I'll consider all offers between $1 and $1,000,000. Of course I won't consider them all equally...
Problem with a range is that they'll aim for the bottom of the range. I do not know what that bottom number should be. Specifying an upper number sounds like you're limiting yourself and they won't go that high anyway.
Problem is what gets me worried, and gets other people worried too, is what if your suggested range is too high? Do you get rejected as too expensive, or will they come back with an offer that's lower than your range? (but which you may find acceptable when hunger sets in)
It's really difficult to get a good survey of salary ranges even when you're experienced, often because job titles are so meaningless. But for a "first job" you've got nothing to base your range on, you can't even go with lastJob+5%.
Well, no. Or is there a service I don't know of like netflix where it's completely free but with ads? It's not hulu, it has a rotten selection with limited time to be available. Not youtube, which is mostly user created junk with lower quality. Not amazon which is more expensive than netflix unless you're already in bed with them because you never leave the house and buy everything online. Not torrents which are illegal and we don't talk about them here on law abiding slashdot, not even during choir practice.
Could work. Or maybe $6 for netflix with ads, or $10 for netflix without ads. After all if they think ads are such a huge revenue generator then they should be willing to drop the price to compensate.
There's years of stuff there I haven't seen yet. Old programs I never watched, old programs I want to see again, new programs that I missed the first few episodes and can catch up on, etc. I guess it's kind of like the netflix dvd service but more convenient (my brother thinks it's the opposite). Amazon is more expensive unless you're an online shopper and it doesn't seem to have the big selection though it does have more of the newer programs, but I will wait a year for a season of shows to avoid subscribing to more than one service.
Actually I don't remember that. Cable has always had ads. All the network and local channels had ads because they never edited them out in the first place (hard to do in real time). And except for premium channels and a few others, most commercial cable channels had some ads. There were always ads on the cable premium channels too if you count the interstitial ads for their own upcoming programs (because movies never ran back to back). Even with the old satellites from the 70s you would get ads (often regional to wherever the channel was originating, and it was kind of fun seeing ads from other countries).
Granted there were not as many ads back then and they weren't as long, but they were there. And some channels held out for a very long time with only ads for their own content, and some with only ads in between programs.
That's probably excessive. There is no possible way that my eyeballs can generate that much revenue in a month if I were subbed to Hulu. Which is why advertisers make money, they are conning the gullible product makers into thinking that this is what ads are worth. I remember reading not too long after the masses joined the internet and the dotcom bubble started growing, that the per-view price of ads on the internet was ten times higher than that on television or newspapers. Although on the internet there is the advantage that the distribution costs are low since they piggy back on other people's ISPs.
And there was a time when the host of the television show knew every single one of their sponsors and would acknowledge them all. Today they don't know, though on tv still there's generally an exec in charge of advertising who should know them all. In the internet, they don't know. The wannabe journalists don't know which ads are going to show up on their web pages, they're randomized by whatever third party service they sold their soul to ("you give me money and I let you put crap on my web site and diminish my good name").
I don't think it was the only reason, but it was certainly one of the reasons many people got cable. However in many locales there was not good broadcast coverage and you had an extremely limited selection of programs to watch. Local or network TV on cable always had ads, because the cable companies never cut them out. It was only some of the extra cable-only channels that started off without ads.
And Netflix streaming exists for the most part from customers who cut the cord and dropped their cable and satellite. They should remember that their customers are already a fickle bunch.
I can skip ads in a magazine or newspaper; those make it into the recycling or compost first thing. Movies before ads are annoying, which is why you should arrive later than the starting time.
It is a crazy concept to break your business model and piss off your fans. It costs the viewers actual money to receive those advertisements, we don't get our internet bandwidth for free. We're not freeloaders here, we're paying for this service. There is no entitlement attitude but we do want to get our money's worth, if it turns out it's no longer worth it then we will unsubscribe. I suspect many would be happy paying an extra two dollars a month to avoid the ads. (and seriously, if advertisers can make that much money per viewer and my eyeballs are that valuable then I'll watch extra ads all day long if I can get some kickbacks, but as it is the advertisers are instead freeloading off of me)
They have competition. Hulu-plus has ads, and a lot of people went to Netflix instead for that reason. There's Amazon, I'd never touch it myself but I know people who swear by it (mostly those already addicts to online shopping so that they think it's free). I even know people using iTunes for this, but like Google Play that's really a separate market and is pay-per-show rather than a subscription service.
But we're ALREADY paying Netflix. They don't need ad revenue to fund their servers, they're not just some wannabe journalist blogger whining about the lack of donations. Advertisements plus a subscription is just stupid, or evil, or both. Same with cable tv, but there we could easily fast forward past the ads and never see them (the evil ad industry even sued replaytv over this capability).
Post-show ads are ok, we can skip those. Ads on their homepage is fine. They can even have a special "Netflix Originals" category (which I suspect some people would like). But non-skippable pre show ads would drive away a non-trivial segment of their subscribers, including quite a lot of people who decided on Netflix over Hulu-Plus.
Netflix needs to remember that we cut the cord once already, we can cut it a second time if needed. People are assuming we must watch the shows, but it's not true and we've learned to cut back. Anyone already using torrent is probably not concerned about being legal with netflix anyway.
Pre-show can be bad though. That's my bandwidth, it's not infinite and it's not free. The home page ads for their own shows should be good enough to garner interest.
Seriously, do we need a DVR to watch netflix just so we can skip the ads like the old days...
I suspect they don't know the actual name of the person, but they only know the handle that the person uses in some forums. Like graffiti, sure we know that BadAzz wrote his name up on the overpass but we don't know how to find and fine him.
Much of this fight was myth though. There was some, but it's wasn't the good versus evil battle of the century as portrayed by The Oatmeal. It was just marketing, with Westinghouse vs Edison.
What's the difference between a panoramic photo, composed of small pictures stitched together, and Google Streetview or Google Maps, which are composed of small pictures stitched together? Is the difference that one person calls themselves a "photographer" and the other person is just a technician?
Slashdot Mirror
The proper response is "we've already met our quota for pains in the ass, but we'll keep your resume on file in case an opening comes up."
I'll consider all offers between $1 and $1,000,000. Of course I won't consider them all equally...
Problem with a range is that they'll aim for the bottom of the range. I do not know what that bottom number should be. Specifying an upper number sounds like you're limiting yourself and they won't go that high anyway.
Problem is what gets me worried, and gets other people worried too, is what if your suggested range is too high? Do you get rejected as too expensive, or will they come back with an offer that's lower than your range? (but which you may find acceptable when hunger sets in)
It's really difficult to get a good survey of salary ranges even when you're experienced, often because job titles are so meaningless. But for a "first job" you've got nothing to base your range on, you can't even go with lastJob+5%.
What if you're a $200K person? Do you stop getting offers at that point unless you're a manager?
Hmm, lots. Let me try this model for myself.
"I do not plan on becoming independently wealthy with a trophy wife within the foreseeable future!"
Now I wait a year or two and see what happens.
Well, no. Or is there a service I don't know of like netflix where it's completely free but with ads? It's not hulu, it has a rotten selection with limited time to be available. Not youtube, which is mostly user created junk with lower quality. Not amazon which is more expensive than netflix unless you're already in bed with them because you never leave the house and buy everything online. Not torrents which are illegal and we don't talk about them here on law abiding slashdot, not even during choir practice.
Yup, netflix has good quality. I was worried I might need to upgrade internet for it but it's been very good. Far far better than youtube.
I was pissed by off as well, so he has a point.
Could work. Or maybe $6 for netflix with ads, or $10 for netflix without ads. After all if they think ads are such a huge revenue generator then they should be willing to drop the price to compensate.
There's years of stuff there I haven't seen yet. Old programs I never watched, old programs I want to see again, new programs that I missed the first few episodes and can catch up on, etc. I guess it's kind of like the netflix dvd service but more convenient (my brother thinks it's the opposite). Amazon is more expensive unless you're an online shopper and it doesn't seem to have the big selection though it does have more of the newer programs, but I will wait a year for a season of shows to avoid subscribing to more than one service.
Actually I don't remember that. Cable has always had ads. All the network and local channels had ads because they never edited them out in the first place (hard to do in real time). And except for premium channels and a few others, most commercial cable channels had some ads. There were always ads on the cable premium channels too if you count the interstitial ads for their own upcoming programs (because movies never ran back to back). Even with the old satellites from the 70s you would get ads (often regional to wherever the channel was originating, and it was kind of fun seeing ads from other countries).
Granted there were not as many ads back then and they weren't as long, but they were there. And some channels held out for a very long time with only ads for their own content, and some with only ads in between programs.
That's probably excessive. There is no possible way that my eyeballs can generate that much revenue in a month if I were subbed to Hulu. Which is why advertisers make money, they are conning the gullible product makers into thinking that this is what ads are worth. I remember reading not too long after the masses joined the internet and the dotcom bubble started growing, that the per-view price of ads on the internet was ten times higher than that on television or newspapers. Although on the internet there is the advantage that the distribution costs are low since they piggy back on other people's ISPs.
And there was a time when the host of the television show knew every single one of their sponsors and would acknowledge them all. Today they don't know, though on tv still there's generally an exec in charge of advertising who should know them all. In the internet, they don't know. The wannabe journalists don't know which ads are going to show up on their web pages, they're randomized by whatever third party service they sold their soul to ("you give me money and I let you put crap on my web site and diminish my good name").
I don't think it was the only reason, but it was certainly one of the reasons many people got cable. However in many locales there was not good broadcast coverage and you had an extremely limited selection of programs to watch. Local or network TV on cable always had ads, because the cable companies never cut them out. It was only some of the extra cable-only channels that started off without ads.
And Netflix streaming exists for the most part from customers who cut the cord and dropped their cable and satellite. They should remember that their customers are already a fickle bunch.
I can skip ads in a magazine or newspaper; those make it into the recycling or compost first thing. Movies before ads are annoying, which is why you should arrive later than the starting time.
It is a crazy concept to break your business model and piss off your fans. It costs the viewers actual money to receive those advertisements, we don't get our internet bandwidth for free. We're not freeloaders here, we're paying for this service. There is no entitlement attitude but we do want to get our money's worth, if it turns out it's no longer worth it then we will unsubscribe. I suspect many would be happy paying an extra two dollars a month to avoid the ads. (and seriously, if advertisers can make that much money per viewer and my eyeballs are that valuable then I'll watch extra ads all day long if I can get some kickbacks, but as it is the advertisers are instead freeloading off of me)
They have competition. Hulu-plus has ads, and a lot of people went to Netflix instead for that reason. There's Amazon, I'd never touch it myself but I know people who swear by it (mostly those already addicts to online shopping so that they think it's free). I even know people using iTunes for this, but like Google Play that's really a separate market and is pay-per-show rather than a subscription service.
But we're ALREADY paying Netflix. They don't need ad revenue to fund their servers, they're not just some wannabe journalist blogger whining about the lack of donations. Advertisements plus a subscription is just stupid, or evil, or both. Same with cable tv, but there we could easily fast forward past the ads and never see them (the evil ad industry even sued replaytv over this capability).
Post-show ads are ok, we can skip those. Ads on their homepage is fine. They can even have a special "Netflix Originals" category (which I suspect some people would like). But non-skippable pre show ads would drive away a non-trivial segment of their subscribers, including quite a lot of people who decided on Netflix over Hulu-Plus.
Netflix needs to remember that we cut the cord once already, we can cut it a second time if needed. People are assuming we must watch the shows, but it's not true and we've learned to cut back. Anyone already using torrent is probably not concerned about being legal with netflix anyway.
Pre-show can be bad though. That's my bandwidth, it's not infinite and it's not free. The home page ads for their own shows should be good enough to garner interest.
Seriously, do we need a DVR to watch netflix just so we can skip the ads like the old days...
No, Cable TV kept raising the price by 50% even with the advertisements.
I suspect they don't know the actual name of the person, but they only know the handle that the person uses in some forums. Like graffiti, sure we know that BadAzz wrote his name up on the overpass but we don't know how to find and fine him.
And P.T. Barnum's legacy survived and is thriving in journalism.
Much of this fight was myth though. There was some, but it's wasn't the good versus evil battle of the century as portrayed by The Oatmeal. It was just marketing, with Westinghouse vs Edison.
Scientists call others to action, then nothing actually happens, so someone will claim it was all a fraud just like Y2K.
It looks like a place for billionaires to go skiing. Take your helicopter up to the top (they're building a helipad) then ski back down.
What's the difference between a panoramic photo, composed of small pictures stitched together, and Google Streetview or Google Maps, which are composed of small pictures stitched together? Is the difference that one person calls themselves a "photographer" and the other person is just a technician?