He is also known for aggressive cost-cutting with massive layoffs, but that's actually another positive trait in a CEO.
Unless, of course, you're making your numbers for the quarter/year look good at the cost of cutting resources you can't easily replace that you'll need for long-term success.
A number of people have alleged this is the case with Hurd; I don't know enough to say for sure either way.
So if Mark Hurd is "well-connected", that would mean that he actually is more valuable as CEO to a company like Oracle, especially because his connections are probably especially relevant to Oracle's industry.
No kidding. You can't really sell Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc. on actual merit or return on investment, so connections are at a serious premium.
The fallout over at HP is well-deserved. You don't let someone go because of allegations -- you let them go because of convictions. Letting them go because of allegations is playing politics, not running a business.
Uh, that's what HP did.
Hurd's sexual harassment was alleged, yes.
Hurd stealing from the company in the form of expensing stuff for his mistress under something else, however, isn't in question.
I'm not a big fan of Colbert and I usually don't watch his show, but if his performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner doesn't strike you as one of the most pointed and brilliant bits of political satire of the last ten years, then I have to think you either genuinely don't understand what satire is or you're too partisan to have anything resembling a sense of humor.
Assuming that's true, it's still completely irrelevant.
For all we know, there'd be even more if iTunes on Windows wasn't one of the worst pieces of software ever made. iTunes reaches the rare Highlander 2 level of badness, wherein something is so bad it not only ruins itself, but also manages to make you like something decent related to it (Highlander 1 or iPod, respectively) less.
Yeah, that's exactly it. You can agree with or disagree with Obama's politics but the fact so far is, the man is just not funny. He just does not do the kinds of things publically that make for good comedy TV.
Biden, on the other hand, does produce his fair share of comedy moments and you do see those on the Daily Show as they happen.
Really? Count the number of times John Stewart makes direct fun of a Republican, then rewatch an episode and count the number of times he makes fun of a Democrat. Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives.
First, sure, but making fun of one more than the other != only making fun of one, which is what the post you replied to was rebutting.
Second, to be fair, if you removed mocking Fox News from the count, I think it'd be pretty even up. As a comedian, what can you even do about that? Half the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC reruns or the equivalent and there just isn't shit funny to say about that. Olbermann at his most blustering and ridiculous can't hold a candle to the sheer ludicrousness of Glenn Beck drawing something completely nonsensical on a chalkboard and weeping about it.
(Colbert is a little more middle but still ridicules Republicans more.) Comedy Central is just as left-leaning as CNN and MSNBC.
If you think the modern incarnation of CNN is left-leaning, you're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. If anything, they attempt to be "balanced" to a fault, giving voice to both sides of an issue even when one of those sides (be it conservative or liberal) is clearly insane. If I was a politician and came out tomorrow saying I thought we shouldn't set kindergardens on fire, CNN would find some nutball who thought we should to provide a counterpoint.
I don't know that that's entirely fair. These things are on a continuum.
You look at an O'Reilly or an Olbermann (to pick two guys with very different politics), and if you're not in line with them politically, you'll probably disagree a lot with their interpretation of an event or its implications, but in some sense their starting point feels based in reality even if where they end up isn't.
But let's be honest, there isn't a liberal Glenn Beck. There just isn't anyone even in that league in terms of humor value. You have to go where the jokes are, and a guy who writes crazy conspiracy crap on a chalkboard while crying is a gold mine.
Even if you somehow secretly cloned, say, President Obama and raised him in a secret lab to be the worst parts of everything his detractors claim him to be, then somehow swapped him for the real president, the result would still not be the comedy fodder of a Glenn Beck.
Ouch. My parents are the furthest away at ~100 miles out, and getting them to drive up for the day to see their grandchild is an easy sell. Even still I'm wishing they lived closer for more family support, so best of luck to you having to manage without either set of grandparents.
In addition to that, there is a recession. I haven't been to a movie in the theater in a long time because I simply do not have the money due to a new baby and a SAHM. Redbox's $1 rentals and Hulu's documentaries have filled the void. Why would I ever spend $20 (for two) to go to see a movie when I can spend $1 instead?
Because it's easier to talk one of the baby's grandparents into babysitting while you take your wife on a "date" than it is if you're going home to watch a Redbox movie? At least, that's my answer.
I'm crazy about our baby, but once in a while a couple hours together as adults without interruptions or baby care for dinner and a movie is really nice, too.
This is a very good argument against anthropogenic climate change, then.
That's not necessarily true.
Let's pretend for a minute that anthropogenic climate change is not only true, but is much more severe than anyone's suggested: if it's not halted within 10 years, all human life will perish within 20. Let's also pretend that only someone who's an expert in this field can fully understand this.
If you were a scientist who was pretty sure that was true, your zealousness and need to convince others of the truth of that fact wouldn't indicate that you were uncertain -- it would indicate that convincing others of the truth of that fact was extremely important.
That isn't actually a very strong argument against taking a position. Suppose I put twenty boxes in front of you and told you that one of them contained a good cheque for $1,000,000 and the others contained nothing. You can open any one, and keep the contents. What are the changes of picking the right one? Not great. What reason is there for choosing one box over another? Not much: maybe hunch, maybe try to interpret my facial expressions. One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.
There's a few problems with this line of reasoning:
First, it presumes that you (or the person claiming there's money in one box) are credible. That is to say, that there isn't a large possibility that there's no check in any box.
Second, it presumes that the cost of choosing a box is low or nothing. In your analogy, that's true. In terms of picking a faith, I don't think it is.
Third (and this is one of the big problems with Pascal's Wager as well), it presumes that either people can choose what they believe, or that God is a sucker that you can bluff. Allow me to illustrate:
I don't believe Santa Claus is real. I'm fairly sure, in fact, that Santa Claus, as understood by four year old children, is not real. It's not possible for me to decide that I believe that Santa Claus is real. What I can do, if I want to badly enough, is pretend I think he's real and do my very best to act as though he were. I'm not aware of any religions that promise salvation if you pretend very hard that you believe in their version of God.
Scripture says that you have to be truly sorry for your wrongs and denounce them (these are the concepts we traditionally call "sins" and "repentance") to be saved.
Most strains of American Christianity don't hold this to be true. Pretty much all the Protestant dogma for sure directly contradicts that. (Perhaps ironically, they also say that the Bible alone is the final authority on all matters of the faith.)
Note: I'm not trying to argue that they're accurately interpreting what the Bible says.
So what you're saying is, our modern conceptions of Hell are inspired, many times removed, from what amounts to a historical version of the Springfield Tire Fire?
About 10% of USA citizens are atheists, but atheists only make up about 0.02% of the prison population.
On the other hand, "finding religion" in prison (whether genuinely or not) can make a prisoner seem a more sympathetic figure for parole or other advantageous treatment. I consider myself an atheist, but if I was in prison and thought that seeming to "find Jesus" would get me out faster I probably would.
In a sense I think any kind of statistics on atheism are going to be skewed because most people consider themselves to be religious and some are deeply distrustful of atheists. Most people agree now that you shouldn't judge someone based on their race, and people are starting to come around on sexual orientation, but hating on someone's religion or lack thereof is still very alive and well in our culture. If you ever want to be President, for example, telling people that you're an atheist is not a smart move. Principled, sure, but you've just guaranteed that you won't win.
Slashdot Mirror
He is also known for aggressive cost-cutting with massive layoffs, but that's actually another positive trait in a CEO.
Unless, of course, you're making your numbers for the quarter/year look good at the cost of cutting resources you can't easily replace that you'll need for long-term success.
A number of people have alleged this is the case with Hurd; I don't know enough to say for sure either way.
So if Mark Hurd is "well-connected", that would mean that he actually is more valuable as CEO to a company like Oracle, especially because his connections are probably especially relevant to Oracle's industry.
No kidding. You can't really sell Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc. on actual merit or return on investment, so connections are at a serious premium.
No kidding.
If Ellison isn't king of the douchebags, I'm not sure who would be. I weep for Java in his hands.
The fallout over at HP is well-deserved. You don't let someone go because of allegations -- you let them go because of convictions. Letting them go because of allegations is playing politics, not running a business.
Uh, that's what HP did.
Hurd's sexual harassment was alleged, yes.
Hurd stealing from the company in the form of expensing stuff for his mistress under something else, however, isn't in question.
But what about Dance Dance Revolution?
I would respectfully suggest, sir, that you then are a resident of Crazytown, population: you.
I'm curious what qualifies as satire to you.
I'm not a big fan of Colbert and I usually don't watch his show, but if his performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner doesn't strike you as one of the most pointed and brilliant bits of political satire of the last ten years, then I have to think you either genuinely don't understand what satire is or you're too partisan to have anything resembling a sense of humor.
Assuming that's true, it's still completely irrelevant.
For all we know, there'd be even more if iTunes on Windows wasn't one of the worst pieces of software ever made. iTunes reaches the rare Highlander 2 level of badness, wherein something is so bad it not only ruins itself, but also manages to make you like something decent related to it (Highlander 1 or iPod, respectively) less.
Yeah, that's exactly it. You can agree with or disagree with Obama's politics but the fact so far is, the man is just not funny. He just does not do the kinds of things publically that make for good comedy TV.
Biden, on the other hand, does produce his fair share of comedy moments and you do see those on the Daily Show as they happen.
Really? Count the number of times John Stewart makes direct fun of a Republican, then rewatch an episode and count the number of times he makes fun of a Democrat. Each episode is HEAVILY weighted to make fun of conservatives.
First, sure, but making fun of one more than the other != only making fun of one, which is what the post you replied to was rebutting.
Second, to be fair, if you removed mocking Fox News from the count, I think it'd be pretty even up. As a comedian, what can you even do about that? Half the day MSNBC is airing what amount to Dateline NBC reruns or the equivalent and there just isn't shit funny to say about that. Olbermann at his most blustering and ridiculous can't hold a candle to the sheer ludicrousness of Glenn Beck drawing something completely nonsensical on a chalkboard and weeping about it.
(Colbert is a little more middle but still ridicules Republicans more.) Comedy Central is just as left-leaning as CNN and MSNBC.
If you think the modern incarnation of CNN is left-leaning, you're seeing what you want to see and not what's actually there. If anything, they attempt to be "balanced" to a fault, giving voice to both sides of an issue even when one of those sides (be it conservative or liberal) is clearly insane. If I was a politician and came out tomorrow saying I thought we shouldn't set kindergardens on fire, CNN would find some nutball who thought we should to provide a counterpoint.
Fox News has real news with real journalists, but they also are an outlet for opinion shows with political commentary.
However, the "real news" also has its slant, sometimes in the form of omission.
For example, on the day that Ken Mehlman (sp?) coming out was all over the news on every other channel, it wasn't covered at all on Fox.
The reactionary branch of my wife's extended family (whose opinions I get to share via Facebook) would like to have a word with you.
Yes, including the wrestling part.
I agree that most adults know it's fake, but most is not all.
You obviously have never seen any of Keith Olberman's political rants.
I have. Partisan, absolutely. Demagogue-y, sure. As ridiculous as Beck? Not even close on his best day.
I don't know that that's entirely fair. These things are on a continuum.
You look at an O'Reilly or an Olbermann (to pick two guys with very different politics), and if you're not in line with them politically, you'll probably disagree a lot with their interpretation of an event or its implications, but in some sense their starting point feels based in reality even if where they end up isn't.
I don't get that same sense out of, say, Beck.
Both sides still get it pretty regularly.
But let's be honest, there isn't a liberal Glenn Beck. There just isn't anyone even in that league in terms of humor value. You have to go where the jokes are, and a guy who writes crazy conspiracy crap on a chalkboard while crying is a gold mine.
Even if you somehow secretly cloned, say, President Obama and raised him in a secret lab to be the worst parts of everything his detractors claim him to be, then somehow swapped him for the real president, the result would still not be the comedy fodder of a Glenn Beck.
Ouch. My parents are the furthest away at ~100 miles out, and getting them to drive up for the day to see their grandchild is an easy sell. Even still I'm wishing they lived closer for more family support, so best of luck to you having to manage without either set of grandparents.
Can't they have a iTunes "lite" that only connects your iPad/Pod, organizes your music, and that's it?
First they'd have to come up with a version of iTunes that could actually do all of those things halfway well.
Sometimes I wonder how many people never tried a Mac because they experienced iTunes on Windows and assumed all Apple software must be that terrible.
In addition to that, there is a recession. I haven't been to a movie in the theater in a long time because I simply do not have the money due to a new baby and a SAHM. Redbox's $1 rentals and Hulu's documentaries have filled the void. Why would I ever spend $20 (for two) to go to see a movie when I can spend $1 instead?
Because it's easier to talk one of the baby's grandparents into babysitting while you take your wife on a "date" than it is if you're going home to watch a Redbox movie? At least, that's my answer.
I'm crazy about our baby, but once in a while a couple hours together as adults without interruptions or baby care for dinner and a movie is really nice, too.
This is a very good argument against anthropogenic climate change, then.
That's not necessarily true.
Let's pretend for a minute that anthropogenic climate change is not only true, but is much more severe than anyone's suggested: if it's not halted within 10 years, all human life will perish within 20. Let's also pretend that only someone who's an expert in this field can fully understand this.
If you were a scientist who was pretty sure that was true, your zealousness and need to convince others of the truth of that fact wouldn't indicate that you were uncertain -- it would indicate that convincing others of the truth of that fact was extremely important.
That isn't actually a very strong argument against taking a position. Suppose I put twenty boxes in front of you and told you that one of them contained a good cheque for $1,000,000 and the others contained nothing. You can open any one, and keep the contents. What are the changes of picking the right one? Not great. What reason is there for choosing one box over another? Not much: maybe hunch, maybe try to interpret my facial expressions. One thing is sure, though: any strategy that involves opening a box is better than the strategy of not opening any of them because you can't decide.
There's a few problems with this line of reasoning:
First, it presumes that you (or the person claiming there's money in one box) are credible. That is to say, that there isn't a large possibility that there's no check in any box.
Second, it presumes that the cost of choosing a box is low or nothing. In your analogy, that's true. In terms of picking a faith, I don't think it is.
Third (and this is one of the big problems with Pascal's Wager as well), it presumes that either people can choose what they believe, or that God is a sucker that you can bluff. Allow me to illustrate:
I don't believe Santa Claus is real. I'm fairly sure, in fact, that Santa Claus, as understood by four year old children, is not real. It's not possible for me to decide that I believe that Santa Claus is real. What I can do, if I want to badly enough, is pretend I think he's real and do my very best to act as though he were. I'm not aware of any religions that promise salvation if you pretend very hard that you believe in their version of God.
Scripture says that you have to be truly sorry for your wrongs and denounce them (these are the concepts we traditionally call "sins" and "repentance") to be saved.
Most strains of American Christianity don't hold this to be true. Pretty much all the Protestant dogma for sure directly contradicts that. (Perhaps ironically, they also say that the Bible alone is the final authority on all matters of the faith.)
Note: I'm not trying to argue that they're accurately interpreting what the Bible says.
So what you're saying is, our modern conceptions of Hell are inspired, many times removed, from what amounts to a historical version of the Springfield Tire Fire?
Wow.
About 10% of USA citizens are atheists, but atheists only make up about 0.02% of the prison population.
On the other hand, "finding religion" in prison (whether genuinely or not) can make a prisoner seem a more sympathetic figure for parole or other advantageous treatment. I consider myself an atheist, but if I was in prison and thought that seeming to "find Jesus" would get me out faster I probably would.
In a sense I think any kind of statistics on atheism are going to be skewed because most people consider themselves to be religious and some are deeply distrustful of atheists. Most people agree now that you shouldn't judge someone based on their race, and people are starting to come around on sexual orientation, but hating on someone's religion or lack thereof is still very alive and well in our culture. If you ever want to be President, for example, telling people that you're an atheist is not a smart move. Principled, sure, but you've just guaranteed that you won't win.
I thought only Taco Bell would survive the restaurant wars...
Thing is, there's a chunk of your brain that's responsibile for feelings like that.
The collision between neuroscience (as it gets more and more refined) and religion is going to be ugly.