As about half of the 86 comments posted so far have said, there's no traditional definition of whats the difference between CTO and CIO.
There's also traditionally no difference between IS and IT. I've worked for companies with IS departments and companies with IT departments. One was an IT department with a CIO, one was an IS with a CTO, and I've seen plenty with those switched. I'm presently working in a company where the CIO is responsible for the internal IT department AND the external Customer Service department which are two completely separate functions, except that they relate to computers.
I've seen CIO used a lot more than CTO. My guess is the decision to create the CTO title was based on those companies who have internal and external information technology needs and were too different for one person to concentrate on (or was too much work for one person to work on).
Whatever you do, however, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT get caught up in defining your Title before defining the role. Define the role first, give it a title that sounds snazzy, then get on with your life. No two CIOs/CTOs are exactly alike.
Blizzard has year after year claimed that whenever there was a delay in a release, or they couldn't give you a specific time frame for a release, that it was due to bug squashing and in general "ensuring a high quality release".
And year after year the release of their games shows how that is utter BS.
The incidents of bugs and imbalances in their games has become more and more apparent. The Diablo series, while a masterpiece of story telling, is a shoddy example of programming. Diablo 1 was AWFUL. It appeared to be very ahead of its time, but it was easily hacked and quickly became very unfun as the guy next door hacked his character to have every advantage under the sun while you tried to work your way up "honestly". Diablo 1 quickly became a $50 chat program.
Diablo 2 solved a lot of design problems, and while there are still some balance problems (gee, 48 of 50 top ladder players are barbarians? go figure) its a far more fun game no matter what character you play. They had a lot of good ideas, which outweight most of the bad ones, which aren't too common.
However, the quality has suffered severely. With every patch that fixes something they break something else.
First they find out that one skill's range is broken. Then they fix this by redesigning the way the game calculates range. They release a patch, and end up breaking 3 other skills' ranges, plus 1 more skill in a way that has nothing to do with range!!! What kind of QA is this?
Someone open source this puppy because obviously Blizzard can't do it themselves.
Be careful with this idea. Make sure at all the interviews you carefully point out that you refused to take the promotion because of the annoyance, pain and trouble it would cause you at THIS job, and don't make it sound like you don't want to be a manager in general. You may put some corporate types off if you phrase it wrong and then they'll think you are just saying "I don't want to be a manager because being a manager sucks". We know that and you know that but we don't want the suits in on it;)
Katz, why do you do this? First you find a conclusion and then you apply logic to reach that conclusion.
Gamers are nothing special. Nor are they some kind of new breed as you continue to note.
Gamers are humans. There are a lot of good gamers, and a lot of bad gamers.
Good gamers tend to be more creative, often have better physical reflexes, are very open minded.
Bad gamers are just as whiny, annoying, and wasteful as other below average human beings.
You have taken an elite group, those "good gamers" and called them gamers as if they are the only gamers in the world. This is the number one flaw in your logic that you continue to commit to. Otherwise this article isn't nearly as bad as others.
It still tries to paint gaming as something more than it is. Good Gaming is a result, not a cause, of creative thinking and reasoning. Some gamers who even look like they can play the game well are in fact the type of people are just stuck in a rut.
One thing I've noticed is that lots of gamers simply try everything. They spend their entire weekend without sleep just working on something to find some trick or trap. A creative person may be able to find that secret in a few hours. An average gamer will spend the whole weekend. They both found it, one took longer... who's more creative?
Jon, do us a favor and go to journalism school. I mean, are you TRYING to be a John Dvorak clone???????
This whole moral panic this is interesting, but I have two things to comment on
1) Moral panic is a clever synonym (damn this english language) for labeling the attitudes of the older generation towards the younger generation.
2) There is no "panic", this is the way its always been.
Humans by nature reject change overall. The only humans that do are human maverics in their fields(either philosophically, economically, politically, or scientifically), or young people. The young have no reference to "the way things were". Therefore when you change something, its no big deal. The older you are and the longer things have been a certain way for you, the more likely you will reject something different.
This isn't panic, this is a refusal to analyze and understand.
My son loves Pokemon. Personally I can do without them. But I understand (perhaps too well, it's scary) why my son enjoys them. I buy them for him because its a good sane collecting hobby, it de-emphasizes bloody violence for good old fashioned rough-housing and competition (you'd be surprised how kids can easily understand the differences in these concepts), and it gives him something in common with a lot of kids he wouldn't otherwise have.
My grandmother doesn't understand anime or Pokemon because her brain refuses to accept an attempt at analysis.
This is the human condition and it has existed for eons. Its not something new. Nor it is a panic.
You know what, a lot of people claim that those 19000 ballots that were disqualified were simply punched by stupid people. I might agree with that if it weren't for one simple fact. All 19000 of those ballots were in ONE county! I don't care if it was a county of 20000 or two million, thats WRONG. 19000 state wide in florida I could understand, but all in one county? Someone fucked up, pure and simple, and it wasn't the people who cast the ballots.
And heaven forbid YOU (you meaning those of you who have blasted people as being stupid for making this kind of mistake) ever make a mistake that you can't reverse. Sheesh if 19000 people can make a mistake like this than so can you! If you are one of the arrogant/.ers who believes they are infallable, I can't wait until you get into a car accident and the law declares you are at fault when you thought you did everything right.
In any case, I think all ballots in broward county need to be thrown out and then the county recast. Its the only fair thing to do.
He's also right that we need a standardized election method. Every state/county/district needs a voting booth with levers. They are simply, easy, effective, and you can fix mistakes easily. You can't fix mistakes on punchcards.
The present method is both quick and easy, however, and a paper method is far less prone to tampering with all the controls we've established now.
finally, what most people are failing to realize is that the difference between who voted for gore and who voted for bush is statistically insignificant!!!!! We are split down the middle and at this point it doesn't matter who gets elected because it won't reflect a majority of voters. It will matter economically and socially in that I believe one candidate is better on that than the other but I won't say who.
But what he says made sense way back when and it still makes sense.
The greatest annoyance that the founding fathers left us was the system of States. Since the first constitutional talks, states were constantly fighting over who had the power. Large states wanted to leverage their population, and small states wanted to have a say without getting drowned out.
Now states have continued this tradition in being highly segregated in terms of politics. New Jersey is different from New Yort is Different from Connecticut even though they are all right next to each other. In fact often the take slight advantage of each other (note Connecticut has no sales tax so everyone shops there instead of in New York in order to save money)!
However, New York has a much higher population. Whats to say connecticut doesn't have some valid reasons for letting their views be represented in a presidential election and not get drowned out by the millions of people who live in new york?
Now that he posted this i understand the college completely.
And the fact remains that the founding fathers knew one thing: The state system is really fucked up but we have to compensate for it because the small states are gonna whine about the big states!
So the problem can be fixed by abolishing states rights so we can stop all this whining about who is more important in this country and get on with our lives. Try mentioning the phrase "we should abolish states rights" in a restaurant in Texas or South Carolina and see how many people want to kill ya. I dare ya:)
And I will not support a Candidate that does not protect the most fundamental right that the election process in its very existence helps to guarantee...... Choice.
I chose a president that will preserve that choice.
Conspiracies don't happen in corporations...
on
The Myth Of The Borg
·
· Score: 1
You don't need a conspiracy to get money in this economy. Sure you have some Savings and loan scandals, but these people can and do get caught. Its the legal stuff that you have to watch out for.
The bottom line is, don't attribute anything to maliciousness or evil that you can easily attribute to stupidity.
Tommy Jones in Men in Black said it best. "A person is smart, people are dumb, lazy, greedy, and easily spooked". And thats the way it is in our society.
I can't believe Drudge didn't post this earlier. This rumor is at least 6 months old. As a follower of Mac news this is something that was posted to mac news rumor sites at the beginning of the year and it was there was no basis for it then either.
These Drudge guys just managed to get a bunch of hits for posting old news. Maybe they expected people to believe it this time around.
It varies from organization to organization. I've never been involved in creating a help desk from the ground up but I have been involved in pushing it forward, especially recently.
In the past I usually worked in IT departments, some good and some bad. At one job I had, I was in a department of less than a dozen people, including managers, interns, and sys admins and almost no complaints.
The next company was probably the same size as the first, but we had a huge IT department and we were swamped. The network and computer systems were plagued by problems, all of our procedures were half assed, and no-one in the company was happy.
Now we come to my present position which staffing is a hot topic. We have two products company wide. One runs an AIX solution, one runs an NT solution. The AIX has been around (in various forms not always on AIX) for 30 years. the NT solution is approaching 3. We have about 2000 AIX customers and 100 NT customers.
I'd say that we have about 2 dozen support reps for the AIX product. We have 4 for the NT product. You'd think looking at the ratios the AIX people would be more busy. In fact its the NT people that are more busy.
The AIX solution had the benefit of a slowly evolving life cycle and a basis in UNIX and a better design for our customers as a "total turnkey solution". We come out, we install it, we support all of it, you type in your data and go.
We created the NT solution quickly, pushed it to soon to market, and it relies on our customers being knowledgeable in the technology and support it themselves as much as we do. We support our application as part of the contract, but if NT fails, you are on your own. Most of our customers know nothing about this system, but with a turnkey solution, they can always get help. With the NT solution, their are billions of possibilities and we can't support them all.
The NT product is plagued with bugs, poor design, and works on a system that anything could go wrong with. We have a number of installation options, but many of those options break the third party integration tools we have. Our processes continue to evolve because upper management pushes development so fast that they can never properly test everything. We limit our support options which forces us to point fingers at whats wrong, and then we complain "I don't know how to fix this its not my area", and then we battle with other departments while figuring out where to send issues. All the while our customers suffer.
And then there is our technology. We have an excellent support system in place to help customers via the web. Unfortunately we have another simpler system via the phone most of our customers fall back on because they are lazy and that one sucks.
All in all we do a bang up job given that most everything else around us is no help, so we get overworked.
its not always about customer to support rep ratios. Its about setting up a way to do work and then filling it with the people that you need to complete the work in a sane amount of time. That means a good support system, good policies on how to handle calls/cases, technology that is easy to support, processes to work with other departments to solve issues, etc etc.
Its best to start with a level you think will fit the bill just right and then try to analyze the trends when your customer support base grows. So look at your past and see where you are going.
You are POSTING to a virtual community right now JonKatz. DUH.
Another example of MANY successful virtual communities is IRC. There are thousands of channels each with their own specific topic and personality. Regulars are very common in these channels and are accompanied by web sites with more information, and sometimes even file servers.
MUDs/MUSHs/MUCKs are another good example. Slashdot is an excellent example!
What JonWhatBSShallIPostTodayKatz and others are probably seeing is Virtual communities crumbling because their members leave when they get bored, annoyed, angry, or whatever. This happens a lot on IRC due to the political nature of being what they call an Op, or channel operator. The fact that they existed for an extended period of time means that they were a success, not a failure!!
If you are thinking that a successful community is one that starts up and remains in existance until the end of time, you are wrong. Now in Darwinian terms yes, the community didn't survive so social forces made it collapse and it failed. True, but this and other articles attempts to paint the picture that virtual communities never get off the ground. That could not be further from the truth.
Virtual Communities are just like real ones. They just happen to be thousands of times more volatile. If you don't like your residential community, you have to sell your house, find a new one, make sure it doesn't affect your job or your kids or your wife. If you don't like a virtual community, you close the window and open a new one! There are no barriers to exit a virtual community other than those imposed by the person themself.
This means Virtual Communities can rise and fall at the drop of a hat if they don't attract new people. I see this happen all the time. I'm an avid IRC user and half the "virtual communities" I've been a part of have collapsed because others left and no one knew came to fill in those gaps. Many people simply remain in a permanent nomadic state, hopping from channel to channel every few months.
Now that I've posted that, I'm finally doing what I'm pledging to do, put JonKatz on my freakin ignore list he never knows what he's talking about.
Times "Man of the Year" or "Woman of the year" or "Thingie of the year" is not about who was the greatest or most important or who had the best 3/4 profile shot on the front of a magazine.
Its all about who was the most important newsmaker. Who made lots of news and who was the person to read about or listen radio stories or watch television spots.
Keep that in mind when you critique Times choice. There was a groundswell in the Mac community to make Steve Jobs man of the year. I certainly would call Steve Jobs a greate humanitarian. He's an arrogant Jerk who happens to be a great business man. And he made lots of news.
Man of the year is really about The press acknowledging someone they feel is important by their own criteria in there own little world. We nerds are in our own little world with our counter culture, Linux, science interests etc etc. Journalists are no less weird, they just don't think like Nerds.
It would be nice if the author posted some facts with his story. Without cold hard data this article is nothing more than grandiose(sp?) blanket statements.
Wanna talk about ethics of the computing industry? How about the ethics of the journalism industry. Publishing articles with all flash an no substance a la John Dvorak rather than reporting the facts in an honest and unbiased manner.
Slashdot Mirror
As about half of the 86 comments posted so far have said, there's no traditional definition of whats the difference between CTO and CIO. There's also traditionally no difference between IS and IT. I've worked for companies with IS departments and companies with IT departments. One was an IT department with a CIO, one was an IS with a CTO, and I've seen plenty with those switched. I'm presently working in a company where the CIO is responsible for the internal IT department AND the external Customer Service department which are two completely separate functions, except that they relate to computers. I've seen CIO used a lot more than CTO. My guess is the decision to create the CTO title was based on those companies who have internal and external information technology needs and were too different for one person to concentrate on (or was too much work for one person to work on). Whatever you do, however, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT get caught up in defining your Title before defining the role. Define the role first, give it a title that sounds snazzy, then get on with your life. No two CIOs/CTOs are exactly alike.
Blizzard has year after year claimed that whenever there was a delay in a release, or they couldn't give you a specific time frame for a release, that it was due to bug squashing and in general "ensuring a high quality release".
And year after year the release of their games shows how that is utter BS.
The incidents of bugs and imbalances in their games has become more and more apparent. The Diablo series, while a masterpiece of story telling, is a shoddy example of programming. Diablo 1 was AWFUL. It appeared to be very ahead of its time, but it was easily hacked and quickly became very unfun as the guy next door hacked his character to have every advantage under the sun while you tried to work your way up "honestly". Diablo 1 quickly became a $50 chat program.
Diablo 2 solved a lot of design problems, and while there are still some balance problems (gee, 48 of 50 top ladder players are barbarians? go figure) its a far more fun game no matter what character you play. They had a lot of good ideas, which outweight most of the bad ones, which aren't too common.
However, the quality has suffered severely. With every patch that fixes something they break something else.
First they find out that one skill's range is broken. Then they fix this by redesigning the way the game calculates range. They release a patch, and end up breaking 3 other skills' ranges, plus 1 more skill in a way that has nothing to do with range!!! What kind of QA is this?
Someone open source this puppy because obviously Blizzard can't do it themselves.
Thats obsurd. Unless there is a movie called "Return of the King" there is no point in changing it. Hell take your pick as to the return movies:
Return of the Jedi
Return of the Dragon
Return to me
whatever....
Be careful with this idea. Make sure at all the interviews you carefully point out that you refused to take the promotion because of the annoyance, pain and trouble it would cause you at THIS job, and don't make it sound like you don't want to be a manager in general. You may put some corporate types off if you phrase it wrong and then they'll think you are just saying "I don't want to be a manager because being a manager sucks". We know that and you know that but we don't want the suits in on it ;)
Katz, why do you do this? First you find a conclusion and then you apply logic to reach that conclusion.
Gamers are nothing special. Nor are they some kind of new breed as you continue to note.
Gamers are humans. There are a lot of good gamers, and a lot of bad gamers.
Good gamers tend to be more creative, often have better physical reflexes, are very open minded.
Bad gamers are just as whiny, annoying, and wasteful as other below average human beings.
You have taken an elite group, those "good gamers" and called them gamers as if they are the only gamers in the world. This is the number one flaw in your logic that you continue to commit to. Otherwise this article isn't nearly as bad as others.
It still tries to paint gaming as something more than it is. Good Gaming is a result, not a cause, of creative thinking and reasoning. Some gamers who even look like they can play the game well are in fact the type of people are just stuck in a rut.
One thing I've noticed is that lots of gamers simply try everything. They spend their entire weekend without sleep just working on something to find some trick or trap. A creative person may be able to find that secret in a few hours. An average gamer will spend the whole weekend. They both found it, one took longer... who's more creative?
Jon, do us a favor and go to journalism school. I mean, are you TRYING to be a John Dvorak clone???????
This whole moral panic this is interesting, but I have two things to comment on
1) Moral panic is a clever synonym (damn this english language) for labeling the attitudes of the older generation towards the younger generation.
2) There is no "panic", this is the way its always been.
Humans by nature reject change overall. The only humans that do are human maverics in their fields(either philosophically, economically, politically, or scientifically), or young people. The young have no reference to "the way things were". Therefore when you change something, its no big deal. The older you are and the longer things have been a certain way for you, the more likely you will reject something different.
This isn't panic, this is a refusal to analyze and understand.
My son loves Pokemon. Personally I can do without them. But I understand (perhaps too well, it's scary) why my son enjoys them. I buy them for him because its a good sane collecting hobby, it de-emphasizes bloody violence for good old fashioned rough-housing and competition (you'd be surprised how kids can easily understand the differences in these concepts), and it gives him something in common with a lot of kids he wouldn't otherwise have.
My grandmother doesn't understand anime or Pokemon because her brain refuses to accept an attempt at analysis.
This is the human condition and it has existed for eons. Its not something new. Nor it is a panic.
You know what, a lot of people claim that those 19000 ballots that were disqualified were simply punched by stupid people. I might agree with that if it weren't for one simple fact. All 19000 of those ballots were in ONE county! I don't care if it was a county of 20000 or two million, thats WRONG. 19000 state wide in florida I could understand, but all in one county? Someone fucked up, pure and simple, and it wasn't the people who cast the ballots.
/.ers who believes they are infallable, I can't wait until you get into a car accident and the law declares you are at fault when you thought you did everything right.
And heaven forbid YOU (you meaning those of you who have blasted people as being stupid for making this kind of mistake) ever make a mistake that you can't reverse. Sheesh if 19000 people can make a mistake like this than so can you! If you are one of the arrogant
In any case, I think all ballots in broward county need to be thrown out and then the county recast. Its the only fair thing to do.
He's also right that we need a standardized election method. Every state/county/district needs a voting booth with levers. They are simply, easy, effective, and you can fix mistakes easily. You can't fix mistakes on punchcards.
The present method is both quick and easy, however, and a paper method is far less prone to tampering with all the controls we've established now.
finally, what most people are failing to realize is that the difference between who voted for gore and who voted for bush is statistically insignificant!!!!! We are split down the middle and at this point it doesn't matter who gets elected because it won't reflect a majority of voters. It will matter economically and socially in that I believe one candidate is better on that than the other but I won't say who.
But what he says made sense way back when and it still makes sense.
:)
The greatest annoyance that the founding fathers left us was the system of States. Since the first constitutional talks, states were constantly fighting over who had the power. Large states wanted to leverage their population, and small states wanted to have a say without getting drowned out.
Now states have continued this tradition in being highly segregated in terms of politics. New Jersey is different from New Yort is Different from Connecticut even though they are all right next to each other. In fact often the take slight advantage of each other (note Connecticut has no sales tax so everyone shops there instead of in New York in order to save money)!
However, New York has a much higher population. Whats to say connecticut doesn't have some valid reasons for letting their views be represented in a presidential election and not get drowned out by the millions of people who live in new york?
Now that he posted this i understand the college completely.
And the fact remains that the founding fathers knew one thing: The state system is really fucked up but we have to compensate for it because the small states are gonna whine about the big states!
So the problem can be fixed by abolishing states rights so we can stop all this whining about who is more important in this country and get on with our lives. Try mentioning the phrase "we should abolish states rights" in a restaurant in Texas or South Carolina and see how many people want to kill ya. I dare ya
And I will not support a Candidate that does not protect the most fundamental right that the election process in its very existence helps to guarantee...... Choice.
I chose a president that will preserve that choice.
You don't need a conspiracy to get money in this economy. Sure you have some Savings and loan scandals, but these people can and do get caught. Its the legal stuff that you have to watch out for.
The bottom line is, don't attribute anything to maliciousness or evil that you can easily attribute to stupidity.
Tommy Jones in Men in Black said it best. "A person is smart, people are dumb, lazy, greedy, and easily spooked". And thats the way it is in our society.
I can't believe Drudge didn't post this earlier. This rumor is at least 6 months old. As a follower of Mac news this is something that was posted to mac news rumor sites at the beginning of the year and it was there was no basis for it then either.
These Drudge guys just managed to get a bunch of hits for posting old news. Maybe they expected people to believe it this time around.
It varies from organization to organization. I've never been involved in creating a help desk from the ground up but I have been involved in pushing it forward, especially recently.
In the past I usually worked in IT departments, some good and some bad. At one job I had, I was in a department of less than a dozen people, including managers, interns, and sys admins and almost no complaints.
The next company was probably the same size as the first, but we had a huge IT department and we were swamped. The network and computer systems were plagued by problems, all of our procedures were half assed, and no-one in the company was happy.
Now we come to my present position which staffing is a hot topic. We have two products company wide. One runs an AIX solution, one runs an NT solution. The AIX has been around (in various forms not always on AIX) for 30 years. the NT solution is approaching 3. We have about 2000 AIX customers and 100 NT customers.
I'd say that we have about 2 dozen support reps for the AIX product. We have 4 for the NT product. You'd think looking at the ratios the AIX people would be more busy. In fact its the NT people that are more busy.
The AIX solution had the benefit of a slowly evolving life cycle and a basis in UNIX and a better design for our customers as a "total turnkey solution". We come out, we install it, we support all of it, you type in your data and go.
We created the NT solution quickly, pushed it to soon to market, and it relies on our customers being knowledgeable in the technology and support it themselves as much as we do. We support our application as part of the contract, but if NT fails, you are on your own. Most of our customers know nothing about this system, but with a turnkey solution, they can always get help. With the NT solution, their are billions of possibilities and we can't support them all.
The NT product is plagued with bugs, poor design, and works on a system that anything could go wrong with. We have a number of installation options, but many of those options break the third party integration tools we have. Our processes continue to evolve because upper management pushes development so fast that they can never properly test everything. We limit our support options which forces us to point fingers at whats wrong, and then we complain "I don't know how to fix this its not my area", and then we battle with other departments while figuring out where to send issues. All the while our customers suffer.
And then there is our technology. We have an excellent support system in place to help customers via the web. Unfortunately we have another simpler system via the phone most of our customers fall back on because they are lazy and that one sucks.
All in all we do a bang up job given that most everything else around us is no help, so we get overworked.
its not always about customer to support rep ratios. Its about setting up a way to do work and then filling it with the people that you need to complete the work in a sane amount of time. That means a good support system, good policies on how to handle calls/cases, technology that is easy to support, processes to work with other departments to solve issues, etc etc.
Its best to start with a level you think will fit the bill just right and then try to analyze the trends when your customer support base grows. So look at your past and see where you are going.
You are POSTING to a virtual community right now JonKatz. DUH.
Another example of MANY successful virtual communities is IRC. There are thousands of channels each with their own specific topic and personality. Regulars are very common in these channels and are accompanied by web sites with more information, and sometimes even file servers.
MUDs/MUSHs/MUCKs are another good example. Slashdot is an excellent example!
What JonWhatBSShallIPostTodayKatz and others are probably seeing is Virtual communities crumbling because their members leave when they get bored, annoyed, angry, or whatever. This happens a lot on IRC due to the political nature of being what they call an Op, or channel operator. The fact that they existed for an extended period of time means that they were a success, not a failure!!
If you are thinking that a successful community is one that starts up and remains in existance until the end of time, you are wrong. Now in Darwinian terms yes, the community didn't survive so social forces made it collapse and it failed. True, but this and other articles attempts to paint the picture that virtual communities never get off the ground. That could not be further from the truth.
Virtual Communities are just like real ones. They just happen to be thousands of times more volatile. If you don't like your residential community, you have to sell your house, find a new one, make sure it doesn't affect your job or your kids or your wife. If you don't like a virtual community, you close the window and open a new one! There are no barriers to exit a virtual community other than those imposed by the person themself.
This means Virtual Communities can rise and fall at the drop of a hat if they don't attract new people. I see this happen all the time. I'm an avid IRC user and half the "virtual communities" I've been a part of have collapsed because others left and no one knew came to fill in those gaps. Many people simply remain in a permanent nomadic state, hopping from channel to channel every few months.
Now that I've posted that, I'm finally doing what I'm pledging to do, put JonKatz on my freakin ignore list he never knows what he's talking about.
Times "Man of the Year" or "Woman of the year" or "Thingie of the year" is not about who was the greatest or most important or who had the best 3/4 profile shot on the front of a magazine.
Its all about who was the most important newsmaker. Who made lots of news and who was the person to read about or listen radio stories or watch television spots.
Keep that in mind when you critique Times choice. There was a groundswell in the Mac community to make Steve Jobs man of the year. I certainly would call Steve Jobs a greate humanitarian. He's an arrogant Jerk who happens to be a great business man. And he made lots of news.
Man of the year is really about The press acknowledging someone they feel is important by their own criteria in there own little world. We nerds are in our own little world with our counter culture, Linux, science interests etc etc. Journalists are no less weird, they just don't think like Nerds.
It would be nice if the author posted some facts with his story. Without cold hard data this article is nothing more than grandiose(sp?) blanket statements.
Wanna talk about ethics of the computing industry? How about the ethics of the journalism industry. Publishing articles with all flash an no substance a la John Dvorak rather than reporting the facts in an honest and unbiased manner.