Eh, when I read the title, I assumed it was about pro gamers - e.g. professional poker players, bridge players, chess players, soccer players, football players etc.
In my mind, a good school is not about the professors - at least not *just* about the professors.
It's about a handful of things - first of all, the quality of your classmates. Your average classmate at MIT will be a lot smarter than your average classmate at ITT Tech.
The second advantage is opportunity - you get to work interesting, cool and exciting projects at a good school. Interesting research, lots of new ideas and the funding to come up with more, better companies at career fairs resulting in great internship and full time opportunities etc.
The final (and most important) factor is one of recognition. If you're at a top school, more doors open simply as a function of your school's popularity. In a lot of industries, it is near-impossible to break in without the right pedigree. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Sure, you can study at ITT Tech in Oklahoma and go to a community college in Kansas. But your chances of making it to a top firm or to a top position is severely limited by where you come from.
While I've had my share of bad experiences on eBay, I would definitely be sad to see them go.
For one, they have no real competition, and for another, there really isn't an online equivalent that I'd trust (not that I trust eBay much - but at least I trust that my transactions are conducted under a safe environment).
At the end of the day, I've found a lot of stuff on eBay that I couldn't find elsewhere (mostly older books that haven't been published; antique cuff links; great seconds of good shoes etc - I could go on).
I certainly hope that they win this case, and continue to do well. If not anything else, they were pioneers.
What about art? I buy originals of some of my favorite artists, and I've often seen fakes of their work. Worse yet, they are not even credited for it.
I usually notify the artist, of course. Sometimes, the artist themselves (or their manager) replies back with a thank you note (depending on if I am a customer who's bought their originals or their prints). But more often than not, I do not hear back, so I assume that the artists simply don't care.
I travel every week for work - fly out on Mondays, and fly back in on Thursdays or Fridays. Granted, sometimes I go to interesting places, but even then I rarely get any time to do anything fun or interesting.
Most of my time is spent working, and having dinner/drinks with the client and colleagues. And when it's time, I hit the sack (in a great hotel room where I get to spend may be 8 hours, and all of it sleeping).
I hardly ever get any time to spend with my girlfriend (despite the fact that she "lives" with me) or my friends or family.
Travel for business sounds wonderful, until you actually have to do it. You read about it in books or watch it on TV and it all looks great -- you go to fun places, you eat at fancy restaurants and unlimited free drinks that are paid for, you get to stay at great hotels etc. But what they don't tell you is that you don't enjoy any of it. Not a moment.
Doesn't always remove the ads (especially the inline ones), and it still requires some amount of effort on my part (which is harder still for me, since my job requires me to be on the road a lot).
One word - ads
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I stopped watching TV about 6 years ago. My biggest reason?
Even the paid channels that were supposedly "ad free" started having ads. I wouldn't mind paying a premium for a channel that had absolutely no ads whatsoever, and had uninterrupted programming. I can never relate to the whole, "ooh-shiny" mode of programming that's prevalent today. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if this were causing an increase in ADDs.
With a computer, I can pretty much download and watch what I want at my convenience, without ads.
Today, I do own a TV (which I bought a a few months ago at the behest of the girlfriend) - but no cable. We use it to watch DVDs and play videogames, and that's about it.
So, yes. Give me programs that are longer and uninterrupted (and good quality) and I will watch them. I am willing to spend 4 hours watching an uninterrupted show with a good story arc, rather than something that is half hour long, with interruptions ever 4 minutes in this age of instant gratification. And having to watch it again the next week at the exact time, which would be programming my life around the show and not the other way around.
You sort of expect them to do it, you grudgingly accept the fact that they'll be doing it (especially since you came in knowing that to be the case), and if you're let go, well that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
The good ones don't care - they'll do anything to stay on top, and the benefit is that they'll keep getting promoted. The also-rans will also get promoted, but just not as fast. The underperformers get the axe.
Well, I'm an Indian as well (albeit an Indian-American), and I am always amused when Indians chime into pretend that things are all fine and dandy in India. Or worse yet, when the same specious arguments (e.g. Bush) are brought up.
To think that education and skills are not commoditized in India is a joke. Except for the very top schools, most places offer next to nothing in the way of education.
Yes, there are incompetents in the US, but it is a lot harder for incompetents here to get a job at a top tech US firm (think Google) than it is for a joe blow idiot in India to get a job at a top Indian tech firm (think Infosys).
If you want to argue the reasoning behind outsourcing and the finer points of capitalism, I'll concede that paying less for competencies is a valid point. However, let me just tell you that apples to apples, the quality of tech skills in India are dismal compared to a similar pool in the US. You're paying less for competency because your skill set is also comparably poor, and you spend a lot more time finding something that works.
The cost of overhead and TCO is something that most people forget.
Not entirely true. I've a lot of friends who studied anything from Classics to Art History to Philosophy who are quite gainfully employed, making 6 and 7 figure incomes. That's only possible in developed countries.
In a place like India, what and where you study has a much bigger bearing on how much you make and where you end up. More so than most countries.
The problem is that as a developing economy, a lot of people in tech in India took up engineering or IT because it is a great chance to make money.
While there were a few talented techs and a few people who loved tech for its own sake, the very attitude in that region is to study something that would get you a well paying job. Most families there push for engineering or medicine - maybe law or finance every once in a while. Doing anything else, immaterial of your where your talents and interests lie is looked down upon.
The end result is that for every talented person, there are a ton of others who have no clue whatsoever. This is made worse by corporate greed by the various outsourcing companies who just use folks with backgrounds in anything vaguely technical, "train" them in IT and get them to do the grunt work. These people do not understand technology, do not care for technology and are nothing more than grunt workers, every single one of them. Wipro? TCS? Infosys? Satyam? They are ALL the same.
IT in India is a joke. The vast majority of them have no clue, and worse yet, do not have a passion for what they do. The problem is endemic, and results in poor quality code, service and the worst of all - attitude.
You, Sir, are a BS artist of the highest order. As a fellow mountain climbing, girlfriend banging, weight lifting, treadmill running, book reading, business traveling, more than two full-job working, stock trading.....holy crap, that sounds ridiculous, doesn't it.
Umm, no. I don't run, though, since I've a heel injury, but the rest sounds about right. Just because you spend all your free time doing nothing and while it away on pointless things doesn't mean that the rest of us don't find the time to do things we enjoy (and work at our jobs).
You (like most Slashdotters) think that anything non-technical is mostly useless.
And what exactly let you draw this conclusion?
It's wrong, btw.
The problem with business studies is that they perceive themselves as hard science. At least that's they way they like so sell themselves. And where I fully believe in economics, I wouldn't touch business studies with a 10-foot pole.
Actually, you're validating my point. Finance, accounting etc. are also considered technical skills within the industry - they are not technology-related, but they are hard skills.
Secondly, a lot of the best people in a lot of these professions act by feel, as opposed to skill. A good trader trades by his feel, a good salesman goes by his feel etc. If anything, the so-called models were built by quants who tried applying hard sciences in an attempt to quantify something that effectively cannot be.
And I have no idea what business studies you are talking about, unless you are equating every non-technical class to be a business studies class (whatever that may entail).
You (like most Slashdotters) think that anything non-technical is mostly useless. As a former techie, I used to be the same way (until maturity hit me).
Now, obviously I disagree, but I'm not going to go into why I think what I do is valuable. You're entitled to your opinions, and it's quite plain that what I find enjoyable and challenging is different from what you find enjoyable and challenging.
I love the variety and the opportunity to wear multiple hats - from having to work on optimizing business operations, to building multi-million cost models to working with new technology architectures. Yes, there have been big fuckups - but hey, there have been big technology fuckups that have cost lives, too. To me, that's a poor excuse and a poorer argument still because there are a lot of examples and cases where things have been quite successful.
A lot of people in these industries are extremely sharp, hardworking and obviously think that their work means something. For every major screw up by a senior executive, there are hundreds of analysts and associates working their butt off. Your argument is anecdotal at best and specious at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
He'd just have to unzip his way out of it.
Legitimizing Real Money Trading In Games...
As a frequent "trader" I was confused there for a second.
Eh, when I read the title, I assumed it was about pro gamers - e.g. professional poker players, bridge players, chess players, soccer players, football players etc.
Those are still called games, last I checked.
Seriously? Please tell me you are kidding, and that you're not really a moron asking that question.
What do you think Goldman Sachs is, a company that sells gold teeth on late night TV?
Get their name out to mainstream media indeed.
Well, most educated people would make the connection between English, England, Queen Elizabeth and RP. But hey, flame on.
Yeah. How can people *not* know what RP is? :-\
Integral to elementary English, one would imagine.
In my mind, a good school is not about the professors - at least not *just* about the professors.
It's about a handful of things - first of all, the quality of your classmates. Your average classmate at MIT will be a lot smarter than your average classmate at ITT Tech.
The second advantage is opportunity - you get to work interesting, cool and exciting projects at a good school. Interesting research, lots of new ideas and the funding to come up with more, better companies at career fairs resulting in great internship and full time opportunities etc.
The final (and most important) factor is one of recognition. If you're at a top school, more doors open simply as a function of your school's popularity. In a lot of industries, it is near-impossible to break in without the right pedigree. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Sure, you can study at ITT Tech in Oklahoma and go to a community college in Kansas. But your chances of making it to a top firm or to a top position is severely limited by where you come from.
While I've had my share of bad experiences on eBay, I would definitely be sad to see them go.
For one, they have no real competition, and for another, there really isn't an online equivalent that I'd trust (not that I trust eBay much - but at least I trust that my transactions are conducted under a safe environment).
At the end of the day, I've found a lot of stuff on eBay that I couldn't find elsewhere (mostly older books that haven't been published; antique cuff links; great seconds of good shoes etc - I could go on).
I certainly hope that they win this case, and continue to do well. If not anything else, they were pioneers.
I agree.
What about art? I buy originals of some of my favorite artists, and I've often seen fakes of their work. Worse yet, they are not even credited for it.
I usually notify the artist, of course. Sometimes, the artist themselves (or their manager) replies back with a thank you note (depending on if I am a customer who's bought their originals or their prints). But more often than not, I do not hear back, so I assume that the artists simply don't care.
Yeah, and when you come home on the weekends, all you want to do is sleep - the jetlag doesn't help either.
Works wonders for your social life, too! :)
+1.
I travel every week for work - fly out on Mondays, and fly back in on Thursdays or Fridays. Granted, sometimes I go to interesting places, but even then I rarely get any time to do anything fun or interesting.
Most of my time is spent working, and having dinner/drinks with the client and colleagues. And when it's time, I hit the sack (in a great hotel room where I get to spend may be 8 hours, and all of it sleeping).
I hardly ever get any time to spend with my girlfriend (despite the fact that she "lives" with me) or my friends or family.
Travel for business sounds wonderful, until you actually have to do it. You read about it in books or watch it on TV and it all looks great -- you go to fun places, you eat at fancy restaurants and unlimited free drinks that are paid for, you get to stay at great hotels etc. But what they don't tell you is that you don't enjoy any of it. Not a moment.
Ha. Fourier was proud of being a pure mathematician. Today, his works are amongst the most applied in just about every digital processing system.
Doesn't always remove the ads (especially the inline ones), and it still requires some amount of effort on my part (which is harder still for me, since my job requires me to be on the road a lot).
I stopped watching TV about 6 years ago. My biggest reason?
Even the paid channels that were supposedly "ad free" started having ads. I wouldn't mind paying a premium for a channel that had absolutely no ads whatsoever, and had uninterrupted programming. I can never relate to the whole, "ooh-shiny" mode of programming that's prevalent today. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if this were causing an increase in ADDs.
With a computer, I can pretty much download and watch what I want at my convenience, without ads.
Today, I do own a TV (which I bought a a few months ago at the behest of the girlfriend) - but no cable. We use it to watch DVDs and play videogames, and that's about it.
So, yes. Give me programs that are longer and uninterrupted (and good quality) and I will watch them. I am willing to spend 4 hours watching an uninterrupted show with a good story arc, rather than something that is half hour long, with interruptions ever 4 minutes in this age of instant gratification. And having to watch it again the next week at the exact time, which would be programming my life around the show and not the other way around.
Well, that's why I start with the drinks. Buy a few shots of cheap tequila, and you're groovy.
Wow. And you are talking about professionalism?
If anything, your attitude comes across as the exact opposite. If you did not give him an offer because he sucked, well, that's one thing.
But keeping a grudge years later and keeping his interview short on purpose? Sounds like you had already made up your mind.
Makes me think that he probably had good reasons to think what he did of you folks. IMHO and all that, of course.
Yo, I'm sure he could talk to Jon Katz.
I'm sure there are a few Commodore 64s lying around that he could use.
Not in an up or out industry.
You sort of expect them to do it, you grudgingly accept the fact that they'll be doing it (especially since you came in knowing that to be the case), and if you're let go, well that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
The good ones don't care - they'll do anything to stay on top, and the benefit is that they'll keep getting promoted. The also-rans will also get promoted, but just not as fast. The underperformers get the axe.
Well, I'm an Indian as well (albeit an Indian-American), and I am always amused when Indians chime into pretend that things are all fine and dandy in India. Or worse yet, when the same specious arguments (e.g. Bush) are brought up.
To think that education and skills are not commoditized in India is a joke. Except for the very top schools, most places offer next to nothing in the way of education.
Yes, there are incompetents in the US, but it is a lot harder for incompetents here to get a job at a top tech US firm (think Google) than it is for a joe blow idiot in India to get a job at a top Indian tech firm (think Infosys).
If you want to argue the reasoning behind outsourcing and the finer points of capitalism, I'll concede that paying less for competencies is a valid point. However, let me just tell you that apples to apples, the quality of tech skills in India are dismal compared to a similar pool in the US. You're paying less for competency because your skill set is also comparably poor, and you spend a lot more time finding something that works.
The cost of overhead and TCO is something that most people forget.
Not entirely true. I've a lot of friends who studied anything from Classics to Art History to Philosophy who are quite gainfully employed, making 6 and 7 figure incomes. That's only possible in developed countries.
In a place like India, what and where you study has a much bigger bearing on how much you make and where you end up. More so than most countries.
The problem is that as a developing economy, a lot of people in tech in India took up engineering or IT because it is a great chance to make money.
While there were a few talented techs and a few people who loved tech for its own sake, the very attitude in that region is to study something that would get you a well paying job. Most families there push for engineering or medicine - maybe law or finance every once in a while. Doing anything else, immaterial of your where your talents and interests lie is looked down upon.
The end result is that for every talented person, there are a ton of others who have no clue whatsoever. This is made worse by corporate greed by the various outsourcing companies who just use folks with backgrounds in anything vaguely technical, "train" them in IT and get them to do the grunt work. These people do not understand technology, do not care for technology and are nothing more than grunt workers, every single one of them. Wipro? TCS? Infosys? Satyam? They are ALL the same.
IT in India is a joke. The vast majority of them have no clue, and worse yet, do not have a passion for what they do. The problem is endemic, and results in poor quality code, service and the worst of all - attitude.
Umm, no. I don't run, though, since I've a heel injury, but the rest sounds about right. Just because you spend all your free time doing nothing and while it away on pointless things doesn't mean that the rest of us don't find the time to do things we enjoy (and work at our jobs).
Actually, you're validating my point. Finance, accounting etc. are also considered technical skills within the industry - they are not technology-related, but they are hard skills.
Secondly, a lot of the best people in a lot of these professions act by feel, as opposed to skill. A good trader trades by his feel, a good salesman goes by his feel etc. If anything, the so-called models were built by quants who tried applying hard sciences in an attempt to quantify something that effectively cannot be.
And I have no idea what business studies you are talking about, unless you are equating every non-technical class to be a business studies class (whatever that may entail).
That's fine.
You (like most Slashdotters) think that anything non-technical is mostly useless. As a former techie, I used to be the same way (until maturity hit me).
Now, obviously I disagree, but I'm not going to go into why I think what I do is valuable. You're entitled to your opinions, and it's quite plain that what I find enjoyable and challenging is different from what you find enjoyable and challenging.
I love the variety and the opportunity to wear multiple hats - from having to work on optimizing business operations, to building multi-million cost models to working with new technology architectures. Yes, there have been big fuckups - but hey, there have been big technology fuckups that have cost lives, too. To me, that's a poor excuse and a poorer argument still because there are a lot of examples and cases where things have been quite successful.
A lot of people in these industries are extremely sharp, hardworking and obviously think that their work means something. For every major screw up by a senior executive, there are hundreds of analysts and associates working their butt off. Your argument is anecdotal at best and specious at worst.
Who says that working out a lot, working 80 hour weeks and reading books are mutually exclusive?
All it takes is half hour 3-4 times a week to work out, which isn't much. And I fly a lot so that is my reading time.
If you must know, I also climb mountains, bike regularly, trade and manage my finances actively, read a lot and have a girlfriend.
And I'm sorry, but what's your point again? Just because you are terrible at time management doesn't mean the rest of us are.