You're just not familiar with industries where 80-100 hour weeks are the norm, and are even expected. Talk to any lawyer, management consultant or finance professional in one of the top tier firms. Most of these firms tend to be strictly up our out, and you get rated on not just your work but also other things you do besides work (firm contributions, for one).
You know that a third or more of your particular level is going to get axed at the end of the year (and some even before that). So, you'd better work your ass off. If you do well, you get promoted. If you don't, you get fired.
But hey, I'm sure your world is the only one that exists, where everything is nice and pink and people are all lazy asses working for 30 hours or less.
To be honest, though, those of us who wake up every Monday morning at 4 AM to fly out and spend late nights working (and interact with clients and go out drinking on top of all this, which btw is not considered work but is just as tiring) don't give a rat's ass whether or not you believe.
Where I work, if you're an Analyst or an Associate, you'd better show up before everyone else, and leave after everyone else.
Working in an up or out organization, everyone is working their asses off to outdo everyone else simply because if you don't, you get fired. And it is not just work that you do - you are also compared for your firm contributions, your contribution to your particular competency etc.
So, if you get your work done in 40 hours, you'd better do other things simply because others are (and these are not trivial things, either, some of them are just as hard as regular work). On top of that, you'd better have time to socialize with the client and arrive fresh and chirpy in the mornings.
Just because you have an easy enough job where everything can be done in 40 hours or less and where you have little enough responsibility to be out the door by 5 doesn't mean the rest of us do.
This story is all fine and good, but I don't understand how this provides a counter to my point.
Merely that personalities are not as deeply ingrained as you'd said. Personalities change based on the groups that you socialize with. Rather quickly at that, depending upon incentives and the groups that you're with.
If you were to socialize with some very socially challenged geeks, odds are that your social skills would be affected, and your problem solving skills heightened. However, if you were to hang out with people who are very social all the time, sooner or later you will pick up on social cues (unless of course you are incapable of doing so due to other conditions).
Similarly, personalities change and evolve over time and this is contingent upon your social circle (IMHO).
Like I said, I don't disagree with you - but bear in mind that a lot of these tests are given by folks looking for jobs in the service industry. Introvert and service industry don't exactly go hand in hand (especially since a lot of them involve customer/client interaction).
I generally agree with just about everything you said, except for one of your last statements.
Your personality is far more deeply ingrained than your religion.
Yes, your personality is quite deeply ingrained. However, just like religion, it can also change, for better or worse.
Growing up, I was a very extroverted kid. However, I changed schools a lot and as high-school hit, I realized that I was a geek, and I started becoming more introverted and less inclined to be in social situations.
However, around freshman year in college, I started dating a non-geek girl. She was an extrovert, and over time, I started exhibiting some of her characteristics. Over the years, as I've gone through my career, I've moved away from the research/tech types to mostly the business/management types.
Result? I've become more outgoing, social and my personality has undergone a transformation. Now make no mistake - I'm still a geek at heart. I own (and read) more books than most people, enjoy scifi and fantasy, build Lego contraptions and solve puzzles for fun.
However, I feel that my horizons have broadened. I still like Asimov and Herbert, but I can now appreciate Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Neruda. I watch Stargate, but I also enjoy going to the ballet. I enjoy parties and socializing as much as solving puzzles.
Until a few years ago, I had always been called quite non-confrontational and very pacifist in nature. But just the other day, a girl I work with told me that I'm a hardcore Type A despite the fact that I've always thought that I was more passive aggressive. Surprising yet is the fact that my industry in general is filled with really aggressive Type A folks, so coming from them, it was a genuine shock to me.
Of course, sometimes it amazes me how much people stereotype. For instance, last week I overheard someone calling me a "suit", despite the fact that I still enjoy technology and am quite partial to it. Unfortunately, people equate dressing well and being extroverted and talking to business as being "suit-y". That is the sad reality.
Eating healthy and getting good exercise is good for *any* human being, geek or otherwise. If anything, working out regularly makes you more relaxed, helps you sleep better, improves your concentration, boosts your confidence and is in general very healthy for both your body and mind.
The only "mental ability" that gets in the way of working out is laziness (and to be fair, geeks are known to be quite lazy and tend to look for the shortest path to any problem).
Right now, I just flew into a client site and I'm dressed rather nicely (good dress slacks, a well fitted French-cuffed shirt with titanium cuff links, a jacket and Chelsea boots). I have to dress nicely for work, but I find that I rather enjoy it because based on my build, formals/dress clothes look good on me.
Now, there are some guys who can pull off the whole casual look (jeans + t-shirts), but most people just shabby and quite unkempt (and not in a good way).
Looking good and sharp is often appreciated by the ladies, trust me.
Seriously, people underestimate the importance of looking buff. In undergrad, I was a skinny guy (I used to play in a metal band, which was considered cool by some chicks, but I was still skinny).
Somewhere after grad school, I discovered the gym and sports that I enjoyed (rock climbing, for one). And once I started bulking up, I was amazed at the attention that women give you. To all the geeks out there -- buff up. Stop eating junk, eat healthy, work out regularly, run, get good abs and build some muscle.
You'd be amazed at how much better your chances are. Especially in summer.
Personally, I'd rather have big, crowded cities (e.g. NYC) and the idyllic countryside, rather than urban sprawls (e.g. small cities/towns which are neither dense cities, nor idyllic countrysides).
You have the benefits of getting everything whenever you want it, and all the conveniences, and you can go to the countryside when you want to.
The first evil is that cities actually send out a message that the rural person is inferior by offering higher wages than tiny towns and villages.
That's simply not true.
There are more opportunities in cities simply because anything that creates lots of jobs attracts more people, thereby creating an urban environment. It's cause and effect. Secondly, cities pay more because of two reasons - competition and cost of living. A decent studio in Manhattan costs at least 5 times that of a good 2 bedroom house in rural Oklahoma. Supply and demand. Just because a person in Manhattan gets paid more does not mean jack, because the cost of living is also much, much higher.
The next problem is that education is excessively valued in cities. Sadly, education in itself causes the brain to shift functions away from areas that are vital.
What utter crap. And how the hell do you define vital? If anything, I would argue that cities provide more opportunities. More opportunities to intern at a good place, more educational options, more museums, more programs, better facilities, better teachers etc.
My cousin is in NYC, and his wife holds a PhD in engineering. Of course, she's a stay at home mom, and she helps the kids in her apartment complex with school projects and things. I've another friend who studied math at MIT and now teaches high school kids in Boston. The probability of you finding a well educated, talented teacher in a rural area is extremely low. My girlfriend's family is from rural Oklahoma, and I've met some of her nephews' teachers. They are a joke. I knew more in high-school than they do now.
Hell, there isn't even a half decent library in most rural areas. Take a walk down Cambridge, Mass. There are probably more books owned by individuals there than in all the rural areas of Kansas (bibles not included).
We have all seen college and even high school students get goofy when they are forced to study too much.
Some people cannot cope with stress. Period. And some people enjoy learning enough that they can keep going. It's got nothing to do with cities. It's a personal thing.
The other side of the coin is that as children are born in cities many can not comply with the regime needed to attain higher levels of education and become the dreaded and violent, chronically unemployed.
Eh? Do you have any statistics or are you simply spewing this crap off your ass?
Further cities are like a cancer as they physically spread out oozing all kinds of toxins into the more rural environments. Rural environments never ruin cities but cities always destroy rural areas.
Cities are dense entities with lots of people. Do the math for number of people and you'll find it about the same.
Secondly, you are ignoring the conveniences of a modern city. Everything is easily accessible, quickly available and you expend less resources to get what you need (as opposed to rural areas with fewer options and more expensive for those limited options).
For example, I'm a strict vegetarian, and every time I travel to a rural area, it is hard for me to find good, organic vegetarian options. I go to a restaurant, and I literally have no options. Fresh fruit juice? Spices? Ditto. I either have to cook my own food, or eat what's available (which isn't much to begin with).
I don't even have to get out of the building I'm in, and I can find good vegetarian options - Italian, Chinese, Thai, Mexican, Indian etc. And there are at least 5 juice shops within a 2 block radius that give me good, fresh juice. Coffee? Beer? Same.
If you did the math for the conveniences and population, the damage caused by cities and rural areas come to about the same.
Much of this falls squarely upon capitalism as in the beginning businesses deliberately attract throngs of labor and then
I've always lived in big cities for most of my life, and I rather enjoy it.
Now while I certainly do enjoy the outdoors, I don't mind the crowds in a big city.
I've a beautiful view of the lake here in downtown Chicago, and in some ways, it is almost reassuring to see a mass of people when you're going out to grab a cup of coffee.
If anything, I find that crowded places and cities are quite efficient. Especially the more dense ones.
I used to have to travel to Texas frequently, and on average, the wait at Starbucks for a line of 5 people was slower than a line of 20 in NYC or Chicago. And this was supposedly in a "city" (Dallas). Ditto for most other things. Post office? Fast food joint?
People loiter around, and even getting on escalators is a pain.
Just out of curiosity, I opened up MSO 2007 and tried to find out where properties was (it's not a feature I've used very often in '07).
And intuitively, I clicked on the Start logo, and on the Prepare category to find Properties right there.
Personally, I find it intuitive. Now, I can see how you may not - but I would categorize that as user error.
Besides, I keep OSS folks referring people to RTFM. Perhaps that's not such a bad idea, after all, especially when you are complaining about what is a pretty intuitive piece of software.
As someone who uses MSO for a living (particularly Excel & PowerPoint), I would have to say that Office 2007 is leagues ahead of any previous versions (and competition).
I must admit that when I first started using Office 2007, I was a little lost - but once I got used to the new UI, I realized simply how useful it was. On top of that, MSO is one of the most intuitive pieces of software ever written.
It's not the platform, but the applications on the platform.
For instance, for those of us who have to use spreadsheets, Excel is ages ahead of any competition. The shortcuts, documentation, existing scripts, backwards compatibility etc. also play a big role.
And on that same scale, Office 2007 in general is way superior. It is not just the features - it is also *good* technical support and supporting documentation for the end user.
By that same note, I see OS X coming up as an alternative. But Linux? Not for a long time.
To me, all I need to do is use office, surf the web and listen to music. On occasion, transfer stuff from my iPod or digital camera.
I buy a notebook from the store with Windows pre-installed (where the wireless adapter, and everything else, works out of the box); I buy and install Office, download a couple of applications and all my needs are met.
Ideally, I'd like to spend as little time as possible setting things up.
Now, personally, Linux (and Office on Linux) is nowhere ready enough for that. The convenience is what I pay for. You may disagree, and that is your prerogative.
Honestly, I would rather spend a couple of hundred bucks and use Windows on an OEM machine with standard hardware than jump through hoops to get Linux running.
When I was younger (and poorer, with more time), I enjoyed playing around with Linux. But as I've grown older, my time is money and I have much better things to do with my time than trying to spend inordinate amounts of time getting my computer to run.
Inferior and superior is such a whole boat load of crap to me, the end user. IMHO, my stuff works out of the box with Windows - and I will buy products that work well with it. Now, hardware manufacturers support Windows, and that is an advantage. And most of the software that I need and use are made by Microsoft anyway (Excel, Word, Powerpoint).
To me, my OS is irrelevant. Whatever facilitates my task and makes my life easier is my choice hands down.
And I had the chance to meet him when I was in grad school, and he said that Agrippa was a dedication to his father (Gibson lost his parents at a fairly young age).
And no, overpopulation won't be a problem becasue humans, like all biological creatures will only expand to meet the amount of food that is available. The rest will starve.
For one, I said it reminded me of those days, not that it was the same as those days.. For another, this was done by a few people at Google, which doesn't necessarily mean that the entire muscle of Google was behind them.
This is the sort of coolness that I like about technology - the fact that you can use to create something not quite mainstream, yet very interesting and very cool.
And these are the moments when I really enjoy reading Slashdot. Reminds me of how back in the day, Slashdot used to post something small but interesting done by a geek in a garage...
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
That was a fantastic comment.
It is always the tyranny of the majority that's been used to justify everything from murder to curbing even the most fundamental of human rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh.
You're just not familiar with industries where 80-100 hour weeks are the norm, and are even expected. Talk to any lawyer, management consultant or finance professional in one of the top tier firms. Most of these firms tend to be strictly up our out, and you get rated on not just your work but also other things you do besides work (firm contributions, for one).
You know that a third or more of your particular level is going to get axed at the end of the year (and some even before that). So, you'd better work your ass off. If you do well, you get promoted. If you don't, you get fired.
But hey, I'm sure your world is the only one that exists, where everything is nice and pink and people are all lazy asses working for 30 hours or less.
To be honest, though, those of us who wake up every Monday morning at 4 AM to fly out and spend late nights working (and interact with clients and go out drinking on top of all this, which btw is not considered work but is just as tiring) don't give a rat's ass whether or not you believe.
US Navy - Nuclear Technician (e.g. EMT etc).
My girlfriend was one, and I fully remember the hard life she (and we) had when she was still in service.
It depends on the industry, no?
Where I work, if you're an Analyst or an Associate, you'd better show up before everyone else, and leave after everyone else.
Working in an up or out organization, everyone is working their asses off to outdo everyone else simply because if you don't, you get fired. And it is not just work that you do - you are also compared for your firm contributions, your contribution to your particular competency etc.
So, if you get your work done in 40 hours, you'd better do other things simply because others are (and these are not trivial things, either, some of them are just as hard as regular work). On top of that, you'd better have time to socialize with the client and arrive fresh and chirpy in the mornings.
Just because you have an easy enough job where everything can be done in 40 hours or less and where you have little enough responsibility to be out the door by 5 doesn't mean the rest of us do.
Tell me about it.
80 on a usual week, 100 on a bad week and 60 on a good week.
80 hours for nine days? Slackers.
Merely that personalities are not as deeply ingrained as you'd said. Personalities change based on the groups that you socialize with. Rather quickly at that, depending upon incentives and the groups that you're with.
If you were to socialize with some very socially challenged geeks, odds are that your social skills would be affected, and your problem solving skills heightened. However, if you were to hang out with people who are very social all the time, sooner or later you will pick up on social cues (unless of course you are incapable of doing so due to other conditions).
Similarly, personalities change and evolve over time and this is contingent upon your social circle (IMHO).
Like I said, I don't disagree with you - but bear in mind that a lot of these tests are given by folks looking for jobs in the service industry. Introvert and service industry don't exactly go hand in hand (especially since a lot of them involve customer/client interaction).
I generally agree with just about everything you said, except for one of your last statements.
Yes, your personality is quite deeply ingrained. However, just like religion, it can also change, for better or worse.
Growing up, I was a very extroverted kid. However, I changed schools a lot and as high-school hit, I realized that I was a geek, and I started becoming more introverted and less inclined to be in social situations.
However, around freshman year in college, I started dating a non-geek girl. She was an extrovert, and over time, I started exhibiting some of her characteristics. Over the years, as I've gone through my career, I've moved away from the research/tech types to mostly the business/management types.
Result? I've become more outgoing, social and my personality has undergone a transformation. Now make no mistake - I'm still a geek at heart. I own (and read) more books than most people, enjoy scifi and fantasy, build Lego contraptions and solve puzzles for fun.
However, I feel that my horizons have broadened. I still like Asimov and Herbert, but I can now appreciate Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Neruda. I watch Stargate, but I also enjoy going to the ballet. I enjoy parties and socializing as much as solving puzzles.
Until a few years ago, I had always been called quite non-confrontational and very pacifist in nature. But just the other day, a girl I work with told me that I'm a hardcore Type A despite the fact that I've always thought that I was more passive aggressive. Surprising yet is the fact that my industry in general is filled with really aggressive Type A folks, so coming from them, it was a genuine shock to me.
Of course, sometimes it amazes me how much people stereotype. For instance, last week I overheard someone calling me a "suit", despite the fact that I still enjoy technology and am quite partial to it. Unfortunately, people equate dressing well and being extroverted and talking to business as being "suit-y". That is the sad reality.
That's a load of crap.
Eating healthy and getting good exercise is good for *any* human being, geek or otherwise. If anything, working out regularly makes you more relaxed, helps you sleep better, improves your concentration, boosts your confidence and is in general very healthy for both your body and mind.
The only "mental ability" that gets in the way of working out is laziness (and to be fair, geeks are known to be quite lazy and tend to look for the shortest path to any problem).
Not necessarily true.
Right now, I just flew into a client site and I'm dressed rather nicely (good dress slacks, a well fitted French-cuffed shirt with titanium cuff links, a jacket and Chelsea boots). I have to dress nicely for work, but I find that I rather enjoy it because based on my build, formals/dress clothes look good on me.
Now, there are some guys who can pull off the whole casual look (jeans + t-shirts), but most people just shabby and quite unkempt (and not in a good way).
Looking good and sharp is often appreciated by the ladies, trust me.
Add to the list - work out.
Seriously, people underestimate the importance of looking buff. In undergrad, I was a skinny guy (I used to play in a metal band, which was considered cool by some chicks, but I was still skinny).
Somewhere after grad school, I discovered the gym and sports that I enjoyed (rock climbing, for one). And once I started bulking up, I was amazed at the attention that women give you. To all the geeks out there -- buff up. Stop eating junk, eat healthy, work out regularly, run, get good abs and build some muscle.
You'd be amazed at how much better your chances are. Especially in summer.
Personally, I'd rather have big, crowded cities (e.g. NYC) and the idyllic countryside, rather than urban sprawls (e.g. small cities/towns which are neither dense cities, nor idyllic countrysides).
You have the benefits of getting everything whenever you want it, and all the conveniences, and you can go to the countryside when you want to.
That's simply not true.
There are more opportunities in cities simply because anything that creates lots of jobs attracts more people, thereby creating an urban environment. It's cause and effect. Secondly, cities pay more because of two reasons - competition and cost of living. A decent studio in Manhattan costs at least 5 times that of a good 2 bedroom house in rural Oklahoma. Supply and demand. Just because a person in Manhattan gets paid more does not mean jack, because the cost of living is also much, much higher.
What utter crap. And how the hell do you define vital? If anything, I would argue that cities provide more opportunities. More opportunities to intern at a good place, more educational options, more museums, more programs, better facilities, better teachers etc.
My cousin is in NYC, and his wife holds a PhD in engineering. Of course, she's a stay at home mom, and she helps the kids in her apartment complex with school projects and things. I've another friend who studied math at MIT and now teaches high school kids in Boston. The probability of you finding a well educated, talented teacher in a rural area is extremely low. My girlfriend's family is from rural Oklahoma, and I've met some of her nephews' teachers. They are a joke. I knew more in high-school than they do now.
Hell, there isn't even a half decent library in most rural areas. Take a walk down Cambridge, Mass. There are probably more books owned by individuals there than in all the rural areas of Kansas (bibles not included).
Some people cannot cope with stress. Period. And some people enjoy learning enough that they can keep going. It's got nothing to do with cities. It's a personal thing.
Eh? Do you have any statistics or are you simply spewing this crap off your ass?
Cities are dense entities with lots of people. Do the math for number of people and you'll find it about the same.
Secondly, you are ignoring the conveniences of a modern city. Everything is easily accessible, quickly available and you expend less resources to get what you need (as opposed to rural areas with fewer options and more expensive for those limited options).
For example, I'm a strict vegetarian, and every time I travel to a rural area, it is hard for me to find good, organic vegetarian options. I go to a restaurant, and I literally have no options. Fresh fruit juice? Spices? Ditto. I either have to cook my own food, or eat what's available (which isn't much to begin with).
I don't even have to get out of the building I'm in, and I can find good vegetarian options - Italian, Chinese, Thai, Mexican, Indian etc. And there are at least 5 juice shops within a 2 block radius that give me good, fresh juice. Coffee? Beer? Same.
If you did the math for the conveniences and population, the damage caused by cities and rural areas come to about the same.
+1.
I've always lived in big cities for most of my life, and I rather enjoy it.
Now while I certainly do enjoy the outdoors, I don't mind the crowds in a big city.
I've a beautiful view of the lake here in downtown Chicago, and in some ways, it is almost reassuring to see a mass of people when you're going out to grab a cup of coffee.
If anything, I find that crowded places and cities are quite efficient. Especially the more dense ones.
I used to have to travel to Texas frequently, and on average, the wait at Starbucks for a line of 5 people was slower than a line of 20 in NYC or Chicago. And this was supposedly in a "city" (Dallas). Ditto for most other things. Post office? Fast food joint?
People loiter around, and even getting on escalators is a pain.
Just out of curiosity, I opened up MSO 2007 and tried to find out where properties was (it's not a feature I've used very often in '07).
And intuitively, I clicked on the Start logo, and on the Prepare category to find Properties right there.
Personally, I find it intuitive. Now, I can see how you may not - but I would categorize that as user error.
Besides, I keep OSS folks referring people to RTFM. Perhaps that's not such a bad idea, after all, especially when you are complaining about what is a pretty intuitive piece of software.
I would have to agree.
As someone who uses MSO for a living (particularly Excel & PowerPoint), I would have to say that Office 2007 is leagues ahead of any previous versions (and competition).
I must admit that when I first started using Office 2007, I was a little lost - but once I got used to the new UI, I realized simply how useful it was. On top of that, MSO is one of the most intuitive pieces of software ever written.
Office, baby. Office.
It's not the platform, but the applications on the platform.
For instance, for those of us who have to use spreadsheets, Excel is ages ahead of any competition. The shortcuts, documentation, existing scripts, backwards compatibility etc. also play a big role.
And on that same scale, Office 2007 in general is way superior. It is not just the features - it is also *good* technical support and supporting documentation for the end user.
By that same note, I see OS X coming up as an alternative. But Linux? Not for a long time.
Different priorities.
To me, all I need to do is use office, surf the web and listen to music. On occasion, transfer stuff from my iPod or digital camera.
I buy a notebook from the store with Windows pre-installed (where the wireless adapter, and everything else, works out of the box); I buy and install Office, download a couple of applications and all my needs are met.
Ideally, I'd like to spend as little time as possible setting things up.
Now, personally, Linux (and Office on Linux) is nowhere ready enough for that. The convenience is what I pay for. You may disagree, and that is your prerogative.
And please. Getting anything up and running on Linux has never been possible in 20 minutes. Ubuntu included.
I have.
And Microsoft doesn't have an Excel 2007 version on Ubuntu, unfortunately. Until such day, not worth it in my book.
Thank you. I wish more people would see this.
Linux is only free if your time isn't money.
Honestly, I would rather spend a couple of hundred bucks and use Windows on an OEM machine with standard hardware than jump through hoops to get Linux running.
When I was younger (and poorer, with more time), I enjoyed playing around with Linux. But as I've grown older, my time is money and I have much better things to do with my time than trying to spend inordinate amounts of time getting my computer to run.
Inferior and superior is such a whole boat load of crap to me, the end user. IMHO, my stuff works out of the box with Windows - and I will buy products that work well with it. Now, hardware manufacturers support Windows, and that is an advantage. And most of the software that I need and use are made by Microsoft anyway (Excel, Word, Powerpoint).
To me, my OS is irrelevant. Whatever facilitates my task and makes my life easier is my choice hands down.
And I had the chance to meet him when I was in grad school, and he said that Agrippa was a dedication to his father (Gibson lost his parents at a fairly young age).
Until the haves go against the wall.
What do veggie zombies say?
Graaaiiins. Grrraaaaaiiinnss. Gggrraaaaaiiiiinnnnssss.
I'll be here all night, thank you.
For one, I said it reminded me of those days, not that it was the same as those days.. For another, this was done by a few people at Google, which doesn't necessarily mean that the entire muscle of Google was behind them.
Amen.
This is the sort of coolness that I like about technology - the fact that you can use to create something not quite mainstream, yet very interesting and very cool.
And these are the moments when I really enjoy reading Slashdot. Reminds me of how back in the day, Slashdot used to post something small but interesting done by a geek in a garage...
That was a fantastic comment.
It is always the tyranny of the majority that's been used to justify everything from murder to curbing even the most fundamental of human rights.