Agreed. After rereading my last post, I decided it was somewhat less
than coherent. Not one of my better efforts, certainly.
>Just a couple points, in bullet form:
>
>1. Religion and sexual orientation have historically been considered
>matters of choice. (E.g. for religion, look at Great Britain's history.)
This is the only bit here I'd take issue with. While I'm no expert, I'd
suggest
that sexual orientation is, more often than not, considered *NOT* to
be a matter of choice. Put it this way - if you feel you're straight, how
much 'choice' do you think you have to wake up one morning and decide
you're gay? Or vice versa? You are what you are, I guess. Whether it's
from birth or not - who knows. But it isn't just an arbitrary thing you
'change' like your clothing (or your job).
As to religion, sure, that is a matter of choice in the sense that you
can convert to a different faith. I guess what I meant was that the
*religion you are born into* is an immutable part of your history. And
much as you may choose in later life to ignore it, or convert away from it,
there have been historical periods in which such choices were ignored
(and are still, for that matter) and you're classified as what you were=
born.
E.g. - Nazi doctrine declared 'Jewish' anyone who had at least 1
great-grandparent
'Jewish', even if that person was a raised as a baptized Catholic. I was
unclear
earlier - it was in this sense that I was classifying various categories
of personal traits along with 'ethnicity' as being unfair to attack.
>Yes, theoretically, anyone working at Microsoft can just start working for
>some other company. In practice, this means moving to a different state
>(e.g. California) with the subsequent distance from friends, job search for
>one's working spouse, changing schools for the kids, and generally a
>substantial drop in the standard of living (e.g. less house for more=
money).
>And for what? Not because Microsoft is actually *doing* anything evil, but
>simply because it is *perceived* as being evil.=20
A good point. Accepted.
>2. The primary reason I work at Microsoft is because I want to get new
>and better technologies out to the market where they can be used. Having
>lived through the Unix wars of the 80's, and in particular having worked
>hard at getting new technologies (e.g. Mach 3 and NORMA Mach) into OSF/1,=
in
>the na=EFve belief that OSF/1 was finally "the" "unified" Unix, I decided
>this time around to place a safer bet and work with Microsoft. When I
>joined, I didn't actually see Microsoft expanding into the Enterprise=
market
>- I thought I was leaving the "big machines" behind for the sake of making
>an impact - but I thought the tradeoff was worth it.
Also a good point. Finally! It's taken almost a year to finally get a decent
explanation out of you on what really brought you to MS - lord knows
you've been asked this question a few times before :-).
>Okay, so those were pretty big bullets, sorry...
Not a problem.
>- Joe
>
>Joseph S. Barrera III <joebar@microsoft.com>
><http://research.microsoft.com/~joebar/>
>Phone, Office: (415) 778-8227; Cellular: (415) 601-3719; Home: (415)
>588-4801
>The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views and do not
>reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Ron
=20