I've never once met an MBA that was worth a pile of shit. I've met and worked with many. Without fail they leave a pile of waste, bodies, lost holidays, lost weekends, buggy products, poor documentation, so on and so, and it always seems to be someone else's fault despite the fact its 99%-100% theirs.
The only people I have less respect for are lawyers. Kill MBAs and lawyers today and tomorrow the world is literally a better place.
Though little about this actually helps answer whether this is a learned trait or not.
The research seems to hint its genetic.
I can tell you, there are plenty of us out there who do not have these responses.
Your reply is very anecdotal and very likely highly selectively biased. It may be that the 10% of males who do not have this reaction also fit a behavioral pattern such as you what you describe. At best, you can only claim more research is needed.
No. Stating fact. You're confusing the genetic imperative of a male's need to acquire a multiple mates with casual sex. They are not the same thing. Males, like women, develop deep feelings toward women after climax. Its not as pronounced for males as it is for females, nonetheless, its there.
Casual sex is a surprisingly surprisingly modern concept which largely didn't exist until the creation of effective birth control. You'll find there is a direct correlation (and likely causation) between birth control effectiveness and casual sex. When this doesn't exist, prostitution rates tend to be rather high. Furthermore, causal sex appears to be typically linked with social standing standing ("bragging rights") and anti-religious back-lash moreso than a natural occurrence.
Your confusion and misinterpretation is surprisingly common.
The jellyfish explosions have been created by two things. Firstly, from massive over fishing in Asian waters. Secondly, from massive waste runoff in oxygen rich fresh waters from China. Its almost completely a problem of both Japan and China's making.
Yes and no. There is ANSI SQL. PostgreSQL is probably one of the more compliant databases and is by far one of the more portable solutions. But even that is iffy.
MySQL is on the other end. MySQL is well known for being non-compliant, teaching very poor SQL code, offering minimal SQL compatibility and lowest common denominator features to achieve the same goal. That's also why, contrary to the lies and marketing hype, MySQL is almost always one of the slowest and least scalable solutions of any generally available SQL RDBMS.
Generally speaking, if you think MySQL is a good solution, there is almost always a better solution available. Far too often, vast ignorance, huge ego, and massive pride prevent people from considering alternative database solutions and their ignorance of the domain allows them to quickly become self assured they've picked a winner. Sadly, their self assurance is typically masked by their massive ignorance of the problem domain. And rather than validating they've picked a winner, they've only confirmed they should never be in a position to be selecting a RDBMS solution in the first place. But when people point this out, their pride and and ego assures them that any counter argument is anti-MySQL and elitism rather than a valid warning to stay away.
I'm sorry, but unless you're positive your project is a toy project and will always remain so, it is extremely unlikely MySQL can be justified for a project. Bluntly, for the vast, vast majority, MySQL is the choice of the uneducated and ignorant. And as a rule of thumb, simply picking any other solution than MySQL means you are in fact, better than the next would-be MySQL user.
Absolute bullshit. So now people are no longer responsible for the decisions they made? Of course they are.
It has been long known MySQL is a low end, non-compliant (slightly better over the years) solution, which teaches poor SQL, poor solutions, and even worse design, generally aimed at people who don't know any better. When MySQL launched, PostgreSQL was always an option. Furthermore, Oracle even had solutions for them to grow into. Now, both solutions look dramatically better than MySQL ever has. Furthermore, commercial support and even very high end HA/clustering PostgreSQL solutions are available. There exists no valid reason to make the same dumb mistake hundreds repeatedly make every day.
So hurray for MySQL. They saved 45-minutes during their installation on day one and now they'll spend a year or two plus millions of dollars to move away from their extremely dumb and uneducated decision. That's got to be one of the most expensive 45-minutes on earth - and yet its one of the single biggest decisions which MySQL users defend on a daily basis.
Sorry, but reality has spoken. Is it Facebook's fault? Absolutely!!!! Anyone who says otherwise has lost any and all credibility and only enforces they should never be in a position to be picking a database solution in the first place.
e.g. the 100s of 1000s of people that the FDA's regulations kill every year via inhibiting the development of new drugs and protecting drug manufacturers from competition and the resulting high prices.
That's an extremely poor example. The FDA has actually made things far, far easier in recent times. As a result, thousands are now being killed by drugs which should never have been proved - and wouldn't have been under the old regulations.
People get confused by this all the time. JITTER is what destroys VoIP quality, not latency. Latency can negatively affect the human element on both ends but it can still be completely intelligible. That's a human factors issue with high latency, not a technology issue.
Its actually more involved that than. Genetically, men can have multiple women because men are wired to perceive other men as threats. Genetically, women (>80%) do not see other women as threats and have no threat response even when seeing other women with their male mate. Therefore, genetically, we are designed to have one man and one or more women. Everything else is sociological, cultural, or religious.
The idea behind having sex with other people is bad is put there by the religions disapproval of premarital sex.
That's not true at all. Religion usurped their authority of marriage but it existed long before. And even before religious involvement sex has almost always been held to a different standard. That's why prostitution is considered the oldest profession.
Any time sex can occur there is the risk of socio-economic change. Genetically, none of us are geared toward casual sex. This is especially true for females who are genetically geared to view sex as both a means to establish/maintain a relationship and bring economic benefit to both herself and her offspring.
Genetically speaking, men have muscles. Women have vaginas.
Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?
Because its completely different. Why do people consider going to mars any different than going to the grocery store. Because both the trip and potential results are completely different.
Actually, research indicates the typical male brain feels threatened and mentally reacts as if a physical threat exists. Women on the other hand, typically do not feel it as such threat. In fact, men seeing other men topless can frequently initiate a threat response when around "their" women. Women on the other hand, have no such threat response even when viewing completely naked women around their mate. Which likely explains may behaviors at the beach.
Basically, what modern research appears to be telling us, monogamy is not normal for humans and that genetically, one male with many females is normal. Interestingly enough, that's exactly what we see in other primates; such as apes.
Furthermore, once you add in yet more social sciences, jealousy from women typically originates from low self esteem or they happen to be one of the few women (less than 20%) who actually do experience a physiological threat response.
And in case anyone is wondering, studies are currently underway in the UK (IIRC) to determine if homosexual males also experience a threat response to other males as heterosexual males do.
Now observation and discussion means one is jaded? Likely you're just uninformed. Very, very uninformed. My opinion exists specifically because that's the opinion TOLD to me be actual lawyers. It was re-enforced by observing their work day while I was working.
Really people, get off your high horses. The world does not exist in utopia. In the real world, lots and lots of people are paid shit loads of money for doing very little - and frequently while doing a shit job of that. That's the REAL world. Obviously there are exceptions and yes, the world is full of hard working people, but the intersection is pretty small when we're talking about the majority of lawyers.
You're very confused. You're confusing school work with a professional life.
Established layers is what I'm talking about. Non-lawyers do 80% of the work in the legal profession. Most lawyers do little actual work. What work they claim to do is largely done but wanna-be lawyers, students, so on and so on.
As for the work 60-hours to bill 40-hours - he's absolutely doing something wrong. Most lawyers will bill you if they think about your case while they are taking a crap. If he worked 60-hours and didn't bill 60-hours, he's incompetent or at the very least, doing it wrong.
Interestingly enough, a lot of foreigners say the same thing about English. When you step back and look at English, you won't have trouble finding lots of fabulously stupid constructs and notions. At least with Chinese its the way it is because it evolved over a very long period of time. English, on the other hand, is largely the way it is because it was specifically crafted this way over time. Of the two, English is far more embarrassing. Though from what I've heard, far easier.
I'd like to meet these lawyers who work hard. Having worked with many and known several personally, they generally don't know anything about "hard word." Don't confuse long days of web browsing, bullshitting, lunching, and boozing it up with anything close to "hard work."
TV shows and movies have painted a very wrong picture of lawyers at work.
The fact you have trouble relating to it says wonders about your culture of origin while at the same time, speaks extremely poorly of you in relation to you culture and the greater world around you.
To put it nicely, you referring to the parent post as a troll, is itself a farce and a trollish position to take.
"Hi, I'm Clippy! I see you're having a melt down today. Can I help you with that? Would you like to inject more coolant? Perhaps you would like to SCRAM the reactor?"
Except, of course, you're completely wrong. What a surprise to find someone completely wrong on slashdot. That's sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.
The police said they would like to be notified. They clear says its their problem. Period. Secondly, if they are sending out bomb squads, its very clearly their problem. Especially if they are sending out bomb squads for absolutely no proof there is an issue, aside from knowing a container exists somewhere in the world.
So you hated something for being relevant. Nice. One post after another of people showing ignorance and bias.
Evolution is a good email client. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Though it has had runs of stability issues - typically caused by poor distribution management. Frankly, I find the Thunderbird interface to absolutely suck. Its a step backwards. Every single Thunderbird user I know, which is considerable (though I pointed them to it), hates the revised interface they tried to shove down their user's throats. They always prefer the original interface over the newer stuff - which really isn't saying a lot.
Bluntly, all Windows users I know dislike Thunderbird's interface but get used to it and find it usable. Nothing more. Windows users, on the other hand, quickly enjoy Evolution, especially if they have Outlook experience.
Beyond that, for a long time now, Evolution has been more or less alone in its class, for freely available email clients, which can hope to compete with the likes of Outlook.
Simple truth is, people bitch and moan about Outlook, but its a pretty decent application with lots and capabilities. Anything which comes close to providing its features is a pretty good client. For the longest time, for free clients, Evolution was pretty much the only game in town. Thunderbird now competes (last several years) with a semi-kludgy mix of plugins and add-ons. It works - usually. Many people like it. But frankly still has a ways to go before its truly an Evolution killer.
Don't confuse distribution politics with intelligent decisions. Fairly consistently they are they prove to be worlds apart.
That's the lazy way out. If they really care, print out a map of known caches. Printing out a map 52x per year is dirt cheap compared to cost of dispatching the bomb squad and associated, reckless social anxiety.
In my own experience, geocaches tend to be registered on central geocaching sites. That is, after all, typically how people know to look for them. Seems like the police are taking the incompetent ("not my problem") way out. Perhaps they should weekly or monthly print out a map of geocaches in their area of responsibility. Then when they get a call, they can simply look to see if a cache is known. If it is, casually send someone out to check it out. If its not, then a more prudent response can be justified.
Many caches have existed for many, many years. Existing caches rarely change. The rate of new caches is steady but relatively slow over time. Simply being aware and keeping track of known caches once per week is extremely likely to prevent false alarms and the burden is very slight.
But hey, what do I know. Being responsible and intelligent these days seems to have long fallen out of fashion.
Before someone chimes in with the "don't have to pay for hanger space" argument, if you can't afford hanger space then you'll never afford the annual inspection labor and parts, so its all kinda irrelevant.
Not true at all. At some airports, hangar fees can be directly comparable to the price of the aircraft, assuming your aircraft isn't new. Your argument makes as much sense as saying, if you can't afford to buy two cars for yourself, you shouldn't bother to buy one.
Hangar prices vary dramatically from area to area and especially airport to airport. A modest hanger which costs $75/mo at one place may cost $250/mo, and up, at another.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never once met an MBA that was worth a pile of shit. I've met and worked with many. Without fail they leave a pile of waste, bodies, lost holidays, lost weekends, buggy products, poor documentation, so on and so, and it always seems to be someone else's fault despite the fact its 99%-100% theirs.
The only people I have less respect for are lawyers. Kill MBAs and lawyers today and tomorrow the world is literally a better place.
Though little about this actually helps answer whether this is a learned trait or not.
The research seems to hint its genetic.
I can tell you, there are plenty of us out there who do not have these responses.
Your reply is very anecdotal and very likely highly selectively biased. It may be that the 10% of males who do not have this reaction also fit a behavioral pattern such as you what you describe. At best, you can only claim more research is needed.
You must be kidding.
No. Stating fact. You're confusing the genetic imperative of a male's need to acquire a multiple mates with casual sex. They are not the same thing. Males, like women, develop deep feelings toward women after climax. Its not as pronounced for males as it is for females, nonetheless, its there.
Casual sex is a surprisingly surprisingly modern concept which largely didn't exist until the creation of effective birth control. You'll find there is a direct correlation (and likely causation) between birth control effectiveness and casual sex. When this doesn't exist, prostitution rates tend to be rather high. Furthermore, causal sex appears to be typically linked with social standing standing ("bragging rights") and anti-religious back-lash moreso than a natural occurrence.
Your confusion and misinterpretation is surprisingly common.
The jellyfish explosions have been created by two things. Firstly, from massive over fishing in Asian waters. Secondly, from massive waste runoff in oxygen rich fresh waters from China. Its almost completely a problem of both Japan and China's making.
Yes and no. There is ANSI SQL. PostgreSQL is probably one of the more compliant databases and is by far one of the more portable solutions. But even that is iffy.
MySQL is on the other end. MySQL is well known for being non-compliant, teaching very poor SQL code, offering minimal SQL compatibility and lowest common denominator features to achieve the same goal. That's also why, contrary to the lies and marketing hype, MySQL is almost always one of the slowest and least scalable solutions of any generally available SQL RDBMS.
Generally speaking, if you think MySQL is a good solution, there is almost always a better solution available. Far too often, vast ignorance, huge ego, and massive pride prevent people from considering alternative database solutions and their ignorance of the domain allows them to quickly become self assured they've picked a winner. Sadly, their self assurance is typically masked by their massive ignorance of the problem domain. And rather than validating they've picked a winner, they've only confirmed they should never be in a position to be selecting a RDBMS solution in the first place. But when people point this out, their pride and and ego assures them that any counter argument is anti-MySQL and elitism rather than a valid warning to stay away.
I'm sorry, but unless you're positive your project is a toy project and will always remain so, it is extremely unlikely MySQL can be justified for a project. Bluntly, for the vast, vast majority, MySQL is the choice of the uneducated and ignorant. And as a rule of thumb, simply picking any other solution than MySQL means you are in fact, better than the next would-be MySQL user.
Not that it's necessarily Facebook's fault
Absolute bullshit. So now people are no longer responsible for the decisions they made? Of course they are.
It has been long known MySQL is a low end, non-compliant (slightly better over the years) solution, which teaches poor SQL, poor solutions, and even worse design, generally aimed at people who don't know any better. When MySQL launched, PostgreSQL was always an option. Furthermore, Oracle even had solutions for them to grow into. Now, both solutions look dramatically better than MySQL ever has. Furthermore, commercial support and even very high end HA/clustering PostgreSQL solutions are available. There exists no valid reason to make the same dumb mistake hundreds repeatedly make every day.
So hurray for MySQL. They saved 45-minutes during their installation on day one and now they'll spend a year or two plus millions of dollars to move away from their extremely dumb and uneducated decision. That's got to be one of the most expensive 45-minutes on earth - and yet its one of the single biggest decisions which MySQL users defend on a daily basis.
Sorry, but reality has spoken. Is it Facebook's fault? Absolutely!!!! Anyone who says otherwise has lost any and all credibility and only enforces they should never be in a position to be picking a database solution in the first place.
e.g. the 100s of 1000s of people that the FDA's regulations kill every year via inhibiting the development of new drugs and protecting drug manufacturers from competition and the resulting high prices.
That's an extremely poor example. The FDA has actually made things far, far easier in recent times. As a result, thousands are now being killed by drugs which should never have been proved - and wouldn't have been under the old regulations.
People get confused by this all the time. JITTER is what destroys VoIP quality, not latency. Latency can negatively affect the human element on both ends but it can still be completely intelligible. That's a human factors issue with high latency, not a technology issue.
Its actually more involved that than. Genetically, men can have multiple women because men are wired to perceive other men as threats. Genetically, women (>80%) do not see other women as threats and have no threat response even when seeing other women with their male mate. Therefore, genetically, we are designed to have one man and one or more women. Everything else is sociological, cultural, or religious.
The idea behind having sex with other people is bad is put there by the religions disapproval of premarital sex.
That's not true at all. Religion usurped their authority of marriage but it existed long before. And even before religious involvement sex has almost always been held to a different standard. That's why prostitution is considered the oldest profession.
Any time sex can occur there is the risk of socio-economic change. Genetically, none of us are geared toward casual sex. This is especially true for females who are genetically geared to view sex as both a means to establish/maintain a relationship and bring economic benefit to both herself and her offspring.
Genetically speaking, men have muscles. Women have vaginas.
Why is having sex with other people different from other activies, like for example mount climbing?
Because its completely different. Why do people consider going to mars any different than going to the grocery store. Because both the trip and potential results are completely different.
Actually, research indicates the typical male brain feels threatened and mentally reacts as if a physical threat exists. Women on the other hand, typically do not feel it as such threat. In fact, men seeing other men topless can frequently initiate a threat response when around "their" women. Women on the other hand, have no such threat response even when viewing completely naked women around their mate. Which likely explains may behaviors at the beach.
Basically, what modern research appears to be telling us, monogamy is not normal for humans and that genetically, one male with many females is normal. Interestingly enough, that's exactly what we see in other primates; such as apes.
Furthermore, once you add in yet more social sciences, jealousy from women typically originates from low self esteem or they happen to be one of the few women (less than 20%) who actually do experience a physiological threat response.
And in case anyone is wondering, studies are currently underway in the UK (IIRC) to determine if homosexual males also experience a threat response to other males as heterosexual males do.
Now observation and discussion means one is jaded? Likely you're just uninformed. Very, very uninformed. My opinion exists specifically because that's the opinion TOLD to me be actual lawyers. It was re-enforced by observing their work day while I was working.
Really people, get off your high horses. The world does not exist in utopia. In the real world, lots and lots of people are paid shit loads of money for doing very little - and frequently while doing a shit job of that. That's the REAL world. Obviously there are exceptions and yes, the world is full of hard working people, but the intersection is pretty small when we're talking about the majority of lawyers.
You're very confused. You're confusing school work with a professional life.
Established layers is what I'm talking about. Non-lawyers do 80% of the work in the legal profession. Most lawyers do little actual work. What work they claim to do is largely done but wanna-be lawyers, students, so on and so on.
As for the work 60-hours to bill 40-hours - he's absolutely doing something wrong. Most lawyers will bill you if they think about your case while they are taking a crap. If he worked 60-hours and didn't bill 60-hours, he's incompetent or at the very least, doing it wrong.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Sad. Typical for /. these days so I guess you're in good company.
Interestingly enough, a lot of foreigners say the same thing about English. When you step back and look at English, you won't have trouble finding lots of fabulously stupid constructs and notions. At least with Chinese its the way it is because it evolved over a very long period of time. English, on the other hand, is largely the way it is because it was specifically crafted this way over time. Of the two, English is far more embarrassing. Though from what I've heard, far easier.
I'd like to meet these lawyers who work hard. Having worked with many and known several personally, they generally don't know anything about "hard word." Don't confuse long days of web browsing, bullshitting, lunching, and boozing it up with anything close to "hard work."
TV shows and movies have painted a very wrong picture of lawyers at work.
But nationalism and sometimes racism is.
The fact you have trouble relating to it says wonders about your culture of origin while at the same time, speaks extremely poorly of you in relation to you culture and the greater world around you.
To put it nicely, you referring to the parent post as a troll, is itself a farce and a trollish position to take.
"Hi, I'm Clippy! I see you're having a melt down today. Can I help you with that? Would you like to inject more coolant? Perhaps you would like to SCRAM the reactor?"
Yes, we agree. I'm brilliant and you're an idiot.
Your stupidity is literally scary.
because frankly, it ISN'T their problem.
Except, of course, you're completely wrong. What a surprise to find someone completely wrong on slashdot. That's sarcasm in case it wasn't clear.
The police said they would like to be notified. They clear says its their problem. Period. Secondly, if they are sending out bomb squads, its very clearly their problem. Especially if they are sending out bomb squads for absolutely no proof there is an issue, aside from knowing a container exists somewhere in the world.
Sorry, but please come back to reality.
So you hated something for being relevant. Nice. One post after another of people showing ignorance and bias.
Evolution is a good email client. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Though it has had runs of stability issues - typically caused by poor distribution management. Frankly, I find the Thunderbird interface to absolutely suck. Its a step backwards. Every single Thunderbird user I know, which is considerable (though I pointed them to it), hates the revised interface they tried to shove down their user's throats. They always prefer the original interface over the newer stuff - which really isn't saying a lot.
Bluntly, all Windows users I know dislike Thunderbird's interface but get used to it and find it usable. Nothing more. Windows users, on the other hand, quickly enjoy Evolution, especially if they have Outlook experience.
Beyond that, for a long time now, Evolution has been more or less alone in its class, for freely available email clients, which can hope to compete with the likes of Outlook.
Simple truth is, people bitch and moan about Outlook, but its a pretty decent application with lots and capabilities. Anything which comes close to providing its features is a pretty good client. For the longest time, for free clients, Evolution was pretty much the only game in town. Thunderbird now competes (last several years) with a semi-kludgy mix of plugins and add-ons. It works - usually. Many people like it. But frankly still has a ways to go before its truly an Evolution killer.
Don't confuse distribution politics with intelligent decisions. Fairly consistently they are they prove to be worlds apart.
That's the lazy way out. If they really care, print out a map of known caches. Printing out a map 52x per year is dirt cheap compared to cost of dispatching the bomb squad and associated, reckless social anxiety.
In my own experience, geocaches tend to be registered on central geocaching sites. That is, after all, typically how people know to look for them. Seems like the police are taking the incompetent ("not my problem") way out. Perhaps they should weekly or monthly print out a map of geocaches in their area of responsibility. Then when they get a call, they can simply look to see if a cache is known. If it is, casually send someone out to check it out. If its not, then a more prudent response can be justified.
Many caches have existed for many, many years. Existing caches rarely change. The rate of new caches is steady but relatively slow over time. Simply being aware and keeping track of known caches once per week is extremely likely to prevent false alarms and the burden is very slight.
But hey, what do I know. Being responsible and intelligent these days seems to have long fallen out of fashion.
Before someone chimes in with the "don't have to pay for hanger space" argument, if you can't afford hanger space then you'll never afford the annual inspection labor and parts, so its all kinda irrelevant.
Not true at all. At some airports, hangar fees can be directly comparable to the price of the aircraft, assuming your aircraft isn't new. Your argument makes as much sense as saying, if you can't afford to buy two cars for yourself, you shouldn't bother to buy one.
Hangar prices vary dramatically from area to area and especially airport to airport. A modest hanger which costs $75/mo at one place may cost $250/mo, and up, at another.
They had this in a gym I went to twenty years ago. Yawn. Twenty year old technology is suddenly slashdot worthy?
Holy shit slashdot has fallen.