Anyone who starts their premise with a misoginistic overgeneralization isn't going to impress me with what follows.
When I interview for my organization, my primary interest is skills set and general manners and attitude. Some hyper aggressive alpha type who thinks he deserves a higher salary because of his real or imagined charisma and self confidence is not Going to impress me, and might actually do himself some harm. I've worked with people like that, and they are, to be quite blunt, fucking terrible, because they tend to view all interpersonal interactions as a contest that they need to win.
AAT my organization you get pad commiserate with your skills and experience and team players and solid leaders see advancement, while the hyper competitive types, who are so often toxic to the team, and shockingly often not nearly as talented as they think, are shown the door if they can't moderate their behavior.
Agreed. It was the best possible defense, considering the moron scrawled a confessional on the boat he was hiding under. The defense's only hope is to make him out to be a brainwashed follower, with the conveniently dead older brother as some sort of Mansonesque terrorist supergenius.
This isn't just about standards like RFCs and IEEE standards. This is about UI changes, about changes in functionality. The substantial differences in how the Windows 8.x UIs work as opposed to every version of Windows from Windows 95 to Windows 7 is a good example of how major changes in even the appearance of a GUI can have ramifications. The enterprise world is clearly unconvinced of Windows 8.1, which is why I can call up any one of a dozen suppliers right now and order a Windows machine not only with Windows 7 downgrade rights, but with Windows 7 actually installed (and I just did, last week).
The enterprise world is simply not as tolerant of massive UI changes. Enterprise desktops and servers are not smartphones and tablets, and productivity, at least in the short term, can be radically effected by even moderate UI changes.
You clearly didn't spend much time around Windows 95. It was obnoxiously unstable. I worked for a small ISP from the mid-90s until around 2006, and I remember the hell that was the Windows 95 TCP/IP stack, where I got to be a master at leading even neophytes through the Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel to uninstall and reinstall TCP/IP just so they could dial up and get a network connection. I remember frequent crashes, memory leaks and the general instability of 95.
They didn't really clean things up until Windows 98, and within a couple of years of Windows 98 coming out, the number of tech calls I got over Windows issues dropped pretty substantially.
Windows 95 was a massive kludge to get a 32 bit OS into the consumer market before any competition (there was a time when OS/2 was seen as a serious threat). It was a rush job.
It's also an anathema to the enterprise world, where stability is valued over gimmick. Why does MS think that all those Pro versions of Windows 8/8.1 ended up being downgraded to Windows 7?
The last thing I want for my organization is to have to face a major OS facelift every year because MS feels like chasing Google and Apple's tails. MS really has lost the sense of who uses its OS.
Considering the number of men who have achieved high station who were utterly unsuitable, why is suitability only ow a big issue when a female candidate enters the fray?
But really, "vote for me because I'm a woman" is no different than "vote for me because I'm a Christian" or "vote for me because I'm a conservative". If one is wrong, then all are wrong. If ability is what you want, then I'd say the bulk of political systems in the industrialized world are built completely wrong. Instead of choosing some sort of technocratic governing expert, we choose people based on the best slogan, the best hair, and the best attack ads. But oh no, we can't ever ever choose a politician because their women. Suddenly it's all about merit.
In a society that believes in liberty and equality (what was everything from the 13th Amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1968 but an attempt to fulfill that promise to all citizens), what is wrong about a member of a group that has traditionally been denied high office, and is only now having a true shot at the highest office, proclaiming their membership in that group? For chrissakes sake, you've got genuine demagogues like Ted Cruz running around declaring his suitability for office largely based on hisreligious beliefs, and a pack of Tea Party types who seem to support him precisely because he so strongly identifies himself with them.
But oh no, if Hillary Clinton's supporters point out she has two X chromosomes, why that's a violation of this high notion of merit, that the other side ignores frequently (how else does one explain a rich man's alcoholic halfwit son becoming Leader of the Free World).
And I'm sure legalizing interracial marriage was attack on the religious rights of God-fearing Southern Baptists.
Don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone who shares your gender. But why should your not liking gay marriage translate into gays being forbidden to marry?
Have you ever considered the possibility that all those years of misconduct by Microsoft have sowed a considerable amount of distrust in the developer community, and that even where Microsoft has turned over a new leaf, so vile was its conduct "back in the day" (which ain't all that long ago, if you think about the OOXML open standard scam), that it might take years, or maybe never, to convince a lot of people that there isn't some evil plan in the works.
Give me one good fucking reason why I should ever trust Microsoft again?
Indeed. I have written several cross-platform Java apps and utilities that run just fine on Windows, Linux or Mac boxes. One can certainly write Java programs that are locked to one platform, but I've ever seen the need.
It would take a delusional lunatic not to know the long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors. Microsoft isn't trustworthy, and as there are alternatives to.NET, the easiest way to protect against future bad behavior by Microsoft is to use those alternatives. Why risk future woes when you have no need to?
"All but insuring" is not the same as "impossible." I wouldn't touch Mono or any other.NET runtime or compiler with a ten foot pole. There are other cross-platform/cross-architecture development tools out there, so one can completely avoid.NET and still write software that runs on all major platforms. In fact, pushing.NET in the way you do makes me rather suspicious. There's nothing Microsoft would love better than heavy entrenchment in other platforms so it can be turning the screws.
Microsoft has many times expressed its visceral hatred of open source. It is not to be trusted, not ten years ago, not five years not, not today, not ever.
There are other ways to develop cross platform code that don't require putting the loaded gun of Microsoft's dubious anti-litigation commitment to your head..NET simply isn't so good that I'd put my fate in Redmond's hands.
I can't imagine being sentenced to nearly two decades in prison over $30,000 bucks. It's like committing an armed robbery for a couple of packs of cigarettes.
Frankly, the kind of person that frightens me the most is the person who believes deeply in their causes. If they're working for non-profits or as private individuals, fantastic, but put them in power, particularly high office, and you have an inflexible individual often incapable of compromise. The Tea Party is an awfully good example of this; people who sincerely believe in the absolute rightness of their cause, and viewing compromise (which is what politics in a democracy is all about) as a betrayal of their beliefs.
Pragmatism, too, can go too far, but at the end of the day I'd rather have people who can drop ideology down a notch and approach politics as a statesman's craft. Perhaps the majority will never be truly happy, but to my mind the notion of a majority is a false one, largely constructed out of artificial archetypes.
No one can force you to use the GPL. If you're using someone else's software that has been licensed under GPL, then yesz but then, that's not actually your software.
Not as bad a pack of bullshit as what you wrote. If a different team is delayed by a year in implementing an "open" standard, that tells you just how ridiculous the standard is. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who starts their premise with a misoginistic overgeneralization isn't going to impress me with what follows.
When I interview for my organization, my primary interest is skills set and general manners and attitude. Some hyper aggressive alpha type who thinks he deserves a higher salary because of his real or imagined charisma and self confidence is not Going to impress me, and might actually do himself some harm. I've worked with people like that, and they are, to be quite blunt, fucking terrible, because they tend to view all interpersonal interactions as a contest that they need to win.
AAT my organization you get pad commiserate with your skills and experience and team players and solid leaders see advancement, while the hyper competitive types, who are so often toxic to the team, and shockingly often not nearly as talented as they think, are shown the door if they can't moderate their behavior.
I dunno. Sounds to me like a good way to weed out sociopaths.
He was in the US legally, and thus is afforded the same Constitutional protections as any other perp.
Agreed. It was the best possible defense, considering the moron scrawled a confessional on the boat he was hiding under. The defense's only hope is to make him out to be a brainwashed follower, with the conveniently dead older brother as some sort of Mansonesque terrorist supergenius.
This isn't just about standards like RFCs and IEEE standards. This is about UI changes, about changes in functionality. The substantial differences in how the Windows 8.x UIs work as opposed to every version of Windows from Windows 95 to Windows 7 is a good example of how major changes in even the appearance of a GUI can have ramifications. The enterprise world is clearly unconvinced of Windows 8.1, which is why I can call up any one of a dozen suppliers right now and order a Windows machine not only with Windows 7 downgrade rights, but with Windows 7 actually installed (and I just did, last week).
The enterprise world is simply not as tolerant of massive UI changes. Enterprise desktops and servers are not smartphones and tablets, and productivity, at least in the short term, can be radically effected by even moderate UI changes.
You clearly didn't spend much time around Windows 95. It was obnoxiously unstable. I worked for a small ISP from the mid-90s until around 2006, and I remember the hell that was the Windows 95 TCP/IP stack, where I got to be a master at leading even neophytes through the Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel to uninstall and reinstall TCP/IP just so they could dial up and get a network connection. I remember frequent crashes, memory leaks and the general instability of 95.
They didn't really clean things up until Windows 98, and within a couple of years of Windows 98 coming out, the number of tech calls I got over Windows issues dropped pretty substantially.
Windows 95 was a massive kludge to get a 32 bit OS into the consumer market before any competition (there was a time when OS/2 was seen as a serious threat). It was a rush job.
It's also an anathema to the enterprise world, where stability is valued over gimmick. Why does MS think that all those Pro versions of Windows 8/8.1 ended up being downgraded to Windows 7?
The last thing I want for my organization is to have to face a major OS facelift every year because MS feels like chasing Google and Apple's tails. MS really has lost the sense of who uses its OS.
You have demonstrated you have no idea what prediction means in science
Plate tectonics disproves man-made earthquakes! Everyone knows the earth is always moving!
Considering the number of men who have achieved high station who were utterly unsuitable, why is suitability only ow a big issue when a female candidate enters the fray?
But really, "vote for me because I'm a woman" is no different than "vote for me because I'm a Christian" or "vote for me because I'm a conservative". If one is wrong, then all are wrong. If ability is what you want, then I'd say the bulk of political systems in the industrialized world are built completely wrong. Instead of choosing some sort of technocratic governing expert, we choose people based on the best slogan, the best hair, and the best attack ads. But oh no, we can't ever ever choose a politician because their women. Suddenly it's all about merit.
In a society that believes in liberty and equality (what was everything from the 13th Amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1968 but an attempt to fulfill that promise to all citizens), what is wrong about a member of a group that has traditionally been denied high office, and is only now having a true shot at the highest office, proclaiming their membership in that group? For chrissakes sake, you've got genuine demagogues like Ted Cruz running around declaring his suitability for office largely based on hisreligious beliefs, and a pack of Tea Party types who seem to support him precisely because he so strongly identifies himself with them.
But oh no, if Hillary Clinton's supporters point out she has two X chromosomes, why that's a violation of this high notion of merit, that the other side ignores frequently (how else does one explain a rich man's alcoholic halfwit son becoming Leader of the Free World).
And I'm sure legalizing interracial marriage was attack on the religious rights of God-fearing Southern Baptists.
Don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone who shares your gender. But why should your not liking gay marriage translate into gays being forbidden to marry?
Have you ever considered the possibility that all those years of misconduct by Microsoft have sowed a considerable amount of distrust in the developer community, and that even where Microsoft has turned over a new leaf, so vile was its conduct "back in the day" (which ain't all that long ago, if you think about the OOXML open standard scam), that it might take years, or maybe never, to convince a lot of people that there isn't some evil plan in the works.
Give me one good fucking reason why I should ever trust Microsoft again?
Indeed. I have written several cross-platform Java apps and utilities that run just fine on Windows, Linux or Mac boxes. One can certainly write Java programs that are locked to one platform, but I've ever seen the need.
It would take a delusional lunatic not to know the long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors. Microsoft isn't trustworthy, and as there are alternatives to .NET, the easiest way to protect against future bad behavior by Microsoft is to use those alternatives. Why risk future woes when you have no need to?
"All but insuring" is not the same as "impossible." I wouldn't touch Mono or any other .NET runtime or compiler with a ten foot pole. There are other cross-platform/cross-architecture development tools out there, so one can completely avoid .NET and still write software that runs on all major platforms. In fact, pushing .NET in the way you do makes me rather suspicious. There's nothing Microsoft would love better than heavy entrenchment in other platforms so it can be turning the screws.
Microsoft has many times expressed its visceral hatred of open source. It is not to be trusted, not ten years ago, not five years not, not today, not ever.
There are other ways to develop cross platform code that don't require putting the loaded gun of Microsoft's dubious anti-litigation commitment to your head. .NET simply isn't so good that I'd put my fate in Redmond's hands.
Wow... just wow.
I'm more commenting on the criminal's stupidity. So great a risk for such little reward. The punishment seems just to me.
I can't imagine being sentenced to nearly two decades in prison over $30,000 bucks. It's like committing an armed robbery for a couple of packs of cigarettes.
Frankly, the kind of person that frightens me the most is the person who believes deeply in their causes. If they're working for non-profits or as private individuals, fantastic, but put them in power, particularly high office, and you have an inflexible individual often incapable of compromise. The Tea Party is an awfully good example of this; people who sincerely believe in the absolute rightness of their cause, and viewing compromise (which is what politics in a democracy is all about) as a betrayal of their beliefs.
Pragmatism, too, can go too far, but at the end of the day I'd rather have people who can drop ideology down a notch and approach politics as a statesman's craft. Perhaps the majority will never be truly happy, but to my mind the notion of a majority is a false one, largely constructed out of artificial archetypes.
How is it you know his complaints are invalid then?
No one can force you to use the GPL. If you're using someone else's software that has been licensed under GPL, then yesz but then, that's not actually your software.
Darth Vader didn't come in all heavy handed and take over the second Darth Star's construction crew. He merely found new ways to motivate them.
Yet another way in which illegal file sharers provide a superior product.
Not as bad a pack of bullshit as what you wrote. If a different team is delayed by a year in implementing an "open" standard, that tells you just how ridiculous the standard is. End of story.