selling the stock while --- simultaneously --- expensing the interest payments of loan again taxes!
Such is the way of the wealthy
"It's easy for these assholes to talk, they were the extremely lucky ones in a winner-take-all industry which often metes out its rewards in absurd and haphazard ways."
Ha! You think Zuckerberg and Bill Gates just were lucky? Both had to fight tooth and nail against many competitors for several years and fend off many different challenges.
Your whole posts reeks of ignorance of history. Facebook was barely a blip on the radar in 2005. Microsoft in 1981 was certainly no monopoly and their future depended on IBM at the time --- and IBM was constantly out to try to make Microsoft irrelevant (let alone Apple and other companies wanted to knock off IBM).
You really should read some history of the fights and challenges that the builders of the top companies had to endure and their willingness to fight on the business and marketing level --- and especially meeting perceived market demand and shaping that --- is what built their respective companies.
" I think it's one of the more female friendly work environments around, especially since the experience can be so tailored to your interests."
... it can happen, but tech is the opposite of a static environment)
Please explain how it is a female friendly work environment.
In my experience, a female friendly work environment has these characteristics:
1) Fixed schedule. (No)
2) Few strings (No -- tech expects you to be consonantly available even during off hours)
3) Stable (Tech is constantly changing = No)
4) Long time with one employer (Again, no
You have the assertion it is a female friendly work environment --- I don't see in what ways this is true. Unless you see something not mentioned (or are referring to tech in a very relaxed and uncompetitive environment like government?)
I think my "un-Best Buy" is a 2 of 10 on the zinger scale. Your "Worst Buy" is maybe a 3.2 of 10 on the zinger scale.
....
Face it, I don't think either of us has stand-up comedian quality material going on here
I hate IE6 -- being a normal sensible human being --- but your statement is so true about the kludge of the level of reliability and consistency of "online software".
(Which is sadly why a lot of it is made in Flash and avoiding browser kludge --- ugh!)
One example: My Android phone's default web browser cannot use the Gmail.com site correctly!
Seconded. Programming languages --- you can have any 2 of: easy, universal, powerful --- but never ALL 3. Drives me crazy sometimes.
"They already have a desktop web OS [Chomebook], which competes with Windows and Apple laptops"
...
...
I guess Chromebooks are selling well --- but I haven't seen one in a store (I avoid "un-Best Buy") --- or one in real life.
Yet
I'll have to keep an eye out
In the TFA it say hydrogen costs $3 for the same equivalent range as a gallon of gas (which is about $3/gallon where I live).
Except that it requires hydrogen --- which is complicated to store --- and requires an infrastructure we don't have in place. And the hydrogen probably takes up more space than a gallon of gas (a guess --- does someone know?).
Questions:
1. What are we destroying to make the hydrogen? Hydrogen doesn't occur naturally --- it would need to be stripped off a molecule. What is the byproduct of this process?
2. Why is investing in a new infrastructure -- hydrogen distribution --- a good thing?
3. The byproduct is "water". Which sounds harmless enough -- but if you go back 50 years ago the idea of carbon dioxide as a byproduct sounded harmless. Does this process change the net amount of water in the ecosystem in a way that would have impact in 50 years?
I ask these because I don't know, and every time I've read about fuel cells in the last 10 years I just never understood what the attraction is supposed to be.
For starters, OpenSUSE has the GEICO lizard on the box.
This gives you a calming feeling of security and road-testedness. Plus because SUSE is an acronym.
Anyone know? I tried to view the PDF, but it crashes my browser.
Extra: Why is exploiting a browser weakness an offense for a company? If I make a web page that crashes IE6, am I at fault? Anyone know the rationale for why browser settings in this particular case are some sort of "holy grail" that if Google violates there is hell to pay?
Can I now sue Verizon for crapwares that make my phone vulernable?
I guess I am asking others: What line the sand did Google step across?
The US suffers a "inefficiency of scale" problem -- the idea of acting like a citizen.
... and we don't get micromanaged like what happens in European countries ...
...
Many of the continental European countries are more tightly bound in the human spirit and sense of identity and culture than the USA.
The USA suffers from "what's in it for me?" freeloaders and "what's in it for me?" capitalists and "what's in it for me?" politicians --- all of which miss grander and greater human concepts.
Although people in the USA generally have a lot of freedom and very little oversight
pros and cons, everyone wants the cake and eat it too
And you think J. Edgar Hoover was a straight shooter in the 1960s? What about "Carnivore" snooping on all internet activity in the 1990s? Why are there CCTV cameras everywhere in Britain? What are those very tall telephone poll looking structures in the United States on the highways with a little glass dome at the top? (Hint: Cameras!)
...
Governments are always nefarious and untrustworthy entities when it comes to surveillance.
Not "even in a democracy" but "Especially in a democracy" because keeping tabs on citizens is more important in a democracy because perception affects political distribution of power even more.
This isn't new --- we are just noticing it more
If it required a Hulu+ account, that would be mighty annoying ...
"intents and purposes" ... ah good catch!!!!
Apple's path involves the customer paying with money.
Android/Google's path involves the customer paying via advertising --- which means being annoyed with popups and crapwares --- but not having to pay $$$ for features.
You do have to pick one of these 2 options, you know. If Apple were to let go of the walled garden --- they can't be gatekeeper and their devices would be the same as Android for all intensive purposes.
I'm thinking you don't understand that if Apple isn't Apple, the Google/Android way would over-run the experience and very quickly (no supervision = the insane run the asylum).
The only other way is the Linux-style scorched Earth policy that makes it incredibly hard to make money resulting in a barren, but interesting, retro self-help paradise of sorts.
Fast. Cheap. Good. Pick any 2.
Apple is Fast and Good, but not cheap. (Anything you want exists but isn't cheap)
Android is Fast and Cheap, but not good. (Anything you want is free, but comes with unwanted side-effect)
Linux is Cheap and Good, but not fast. (Anything you want exists and is free, but is time consuming and inconsistent).
Doesn't work. Robot doesn't use a camera, has advanced sponges for moisture and olfactory detectors.
This robots offers "pull my finger" for gestures it doesn't recognize.
> It might take some time to organize and get working correctly, but it's not difficult.
That IS the definition of difficult.
And a very reputable company with the really trusted name of --- TELETURD.COM -- provides such a service including a free trial.
What a lovely name!
Sign language isn't actually much relevant these days.
Almost no one understands sign language and it is quicker and more convenient for the disabled to send a text message.
Mobile phone technology is to thank for this --- it is making the world far more fairer every day.