Yeah, and with Carly setting such a good example, it's not hard to see why businesses would favor men.
While it is true that Carly was a poor performer, there are countless examples of equally shitty performance from men being rewarded at several large corporations.
The only reason they remember HP's problems is because their CEO was a woman.
"HUh? You're wrong on two levels: 1) the single exception proves the rule"
Read it again and keep in mind that L'Oreal is not inherently a tech company. That doesn't mean that L'Oreal doesn't employ technology to make its product (I sure it does).
If women are incapable of running a tech company because of inherent sex-based differences, then they should be a shoe-in for non-tech, women-based business. But these businesses are over-represented by men as well.
"and 2) this isn't an exception: a vast majority of companies are headed up by males."
Which supports my last conclusion: all of the 'good manager' criteria discussed thus far are entirely subjective if the simple fact of having a vagina can exclude you from the top posts.
With the recent departure of Carly Forina from the top post at HP, it is interesting to note that there are no Fortune 50 CEOs that are female. The Lawrence Summers fiasco also highlights the dearth of women in technical fields. This is due to inherent differences in the sexes, according to Summers. But even if that were found to be true, it doesn't explain why L'Oreal is run by a dude.
The fact is, business is hesitent to employ women in top fields. So whatever qualifications you place on managers the one quality that certainly does not rise to the top is a vagina.
That implies, to me at least, that all the other criteria for a good manager discussed thus far in this topic are highly subjective. Your results would be equally effective by mounting a set of categories on a rotating circular board and throwing darts to set your standards.
And for those who believes women cannot be tough and single-minded in their purpose, I have only two words: Margaret Thatcher.
The manufacturing process for plutonium is largely a mass-balance system. That "lost" plutonium could have literally leaked out from any point in the process and be sitting in the soil of the site.
Am I getting younger, or do I detect the Old Man Syndrome squeezing itself into the discussion?
Really, I have said before that I get annoyed with all the stuff they attempt to put into a phone, but one of the main reasons most folks got into connectivity technology was to communicate in innovative ways.
I'm going to keep an open mind with this coupling. Who knows where I might find a use for this. What about Books on Tape "On Tap"? Downloadable audio books from a favorite author?
I classify C# and Java programmers as faux hackers.
As I noted before, this is more opinion than fact.
Whatever gets the job completed (with minimal bugs) and puts a program in the hands of users is a "real" programming language, despite your feelings about its worthiness.
Also, the languages you've cited are all higher-lever languages than assembly. The "real" hacker community might consider either one of us to be faux hackers for using C or C++.
Language jihads really annoy me. The arguments used to support them generally have no basis in reason but instead rely on emotional outbursts.
C# vs. Java, C vs. C++, Fortran vs.....
Okay, so Fortran is abysmal, but if there is a good reason for using a language, then it is the CORRECT choice for the programmer. That reason may include the author's familiarity with the language.
If the author isn't any good at using a language they aren't familiar with, despite its benefits, the program won't be written! Or it may be written poorly!
This is open source, folks; if you don't like the language/implementation, then get the source and rewrite the application!
What guarantee do we have that the people looking at the code are even qualified to review? What insurance do we have against their work if it goes wrong? Who's accountable?
All of these questions are equally valid for Microsoft products.
"In open source, you have to be a better communicator and to be able to defend yourself," Behlendorf said. He added that a thick skin also is a requirement when laying bare one's work for all the world to see and criticize."
No shit. You mean there are actually people take exception to your existence if you disagree with them?
I was told by a friend of mine about a science conference where the speaker was openly and harshly challenged in public by his critics about his conclusions and interpretations. Taking the brunt of that abuse is sometimes rather personal and can be enraging. But that isn't the half of it. Wait until they attack your credibility as well as impune your reputation - for money! (as well as the occasional principled attack)
The nice thing about the whole exercise is when you develop the ability to be right more often than you are wrong. Whatever I may feel about the people I have been challenged by personally, I am a stronger person - and better scientist - for having weathered the criticism. These confrontations sharpen your debating skills by sharpening your thinking.
If you are just starting out, take the initial attacks as tuition toward a better future. If you engage them back in a personal manner you will never work as a respected professional again.
Consider the logic behind Gates' assertion regarding small devices:
1) The PC is a feature-rich environment that is capable of delivering all of the digitial services people want and/or need. 2) Single-function devices serve onley *one* purpose. 3) The PC will only grow in size due to the increasing need for speed and function. While the actual processing side will grow smaller, the attachments and other interface devices will take up more room. 4) The only way to efficently move all of this capability- and feature-rich product around is to mount it on a cart you have to drag around.
So the Gates strategy would encourage the development of over-weight products with features NOT ALL OF US WANT. These multipurpose machines will have us all rolling around through our daily lives mounted in digitally-crammed wheelchairs.
The Gates Dream is feature-rich but portability poor.
Single-purpose devices are great because when they are designed well, the perform efficiently and often are extremely portable.
Does he really believe his vision is our vision? Is this attitude just marketing hype and posture or is he beginning to show symptoms of detached elitism?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and with Carly setting such a good example, it's not hard to see why businesses would favor men.
While it is true that Carly was a poor performer, there are countless examples of equally shitty performance from men being rewarded at several large corporations.
The only reason they remember HP's problems is because their CEO was a woman.
"HUh? You're wrong on two levels: 1) the single exception proves the rule"
Read it again and keep in mind that L'Oreal is not inherently a tech company. That doesn't mean that L'Oreal doesn't employ technology to make its product (I sure it does).
If women are incapable of running a tech company because of inherent sex-based differences, then they should be a shoe-in for non-tech, women-based business. But these businesses are over-represented by men as well.
"and 2) this isn't an exception: a vast majority of companies are headed up by males."
Which supports my last conclusion: all of the 'good manager' criteria discussed thus far are entirely subjective if the simple fact of having a vagina can exclude you from the top posts.
With the recent departure of Carly Forina from the top post at HP, it is interesting to note that there are no Fortune 50 CEOs that are female. The Lawrence Summers fiasco also highlights the dearth of women in technical fields. This is due to inherent differences in the sexes, according to Summers. But even if that were found to be true, it doesn't explain why L'Oreal is run by a dude.
The fact is, business is hesitent to employ women in top fields. So whatever qualifications you place on managers the one quality that certainly does not rise to the top is a vagina.
That implies, to me at least, that all the other criteria for a good manager discussed thus far in this topic are highly subjective. Your results would be equally effective by mounting a set of categories on a rotating circular board and throwing darts to set your standards.
And for those who believes women cannot be tough and single-minded in their purpose, I have only two words: Margaret Thatcher.
The manufacturing process for plutonium is largely a mass-balance system. That "lost" plutonium could have literally leaked out from any point in the process and be sitting in the soil of the site.
Am I getting younger, or do I detect the Old Man Syndrome squeezing itself into the discussion?
Really, I have said before that I get annoyed with all the stuff they attempt to put into a phone, but one of the main reasons most folks got into connectivity technology was to communicate in innovative ways.
I'm going to keep an open mind with this coupling. Who knows where I might find a use for this. What about Books on Tape "On Tap"? Downloadable audio books from a favorite author?
This one is pretty funny.
Got points?
I classify C# and Java programmers as faux hackers.
;)
As I noted before, this is more opinion than fact.
Whatever gets the job completed (with minimal bugs) and puts a program in the hands of users is a "real" programming language, despite your feelings about its worthiness.
Also, the languages you've cited are all higher-lever languages than assembly. The "real" hacker community might consider either one of us to be faux hackers for using C or C++.
Beauty is, as always, in the eye of the beholder.
Unless they are using Fortran.
This is not a language jihad, just a fact.
Really?
I should think most real hackers would be embarrased to program in C# as they are to program in Java.
Tell me where the objective "fact" is in that statement.
My posting was not emotional at all, though it seemed to have gotten your color up.
The "No real hacker" portion of your post is hardly rational discourse.
Real hackers?
....
Shit, what does that mean?
Language jihads really annoy me. The arguments used to support them generally have no basis in reason but instead rely on emotional outbursts.
C# vs. Java, C vs. C++, Fortran vs.
Okay, so Fortran is abysmal, but if there is a good reason for using a language, then it is the CORRECT choice for the programmer. That reason may include the author's familiarity with the language.
If the author isn't any good at using a language they aren't familiar with, despite its benefits, the program won't be written! Or it may be written poorly!
This is open source, folks; if you don't like the language/implementation, then get the source and rewrite the application!
His reputation continues to decline.
I agree, but not for the reasons you gave.
Actually there is a GPL software package released under the name "Herpes" that will debut tomorrow.
Just in time!
Do you think that anything in your post made any sense at all?
Yep.
If so, please shoot your fucking self before you attempt communication again.
Too late. I communicated before killing myself.
You fail lit as a life form.
Actually, I did quite well in Lit.
English Lit, that is.
What a little Nancy you've become!
The Patent Office has patented all manner of business method abortions for years.
Now they refuse to patent a form of life someone actually prefers let live?
I guess I just don't get it.
What guarantee do we have that the people looking at the code are even qualified to review? What insurance do we have against their work if it goes wrong? Who's accountable?
All of these questions are equally valid for Microsoft products.
You did read the warranty for IE, right?
Ice cubes work well.
They don't last very long, though.
Perhaps we should be working on a better ice cube!
Critisims for the action, and when the action comes, more whines about why the action didn't happen everywhere.
*Please* Uncle Bill - put down the crack pipe!
We were talking about Mars, not Southeast Asia.
He gets this way when he stops taking his medication.
I say "LET 'ER RIP!"
Planets hospitable to humans is a good thing.
"In open source, you have to be a better communicator and to be able to defend yourself," Behlendorf said. He added that a thick skin also is a requirement when laying bare one's work for all the world to see and criticize."
No shit. You mean there are actually people take exception to your existence if you disagree with them?
I was told by a friend of mine about a science conference where the speaker was openly and harshly challenged in public by his critics about his conclusions and interpretations. Taking the brunt of that abuse is sometimes rather personal and can be enraging. But that isn't the half of it. Wait until they attack your credibility as well as impune your reputation - for money! (as well as the occasional principled attack)
The nice thing about the whole exercise is when you develop the ability to be right more often than you are wrong. Whatever I may feel about the people I have been challenged by personally, I am a stronger person - and better scientist - for having weathered the criticism. These confrontations sharpen your debating skills by sharpening your thinking.
If you are just starting out, take the initial attacks as tuition toward a better future. If you engage them back in a personal manner you will never work as a respected professional again.
"There's not a lot of room for prima donnas."
He must not work in academia.
This reminds me of an old saw:
A billion years is unimaginable,
A billion stars is unfathomable,
But to Congress, a billion bucks is steak dinner for their contributors.
or was it:
A billion bucks here, a billion bucks there, pretty soon your talking about real meat!
"Why build your own grid when you can use ours for a buck an hour?" asks Sun's COO Jonathan Schwartz."
I feel a little wierd paying for my grid computing with venison.
It must just be me.
Umm, those are not good points at all.
Typical Microsoft attitude: "Who Cares What the Customer Thinks?"
The fact that you're "used" to type in google.com or that Google has a "well established user base" has nothing to do with the technology.
So all of the billions spent on "branding" are worthless, eh?
Word Perfect and Netscape also had well-established user bases and high brand recognition and lost.
Due to control of the desktop and deliberate anti-trust actions.
Google may indeed succumb to the monopolistic efforts of Microsoft, but that isn't a technical point, is it?
If you want to make a legitimate point, try talking about the technology
Agreed. What was the technical merit of Microsoft's products vs. WordPerfect or Netscape at the time they were competing?
Not your own personal bullshit biases.
Biases are what make branding possible. Just ask a Ford, Dodge, or Chevy owner which pickup truck is the best.
You will likely be assulted with personal, bullshit biases.
Linux search:
search.msn.com - 17,660,857 hits
google.com - about 224,000,000 hits
Now I know there are a lot of factors that go into a search, including relavency. But when I run a search, the difference shouldn't be more than 10:1.
So what is IBM up to? And why are they taking such a drastic step?
This may be the only avenue available to IBM in complying with the court order.
If there is documentation that they need to satisfy the discovery order, they have no choice but to subpeona Intel.
They could have done this long ago. They may have been holding on until they felt compelled by the courts to act.
Consider the logic behind Gates' assertion regarding small devices:
1) The PC is a feature-rich environment that is capable of delivering all of the digitial services people want and/or need.
2) Single-function devices serve onley *one* purpose.
3) The PC will only grow in size due to the increasing need for speed and function. While the actual processing side will grow smaller, the attachments and other interface devices will take up more room.
4) The only way to efficently move all of this capability- and feature-rich product around is to mount it on a cart you have to drag around.
So the Gates strategy would encourage the development of over-weight products with features NOT ALL OF US WANT. These multipurpose machines will have us all rolling around through our daily lives mounted in digitally-crammed wheelchairs.
The Gates Dream is feature-rich but portability poor.
Single-purpose devices are great because when they are designed well, the perform efficiently and often are extremely portable.
Does he really believe his vision is our vision? Is this attitude just marketing hype and posture or is he beginning to show symptoms of detached elitism?
The only reason AT&T went to pasture is the US government put them to pasture.
The government created the terrible business model for AT&T that lead to the failure of their wireless division?
That would be news to me. I thought they fucked that one up all by themselves.
Thanks for clearing that one up.
Are you saying the Justice Department caused their long distance group to lose market share to Sprint?
I thought increased competition did that.
MS has been able to *prevent* that with creative financing so far.
All the creative financing in the world will not prevent what a bloated, lethargic bureaucracry can do to a monopoly.
When you call the bench "Conservative" -- you are correct, but you are forgetting what the word means.
Actually, I'm a libertarian. I am quite familiar with how the name has been co-opted.
I couldn't find anything else to disagree with in your post.
Thanks for the apology.
Keep the government in its place: Vote Libertarian.