Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House Names Google's Megan Smith As CTO

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the let's-see-about-getting-that-cable-fixed dept.

Google 75

itwbennett writes that, as expected, The White House has named long-time Google executive Megan Smith as the government's new CTO, in charge of improving technology and the use of data across agencies. Smith most recently served as vice president at Google's tech lab, Google[x]. She previously served as CEO of PlanetOut, helped design early smartphone technologies at General Magic and worked on multimedia products at Apple Japan in Tokyo. She holds bachelor's and master's degrees in mechanical engineering from MIT, and just might be, as noted in a previous Slashdot post, the first US CTO worthy of the title. Also on Thursday, the White House named Alexander Macgillivray, a former general counsel and head of public policy at Twitter, as deputy U.S. CTO.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh boy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830191)

improving technology and the use of data across agencies

That is the exact opposite of what we need right now.

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830243)

Just imagine how scary the government would be if they knew what they were doing. They'd almost be Google.

Re:Yeah (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 months ago | (#47830571)

We need pervasive American technical panopticon to keep Islamic extremism and resurgent Russian imperial aggression from destroying Oceania.

Remember, you need to doublethink plusgood if you think Snowden was good, the NSA is bad and ISIS is a threat.

Megan Smith is a lesbian (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830815)

There are thousands, if not millions of techno-savvy people inside America, why Megan Smith gets the nod and not the others?

Megan Smith's appointment as America's CTO is no surprise, as the ultra-liberal Obama administration will only appoint those people with ideology that are totally out of the left field, such as appointing people with close ties to Islamic Terrorism, and award them with high security clearances -

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014... [freedomoutpost.com]

For example -

Arif Alikhan - Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mohammed Elibiary - Homeland Security Adviser

Salam al-Marayati - Obama Adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and is its current executive director

Therefore it is no surprise that Megan Smith is appointed. Her "lesbian credential" automatically gains her the entry right into the Obama's "inner sanctum"

Re:Megan Smith is a lesbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47831105)

A good point. Pro-straight? Destroyed. Pro-gay? Straight to the top. It's no wonder people call liberals evil. Everything they do is inverted.

Re:Megan Smith is a lesbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47833593)

Maybe you need to embrace the inevitable and start shagging people of the same sex then. You can work out your anger issues by acknowledging that your raging homophobia is in fact driven by a fear of your own sexuality, and at the same time, you can get a job instead of hiding in mommy's basement hoping that the world will go away.

Re:Megan Smith is a lesbian (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 months ago | (#47844683)

Stop covering for your closeted robosexual tendencies, transistor tweaker!

Re:Yeah (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 2 months ago | (#47830867)

Google cozying up to a facilitator of murder, the world can't wait for the doodle.

You think this makes things worse? (4, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | about 2 months ago | (#47830283)

improving technology and the use of data across agencies

That is the exact opposite of what we need right now.

The NSA and the security industrial complex don't need stinking laws and the approval of the public to aggregate and track you. They're already doing it. I doubt this role will help them (or hinder them). What integrated data could provide is more effective programs and less paperwork, and possibly more data.gov APIs.

Worrying about the CTO "improving things the wrong way" is the same as worrying about sharing your bank password with your spouse while storing your password file in cleartext on a malware infested desktop.

Re:Oh boy (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 months ago | (#47830343)

No, the exact opposite of what we need right now is a series of executive orders enforcing implementations that hurt technology, rather than foster it.

Example? If one came down the pike demanding that all government agencies use only Microsoft-built operating systems (or worse, one forcing the use of .docx, .xlsx, etc in all government documents...)

Re:Oh boy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830535)

Why?

Every time I hear someone say this the reasoning ends up being "because the government is incompetent at all IT projects, and isn't capable of keeping things in good order, just look at all the current evidence about how badly the government organizes things, it wastes money, and ruins everything."

I can only assume that the reason for the gigantic waste of money is exactly because people like you stop them doing things in more efficient ways all the time.

Re:Oh boy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830573)

Why?

Because the government has already shown they love sharing data they shouldn't. They don't need to "improve" their ability to share it further. They need to separate these agencies further and only share actually relevant data.

Re:Oh boy (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 months ago | (#47830567)

Yeah, less interagency data sharing is better given the propensity of government to abuse it! I'm right there with you!

Re:Oh boy (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 2 months ago | (#47831397)

There's improving the use of data across agencies in ways that improve efficiency and the service offered to the clients of those agencies, and then there's improving the use of data across agencies purely to violate privacy. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt here and assume that they're talking about the one of those that they don't already have covered.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830241)

I love how when someone is appointed to a high position in the power pyramid, and the press release always lists their education credentials, as if they actually matter for the position. Puh-lease.

Re:Of course (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 months ago | (#47830379)

Oftentimes, they do that when the candidate has little-to-no experience in the office.

Kind of odd in this case, but with most political appointees the press likes it's a means to hedge against cries of nepotism, favoritism, or suchlike. Gives them a means to shout "...see? Mr. So-and-So is qualified for the job!!!!11!!"

Re:Of course (5, Interesting)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47830539)

You got that right. She's a Gorden Gekko in real life. Her activities involved managing buying other companies for the giant Google NOT the development of technology. She's into the acquisition side of Google's business, not the technical development or management side.

Also, understand that this is a BRAND NEW position. They just invented it. She will have no legislated authority, no budget, no staff, no legal mandate. Just an executive order. She can advise the administrative branch at the president's pleasure, but this position has no power of law. Not that this administration couldn't use some knowledgeable technical advice to avoid things like the HealthCare.gov mess. But why her? Why, politics of course.

The political angle is that she's a woman AND very prominent member of GLAAD. (Not that this matters to me, but it does to the left.)

She's not a horrible choice for this brand spanking new Federal Government's CTO position, but it's pretty obvious this is about political reality and not fixing anything in the government. We have an invented position, a politically expedient appointee in the face of a serious election challenge to the party in power. DC business as usual. This is about politics, and she's just a political hack appointee being used to throw a group of supporters a bone.

I wish her luck, but this whole thing is a waste. Government CTO? Why on earth do we need a CTO at the federal level?

Re:Of course (1, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 months ago | (#47830755)

You got that right. She's a Gorden Gekko in real life. Her activities involved managing buying other companies for the giant Google NOT the development of technology. She's into the acquisition side of Google's business, not the technical development or management side.

Also, understand that this is a BRAND NEW position. They just invented it. She will have no legislated authority, no budget, no staff, no legal mandate. Just an executive order. She can advise the administrative branch at the president's pleasure, but this position has no power of law. Not that this administration couldn't use some knowledgeable technical advice to avoid things like the HealthCare.gov mess. But why her? Why, politics of course.

The political angle is that she's a woman AND very prominent member of GLAAD. (Not that this matters to me, but it does to the left.)

She's not a horrible choice for this brand spanking new Federal Government's CTO position, but it's pretty obvious this is about political reality and not fixing anything in the government. We have an invented position, a politically expedient appointee in the face of a serious election challenge to the party in power. DC business as usual. This is about politics, and she's just a political hack appointee being used to throw a group of supporters a bone.

I wish her luck, but this whole thing is a waste. Government CTO? Why on earth do we need a CTO at the federal level?

I love how your factual, informative, insightful posts got modded into oblivion.
Slashdot is useless.

Re:Of course (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47831313)

The comment moderation message on that was pretty interesting. It drew nearly 20 votes in both directions in the few hours it's been up, so I think I hit a hot button on that post. Opinion seems pretty divided, but so is the country...

Re:Of course (1)

shilly (142940) | about 2 months ago | (#47834527)

"Managing buying other companies for the giant Google" is a very incomplete description of her role there. It is also not incompatible with developing new technology. Sometimes you build a technical capability, sometimes you buy it in. Working out which capabilities are important to you, and how you can develop them, requires an understanding of both the commercial and technical sides of a business. People who can work well at this intersection have rare and important skills. The OP was doing her a disservice and doing so in a faux-objective voice.

Re:Of course (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47834971)

So, do you deny the apparent political content of her appointment? Do you always wear rose colored glasses or is it a condition you where born with?

I'm not saying she's not qualified she is (I'd be qualified too, but that's not what we are debating), I'm saying that there are far more qualified people out there, folks who already are CTO's of large businesses so why did they choose her? Political Optics of course.

The choice was drive by the political reality of who she is in private life not her professional skills. I'm not trying to slight her professional experience in saying this though, she can do the job, but she fits the political profile, the desired optics, the media facade of this administration, but she's not the most qualified person available. She's a political appointee and her appointment is about politics, not who's the Chief Technology Officer of the Federal Government. Appointments for political reasons is a very common occurrence in Washington DC, please take off the rose colored glasses.

Re:Of course (1)

shilly (142940) | about a month and a half ago | (#47920779)

There may or may not be more qualified folks out there, but they need to want to do the job and work with this administration, and that means that they in all likelihood will need to agree with the aims of the administration, so her politics being aligned with his is really not very surprising, is it? It is a feature of the US system of governance, not a bug. If you want a wholly impartial civil service, you need to move to a different country.

As for your claim that you'd also be qualified....I kinda doubt that anyone who writes "where" when they mean "were" and repeats the phrase "rose colored glasses" twice in the same post really is qualified. Are you the CTO or similarly senior executive of a multi-billion dollar company? That's the basic qualification here. I just don't believe you are. Vanishingly few super-senior executives make those sort of basic grammatical and syntactical errors. I wouldn't claim to be such an executive myself, but I've met plenty of them in my professional career.

Re:Of course (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about 2 months ago | (#47831937)

It's basically a second Treasurer of the United States ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasurer_of_the_United_States ). Just another useless position for the purpose of appointing minorities and women to positions within the government in order to score political points.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47832157)

i think the president needs a "tech adviser"; that is present in almost every meeting, just like a legal council.
and it should be someone that is truly a tech person, not a "gordon gecko". and not just a software developer, someone that understands both IT management & basic electronics.

She may be fit for the job..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830285)

when it comes to experience and skill, but the fact she has so many ties with businesses that cannot be trusted...... I would shoot my pets before trusting her.... and that is really far for me!

Re:She may be fit for the job..... (3, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47830561)

She only fits this "job" as far as politics is concerned. There is no CTO of the federal government position, they just invented it, so they could appoint her to it so she fits as well as anybody could who has a position invented for them.

Take a look at her Wikipedia page and it's pretty clear what's going on here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Well that is goofy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830295)

As CTO - isn't she going to have the vision and leadership to design the best team under her? Why would they build an organization for her when that is both her job and one of the big pieces of the magic that she brings to the table?

It is half technology chops - and half understanding and effectively using others with bad-ass technology chops that makes great technical leaders like her great. Do the elected (aka non-badasses) not understand how people who have to deliver amazing results, in terms of actual performance - their betters, work? If not then it is less of a surprise how crappy the US, as a whole is doing, in terms of ongoing rate of increase in amazing results.

Re:Well that is goofy (1, Redundant)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47830593)

CTO of what is the question. You do understand that there is no CTO position in the Federal government right? They just invented this for her. She will have ZERO authority to make any day to day technology decisions.

Dig a bit and figure out why they are doing this. This is about politics, not fixing anything more than the next election.

Elaborate, please. (1)

Sanians (2738917) | about 2 months ago | (#47831019)

Dig a bit and figure out why they are doing this. This is about politics, not fixing anything more than the next election.

I don't think anyone has the time to dig for every bit of information that someone on the internet insists exists. I don't suppose you have any links, do you? ...or perhaps you could just elaborate? Otherwise I think you're going to completely fail to spread whatever message it is you are trying to spread.

Re:Elaborate, please. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47831249)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Wikipedia isn't that hard and she does show up in Google searches still, even if she may be quitting there soon.

Think politics, think about which groups support the current administration and you tell me why they picked her...

Look, I've posted it elsewhere and I'm getting modded down for it, so I'm going to be a bit obtuse for now..

Re:Elaborate, please. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 months ago | (#47831279)

And one more thing... It may require a bit of critical thinking on your part, because with all political moves, they are designed to impress the willing and deceive the rest. This is above all politics, but it usually is with this bunch, despite what they may be saying..

Pfft.... (-1, Troll)

thatshortkid (808634) | about 2 months ago | (#47830305)

Obummer is clearly just a SJW feminazi misandr-- Wait, wrong thread.

CTO ? Really ? (0)

x0ra (1249540) | about 2 months ago | (#47830313)

So Obama should logically be the CEO, appointed by private board members ?

Re:CTO ? Really ? (2, Interesting)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47830357)

Do you really believe that it's working any differently? Look who funds him (the same big banks he promised to prosecute), look who he attacks (whistle blowers and liberty minded individuals), and look at his list of accomplishments (the US is a whole lot more fucked up today than it was when he was elected either time).

Re:CTO ? Really ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830403)

Do you really believe that it's working any differently? Look who funds him (the same big banks he promised to prosecute), look who he attacks (whistle blowers and liberty minded individuals), and look at his list of accomplishments (the US is a whole lot more fucked up today than it was when he was elected either time).

Yeah....but....Bush started it! :-P

Re:CTO ? Really ? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 months ago | (#47830647)

You have a very shallow well of historical knowledge if you believe it was started by Bush.

Re:CTO ? Really ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830369)

Isn't he?

Re:CTO ? Really ? (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 2 months ago | (#47830393)

That position doesn't report to the President. It's under the Director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, under that Director. "CTO" is just a catchy name some consultant thought up, although it is a hell of a lot shorter than the alternatives.

Re:CTO ? Really ? (3, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 2 months ago | (#47830415)

God dammit. I hate not being able to edit posts. Let's try that again-

That position doesn't report to the President. It's under the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "CTO" is just a catchy name some consultant thought up, although it is a hell of a lot shorter than the alternatives.

Re:CTO ? Really ? (1)

silfen (3720385) | about 2 months ago | (#47832141)

We usually refer to him as the "Crony Capitalist in Chief"

Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (0)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 months ago | (#47830385)

"Mechanical Engineering" has basically no common grounds with Computer Engineering/Software Engineering/Computer Science. She may be a good CEO, but the job of a CTO is still an engineering one (if often abused) and she has not what it takes there. No argument that her predecessors where even less qualified.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830425)

Do you know anything about Mechanical Engineering? I have two degrees in it - all about Scientific Computing/Applied Computational Mathematics. Computational Fluid Dynamics, Finite Elements, Control Systems Engineering .... ringing any bells? Yup. All under the stunningly wide umbrella of mechanical engineering.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830683)

Wired describes her as "n addition to being a gifted programmer and technologist," and she helped make some of the first cellular technology for Apple.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830745)

Don't forget calculus!
Lots and lots of lovely calculus.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830987)

Yes, I want fries with that.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 months ago | (#47831405)

Ah, so there has been an extreme bastardization of "mechanical engineering" in the US? My apologies then, the rest of the world has kept its sanity in that area.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#47830501)

Control Theory is part of Mechanical Engineering.
And a position like this is all about "control".

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (1)

pz (113803) | about 2 months ago | (#47831621)

Control Theory is part of Mechanical Engineering.

And part of Aero-Astro, and Applied Computer Science, and Theory of Computation, and Applied Mathematics, and ...

Personally, I'd put it in Signals and Systems, smack dab in the heart of EE.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (2)

scourfish (573542) | about 2 months ago | (#47830669)

I work as a computer engineer, and some of the software and hardware design people got mechanical engineering degrees a long time ago, but migrated to the CE side of things and do excellent work.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830699)

Please do tell us about how YOU are so much more qualified.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (3, Interesting)

kit_triforce (3682453) | about 2 months ago | (#47830713)

I have a degree in Geology but have been employed as an IT consultant for 15 years. Degrees are a wonderful foundation, but there is no substitute for work experience, and working you often learn more then you ever could in a classroom. Roughly 80% of my technical abilities came from self-study and on-the-job training and experiences. Look at her work history, and what she has done. She is the best qualified person we have seen coming in to this position by quite a large margin.

She's worthy of the title (1)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about 2 months ago | (#47830733)

Even if she doesn't have the academic background (I agree with others that ME is close enough to CE/EE to pass muster), she certainly has the experience.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 2 months ago | (#47832055)

Because Technology can NEVER be mechanical in nature. Never...

More CS in BEng(Mech) than MBA (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47832153)

Since at least the 1970s we've had to spend a lot of time on computers to check designs, and whether it's patch cables, FORTRAN, python or even matlab, and even if they are short it's still writing programs to run on computers.
"No common ground" my arse. I moved into dealing with computers full time after I spent more time wrangling a cluster than simulating heat transfer on it.

Re:Sorry, she is not worthy of the title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47833841)

Because everyone knows that once you have your degree, you literally can't learn about any other discipline ever again. Stop focusing on the title of her degree. She completed her thesis in the MIT Media Lab and has had more than a decade of experience in the industry. She was the director and a Google lab which is most notably known for its development of driver-less car technology.

Cool beans for her, but what about us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830459)

Why does it have to be yet another goo"don't be evil"gler? You mean to say that the only alternative with some actual tech-ish background would've been someone from facebook maybe?

I think that this whole CTO thing is still more fad than that is has any substance. Maybe she can add some real substance, maybe not. But it's still a sad show. Then again, most of US politics is. How come the land of the free, home of the brave, lets their fearless leaders run the country, and the world, ever more into the ground? To the point that it really doesn't matter which party you pick, the end result is the same.

Sounds great! (4, Insightful)

Pollux (102520) | about 2 months ago | (#47830511)

As if we don't [wikipedia.org] already [whitehouse.gov] have [wikipedia.org] enough [whitehouse.gov] corporate [whitehouse.gov] executives [wikipedia.org] running the white house.

Re:Sounds great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47831037)

Is this marked insightful because you know how to put links in a post?

Oh my gosh!! One of the guys on the President's Council on Jobs and Effectiveness is a corporate CEO! I would have expected Oprah! Plus there is another corporate exec on President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board! Who would have thought?! And the fact that the US Secretary of Commerce has a business background is so scary!

Are you so surprised that people who have been highly successful in their careers would serve in the government?

Re:Sounds great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47831231)

My guess is that it's marked insightful because most Slashdot readers consider career success to be based on meaningful contributions to one's field, not high-falutin titles.

Re:Sounds great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47835131)

One of the guys on the President's Council on Jobs and Effectiveness is a corporate CEO!

Someone in the White House has a sense of humor.

Re:Sounds great! (1)

geiss (587862) | about 2 months ago | (#47835041)

Where else do you propose finding people with the relevant experience to these government positions? Fairyland?

bummer (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 2 months ago | (#47830701)

I miss the days of hiring people with talents like running a horsey show. /snark

Re:bummer (0)

iggymanz (596061) | about 2 months ago | (#47831493)

not Bush's fault a damn hurricane showed up and spoiled that tried and true means of appointing cronies. You have to admit that vacant "deer in headlights" look Brownie had while corpses floated behind him in the street was priceless. Community activism is almost as good a criteria, can't wait to find out if Obama really wants to destroy ISIS or just "manage" them, or maybe just continue to tease us with the waffling.

First Action: Amend Pledge (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 2 months ago | (#47830863)

"One nation, under Google+"

Faggots are gonna complain no matter what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47830961)

The faggots are gonna complain no matter what decision is made.

I assume she's not qualified because she's a woman (-1, Troll)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | about 2 months ago | (#47831165)

I have no problem giving the job to the most qualified person, even if that person is a woman. But she's not the most qualified person! You know how I know? Because she's a woman! She is clearly an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION pick. She's no good. All she knows about is mechanical engineering (aside from her years of IT experience)! I'm so sick of all this AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! Again, I'd love to give the job to a qualified woman. But every woman who gets any job gets it because of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!

Re:I assume she's not qualified because she's a wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47831639)

The problem I have with the appointment has nothing to do with the gender of the appointee, and in fact my worst fear is that she will be very good at her job. Imagine what would happen if someone successfully integrated all of major government computer systems. The ATF could easily bring up records compiled by the FBI, the IRS could readily examine information gathered by state police in California, etc. If all of the illegally gathered information was fully available to any police or government agency the citizens of the U.S. would become the most spied upon people the world has ever seen. There would be virtually nothing unknown to anyone associated with the state. These people already do as they please most of the time, without regard to their legal powers or the U.S. Constitution, and people have become so used to it that hardly an eyebrow is raised.

Until the forces who wish to turn our country into a series of large corporate profit centers are overcome, it's better if we have a clueless CTO. Imagine what it would be like if the current senate and congress wasn't nearly clueless. Assuming they had the same agendas, it would be a magnitude of order more horrendous than it already is.

Re:I assume she's not qualified because she's a wo (1)

Kiwikwi (2734467) | about 2 months ago | (#47833019)

I have no problem giving the job to the most qualified person, even if that person is a woman. But she's not the most qualified person! You know how I know? Because she's a woman! She is clearly an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION pick. She's no good. All she knows about is mechanical engineering (aside from her years of IT experience)! I'm so sick of all this AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! Again, I'd love to give the job to a qualified woman. But every woman who gets any job gets it because of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!

Thank you for this succinct recap of much of this Slashdot discussion thread.

You did forget to mention how the position was "just invented" for her. (And her two predecessors [wikipedia.org] , err...)

On The Titanic, Deck Chairs Are Re-Arranged Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47831841)

So 'Female' is the new "Black" at Obama's 'White' House.

Ah. Degrees from 'Online' Institutions! Just Who Hacked Who in this!

Re:On The Titanic, Deck Chairs Are Re-Arranged Aga (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 2 months ago | (#47832083)

Of course it is - after all, the Obama Administration has been railing about the gender gap when it's leading the way in keeping the gender gap alive [hotair.com] ... Another case of our President being "do as I say, not as I do".

Re:On The Titanic, Deck Chairs Are Re-Arranged Aga (1)

silfen (3720385) | about 2 months ago | (#47832151)

But creating a few sinecures will improve the numbers!

Frankly I don't want this (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 months ago | (#47832175)

First an inept CIO position now a CTO position. I don't want the US government smarter about systems and data. They're already fucking things up nicely right now as it is. Some agencies with better technology and training could really wreak havoc; like the IRS. Screw that.

BRB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47833443)

Deleting all my Google-based data.

Most of her career is in acquisitions (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 2 months ago | (#47833663)

Basically an M&A due diligence apparatchik. After all MOST patent lawyers also have technical degrees. Doesn't make them scientists though.

Shut up Meg! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47847573)

I wonder how often she will hear that?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?