Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Code of practice? (Score 1) 227

taking pot-shots at the monumentally, epically difficult jobs of regulators is lazy comedy.

/ no, i am not a regulator, but I know what they do.

Presumably they regulate...

Regulators tend instead to end up in bed with the folks they're supposedly regulating (both literally and figuratively). Your top-tier regulators do a lot more golfing than regulating.

Comment Re:Can somebody come up with a sensible name? (Score 2) 172

A trademark is not a copyright. Intel does not "own" the word Pentium. They own the exclusive right to use the name Pentium and confusingly-similar names in connection with microprocessors and confusingly-similar products. It's possible that Pentium could be a famous mark, which would give it even broader protection, but if you discover a planet, or new creature, or new element and want to name it a "pentium," it would be difficult for them to stop you. (I'm not saying they won't try, though.)

Comment Re:Female programmers (Score 1) 608

Unless you approve of the rat race, something about how it fosters "meritocracy". But I can tell you for sure the following: highly successful people are talented, hardworking, lucky, and good at backstabbing. Only two of those attributes are objectively good (and frankly hardworking is only good in combination with talented), one is noise, and the last is downright negative. Rat races enhance the value of the two latter, and make everyone's life miserable.

But it's not my (or "society's") place to decide whether the "rat race" is good. Maybe the "rat race" leads to superior quality of legal services. Or maybe it just leads to burned out and miserable attorneys and over-billing. If the partners of a specific firm decide, "We don't like the way this rat race thing goes. We'd like to have more women in the ranks of partners to change things up," then let them try the experiment for themselves. It will either lead to a better firm or it won't. Like I said, to some extent NALP is already doing that by giving bonus smileys for women partners. So firms try to have more women partners to look better on NALP. From what I saw, the firms hire at least as many female new associates as males, and a woman who stays with the firm for seven years and gets her billable hours is practically guaranteed to make partner, just like a man. But a lot more women end up going in-house, or taking an of-counsel position so they can work part time, or doing something less conventional. I know one who started a clothing boutique and does law on the side. Another one got pregnant and decided she'd rather be a stay-at-home mom for a while. And that's my point. If they're happier doing those things than being a big-firm partner, let's not (as a society) try to push them into a place they'd rather not be. I, for one, am confident that women, as a body, are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves, taking care of themselves, and deciding what careers they do or do not want to pursue. They don't need a bunch of middle-aged white guys to social engineer them into "equality."

Comment Re:Female programmers (Score 1) 608

I think it just depends upon where you are. Here in Hicksville, midwest, I can't seem to get hired as the dogcatcher. I am female, have 10+ years of varied experience in IT at a couple of large companies, and an Information Systems degree. It would be nice if someone actually showed interest when I applied...

Well, it's not hard to see why. None of that comes close to qualifying you as a competent dog catcher.

Comment Re:Female programmers (Score 1) 608

Large disequilibrium in male-to-female employment in various fields is a cause for worry in general.

And yet we don't see the articles bemoaning the lack of men in elementary education, or talking about how we are doing a disservice to the field because we aren't attracting enough men. Because, of course, educating children is a menial job, and we want to make sure that women are represented in REAL jobs like programming and IT.

You know where women aren't underrepresented? In law school. Women are easily half (or more) of law school matriculants. But they are "underrepresented" among the partner ranks in big firms, despite the fact that big firms are eager to elect every eligible woman as a partner, because it helps their NALP scores. So why are women still "underrepresented"? In my experience, it's because many of them aren't interested in being part of the partnership rat race. And I don't blame them. I don't think we need to push more women into a place they don't want to be.

As a society, we have an obligation to ensure that capable individuals are not handicapped by sex, race, religion, or other factors that don't affect their capability. If I'm hiring, I shouldn't care that you're a black, transgendered, lesbian Muslim or whatever. I should care about your ability to do the job. But that also means I shouldn't go out of my way to hire you because you're a black, transgendered, lesbian Muslim. Social engineering doesn't belong in a meritocracy.

Comment Re:Disappointing and Puzzling (Score 1) 986

The reasons given by pj for closing down are totally unconvincing. Does she communicate day by day? Does she use the phone? Does she write letters? With the same logic she is offering for Groklaw's closure she would have to stop talking, phoning and writing. And breathing.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. It just doesn't make sense to me. Something doesn't compute.

Submission + - Groklaw closes

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: I can't actually believe what I'm reading but I'm reading a post by PJ — the brilliant lady behind Groklaw — which says that she's folding her tents and shutting Groklaw down, due to the government's surveillance of email, and lack of privacy online.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Working...