First, thanks for the reply. It was well thought out, clear, and flamebait free:)
The problem I have with this logic is this: Not all white folks are necessarilly the beneficiaries of past racist policies. I live in a semi-ghetto area. About half white, half-black. Very high unemployment. I won't go into my reasons for living here.
About half of the folks are unemployed. Most come from families where education is not stressed and drug use is high. Affirmative action might help a young black person who wants to move up. Great. It won't do anything for the white kid. In fact, it will make it that much harder. The young white kid is lumped in with the Kennedy's and Bush's who's families have benefited the most, and face no real threat from affirmative action.
Successful black families get a hand up, unsuccessful black families have a better chance, successful while families (like mine) don't have much of a threat. But if you are white, and come from a less than stellar family background... you have less opportunities available.
And any time a black person gets a chance over a white? Whether it is true or not, the white guy is thinking "affirmative action screwed me". How is this bringing reconcilliation between the races? And as to it "not being racist"... sorry... look up the definition of the word. With all due respect, your rationalization is highly dependent on your political viewpoint, not an objective definition. Not saying your political goals are wrong... in many ways they are admirable. But if you have to research the state of the black community to undertand it, then you don't see the whole less-fortunate class up close every day. It is more of a "green" versus "not green" class, not as much black v white.
Want to know the biggest thing holding down folks? A welfare system that rewards not working. I don't want to see welfare go away... but I would like to see more Clinton-era type reforms to the system. Problem is, the Democrats would rather be the party of "hand out more money to more people", and the Republicans want everyone "to pull themselves up by their bootstraps", ignoring the physical impossibility of the statement.
Raise my taxes to provide better schools in the inner city. I would not mind. Help them at a younger age (I was working with one 5 year old neighborhood kid... teaching him to count to 10... really freaking sad). Hold parents accountable when their kids aren't going to school... or are out at midnight. But don't make it a race thing.
In my mind, affirmative action is racist. Also, in my mind, affirmative action is driving a deeper wedge between black and white... not helping it.
Please tell me why Person A who has a better aptitude and skill set for something should be beat out by Person B because of race? It is racism plain and simple.
And yes, there are qualified black and female IT professionals. But they are a small percentage of the entire IT workforce. When you limit youself to a small percentage of the workforce, you will get a smaller percentage of qualified personnel.
The fact is the civil service is sexist and racist. If I reversed the scoring procedures (add points for male, and white) you would have numerous lawsuits filed.
My point isn't that there aren't qualified black and female candidates. It is that the hiring process is NOT based on best candidate. You can't argue that it is.
Please re-read my post. I never said it wasn't a smart choice. I only said the smartness wasn't the reason they made the choice. In my experience, the decisions are made by folks who only understand "if I don't have to pay for 5000 licenses @ $200/year, I save $1,000,000 per year". That's how IT decisions are made by most large companies, for better or for worse.
If you will note in another message in this thread, I support going open-source. I do not disagree with your reasoning. However, the gp's comparing it to the liberation of people in the revolutionary war, and closed-source as fascism is taking it a bit far. Some folks need perspective.
Do you really take open-source word processing vs closed-source this seriously? Or are you trying to be over-the top sarcastic funny? I have a hard time telling some times.
No, they aren't. They are looking for ways to meet budgets. Not that this is a bad thing. They see their annual expenditure on IT and look for a way to cut costs. Open Source has been big news the past couple years (outside of geek circles). PHB thinks "hmmm this might be a good idea" In this case, PHB is right.
I also have seen the quality of tech support in several local gov't situation. Usually below industry pay rate (but nice benefits). And the hiring process favors women, minorities, those with prior civil service experience and military background. Some of the dumbest folks you ever want to meet are working for your local gov't. I had one "sys admin" forward me an e-mail about a dangerous file on my system that I had to delete... turned out to be a critical windows file.
So point is, this decision wasn't made based upon tech savvy. It was made based upon cost.
Agreed. The IDE takes a bit of getting used to, that's for sure. But it is such a productivity booster..... the only downside. So much is hidden from the user by default. Someone can get themselves into trouble and not understand what is happening. If you do not have a foundation into how things work, it will remain a black box to that user. It is dangerous to turn over the keys to those developers...
90% of the comments I've read so far are either entirely or partially "omfg... microsoft suks!". However, read the entrie article, and you are faced with an interesting siutation.
Software always has to strike a balance point... between features, quality, cost and timing. All software does (sans Duke Nukem Forever). Microsoft has been very good at getting product out there with the feature sets people want (Microsoft is also very good at manipulating folks into getting folks to want what they are able to deliver). Now, they are at a cross-road. Continue their current coding model, and get the next couple versions out there (relatively) inexpensively and quickly, or bite the bullet, and try a new way that will make them competitive for serval versions.
Seems like an easy choice. But here you have thousands of developers who style is being crimped. Software engineers generally want to write code, not have constraints placed on them. Add to the fact that Google is gobbling up the best and brightest, and suddenly you wonder: If Microsoft forges forward, do they lose even more of their best engineers. They may have a better model for code depelopment, but will they have the best coders to move forward with?
Which leads to the final question: Does Microsoft really need the "best and brightest" anymore? If so, do they need as many (percentage terms) as they used to? Their products are mostly in the mature stage. Can a few intellectuals keep the ship moving forward. Despite what groupthink on Slashdot may indicate, 90% of coding is not revolutionary, or even evolutionary.
Just some things to think about and watch for over the next few years.
You are right. From the article: Mr. Allchin had announced to hundreds of Windows engineers that they would "reset" Longhorn using a clean base of code that had been developed for a version of Windows on corporate server computers.
Sounds like they had a "base" windows to start with (something not available to anyone else?!?! Probably handles the very essentials. From there, they built on the code base.
So no, it wasn't entirely from scratch. There is no way you'd WANT to start totally from scratch. This is more of a case of the poster reading a few paragraphs, not thinking, and putting an extreme "summary" together based on that lack of reading.
Yeah... cause if I can get hold of your keyboard, I would never think to add a keystroke logging device. You can get them cheap, attach to the cord going to the case, and viola.... 100% reliable.
"MyLongNickName and other humor watchdogs have noticed a continuous increase in new serious replies which are submitted, almost synchronously with sarcastic messages" -- Slashdot News
I am glad to know that if Microsoft gets Slashdotted, we have this cut and paste to refer to. We all know Saturday morning in the U.S. is the heaviest traffic time, and that Microsoft runs its servers off of 486's with 32 megs of ram.
We have no idea how you beat out all the subscribers, and got around the 404's. But somehow, undoubtedly through minutes of perserverence, you were able to get the job done. And in your rush to provide this service, you were STILL able to make sure it was formatted nicely. Well done.
If it weren't for you, therer is absolutely no way I could have read this fine article. I Thank you and your country thanks you.
Yup. This is exactly my rememberence of the game as well. I couldn't even identify most of the objects on the screen.
There was one part where you kinda levitated up, and there was this artificial ceiling with a hole the moved along it. You had to somehow exit it. Yet even when you hit the hole, you failed and came back down.
Not sure how someone beats it in three minutes, unless the secret point of the game was to see how long it took before you pulled it out of your Atari and threw it in the garbage disposal.
Actually, I would like to see each voter have to complete a short multiple-choice test on the opinions of the candidate for whom they are voting, and discounting all votes from people who get less than 70% - if you don't know what your representative stands for, then you have no business electing them to represent you.
They had similar tests in the U.S. South. Called 'Jim Crow' laws. Wiki it if you have time.
Slashdot Mirror
First, thanks for the reply. It was well thought out, clear, and flamebait free :)
The problem I have with this logic is this: Not all white folks are necessarilly the beneficiaries of past racist policies. I live in a semi-ghetto area. About half white, half-black. Very high unemployment. I won't go into my reasons for living here.
About half of the folks are unemployed. Most come from families where education is not stressed and drug use is high. Affirmative action might help a young black person who wants to move up. Great. It won't do anything for the white kid. In fact, it will make it that much harder. The young white kid is lumped in with the Kennedy's and Bush's who's families have benefited the most, and face no real threat from affirmative action.
Successful black families get a hand up, unsuccessful black families have a better chance, successful while families (like mine) don't have much of a threat. But if you are white, and come from a less than stellar family background... you have less opportunities available.
And any time a black person gets a chance over a white? Whether it is true or not, the white guy is thinking "affirmative action screwed me". How is this bringing reconcilliation between the races? And as to it "not being racist"... sorry... look up the definition of the word. With all due respect, your rationalization is highly dependent on your political viewpoint, not an objective definition. Not saying your political goals are wrong... in many ways they are admirable. But if you have to research the state of the black community to undertand it, then you don't see the whole less-fortunate class up close every day. It is more of a "green" versus "not green" class, not as much black v white.
Want to know the biggest thing holding down folks? A welfare system that rewards not working. I don't want to see welfare go away... but I would like to see more Clinton-era type reforms to the system. Problem is, the Democrats would rather be the party of "hand out more money to more people", and the Republicans want everyone "to pull themselves up by their bootstraps", ignoring the physical impossibility of the statement.
Raise my taxes to provide better schools in the inner city. I would not mind. Help them at a younger age (I was working with one 5 year old neighborhood kid... teaching him to count to 10... really freaking sad). Hold parents accountable when their kids aren't going to school... or are out at midnight. But don't make it a race thing.
In my mind, affirmative action is racist. Also, in my mind, affirmative action is driving a deeper wedge between black and white... not helping it.
Please tell me why Person A who has a better aptitude and skill set for something should be beat out by Person B because of race? It is racism plain and simple.
And yes, there are qualified black and female IT professionals. But they are a small percentage of the entire IT workforce. When you limit youself to a small percentage of the workforce, you will get a smaller percentage of qualified personnel.
The fact is the civil service is sexist and racist. If I reversed the scoring procedures (add points for male, and white) you would have numerous lawsuits filed.
My point isn't that there aren't qualified black and female candidates. It is that the hiring process is NOT based on best candidate. You can't argue that it is.
Please re-read my post. I never said it wasn't a smart choice. I only said the smartness wasn't the reason they made the choice. In my experience, the decisions are made by folks who only understand "if I don't have to pay for 5000 licenses @ $200/year, I save $1,000,000 per year". That's how IT decisions are made by most large companies, for better or for worse.
If you will note in another message in this thread, I support going open-source. I do not disagree with your reasoning. However, the gp's comparing it to the liberation of people in the revolutionary war, and closed-source as fascism is taking it a bit far. Some folks need perspective.
Do you really take open-source word processing vs closed-source this seriously? Or are you trying to be over-the top sarcastic funny? I have a hard time telling some times.
No, they aren't. They are looking for ways to meet budgets. Not that this is a bad thing. They see their annual expenditure on IT and look for a way to cut costs. Open Source has been big news the past couple years (outside of geek circles). PHB thinks "hmmm this might be a good idea" In this case, PHB is right.
I also have seen the quality of tech support in several local gov't situation. Usually below industry pay rate (but nice benefits). And the hiring process favors women, minorities, those with prior civil service experience and military background. Some of the dumbest folks you ever want to meet are working for your local gov't. I had one "sys admin" forward me an e-mail about a dangerous file on my system that I had to delete... turned out to be a critical windows file.
So point is, this decision wasn't made based upon tech savvy. It was made based upon cost.
Wow. Yours got a +4 Insightful. The original got a +5 Funny. Someone else post quick while there is still an "interesting" mod to be had :)
Agreed. The IDE takes a bit of getting used to, that's for sure. But it is such a productivity booster... .. the only downside. So much is hidden from the user by default. Someone can get themselves into trouble and not understand what is happening. If you do not have a foundation into how things work, it will remain a black box to that user. It is dangerous to turn over the keys to those developers...
I use VSS because I am a one man shop. I also have nightly tape backup to cover myself.
Why in the WORLD would you use VSS for something as complex as what you are working on?
90% of the comments I've read so far are either entirely or partially "omfg... microsoft suks!". However, read the entrie article, and you are faced with an interesting siutation.
Software always has to strike a balance point... between features, quality, cost and timing. All software does (sans Duke Nukem Forever). Microsoft has been very good at getting product out there with the feature sets people want (Microsoft is also very good at manipulating folks into getting folks to want what they are able to deliver). Now, they are at a cross-road. Continue their current coding model, and get the next couple versions out there (relatively) inexpensively and quickly, or bite the bullet, and try a new way that will make them competitive for serval versions.
Seems like an easy choice. But here you have thousands of developers who style is being crimped. Software engineers generally want to write code, not have constraints placed on them. Add to the fact that Google is gobbling up the best and brightest, and suddenly you wonder: If Microsoft forges forward, do they lose even more of their best engineers. They may have a better model for code depelopment, but will they have the best coders to move forward with?
Which leads to the final question: Does Microsoft really need the "best and brightest" anymore? If so, do they need as many (percentage terms) as they used to? Their products are mostly in the mature stage. Can a few intellectuals keep the ship moving forward. Despite what groupthink on Slashdot may indicate, 90% of coding is not revolutionary, or even evolutionary.
Just some things to think about and watch for over the next few years.
You are right. From the article: Mr. Allchin had announced to hundreds of Windows engineers that they would "reset" Longhorn using a clean base of code that had been developed for a version of Windows on corporate server computers.
Sounds like they had a "base" windows to start with (something not available to anyone else?!?! Probably handles the very essentials. From there, they built on the code base.
So no, it wasn't entirely from scratch. There is no way you'd WANT to start totally from scratch. This is more of a case of the poster reading a few paragraphs, not thinking, and putting an extreme "summary" together based on that lack of reading.
And any money you donated to charity is because McDonald's is the only fast food shop in town.
How long have you been on Slashdot? And you still feed the trolls? This is one of the more blatant trolls...
Then write one.
Yeah... cause if I can get hold of your keyboard, I would never think to add a keystroke logging device. You can get them cheap, attach to the cord going to the case, and viola.... 100% reliable.
Try 28.8k bps.
High School? I'm in my thirties! I've been out of high school for three years now.
"MyLongNickName and other humor watchdogs have noticed a continuous increase in new serious replies which are submitted, almost synchronously with sarcastic messages" -- Slashdot News
Do a thousand Slashdotters really have jobs?
I was just going to yell "Karma Whore!", but the stupid 2 minutes between posts rule gave me way too much time to think of something like this....
I am glad to know that if Microsoft gets Slashdotted, we have this cut and paste to refer to. We all know Saturday morning in the U.S. is the heaviest traffic time, and that Microsoft runs its servers off of 486's with 32 megs of ram.
We have no idea how you beat out all the subscribers, and got around the 404's. But somehow, undoubtedly through minutes of perserverence, you were able to get the job done. And in your rush to provide this service, you were STILL able to make sure it was formatted nicely. Well done.
If it weren't for you, therer is absolutely no way I could have read this fine article. I Thank you and your country thanks you.
Finally, all of the Microsoft vulnerabilities have been fixed. No more work to do.
In your face, LINUX!
Yup. This is exactly my rememberence of the game as well. I couldn't even identify most of the objects on the screen.
There was one part where you kinda levitated up, and there was this artificial ceiling with a hole the moved along it. You had to somehow exit it. Yet even when you hit the hole, you failed and came back down.
Not sure how someone beats it in three minutes, unless the secret point of the game was to see how long it took before you pulled it out of your Atari and threw it in the garbage disposal.
while others will be smart enough to keep their beliefs to themselves.
What is funny is you don't realize you just put yourself down.
Actually, I would like to see each voter have to complete a short multiple-choice test on the opinions of the candidate for whom they are voting, and discounting all votes from people who get less than 70% - if you don't know what your representative stands for, then you have no business electing them to represent you.
They had similar tests in the U.S. South. Called 'Jim Crow' laws. Wiki it if you have time.