There's this misconception that flies through many heads: that training is something that you are entitled to "for free". Sure, it sucks for the company not to train you, but it's not like trainers would refuse to train you if you pay them with your own money. After all, you train for yourself first and foremost, and people who are not willing to pay out of their own pockets for their own training are exactly the ones I'm talking about: contempt with their own mediocrity.
Like "yeah, well, the company doesn't pay for my training so i'll stay untrained". I was in the same situation: my manager avoided me being trained, so I saved some money, went to the training, then expensed it. My manager wouldn't approve it and then I went to HIS manager, who approved it without asking a question. Afterwards, I no longer had to pay out of my own pocket. Ever.
Define "moderately intelligent". I am moderately intelligent (definitely not a genius!) and not really creative. I'm less creative than a cook, for example:)
Technology will always replace the dudes who were doing what a mindless machine could do. The problem so far was that the mindless machine was too expensive to replace the dude. We're talking about people who felt cozy doing a job which required little-to-no-skill or was basically something like "we do this with humans because there's no machine which could do that (yet)" (where "yet" is the key word). Well they had it coming. Whose fault is that research is being performed, technology gets invented, the world advances? Really now.
When you get trained in a field you're supposed to know that field well enough to figure out whether it's going to be used 10-20-30 years from now, and how much of it is going to be needed. I for one realized 20 years ago that computers would be used more and more so I naturally picked that area as my career. I even switched my IT career plans twice (so far) based on long term trends, and I am ready to switch it again if need be.
Those people who whine "my job was outsourced to a machine!" are the same people who covered their ears for years, yelling "tra-la-la I can't hear you" when change rumbled all around them. Be it of stupidity, laziness, stubbornness, it's their damn fault. It's not like they didn't have ample time to change their jobs; it's not like I invent an automated burger-flipping machine today and tomorrow it's already shipped to 100K locations all around the world. These things take time, they're visible, you can see the wave coming.
Erm, bounties aren't a good reason to start security research
No, they're a good reason to pick which one to research, out of many options otherwise equal. It's like this: I have a lawn mower, and in front of me there are three houses which need mowing. Should I pick the one where the owner gives me 10 bucks, the one where he gives me a "thanks" or the one where the guy chases me down the road with a shotgun, shooting salt pellets at my ass?
If you're good at that sort of thing, you get a perm job, being paid the money Yahoo would allocate to employees rather than PR exercises.
That's outside the scope of the conversation. Maybe you already have that job and are doing extra stuff for fun. Fun is in all cases, but the extra small cash you make is the glazing on the cake. Or you could go banzai and pick the company which would sue you. Living on the edge is the thing for some people.
Think of it from another angle. The money incentive is good enough of a reason to start researching. It's a matter of choice. between companies A, B and C, where A definitely offers a reward, B "might" offer you something crappy and C gives you the finger or even worse, sues you, WHAT would you choose? It's equally moral to research for all the above companies, and equally moral to provide them the results; I agree with that. But then, once the moral equality exists, you look at other parts of the deal, and pick the best one.
My bad, I was thinking globally, because thinking globally makes sense for a global company. I'm considering large emergent markets such as China and India, also living in Eastern Europe I can tell how things are shaping up around here. Until 2009-ish all I could see around was iPhone. People used to "smuggle" them from abroad, because the official market penetration was low (low offer with mobile companies). Now we're looking at a wide range of available phones, including domestic phone brands, all Android-based (doh!).
As far as I can see in Eastern Europe, people pick their new phone as they see fit (be it either Android-based or iOS-based) and stick with the OS for good. Less than 10% switch; I have access to a sample size of around 20K people who bought phones during last 6 years and the only complication to the formula is people massively dumping Blackberries and Nokias in favor of either Android or iOS (and the breakdown os 50-50).
Didn't say "dirt cheap". Also it's the first iteration, they would rather corrode their "premium company" image slowly rather than thrash it all at once. Next year there'll be a cheaper one available and so on, and so forth.
I didn't say HOW MUCH money I make. Not a LOT, judging by USA standards. Probably less than half of the average wage in the USA. Luckily, I don't live there, so that translates as "paid well" here:)
I think it's the perception of it, rather than the actual mathematical cost. Also it's a comfort zone thing, e.g. the time spent finding similar apps (some have the same name but are different in functionality, etc.)
I wouldn't underestimate the huge inertia of sheepish customers who were actually "trained" to run out and buy the next phone iteration even if they don't need it. This has nothing to do with intelligence, by the way. It's impulse-shopping, or, rather, compulsive shopping. The driving forces are varied:
- social status competition: Jack has bought the new thing, Jill must too. - planned obsolescence perception: "the new phone appeared, therefore my current phone is OLD". - bragging rights: "I bought this FIRST in my 'hood!" - endorphin-inducing activities: "you DESERVE this phone, you will be HAPPY with this phone". - hype (pretty much an ingredient for of all the above)
This is generally valid; it's not only for Apple products. However, Apple managed to perfect this method and instruct their customer base better than many others did. Besides, they were first to mass produce touchscreen phones and market them successfully. Statistics *might* show (I am too lazy to research) that Android-based customers don't exhibit this behavior just as much, but there are reasons for it:
1. Some successfully resisted the iPhone fever when the first iPhone was released; 2. Some managed to uproot themselves from the Apple veggie garden and switch to another device (which is another form of resistance); 3. Some got pissed by some Apple decisions post-sell or simply didn't like some of the limitations (castrated BT stack, non-removable battery, lack of SD Card, etc) so moved to the next thing.
Therefore, the Android crowd is less "sheepish", so-to-speak. Again, this has little-to-nothing to do with intelligence, but mostly emotion and zeal.
To me, it's amazing that Apple's iPhone failed to establish a near-monopoly in the long term; they had all the prerequisites met, the touchscreen market was practically virgin at the time, all the world was theirs to invade and keep. My personal, maybe subjective opinion is that they failed in locking in the near-monopoly because: - they kept the prices absurdly high; - they inflexibly kept their walled garden shut; - they ignored independent crowds which hate (by principle) to be locked in (aka "You HAVE to use iTunes" or "you HAVE to have a jailed phone"); - furthermore, they endlessly fought crowds' attempts to liberate the iPhone, alienating people more and more until many of them just said "fuck this, i'll switch".
Their very recent attempts to enter the cheaper market will probably be mildly successful, but I think it's a "too little, too late" attempt. They will likely grab a few % off the top (aka people who nearly could afford an iPhone 5S but were not quite there yet, financially), but the much larger "cheap smartphone" market will not care.
9 million devices sold, with arguably 100 USD net profit for each - that's 9 billion dollars just like that. Make that only 20 bucks profit per phone (which I highly doubt) - that gives close to 2 billion dollars profit.
Typical shill behavior. "He a-usin' Word, he a-sellin' soul to the DEVIL!"
I feel a lynching mob closing in...
Seriously though, I don't care in which environment I write my text. I would use a plain text editor and be happy with it, but when my customers (who PAY) ask me "we need this content in.docx format" - I'll do it. If they asked "we need this in LaTeX" or "we need this in PDF" or "we need this in LibreOffice" - well, I would be happy top comply.
It's called customer care.
It would be interesting to see your face when buying shoes and asking "do you have that in RED?" to which the clerk would say "well FUCK YOU - RED is COMMUNISM and that is THE DEVIL". Him chasing you with a torch and a fork is optional but entertaining.
If a project fails for a good reason, explained in detail, with hard financial proof (invoice screenshots, legal paperwork and whatnot) then I would not miss my donation - because funding a kickstarter project is what I'd define as "donation". However... I take issue with funded projects which "just fail". Someone posting an update saying "the market sucks, we haven't planned ahead, sorry, goodbye and thanks for all the fish" - that's just trolling. It takes 5 minutes to write that text and all while you look with love at that new shiny car the kickstarter funds just bought for you.
I'm not saying they're all scams, but merely that as far as I'm concerned, I can't make the difference - and that makes me uneasy.
Exactly. Distance is also something you have to consider. Automated solar system exploration is fine, but beyond that I think the cost/reward is too high to send automated units.
I love the game, I sank some money in it already, but man, the game's having a crapload of issues. Between lost transaction data and buggy PvE missions, to bugs introduced to the game simply because some sub-team did something with the code right before the patch is released... They have lots to fix there.
Few days ago they announced they will completely drop the PvP part of the game (until further notice). I just hope this means more focus on the PvE part, which is nice... until you do that for 20 days and realize there's not much else to do.
Oh, I don't want to "fix" anyone, i just dislike it when these "particularities" are presented in such a way that they become "a model to follow". Something like "see, kids, what you can accomplish if you don't listen to music?"
It's the difference between Stephen Hawking presented as a genius despite the fact he can't walk, and Stephen Hawking presented as a genius because he can't walk. TFS says "he's not your typical teenager" - DOH. No genius teenager is typical - simply because the typical teenager is not a genius:)
TFS says "doesn't like listening to music" - which implies he doesn't like listening to ANY music. That sounds like the guy's missing a lot in life. justin bieber is not music - so he might even listen to justin bieber and still hold TFS true... - but I digress.
Slashdot Mirror
There's this misconception that flies through many heads: that training is something that you are entitled to "for free". Sure, it sucks for the company not to train you, but it's not like trainers would refuse to train you if you pay them with your own money. After all, you train for yourself first and foremost, and people who are not willing to pay out of their own pockets for their own training are exactly the ones I'm talking about: contempt with their own mediocrity.
Like "yeah, well, the company doesn't pay for my training so i'll stay untrained".
I was in the same situation: my manager avoided me being trained, so I saved some money, went to the training, then expensed it. My manager wouldn't approve it and then I went to HIS manager, who approved it without asking a question. Afterwards, I no longer had to pay out of my own pocket. Ever.
Define "moderately intelligent". I am moderately intelligent (definitely not a genius!) and not really creative. I'm less creative than a cook, for example :)
Technology will always replace the dudes who were doing what a mindless machine could do. The problem so far was that the mindless machine was too expensive to replace the dude.
We're talking about people who felt cozy doing a job which required little-to-no-skill or was basically something like "we do this with humans because there's no machine which could do that (yet)" (where "yet" is the key word). Well they had it coming. Whose fault is that research is being performed, technology gets invented, the world advances? Really now.
When you get trained in a field you're supposed to know that field well enough to figure out whether it's going to be used 10-20-30 years from now, and how much of it is going to be needed. I for one realized 20 years ago that computers would be used more and more so I naturally picked that area as my career. I even switched my IT career plans twice (so far) based on long term trends, and I am ready to switch it again if need be.
Those people who whine "my job was outsourced to a machine!" are the same people who covered their ears for years, yelling "tra-la-la I can't hear you" when change rumbled all around them. Be it of stupidity, laziness, stubbornness, it's their damn fault. It's not like they didn't have ample time to change their jobs; it's not like I invent an automated burger-flipping machine today and tomorrow it's already shipped to 100K locations all around the world. These things take time, they're visible, you can see the wave coming.
Erm, bounties aren't a good reason to start security research
No, they're a good reason to pick which one to research, out of many options otherwise equal.
It's like this: I have a lawn mower, and in front of me there are three houses which need mowing. Should I pick the one where the owner gives me 10 bucks, the one where he gives me a "thanks" or the one where the guy chases me down the road with a shotgun, shooting salt pellets at my ass?
If you're good at that sort of thing, you get a perm job, being paid the money Yahoo would allocate to employees rather than PR exercises.
That's outside the scope of the conversation. Maybe you already have that job and are doing extra stuff for fun. Fun is in all cases, but the extra small cash you make is the glazing on the cake. Or you could go banzai and pick the company which would sue you. Living on the edge is the thing for some people.
Think of it from another angle.
The money incentive is good enough of a reason to start researching. It's a matter of choice. between companies A, B and C, where A definitely offers a reward, B "might" offer you something crappy and C gives you the finger or even worse, sues you, WHAT would you choose? It's equally moral to research for all the above companies, and equally moral to provide them the results; I agree with that. But then, once the moral equality exists, you look at other parts of the deal, and pick the best one.
THAT is where Yahoo loses.
It's my mom's Birthday!
But I'm sure you NSA guys knew that already...
My bad, I was thinking globally, because thinking globally makes sense for a global company.
I'm considering large emergent markets such as China and India, also living in Eastern Europe I can tell how things are shaping up around here. Until 2009-ish all I could see around was iPhone. People used to "smuggle" them from abroad, because the official market penetration was low (low offer with mobile companies). Now we're looking at a wide range of available phones, including domestic phone brands, all Android-based (doh!).
As far as I can see in Eastern Europe, people pick their new phone as they see fit (be it either Android-based or iOS-based) and stick with the OS for good. Less than 10% switch; I have access to a sample size of around 20K people who bought phones during last 6 years and the only complication to the formula is people massively dumping Blackberries and Nokias in favor of either Android or iOS (and the breakdown os 50-50).
Didn't say "dirt cheap". Also it's the first iteration, they would rather corrode their "premium company" image slowly rather than thrash it all at once.
Next year there'll be a cheaper one available and so on, and so forth.
I didn't say HOW MUCH money I make. Not a LOT, judging by USA standards. Probably less than half of the average wage in the USA. :)
Luckily, I don't live there, so that translates as "paid well" here
Oh yes, my brainfart, sorry about that.
*note to self* don't multitask, you suck at it
Funny :)
In layman terms, for a company it doesn't matter whether their stock is bought by one person or 9 million.
I think it's the perception of it, rather than the actual mathematical cost. Also it's a comfort zone thing, e.g. the time spent finding similar apps (some have the same name but are different in functionality, etc.)
Well, no, but 9M customers did.
And yes, one person can be represented as 100 customers... counter-intuitive but that's how it works.
I wouldn't underestimate the huge inertia of sheepish customers who were actually "trained" to run out and buy the next phone iteration even if they don't need it.
This has nothing to do with intelligence, by the way. It's impulse-shopping, or, rather, compulsive shopping. The driving forces are varied:
- social status competition: Jack has bought the new thing, Jill must too.
- planned obsolescence perception: "the new phone appeared, therefore my current phone is OLD".
- bragging rights: "I bought this FIRST in my 'hood!"
- endorphin-inducing activities: "you DESERVE this phone, you will be HAPPY with this phone".
- hype (pretty much an ingredient for of all the above)
This is generally valid; it's not only for Apple products. However, Apple managed to perfect this method and instruct their customer base better than many others did. Besides, they were first to mass produce touchscreen phones and market them successfully.
Statistics *might* show (I am too lazy to research) that Android-based customers don't exhibit this behavior just as much, but there are reasons for it:
1. Some successfully resisted the iPhone fever when the first iPhone was released;
2. Some managed to uproot themselves from the Apple veggie garden and switch to another device (which is another form of resistance);
3. Some got pissed by some Apple decisions post-sell or simply didn't like some of the limitations (castrated BT stack, non-removable battery, lack of SD Card, etc) so moved to the next thing.
Therefore, the Android crowd is less "sheepish", so-to-speak. Again, this has little-to-nothing to do with intelligence, but mostly emotion and zeal.
To me, it's amazing that Apple's iPhone failed to establish a near-monopoly in the long term; they had all the prerequisites met, the touchscreen market was practically virgin at the time, all the world was theirs to invade and keep. My personal, maybe subjective opinion is that they failed in locking in the near-monopoly because:
- they kept the prices absurdly high;
- they inflexibly kept their walled garden shut;
- they ignored independent crowds which hate (by principle) to be locked in (aka "You HAVE to use iTunes" or "you HAVE to have a jailed phone");
- furthermore, they endlessly fought crowds' attempts to liberate the iPhone, alienating people more and more until many of them just said "fuck this, i'll switch".
Their very recent attempts to enter the cheaper market will probably be mildly successful, but I think it's a "too little, too late" attempt. They will likely grab a few % off the top (aka people who nearly could afford an iPhone 5S but were not quite there yet, financially), but the much larger "cheap smartphone" market will not care.
What?
9 million devices sold, with arguably 100 USD net profit for each - that's 9 billion dollars just like that.
Make that only 20 bucks profit per phone (which I highly doubt) - that gives close to 2 billion dollars profit.
So... it's quite the other way around.
Typical shill behavior.
"He a-usin' Word, he a-sellin' soul to the DEVIL!"
I feel a lynching mob closing in...
Seriously though, I don't care in which environment I write my text. I would use a plain text editor and be happy with it, but when my customers (who PAY) ask me "we need this content in .docx format" - I'll do it.
If they asked "we need this in LaTeX" or "we need this in PDF" or "we need this in LibreOffice" - well, I would be happy top comply.
It's called customer care.
It would be interesting to see your face when buying shoes and asking "do you have that in RED?" to which the clerk would say "well FUCK YOU - RED is COMMUNISM and that is THE DEVIL". Him chasing you with a torch and a fork is optional but entertaining.
who the fuck wants all that stupid shit.
Me and all my customers. :)
BTW: they all pay well
If a project fails for a good reason, explained in detail, with hard financial proof (invoice screenshots, legal paperwork and whatnot) then I would not miss my donation - because funding a kickstarter project is what I'd define as "donation".
However... I take issue with funded projects which "just fail". Someone posting an update saying "the market sucks, we haven't planned ahead, sorry, goodbye and thanks for all the fish" - that's just trolling. It takes 5 minutes to write that text and all while you look with love at that new shiny car the kickstarter funds just bought for you.
I'm not saying they're all scams, but merely that as far as I'm concerned, I can't make the difference - and that makes me uneasy.
"Hey, man, back in the old days with J.C., we used to walk everywhere."
(quote from Dogma, 1999)
Exactly.
Distance is also something you have to consider. Automated solar system exploration is fine, but beyond that I think the cost/reward is too high to send automated units.
Curiosity might disagree...
Your saying of "give the game another shot" after playing through it 6 times (no less!) kind of becomes a paradox...
I love the game, I sank some money in it already, but man, the game's having a crapload of issues. Between lost transaction data and buggy PvE missions, to bugs introduced to the game simply because some sub-team did something with the code right before the patch is released... They have lots to fix there.
Few days ago they announced they will completely drop the PvP part of the game (until further notice). I just hope this means more focus on the PvE part, which is nice... until you do that for 20 days and realize there's not much else to do.
Oh, I don't want to "fix" anyone, i just dislike it when these "particularities" are presented in such a way that they become "a model to follow".
Something like "see, kids, what you can accomplish if you don't listen to music?"
It's the difference between Stephen Hawking presented as a genius despite the fact he can't walk, and Stephen Hawking presented as a genius because he can't walk. :)
TFS says "he's not your typical teenager" - DOH. No genius teenager is typical - simply because the typical teenager is not a genius
TFS says "doesn't like listening to music" - which implies he doesn't like listening to ANY music. That sounds like the guy's missing a lot in life.
justin bieber is not music - so he might even listen to justin bieber and still hold TFS true... - but I digress.