I work in tech, only for about 25 years, though, and I see (and have seen) women being treated badly all the time. They have a much harder time getting their ideas into play, their opinions heard & listened to, and their work and credibility accepted. It's very hard to push back against it, too, without risk. I could go on, but you don't seem to be open to other points of view on the subject.
Exactly. Thank you for saying this. I can't think of two western nations that have had a longer alliance than France and the US. We owe the very existence of the USA to France -- not just in the war of independence, but in the Louisiana Purchase (roughly a third of continental US land) and also in the war of 1812 where France was our largest (if somewhat reluctant) trading partner. The two nations may grouse a bit at each other from time to time (1820-1865 was a low period, to be sure, and I blame the string of lesser Napoleons), but I can't think of two nations that have been such steadfast partners for a longer total period of time.
This isn't true. It was a silly rumor that gained traction because of his many many odd roles and the characters he played. He was so good at playing them, people assumed he had some kind of crazy dark fascination with the occult. In reality, he was just a good actor.
I've managed a very successful team for many years, and the one thing I don't do is their work for them. They need to do their work, in their own ways, and do it well. If they do, they don't see much of me. I attend most of the meetings (though I do occasionally have to bring one or two along for specific stuff), I do all the HR stuff, I go to the boring planning sessions, and I find out how our work is being received and chart courses for sustaining and improving on that work as needed.
I don't ask for status reports. I don't get in the way of standups. I don't pretend that I'm better at doing their job than they are. I am a facilitator for their work and I am a buffer between my team and other teams. I keep things nice and calm for them so they don't have to stress out or deal with having to interpret all the BS or do BS work. Then I do all the paperwork like the budget and the procurements and make sure our slide in the executive weekly tells the story of our awesomeness.
I listen to their complaints, other folks' complaints, and smooth that stuff out so that people can get back to work. If they need longer to get something done, I make room in the schedule and get new agreements with our customers on the new scope or timeline. If another group is in our way or not keeping up with us, I get with that group's manager and hammer out something we can all work with.
I've always been a very good technical generalist, but not as deep in individual stacks to do all the work. I am, however, a people person. I'm a damn good listener, negotiator and diplomat, and a very good business relationship manager and paper-pusher. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes I have to have very difficult conversations with others. It's all part of the job.
What is most certainly NOT part of the job is me doing the engineering work. I trust them to get it done. They trust me to get them the time and resources to do it.
So, if I understand you, we just construct some kind of wrapper around it that can get hot and won't melt and just make steam?... a wrapper with "... like diamond coating, with a boron flavor to it.:-_)" [from a physics blog I found with google]... and treat it like a big super-duper-hot pile of burning coal? It doesn't seem very elegant, to my untrained eye. Ah well, it's for people smarter than me to figure out, I suppose. Thanks for helping me frame the question.
I'm not a physicist, so forgive the possibly dim-witted nature of the question, but let's assume they can contain a fusion reaction some day. How might we actually use that to create energy that people can use?
I think it's a better buyer, personally. Hot Topic just seemed like an organization that would not appreciate all of the little, goofy, technical-fun bits of TG that I like. GameStop is closer, I think, to knowing the TG target customer.
Gosh, I hope it does fail to be renewed. Any bit of our rights we can claw back, after the mess of the post 9-11 years, is a benefit. Maybe we can dissolve the TSA with similar levels of vigor and/or apathy.
On the face of it, I agree with what you relate and I think you are correct. However, the value of the data isn't so much what is said, or who said it, but the relationships between the people that do the communications and learning how they know each other. So, none of the data needs to be especially meaningful in and of itself. Bad things will happen, but these records are (more likely than not) most valuable in sketching out who knows who, and who they have in common.
On balance, I think this president has been okay -- not great, but okay. This is one of a handful of disappointing positions that I'll never understand.
Here in Colorado, there's a bunch of crime centered around grow facilities (robbing them) and robberies and burglaries for the cash being transported. It's one of the main reasons why the state is lobbying very hard for banking regulation reform at the fed level, for example.
I live close to Denver and we had a 4.5 about 4 years ago. My house is about 110 years old and it cracked the plaster. About six months later, we started seeing the "learn about fracking" ads on TV -- sponsored by some petroleum institute mouthpiece. The ads are still running. Your nose for BS is very keen, and I have no doubt that you are right.
:) I live in Colorado, and we have our own water problems. (Though less of them, of late, but it's always been really dry out here.) Our snowpack fills a bunch of rivers. At the same time, our glaciers and year-round snowpack are fading, and that takes a lot of elasticity out of the supply. It'll be dry times up here, too, before long (again?), and there's nobody around to pump water to us.
There's a lot of agriculture out here, too, but it's nowhere near the scale or variety of California. I suspect that this is why New York isn't, for example, a big producer of almonds. It's dead last, in fact. So yeah, you can grow "food crops" in the northeast, but not nearly as many different ones, and not nearly as productively/cheaply.
... and he's kind of a jerk. It doesn't surprise me that he's thinking about simplistic, over-costly "solutions" to the problem. Note that he's going to give the money as political campaign donations to whatever politician says that they'll build it (if he doesn't hit the mark, which he has no hope of hitting). Politicians all tell the truth, too, right?
All we see here is a pretty obvious play that Shatner is making to aggrandize himself and magnify his political influence... with other people's money. It's all about him making himself a bigger celebrity in political circles. Free dinners of chicken and peas, and easy, casual podium gigs he can write off.
I don't know about crappy land, but the climate is more temperate and the growing season is much longer (provided water, of course). If you're a farmer, those are excellent attributes to exploit.
... back sweat. I'm not kidding. I travel frequently out of DIA. I wear a backpack over a light jacket, and the middle of my back (right between my shoulder blades) always gets identified as a pat-down area for investigation. My shirt is inevitably damp in that area. The nice TSA people gently rub my back as I wait for my bag to roll out of the X-ray machine. If it wasn't such a stupid process in its entirety, I might think it was actually kind of nice... like a spa or something, only with blue rubber gloves and more ick.
... and yet I do have a LinedIn account... and I still have a few active circles in Google+
I ended up at LinedIn just because it was the easiest and simplest way to keep tabs on people I used to work for and with. It's handy for that.
As for Facebook, I just don't have any reason to use it. I like my current active circle of friends and we call and email each other directly when we want to be in touch. I'm not interested in the time-sink that it is for so many people. I keep hearing tales from friends about the politics of "friendship" and all the goofy crap they get from people they really don't know, or don't want to know anymore.
I also don't want to share a whole lot of stuff with the wide-wide world. I don't want to read what other people are sharing. I just don't care about that crap.
This notion that Facebook is a kind of adjunct to a resume is a little disquieting. I mean, if someone wants to know more about me, all they have to do is suggest that we go out for a long lunch or maybe a beer after work and I'm happy to talk about just about anything. No window dressing, nothing in print. If someone wants to get to know me, they can do exactly that, with me, in real life.
Fortunately, I am also old enough that not having a Facebook page isn't so unusual in my age group. So at least I have that.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I read TFA and I don't see any hacking going on, here. What I saw instead was a pretty sound approach to health and wellness through dietary changes and continued moderate exercise. I don't see what's been "hacked", here. The "eat less and exercise" approach, wonder of wonders, seems to have worked again!
Honestly, I like hearing about experiences like this, because it gives me hope that I can make my own similar lifestyle changes, but there was no "hack" involved here -- no shortcut, no fast-track, no way to get it done without the work and self discipline. When I get a good checkup at the dentist, am I "hacking" dental hygiene? I think not.
At the ATL airport. Pretty whizzy. I think it may have actually sped up the process. The only strange part was you basically move through a set of various stations and checks, like 4 or 5 before you finally talk with an agent about declarations at the end. It was pretty streamlined and pretty easy to use the devices.
Isn't it a main responsibility of POTUS to lead and manage the legislative branch?
Well, no, it's not. The primary function of the POTUS is to be the chief executive of the administration. That is, all the agencies, administrations and departments of the federal government. So, along with that comes the responsibility to make appointments to the various non-legislative parts of the government... the dept of justice, for example. So it also goes with firing the other executives in federal government.
The influence of the POTUS on congress is really very small. He can offer vision or direction to the congress from the standpoint of what laws he says he will sign or veto, and the POTUS is going to lay out his direction every year in the state of the union address, but he has no vote in the making of legislation, no leadership role on any committee, and no legislative responsibilities other than the enacting or vetoing legislation at the end. There is a little niggle in that the president can convene or adjourn congress on the occasion of sweeping national tragedy, attack or martial law, but those are true rarities. The VP is the president of the senate, and that means he can cast tie-breaking votes in the event they are needed, but even this is a very limited role in the congress. One would suppose that the VP, if casting such a senate vote, would reflect the position of the administration and by extension the chief executive, but that's not written anywhere. In the early days of the country, the vice president was the guy who came in second in the presidential race, and had opposing views.
There's also the POTUS role of commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which he has for practical decision-making. We have the joint chiefs, but ultimately it's the president that is the one with the responsibility for what they do.
The POTUS is the single highest representative of the nation in foreign policy, and as he holds the top position over the secretary of state, he's responsible, ultimately, for making treaties with foreign nations.
That said, at the minimum, his rubber stamping of extending the Patriot Act perfectly demonstrates how his actions differ from his campaign platform and his ability or need to stand up for the people that elected him.
Well, anyone can hazard a guess, but I think history will probably treat him better than you think it will, though I do agree that he hasn't lived up to expectations. I'll also add that expectations were set uncommonly high. Between the time he got elected and when he took the oath, he was given a pretty cold and deep soak in the dirty bathwater from the previous administration -- and by that I mean extensive debriefing by the leaders of all the various departments of the government in the outgoing administration. Anyone with half a brain would change their opinions when presented with the real-life playbook left my the former tenant of the white house. I have no doubt that the national security stuff in particular was especially hard for him to change course on, as it wasn't part of his set of strengths. We were also at war in 2 places at once and he didn't want to be in any more of those, so he was pretty hawkish about looking out for threats.
Anyhow, I'll close with the observation that many people missed about him from the start. He was, and is, very much a person who wants consensus. He was far far too willing to kowtow to the demands of people that wanted him to leave the status quo in place -- and here I'm talking about the neocon chickenhawks and the big wall street banks. He did not, as most presidents do, clean house at the justice department and remove all the bush-era appointees, for example, even though they all got their JDs from Oral Roberts U and Liberty U and were diametrically opposed to everything he wanted to see. He let them stay, as a conciliatory gesture, hoping that it would earn him a place at the table with his nominal opposition. What he took awhile to learn is that he could not make nice with thes
Seems to me that mining the moon is a fools errand. Being able to "mine" water away from earth might be very handy -- presuming you could send it hither and yon from there.
Slashdot Mirror
16
I work in tech, only for about 25 years, though, and I see (and have seen) women being treated badly all the time. They have a much harder time getting their ideas into play, their opinions heard & listened to, and their work and credibility accepted. It's very hard to push back against it, too, without risk. I could go on, but you don't seem to be open to other points of view on the subject.
Exactly. Thank you for saying this. I can't think of two western nations that have had a longer alliance than France and the US. We owe the very existence of the USA to France -- not just in the war of independence, but in the Louisiana Purchase (roughly a third of continental US land) and also in the war of 1812 where France was our largest (if somewhat reluctant) trading partner. The two nations may grouse a bit at each other from time to time (1820-1865 was a low period, to be sure, and I blame the string of lesser Napoleons), but I can't think of two nations that have been such steadfast partners for a longer total period of time.
This isn't true. It was a silly rumor that gained traction because of his many many odd roles and the characters he played. He was so good at playing them, people assumed he had some kind of crazy dark fascination with the occult. In reality, he was just a good actor.
I've managed a very successful team for many years, and the one thing I don't do is their work for them. They need to do their work, in their own ways, and do it well. If they do, they don't see much of me. I attend most of the meetings (though I do occasionally have to bring one or two along for specific stuff), I do all the HR stuff, I go to the boring planning sessions, and I find out how our work is being received and chart courses for sustaining and improving on that work as needed.
I don't ask for status reports. I don't get in the way of standups. I don't pretend that I'm better at doing their job than they are. I am a facilitator for their work and I am a buffer between my team and other teams. I keep things nice and calm for them so they don't have to stress out or deal with having to interpret all the BS or do BS work. Then I do all the paperwork like the budget and the procurements and make sure our slide in the executive weekly tells the story of our awesomeness.
I listen to their complaints, other folks' complaints, and smooth that stuff out so that people can get back to work. If they need longer to get something done, I make room in the schedule and get new agreements with our customers on the new scope or timeline. If another group is in our way or not keeping up with us, I get with that group's manager and hammer out something we can all work with.
I've always been a very good technical generalist, but not as deep in individual stacks to do all the work. I am, however, a people person. I'm a damn good listener, negotiator and diplomat, and a very good business relationship manager and paper-pusher. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes I have to have very difficult conversations with others. It's all part of the job.
What is most certainly NOT part of the job is me doing the engineering work. I trust them to get it done. They trust me to get them the time and resources to do it.
Dear sweet jeebus, can we please just dismantle the TSA and give security back to the airlines, now?
So, if I understand you, we just construct some kind of wrapper around it that can get hot and won't melt and just make steam? ... a wrapper with "... like diamond coating, with a boron flavor to it. :-_)" [from a physics blog I found with google] ... and treat it like a big super-duper-hot pile of burning coal? It doesn't seem very elegant, to my untrained eye. Ah well, it's for people smarter than me to figure out, I suppose. Thanks for helping me frame the question.
I'm not a physicist, so forgive the possibly dim-witted nature of the question, but let's assume they can contain a fusion reaction some day. How might we actually use that to create energy that people can use?
I think it's a better buyer, personally. Hot Topic just seemed like an organization that would not appreciate all of the little, goofy, technical-fun bits of TG that I like. GameStop is closer, I think, to knowing the TG target customer.
Gosh, I hope it does fail to be renewed. Any bit of our rights we can claw back, after the mess of the post 9-11 years, is a benefit. Maybe we can dissolve the TSA with similar levels of vigor and/or apathy.
On the face of it, I agree with what you relate and I think you are correct. However, the value of the data isn't so much what is said, or who said it, but the relationships between the people that do the communications and learning how they know each other. So, none of the data needs to be especially meaningful in and of itself. Bad things will happen, but these records are (more likely than not) most valuable in sketching out who knows who, and who they have in common.
On balance, I think this president has been okay -- not great, but okay. This is one of a handful of disappointing positions that I'll never understand.
Here in Colorado, there's a bunch of crime centered around grow facilities (robbing them) and robberies and burglaries for the cash being transported. It's one of the main reasons why the state is lobbying very hard for banking regulation reform at the fed level, for example.
I'd prefer that we just let the Afghans sell their poppy-scrapings to drug companies and keep it above-board.
Just my $.02.
... for Lollipop. It only got it this past weekend.
I have to lay the blame with T-mo. I had no other easy option to get it.
I live close to Denver and we had a 4.5 about 4 years ago. My house is about 110 years old and it cracked the plaster. About six months later, we started seeing the "learn about fracking" ads on TV -- sponsored by some petroleum institute mouthpiece. The ads are still running. Your nose for BS is very keen, and I have no doubt that you are right.
:) I live in Colorado, and we have our own water problems. (Though less of them, of late, but it's always been really dry out here.) Our snowpack fills a bunch of rivers. At the same time, our glaciers and year-round snowpack are fading, and that takes a lot of elasticity out of the supply. It'll be dry times up here, too, before long (again?), and there's nobody around to pump water to us.
There's a lot of agriculture out here, too, but it's nowhere near the scale or variety of California. I suspect that this is why New York isn't, for example, a big producer of almonds. It's dead last, in fact. So yeah, you can grow "food crops" in the northeast, but not nearly as many different ones, and not nearly as productively/cheaply.
... and he's kind of a jerk. It doesn't surprise me that he's thinking about simplistic, over-costly "solutions" to the problem. Note that he's going to give the money as political campaign donations to whatever politician says that they'll build it (if he doesn't hit the mark, which he has no hope of hitting). Politicians all tell the truth, too, right?
All we see here is a pretty obvious play that Shatner is making to aggrandize himself and magnify his political influence... with other people's money. It's all about him making himself a bigger celebrity in political circles. Free dinners of chicken and peas, and easy, casual podium gigs he can write off.
I don't know about crappy land, but the climate is more temperate and the growing season is much longer (provided water, of course). If you're a farmer, those are excellent attributes to exploit.
... back sweat. I'm not kidding. I travel frequently out of DIA. I wear a backpack over a light jacket, and the middle of my back (right between my shoulder blades) always gets identified as a pat-down area for investigation. My shirt is inevitably damp in that area. The nice TSA people gently rub my back as I wait for my bag to roll out of the X-ray machine. If it wasn't such a stupid process in its entirety, I might think it was actually kind of nice... like a spa or something, only with blue rubber gloves and more ick.
... and yet I do have a LinedIn account... and I still have a few active circles in Google+
I ended up at LinedIn just because it was the easiest and simplest way to keep tabs on people I used to work for and with. It's handy for that.
As for Facebook, I just don't have any reason to use it. I like my current active circle of friends and we call and email each other directly when we want to be in touch. I'm not interested in the time-sink that it is for so many people. I keep hearing tales from friends about the politics of "friendship" and all the goofy crap they get from people they really don't know, or don't want to know anymore.
I also don't want to share a whole lot of stuff with the wide-wide world. I don't want to read what other people are sharing. I just don't care about that crap.
This notion that Facebook is a kind of adjunct to a resume is a little disquieting. I mean, if someone wants to know more about me, all they have to do is suggest that we go out for a long lunch or maybe a beer after work and I'm happy to talk about just about anything. No window dressing, nothing in print. If someone wants to get to know me, they can do exactly that, with me, in real life.
Fortunately, I am also old enough that not having a Facebook page isn't so unusual in my age group. So at least I have that.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I read TFA and I don't see any hacking going on, here. What I saw instead was a pretty sound approach to health and wellness through dietary changes and continued moderate exercise. I don't see what's been "hacked", here. The "eat less and exercise" approach, wonder of wonders, seems to have worked again!
Honestly, I like hearing about experiences like this, because it gives me hope that I can make my own similar lifestyle changes, but there was no "hack" involved here -- no shortcut, no fast-track, no way to get it done without the work and self discipline. When I get a good checkup at the dentist, am I "hacking" dental hygiene? I think not.
At the ATL airport. Pretty whizzy. I think it may have actually sped up the process. The only strange part was you basically move through a set of various stations and checks, like 4 or 5 before you finally talk with an agent about declarations at the end. It was pretty streamlined and pretty easy to use the devices.
Well, no, it's not. The primary function of the POTUS is to be the chief executive of the administration. That is, all the agencies, administrations and departments of the federal government. So, along with that comes the responsibility to make appointments to the various non-legislative parts of the government... the dept of justice, for example. So it also goes with firing the other executives in federal government.
The influence of the POTUS on congress is really very small. He can offer vision or direction to the congress from the standpoint of what laws he says he will sign or veto, and the POTUS is going to lay out his direction every year in the state of the union address, but he has no vote in the making of legislation, no leadership role on any committee, and no legislative responsibilities other than the enacting or vetoing legislation at the end. There is a little niggle in that the president can convene or adjourn congress on the occasion of sweeping national tragedy, attack or martial law, but those are true rarities. The VP is the president of the senate, and that means he can cast tie-breaking votes in the event they are needed, but even this is a very limited role in the congress. One would suppose that the VP, if casting such a senate vote, would reflect the position of the administration and by extension the chief executive, but that's not written anywhere. In the early days of the country, the vice president was the guy who came in second in the presidential race, and had opposing views.
There's also the POTUS role of commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which he has for practical decision-making. We have the joint chiefs, but ultimately it's the president that is the one with the responsibility for what they do.
The POTUS is the single highest representative of the nation in foreign policy, and as he holds the top position over the secretary of state, he's responsible, ultimately, for making treaties with foreign nations.
That said, at the minimum, his rubber stamping of extending the Patriot Act perfectly demonstrates how his actions differ from his campaign platform and his ability or need to stand up for the people that elected him.
Well, anyone can hazard a guess, but I think history will probably treat him better than you think it will, though I do agree that he hasn't lived up to expectations. I'll also add that expectations were set uncommonly high. Between the time he got elected and when he took the oath, he was given a pretty cold and deep soak in the dirty bathwater from the previous administration -- and by that I mean extensive debriefing by the leaders of all the various departments of the government in the outgoing administration. Anyone with half a brain would change their opinions when presented with the real-life playbook left my the former tenant of the white house. I have no doubt that the national security stuff in particular was especially hard for him to change course on, as it wasn't part of his set of strengths. We were also at war in 2 places at once and he didn't want to be in any more of those, so he was pretty hawkish about looking out for threats.
Anyhow, I'll close with the observation that many people missed about him from the start. He was, and is, very much a person who wants consensus. He was far far too willing to kowtow to the demands of people that wanted him to leave the status quo in place -- and here I'm talking about the neocon chickenhawks and the big wall street banks. He did not, as most presidents do, clean house at the justice department and remove all the bush-era appointees, for example, even though they all got their JDs from Oral Roberts U and Liberty U and were diametrically opposed to everything he wanted to see. He let them stay, as a conciliatory gesture, hoping that it would earn him a place at the table with his nominal opposition. What he took awhile to learn is that he could not make nice with thes
Seems to me that mining the moon is a fools errand. Being able to "mine" water away from earth might be very handy -- presuming you could send it hither and yon from there.