Something else. What does this quote have to do with what the "typical" woman wants in an IT field. This person seems to be an outlier with some serious issues:
"[Working in IT] is a place where I can get control that a child from a dysfunctional family wants," a 49 year-old IT operations architect, who had a traumatic childhood said. "I can make order. I can put those damn cards in the right order. I can get the syntax perfect. I can run it and have it compile cleanly. There are all of these tidiness control things that are so beautiful about programming and a computer program will not betray you. It does the same damn thing every time"
While women represent almost 60 percent of the workforce....
I question this number. Does it seem fishy?
also...
Human-resources personnel need to recognize that women have diverse values and motivations throughout their careers and tailor hiring and retention practices to fit those needs
Since when do employers tailor jobs for their employees? Don't employers post what they want the person to do and the job seekers decide whether they want to apply or not? Or is this only if employers "need" to employ more women in their IT departments.
I lived all over Venezuela for almost 2 years. Almost everyone has electricity at least. They may live in a house made of plywood and corregated tin for a roof but they do have electricity. It's not as if they're living in caves. I've never lived in any other third world countries so YMMV.
If there's an easy to search database, it eliminates the excuse that an employer "didn't know" they were illegal. An employer won't be able to look at some bad photocopy of a SSN card and with a wink and a nod claim, "Well he showed me a SSN card. How was I to know?"
I know it's popular to say that it was "illegal" wiretapping, but from what I understand, the wiretapping was between calls from the US to out of the country for the purpose of national security. The legality of this is far from clear. The FISA court cannot impead the President's constitutional powers to conduct war. Every president since the FISA court's inception have reserved the consititutional right of the President to wiretap for foreign intelligence. FISA is purely for wiretaps within the US. Contrary to what some want us to think, the President isn't listening to Aunt Betty talking about her Amish Friendship bread recipe.
Sure, Venezuela's "democracy" is a sham. So is USA's, Canada's, France's, UK's etc. It is just a matter of how bold and unapologetic the participants of the sham are. Our Western equivalents simply conduct their crookery with much fancier PR.
That's a very pessimistic view. I tend to see things, at least here in the US, with a little more hope. Of course, I'm a glass is half-full kind of guy. I just think there is a serious difference in the degree and not just the finesse of the politicians.
To paraphrase an apocryphal quote, we have the worst form of government in the world except for all the rest.
I've lived in Venezuela. The shenanigans of our politicians have nothing on Venezuelan politicians. Hugo Chavez was behind two failed coups against then president Perez back in 1992. I doubt if he's above keeping power any way he can.
This has nothing to do with Linux. I once owned a Toshiba that came with Win98 installed. I had installed Win2000 on the computer as a dual boot with the win98. Later I was having some hardware issues that fell under warranty. On the phone, the technician told me that I had to have the original Win98 on the computer. I explained that I had it but I dual boot into win2000. That wasn't good enough. It had to have the original configuration only. I hung up and called back and lied about only having win98 installed.
From their point of view, they need to have the software in a known state so that they can troubleshoot the hardware. They don't want to go to the expense of sending out a technician (I had an on-site warranty) if the problem turned out to not be hardware related and they needed to know that the technician will be familiar with the OS so they can do their troubleshooting as well.
I know it's fun to jump on the "everyone is against Linux" bandwagon but this just isn't the case in this situation.
I have heard that Obama was raised for at least part of his life as a Muslim (I think the Hillary camp broke that). Not that religion should ever matter in an election, but do you think that someone with Muslim sympathies would be a good commander-in-chief in the war on terror?
Disclaimer: I know the difference between radical Islam and the majority of Muslims, nevertheless I do think it's a valid question.
I just installed Vista Ultimate on a "vista ready" PC that I bought 2 days before vista came out. No hardware driver issues at all. The only drivers I had to download was for the microsoft web cam (the CD came only with XP drivers) and my HP All-in-one (same deal). Unfortunately the printer only has basic drivers available to it for vista and I'm waiting for the full drivers to come out but all the main functions are working great. Vista has been rock solid since I installed it with no crashes.
I just bought a Vista machine a week ago (old PC finally gave up the ghost). It runs Vista fast with all the graphics stuff turned on and I only had to pay $700 for the tower and monitor. I believe the cheapest iMac is $1000 so there's still a substantial price difference (almost 1/3).
Also, it would be a little disengenuous to ignore that the only reason the bells monopoly did not continue is because of a forcible breakup. They owned the infrastructure, and without intervention it would have taken until someone with gigantic pockets, not a smaller "savvy competitor", decided to build another system of infrastructure to compete.
That's mostly because telecon at that time was a natural monopoly and was government granted. It's different in a wide open market like software.
Monopolies are actually considered possible inefficiencies of a Free Market but they are in fact part of the free market. The argument lies in what to do with inefficiencies.
How about not giving corporations tax incentives to fire people in the US and hire people in China? How about strengthening unions and punishing union busters? How about slapping the credit card companies down HARD? How about making tariffs on goods on a tit-for-tat basis? How about an understanding that human beings are not commodities, and neither are their jobs?
I don't argue with anything that you've said, though you've gone beyond the original discussion of purchasing being better than saving. Nevertheless it doesn't negate my points. Every single time supply-side (Kennedy, Reagan, Bush) has been put into effect we have had the rich get richer and the poor get richer too. We have the richest poor in the world in this country with the most opportunity for upward mobility. Isn't America great?
The big problem I have with your type of person....
I'm sure you've got me all figured out but I think if we really talked about a larger breadth of topics, you'd find we agree far more than we disagree.
For good or bad, the poor definitely can borrow money. Why do you think debt is so high among the poor (as well as the more affluent)?
The poor benefit through the expanded economy. With a larger economy there are more jobs for the poor to work and at higher wages. There are also more opportunities through retraining and education through a larger economy.
You might call this trickle-down or "pissing-on" is your phrase of choice but what is your alternative? You state over and over that purchasing things is better for the economy than saving (investment). How does purchasing that HDTV help the poor more than saving (investing)? I just don't get your line of reasoning.
Banks wouldn't be in business if they kept the all the money locked up in some vault. The money is leant out to everyone else. A good portion of it goes to small businesses as well as large businesses. They use the money to increase their ability to produce (machines, fleet vehicles, tools, land, warehouses, etc.) With the increased ability to produce comes more sales and more jobs which increases the whole country's GDP. The rest of the money from banks is leant out to regular people for purchases like cars, houses, home improvements, computers, etc. There is absolutely no downside to putting your money in the bank (or other investments) and there's no better way to help the economy.
I absolutely agree. That's why I mentioned not keeping it in a mattress. Saving money in a bank is one of the best places for money to be because the money is then loaned out to other people many of whom make capital purchases. Not all spending is equal. While purchasing a new HDTV big screen helps, it's not as effective as lending it to a company that makes capital purchases which increases its ability to create more wealth within the economy. Money paid in taxes and then spent does help the economy but it takes it longer and not as much as other means.
Slashdot Mirror
Something else. What does this quote have to do with what the "typical" woman wants in an IT field. This person seems to be an outlier with some serious issues:
"[Working in IT] is a place where I can get control that a child from a dysfunctional family wants," a 49 year-old IT operations architect, who had a traumatic childhood said. "I can make order. I can put those damn cards in the right order. I can get the syntax perfect. I can run it and have it compile cleanly. There are all of these tidiness control things that are so beautiful about programming and a computer program will not betray you. It does the same damn thing every time"
While women represent almost 60 percent of the workforce....
I question this number. Does it seem fishy?
also...
Human-resources personnel need to recognize that women have diverse values and motivations throughout their careers and tailor hiring and retention practices to fit those needs
Since when do employers tailor jobs for their employees? Don't employers post what they want the person to do and the job seekers decide whether they want to apply or not? Or is this only if employers "need" to employ more women in their IT departments.
I lived all over Venezuela for almost 2 years. Almost everyone has electricity at least. They may live in a house made of plywood and corregated tin for a roof but they do have electricity. It's not as if they're living in caves. I've never lived in any other third world countries so YMMV.
If there's an easy to search database, it eliminates the excuse that an employer "didn't know" they were illegal. An employer won't be able to look at some bad photocopy of a SSN card and with a wink and a nod claim, "Well he showed me a SSN card. How was I to know?"
I know it's popular to say that it was "illegal" wiretapping, but from what I understand, the wiretapping was between calls from the US to out of the country for the purpose of national security. The legality of this is far from clear. The FISA court cannot impead the President's constitutional powers to conduct war. Every president since the FISA court's inception have reserved the consititutional right of the President to wiretap for foreign intelligence. FISA is purely for wiretaps within the US. Contrary to what some want us to think, the President isn't listening to Aunt Betty talking about her Amish Friendship bread recipe.
I said the metric system is the tool of the devil... My Internet connection gets 40 rods to the hog's head, and that's the way I likes it!
So your machine only reboots on you when you're not looking once a month instead of every single day!
To paraphrase an apocryphal quote, we have the worst form of government in the world except for all the rest.
I've lived in Venezuela. The shenanigans of our politicians have nothing on Venezuelan politicians. Hugo Chavez was behind two failed coups against then president Perez back in 1992. I doubt if he's above keeping power any way he can.
My brother-in-law wanted to become an OB nurse. He was told by a prof that it'd probably be almost impossible to get a job. He changed to dentistry.
Correlation is not causation.
It's real easy to see if a model works. Plug in historical data and see if it accurately predicts today. They don't.
As soon as they can plug in past variables into those simulators and get today's temperatures will I believe that the models are worth anything.
This has nothing to do with Linux. I once owned a Toshiba that came with Win98 installed. I had installed Win2000 on the computer as a dual boot with the win98. Later I was having some hardware issues that fell under warranty. On the phone, the technician told me that I had to have the original Win98 on the computer. I explained that I had it but I dual boot into win2000. That wasn't good enough. It had to have the original configuration only. I hung up and called back and lied about only having win98 installed.
From their point of view, they need to have the software in a known state so that they can troubleshoot the hardware. They don't want to go to the expense of sending out a technician (I had an on-site warranty) if the problem turned out to not be hardware related and they needed to know that the technician will be familiar with the OS so they can do their troubleshooting as well.
I know it's fun to jump on the "everyone is against Linux" bandwagon but this just isn't the case in this situation.
I have heard that Obama was raised for at least part of his life as a Muslim (I think the Hillary camp broke that). Not that religion should ever matter in an election, but do you think that someone with Muslim sympathies would be a good commander-in-chief in the war on terror?
Disclaimer: I know the difference between radical Islam and the majority of Muslims, nevertheless I do think it's a valid question.
I just installed Vista Ultimate on a "vista ready" PC that I bought 2 days before vista came out. No hardware driver issues at all. The only drivers I had to download was for the microsoft web cam (the CD came only with XP drivers) and my HP All-in-one (same deal). Unfortunately the printer only has basic drivers available to it for vista and I'm waiting for the full drivers to come out but all the main functions are working great. Vista has been rock solid since I installed it with no crashes.
I just bought a Vista machine a week ago (old PC finally gave up the ghost). It runs Vista fast with all the graphics stuff turned on and I only had to pay $700 for the tower and monitor. I believe the cheapest iMac is $1000 so there's still a substantial price difference (almost 1/3).
Monopolies are actually considered possible inefficiencies of a Free Market but they are in fact part of the free market. The argument lies in what to do with inefficiencies.
People have different preferences. That's what makes the free market work. Thank goodness we have choices!
So when do we start requiring people to start taking responsibility for themselves?
For good or bad, the poor definitely can borrow money. Why do you think debt is so high among the poor (as well as the more affluent)?
The poor benefit through the expanded economy. With a larger economy there are more jobs for the poor to work and at higher wages. There are also more opportunities through retraining and education through a larger economy.
You might call this trickle-down or "pissing-on" is your phrase of choice but what is your alternative? You state over and over that purchasing things is better for the economy than saving (investment). How does purchasing that HDTV help the poor more than saving (investing)? I just don't get your line of reasoning.
Banks wouldn't be in business if they kept the all the money locked up in some vault. The money is leant out to everyone else. A good portion of it goes to small businesses as well as large businesses. They use the money to increase their ability to produce (machines, fleet vehicles, tools, land, warehouses, etc.) With the increased ability to produce comes more sales and more jobs which increases the whole country's GDP. The rest of the money from banks is leant out to regular people for purchases like cars, houses, home improvements, computers, etc. There is absolutely no downside to putting your money in the bank (or other investments) and there's no better way to help the economy.
I absolutely agree. That's why I mentioned not keeping it in a mattress. Saving money in a bank is one of the best places for money to be because the money is then loaned out to other people many of whom make capital purchases. Not all spending is equal. While purchasing a new HDTV big screen helps, it's not as effective as lending it to a company that makes capital purchases which increases its ability to create more wealth within the economy. Money paid in taxes and then spent does help the economy but it takes it longer and not as much as other means.