What paranoid person uses a Beta let alone an Alpha? What is an alpha alpha anyway?
My understanding is: - Beta = feature complete but bugs mean it's not to be relied on in a prod environment - Alpha = not yet feature complete, no where near ready for prod
You might want to lookup the term hyperbole. Miaow! Also the literary device of a closing "sarcasm tag" shows that I was jovially somewhat overplaying my point.
Sorry but with so many negative comments that seem to imply I'm some sort of mysogynist because I dare to offer a hypothesis for a truth no one is comfortable with (that doesn't imply women are stupid by the way), your friendly sarcasm, if indeed it was that, didn't come across.
Why then did you post a link to a document that supported my point? Granted it didn't speak of the greater spread at lower IQ levels, but it was still largely supporting what I said.
How did support your point exactly? It said the difference in IQ was something like 3 or 4 points, which was not that significant, not that men had a much larger spread. It must be nice to be able to take a piece of evidence that opposes your own point of view and convince yourself that it supports it. It really must.
Moreover the article states that scientific authors assert women have more intellectual stamina (ie are better at maintaining effort in intelligence requiring activities) - but this too goes against your claims as you say men are the more persistent.
I was speaking not about stamina but about compulsiveness that requires you to exclude all other activities to focus on just the one. Nice bit of misdirection though. In other words women may well stick at things more often than men, but a man is much more capable of being more single minded about it if he does stick at it.
Achievement is about ability and application. Regardless of whether I'm a complete dork that couldn't argue my way out of a kindergarten class men have the greatest achievements in fields of applied intelligence.
The question is not whether men have more great achievements - anyone trying to argue that has lost already. The question is why? Stupid, arrogant, or socially awkward men who compensate by insisting that it is because men some men are much smarter without even entertaining the notion that it may be about more than just intellect really are quite amusing. There are so many other factors other than the raw intelligence that come to play and differ between the sexes that to draw such a conclusion without even entertaining other possibilities is an effective demonstration of how feeble a mind can be.
By the way, no I'm not female, but having worked with both men and women in my life (granted no one I'd label as a genius in the classic sense), I have observed a lot of variation in attitudes to tasks, and interests in different subject matter, but what I haven't seen is anything that convinces me that there are some men so much more brilliant than any other woman that they're the only ones that can push us to great achievement. I find the idea unfounded and kind of repulsive that women are somehow mentally inferior. By all means if you have solid irrefutable evidence that this is the case I'll have to concede to the truth but I've seen no such thing - just a bunch of unfounded claims.
The reason people are bitching is that the guys don't like the idea they're not somehow mentally special and that something else may have contributed to the greatness of men vs women in society. The women don't like the idea that it would require a defect like oCD to excel. Yet if you look at every scientific genius I know of, the story is of a defective personality and a compulsive personality. On the other hand I'm much more comfortable with this explanation and it fits my experience and the facts that I have much better. Best of all, if I'm correct, women aren't somehow inferior.
No, he labeled you a troll because you drew an invalid conclusion that was inflammatory and based it on no evidence.
I see you've done plenty of research to judge my conclusion as invalid. Trolling requires that I say what I say in order to inflame you rather than because I genuinely hold the view. I see you have plenty of evidence to make that judgement too - after all you know me so well. So basically you're ranting about evidence and validity whilst demonstrating that you're incapable of following a logical argument.
This is simply untrue - GM Judit Polgar (FIDE 2711) is ranked 27th in the world in FIDE's latest rankings list...or in other words, there are no women in the top 25. How does that refute my arguments exactly?
So if you actually believe what you wrote, you are basically denying that women can compete in any game, sport, art or science with the best men. Which is more sexist than most AC troll posts in this thread.
I'm not saying they _can't_ compete. I'm saying that they tend to live more diverse lives and don't become as obsessive. Observing or hypothesizing a trend isn't sexist at all. Denying a woman the opportunity to attempt to compete or putting more obstacles in her way based on her gender would be sexist. I have done no such fucking thing. If women want to compete in male dominated competitions, I say let them. However if I see the top consistently dominated by men and suggest why that might be the case, I don't see how that's sexist. Sexist would be putting obstacles in their way, denying them the ability to compete, or even artificially introducing a handicap based on gender.
Seriously, how did this crap modded insightful in a forum for nerds?
People agreed with it, that's how. Your not agreeing with it and your value judgement that it's crap does not make the point of view invalid. Grow the fuck up.
Ha-ha ha, most intelligent sounding troll ever. I particularly like the psyche-out of your sig.
You are the very reason I have my sig, and no it wasn't set up for this one message. You label me a troll because I hold a point of view contrary to yours. Guess what? I don't hold this point of view to upset anyone. It's what I happen to actually think. I hadn't heard of you before today so I didn't know the statement would annoy you or upset you. It wasn't my aim, but I don't care if it did. That does not make me a troll.
So basically what you're saying is women are better at everything than men they just don't want to embarrass us by trying.
Not what I said at all. What I said was that to beat out everyone else at chess, you'd need to do little else, and women don't tend to be so single minded.
Also, whilst women struggle hard to achieve what they get, men just have OCD and anything they achieve is just a by-product. Doesn't sound at all trollish to me
You might want to take a course in comprehension and look up the term "straw man".
My view: if you're looking at IQ, or what the general populace calls intelligence, then studies show women and men average out about the same but that there's a greater spread for men.
Original research? Kasparov is a political activist for example. This comment sounds like the fable "the fox and the grapes".
No original research - this is slashdot and I'm not pretending what I said is anything but annecdotal.
I could hold up a sign in front of a KFC with the words "Free the potato chips" and I'd be considered a political activist. It wouldn't give me better people skills.
By the way ditch the Aesop - that man must have smoked a lot of cannabis and most of the fables aren't even entertaining.
Where I'm from learners have to have a big L displayed, and must drive a maximum of 80 kilometres per hour (or the speed limit, whichever is lower). But of course, because they are learners, they often drive slower then the speed limit, even if they don't have to. It would be very rare for people to get upset at these learners, whether they are on a highway or a city street.
Are you from Aus by any chance? I'm from Sydney, NSW.
Where I'm at you get abused and honked at for not doing the speed limit even if you are an L plater and shouldn't be. In fact don't freaking change lanes doing even 5km/hr under the limit or you're bound to be fined for cutting off some lead foot doing 80 in a 60 zone.
It is actually quite dangerous to merge onto a highway posted for 110km/hr at just 80km/hr as is required for an L plater here, mostly because people are regularly doing 120 and faster. A 40 or 50 km/hr difference isn't good for merging traffic, especially when it's busy. Oh and it doesn't matter what the conditions on the road are like - 10km/hr over the limit is obligatory and sitting on a person's tail is obligatory.
I'm NOT saying this is right. A few years ago I was doing 40km/hr - the signs posted for roadwork on a highway normally set for 100km/hr. The signs were there so I was doing the right thing when 2 semi trailers came up behind doing over 100km/hr. If I hadn't reacted by pulling into the gutter, my wife and I wouldn't be around. I didn't get these arsehole truckers plates, they drove past so fast.
You know what though, we're STILL better than New Zealand. My wife and I drove about 6000km on our honeymoon there and the number of people speeding around bends was shocking. Go slow and you're being overtaken by these morons. Going fast wasn't an option as I wasn't use to roads like that and may have lost it. They actually had ads in NZ telling people to slow down going around bends. I think they need to teach more about inertia in highschool there.
I'd love for my MythTV box to boot faster. Since it's not silent (though the TV fans are louder, the TV isn't always on either), I leave it turned off, and the long boot time makes it less appliance-like.
You kids today! My radio's an appliance and it takes 10 minutes for the vacuum tubes to warm up! Now get off my lawn!
The sad reality is, yes the women certainly can't compete with the men in top level world chess. I'm not sure who it's sad for though - the men or the women. You see to be great at chess you have to be obsessive about it. The more situations you've seen, the greater your ability to avoid lines of play that look good on instinct but leave you in a hole. So world champion chess players tend to be even more obsessive and single minded (to the exclusion of almost everything else including social interaction) than other world champions. People who get that good at chess don't do much else. It's like OCD on OCD. They study study study and study some more. In a lot of ways it's self destructive. Most women just won't do that to themselves. I believe this is the real reason women aren't as good in chess. They're not stupider than men, they're actually smarter.
First recipient of the nose, Marbic Shnauzer, fainted when the nose was first switched on. Scientists revealed a bug in the software made everything smell like ass. Mr Shnauzer said "I took one wiff of my own and and the smell was just too much. You try smelling ass after 5 years of nothing and see if you can take it!". Initial reports that a bored coder programmed this bug in on purpose were denied.
I have to side with RMS... "what you're used to" != "easier to use".
Denying there's a problem or a general perception that there is a problem doesn't do anything to further the free software cause he was there to promote.
Just putting it out there, but could you imagine how sick of that question you would get if you were him?
No, I can't. If he's truly passionate about free software he should be seeking to promote it which does mean answering the same questions again and again. He should not be putting people who ask the question off side. He did nothing for my desire to use free software that day.
You can say what you will about the man, but I do sorrily miss that more people don't do what he has done: Analyze your beliefs and act accordingly.
All sorts of raving lunatics that I do not admire fit this criteria. That includes idiotic suicide bomber terrorists.
As for your q&a experience: How many times do you reckon he's got that question? Since he uses free software exclusively, it might not even be a meaningful question for him.
Wether it's Bill Gates or RMS, there's no excuse for being rude and dismissive. I won't cop that.
Oh, and reducing his contribution to "worked on Emacs and gdb" is really disingenious. He's done far, far more than that for the community. Look it up.
I know what the man has done; Don't be so condescending as to assume otherwise. His Emacs and gdb work is what impresses me most on the technical side.
Also, the record for many of his writings are pretty right on track. Just as an example: A decade ago the idea that you might need special "rights" in order to read a book might have been perceived as.. oh, what are the words people are using now? "raving" or "lunacy". Yet today Digital Restrictions Management embedded in eBooks, games and multi-media are a real thing -- and a real threat to personal freedoms.
Way to go. If you are selective enough about vague predictions, and ignore when they were wrong, you can claim Nostradamus a prophet too.
Now, I'm just speaking for myself, but when RMS speaks, I will stop and read -- or listen (and be grateful I still have the freedoms to chose to do so):-)
Some of what he says is right on. But when he starts frothing at the mouth and pretending to be saint iGNUcius, I'll stop listening to his crazy ravings. (That the man thinks this joke is funny so many years later is proof that he's a couple of sandwiches short).
Last time something like cloud computing was proposed it was called thin client. Before that mainframes. etc. Yes Stallman's right about this, but he's no genius. Anyone in the industry can tell you farming your computing power and data out to others is bone headed and will eventually hurt you.
Indeed. I get very tired of all the denizens of the peanut gallery who start frothing at the mouth whenever RMS' name is even mentioned, as if he was some personal enemy to be abhorred and shunned.
In common with the probable majority of these people, I have never actually met the man, but I am capable of recognising that he has contributed more to Free and Open Source software than most us ever will.
I have met him. Just the once at a programmer's society meeting where he was a guest speaker about 5 or 6 years ago. He brings the criticism on himself. No one really cares that he's eccentric and his hygiene isn't the best. They're just easy targets.
I asked him at the public q&a (after he'd done his Saint IGNUcius routine, complete with robe and halo): How do you counter claims that free software is more difficult to use than proprietary paid for software. He looked me up and down and said "Who says its hard to use" and turned away. It didn't help that I'd just come from work and was therefore the only person in the room wearing a suite. If I didn't know that he'd worked on Emacs and gdb, I'd have simply written him off as a flamboyant nut job.
I've suggested this before, but why aren't CEOs paid a small salary and a large block of shares that they are not allowed to divest until 5-10 years after they are issued?
That's a nice idea. The only flaw I can think of is unfortunately a fairly fatal one. It's entirely possible for a good CEO to be followed by a monkey who ruins his work. The good CEO isn't rewarded under this scheme. One could argue that part of a CEO's role ought to be to choose a successor, and that might work well for a good CEO but again one bad CEO does damage for the next generation.
Thanks for using phrases from 19th century England and your reminder of the literal interpretation of the word amateur (or at least one literal interpretation). Clearly I was speaking to the OP and my use of the term amateur was in relation to a person who was working professionally but without any experience. This is a common colloquial usage.
Did you have an actual point or are you just trolling because you have too much time on your hands?
Slashdot Mirror
I think so. I'm an optimist.
Don't you mean you're a MS MVP? Did they change the name? Did I miss the memo? How do I join the exclusive club so I can get kickbacks too?
What paranoid person uses a Beta let alone an Alpha? What is an alpha alpha anyway?
My understanding is:
- Beta = feature complete but bugs mean it's not to be relied on in a prod environment
- Alpha = not yet feature complete, no where near ready for prod
So does Alpha alpha mean vaporware?
You might want to lookup the term hyperbole. Miaow! Also the literary device of a closing "sarcasm tag" shows that I was jovially somewhat overplaying my point.
Sorry but with so many negative comments that seem to imply I'm some sort of mysogynist because I dare to offer a hypothesis for a truth no one is comfortable with (that doesn't imply women are stupid by the way), your friendly sarcasm, if indeed it was that, didn't come across.
Why then did you post a link to a document that supported my point? Granted it didn't speak of the greater spread at lower IQ levels, but it was still largely supporting what I said.
How did support your point exactly? It said the difference in IQ was something like 3 or 4 points, which was not that significant, not that men had a much larger spread. It must be nice to be able to take a piece of evidence that opposes your own point of view and convince yourself that it supports it. It really must.
Moreover the article states that scientific authors assert women have more intellectual stamina (ie are better at maintaining effort in intelligence requiring activities) - but this too goes against your claims as you say men are the more persistent.
I was speaking not about stamina but about compulsiveness that requires you to exclude all other activities to focus on just the one. Nice bit of misdirection though. In other words women may well stick at things more often than men, but a man is much more capable of being more single minded about it if he does stick at it.
Achievement is about ability and application. Regardless of whether I'm a complete dork that couldn't argue my way out of a kindergarten class men have the greatest achievements in fields of applied intelligence.
The question is not whether men have more great achievements - anyone trying to argue that has lost already. The question is why? Stupid, arrogant, or socially awkward men who compensate by insisting that it is because men some men are much smarter without even entertaining the notion that it may be about more than just intellect really are quite amusing. There are so many other factors other than the raw intelligence that come to play and differ between the sexes that to draw such a conclusion without even entertaining other possibilities is an effective demonstration of how feeble a mind can be.
By the way, no I'm not female, but having worked with both men and women in my life (granted no one I'd label as a genius in the classic sense), I have observed a lot of variation in attitudes to tasks, and interests in different subject matter, but what I haven't seen is anything that convinces me that there are some men so much more brilliant than any other woman that they're the only ones that can push us to great achievement. I find the idea unfounded and kind of repulsive that women are somehow mentally inferior. By all means if you have solid irrefutable evidence that this is the case I'll have to concede to the truth but I've seen no such thing - just a bunch of unfounded claims.
The reason people are bitching is that the guys don't like the idea they're not somehow mentally special and that something else may have contributed to the greatness of men vs women in society. The women don't like the idea that it would require a defect like oCD to excel. Yet if you look at every scientific genius I know of, the story is of a defective personality and a compulsive personality. On the other hand I'm much more comfortable with this explanation and it fits my experience and the facts that I have much better. Best of all, if I'm correct, women aren't somehow inferior.
No, he labeled you a troll because you drew an invalid conclusion that was inflammatory and based it on no evidence.
I see you've done plenty of research to judge my conclusion as invalid. Trolling requires that I say what I say in order to inflame you rather than because I genuinely hold the view. I see you have plenty of evidence to make that judgement too - after all you know me so well. So basically you're ranting about evidence and validity whilst demonstrating that you're incapable of following a logical argument.
In short you're a hypocrite and a fool. Good day.
This is simply untrue - GM Judit Polgar (FIDE 2711) is ranked 27th in the world in FIDE's latest rankings list ...or in other words, there are no women in the top 25. How does that refute my arguments exactly?
So if you actually believe what you wrote, you are basically denying that women can compete in any game, sport, art or science with the best men. Which is more sexist than most AC troll posts in this thread.
I'm not saying they _can't_ compete. I'm saying that they tend to live more diverse lives and don't become as obsessive. Observing or hypothesizing a trend isn't sexist at all. Denying a woman the opportunity to attempt to compete or putting more obstacles in her way based on her gender would be sexist. I have done no such fucking thing. If women want to compete in male dominated competitions, I say let them. However if I see the top consistently dominated by men and suggest why that might be the case, I don't see how that's sexist. Sexist would be putting obstacles in their way, denying them the ability to compete, or even artificially introducing a handicap based on gender.
Seriously, how did this crap modded insightful in a forum for nerds?
People agreed with it, that's how. Your not agreeing with it and your value judgement that it's crap does not make the point of view invalid. Grow the fuck up.
Ha-ha ha, most intelligent sounding troll ever. I particularly like the psyche-out of your sig.
You are the very reason I have my sig, and no it wasn't set up for this one message. You label me a troll because I hold a point of view contrary to yours. Guess what? I don't hold this point of view to upset anyone. It's what I happen to actually think. I hadn't heard of you before today so I didn't know the statement would annoy you or upset you. It wasn't my aim, but I don't care if it did. That does not make me a troll.
So basically what you're saying is women are better at everything than men they just don't want to embarrass us by trying.
Not what I said at all. What I said was that to beat out everyone else at chess, you'd need to do little else, and women don't tend to be so single minded.
Also, whilst women struggle hard to achieve what they get, men just have OCD and anything they achieve is just a by-product. Doesn't sound at all trollish to me
You might want to take a course in comprehension and look up the term "straw man".
My view: if you're looking at IQ, or what the general populace calls intelligence, then studies show women and men average out about the same but that there's a greater spread for men.
My view is that you're talking out of your rear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm
Original research? Kasparov is a political activist for example. This comment sounds like the fable "the fox and the grapes".
No original research - this is slashdot and I'm not pretending what I said is anything but annecdotal.
I could hold up a sign in front of a KFC with the words "Free the potato chips" and I'd be considered a political activist. It wouldn't give me better people skills.
By the way ditch the Aesop - that man must have smoked a lot of cannabis and most of the fables aren't even entertaining.
Where I'm from learners have to have a big L displayed, and must drive a maximum of 80 kilometres per hour (or the speed limit, whichever is lower). But of course, because they are learners, they often drive slower then the speed limit, even if they don't have to.
It would be very rare for people to get upset at these learners, whether they are on a highway or a city street.
Are you from Aus by any chance? I'm from Sydney, NSW.
Where I'm at you get abused and honked at for not doing the speed limit even if you are an L plater and shouldn't be. In fact don't freaking change lanes doing even 5km/hr under the limit or you're bound to be fined for cutting off some lead foot doing 80 in a 60 zone.
It is actually quite dangerous to merge onto a highway posted for 110km/hr at just 80km/hr as is required for an L plater here, mostly because people are regularly doing 120 and faster. A 40 or 50 km/hr difference isn't good for merging traffic, especially when it's busy. Oh and it doesn't matter what the conditions on the road are like - 10km/hr over the limit is obligatory and sitting on a person's tail is obligatory.
I'm NOT saying this is right. A few years ago I was doing 40km/hr - the signs posted for roadwork on a highway normally set for 100km/hr. The signs were there so I was doing the right thing when 2 semi trailers came up behind doing over 100km/hr. If I hadn't reacted by pulling into the gutter, my wife and I wouldn't be around. I didn't get these arsehole truckers plates, they drove past so fast.
You know what though, we're STILL better than New Zealand. My wife and I drove about 6000km on our honeymoon there and the number of people speeding around bends was shocking. Go slow and you're being overtaken by these morons. Going fast wasn't an option as I wasn't use to roads like that and may have lost it. They actually had ads in NZ telling people to slow down going around bends. I think they need to teach more about inertia in highschool there.
If this thing actually works as advertised I'll eat my hat.
Does that go with red or white?
I'd love for my MythTV box to boot faster. Since it's not silent (though the TV fans are louder, the TV isn't always on either), I leave it turned off, and the long boot time makes it less appliance-like.
You kids today! My radio's an appliance and it takes 10 minutes for the vacuum tubes to warm up! Now get off my lawn!
The sad reality is, yes the women certainly can't compete with the men in top level world chess. I'm not sure who it's sad for though - the men or the women. You see to be great at chess you have to be obsessive about it. The more situations you've seen, the greater your ability to avoid lines of play that look good on instinct but leave you in a hole. So world champion chess players tend to be even more obsessive and single minded (to the exclusion of almost everything else including social interaction) than other world champions. People who get that good at chess don't do much else. It's like OCD on OCD. They study study study and study some more. In a lot of ways it's self destructive. Most women just won't do that to themselves. I believe this is the real reason women aren't as good in chess. They're not stupider than men, they're actually smarter.
On these things you pay money to customize your player - clothe them etc.
On second life you pay money so you can take off your clothes and not be the only one lacking a virtual penis.
Second life has you by the balls my friend!
Couldn't help myself.
First recipient of the nose, Marbic Shnauzer, fainted when the nose was first switched on. Scientists revealed a bug in the software made everything smell like ass. Mr Shnauzer said "I took one wiff of my own and and the smell was just too much. You try smelling ass after 5 years of nothing and see if you can take it!". Initial reports that a bored coder programmed this bug in on purpose were denied.
I've always preferred the misanthropic principle, myself. "We see the universe the way we do because people are idiots."
No more episodes of House for you young man!
Sorry, couldn't help myself. Oblig.
I have to side with RMS ... "what you're used to" != "easier to use".
Denying there's a problem or a general perception that there is a problem doesn't do anything to further the free software cause he was there to promote.
Just putting it out there, but could you imagine how sick of that question you would get if you were him?
No, I can't. If he's truly passionate about free software he should be seeking to promote it which does mean answering the same questions again and again. He should not be putting people who ask the question off side. He did nothing for my desire to use free software that day.
You can say what you will about the man, but I do sorrily miss that more people don't do what he has done: Analyze your beliefs and act accordingly.
All sorts of raving lunatics that I do not admire fit this criteria. That includes idiotic suicide bomber terrorists.
As for your q&a experience: How many times do you reckon he's got that question? Since he uses free software exclusively, it might not even be a meaningful question for him.
Wether it's Bill Gates or RMS, there's no excuse for being rude and dismissive. I won't cop that.
Oh, and reducing his contribution to "worked on Emacs and gdb" is really disingenious. He's done far, far more than that for the community. Look it up.
I know what the man has done; Don't be so condescending as to assume otherwise. His Emacs and gdb work is what impresses me most on the technical side.
Also, the record for many of his writings are pretty right on track. Just as an example: A decade ago the idea that you might need special "rights" in order to read a book might have been perceived as .. oh, what are the words people are using now? "raving" or "lunacy". Yet today Digital Restrictions Management embedded in eBooks, games and multi-media are a real thing -- and a real threat to personal freedoms.
Way to go. If you are selective enough about vague predictions, and ignore when they were wrong, you can claim Nostradamus a prophet too.
Now, I'm just speaking for myself, but when RMS speaks, I will stop and read -- or listen (and be grateful I still have the freedoms to chose to do so) :-)
Some of what he says is right on. But when he starts frothing at the mouth and pretending to be saint iGNUcius, I'll stop listening to his crazy ravings. (That the man thinks this joke is funny so many years later is proof that he's a couple of sandwiches short).
Last time something like cloud computing was proposed it was called thin client. Before that mainframes. etc. Yes Stallman's right about this, but he's no genius. Anyone in the industry can tell you farming your computing power and data out to others is bone headed and will eventually hurt you.
Indeed. I get very tired of all the denizens of the peanut gallery who start frothing at the mouth whenever RMS' name is even mentioned, as if he was some personal enemy to be abhorred and shunned.
In common with the probable majority of these people, I have never actually met the man, but I am capable of recognising that he has contributed more to Free and Open Source software than most us ever will.
I have met him. Just the once at a programmer's society meeting where he was a guest speaker about 5 or 6 years ago. He brings the criticism on himself. No one really cares that he's eccentric and his hygiene isn't the best. They're just easy targets.
I asked him at the public q&a (after he'd done his Saint IGNUcius routine, complete with robe and halo): How do you counter claims that free software is more difficult to use than proprietary paid for software. He looked me up and down and said "Who says its hard to use" and turned away. It didn't help that I'd just come from work and was therefore the only person in the room wearing a suite. If I didn't know that he'd worked on Emacs and gdb, I'd have simply written him off as a flamboyant nut job.
Pardon me, I am somewhat new to Slashdot... cant we all just behave like grownups and display our allegiances without fear of punitive tagging?
Ha Ha He Haha Heee HAHAHA MwwWAAHHAHAHAHAHA MwwWAAHHAHAHAHAHA *cough* *splutter* *wipes tear from eyes*
You'll learn.
I've suggested this before, but why aren't CEOs paid a small salary and a large block of shares that they are not allowed to divest until 5-10 years after they are issued?
That's a nice idea. The only flaw I can think of is unfortunately a fairly fatal one. It's entirely possible for a good CEO to be followed by a monkey who ruins his work. The good CEO isn't rewarded under this scheme. One could argue that part of a CEO's role ought to be to choose a successor, and that might work well for a good CEO but again one bad CEO does damage for the next generation.
It's actually quite a difficult problem.
Thanks for using phrases from 19th century England and your reminder of the literal interpretation of the word amateur (or at least one literal interpretation). Clearly I was speaking to the OP and my use of the term amateur was in relation to a person who was working professionally but without any experience. This is a common colloquial usage.
Did you have an actual point or are you just trolling because you have too much time on your hands?