Obviously, you don't know how to pack. Besides, it's not like most hotels do not come with an iron. Also, you can always dress smart. Wear a blazer, which gives you more freedom when you pack. Or have multiple pants for the same jacket (suit separates FTW!). Worst case, leave your suit hanging outside when you take a hot shower and it will be in good shape in no time.
While I can understand your sentiment, it is quite impractical and inconvenient for frequent flyers.
It simply is not possible for some of us to drive everywhere, and time is also a very big factor.
Security is a pain, I agree, but if you pack intelligently, you can breeze through it without a problem. Rude passengers? Ignore them, and there are far fewer of those than you think.
And tiny suitcase? I can pack enough stuff for two weeks in my carry-on alone. Between that and my laptop bag, I can literally pack enough stuff for a month without any problems (suits, casual wear, work-out gear, books and more). Most people are just too stupid to pack intelligently, and they do not use a lot of what they pack.
You may have had a nice scenic drive, but I'd rather cut my trip into a tenth of its time, and use my time for other things. And good luck on long distance destinations.
Okay, I wrote about this on the original Slashdot article when Clear lost the data, but let me reiterate this - the value of something like Clear for a business traveler cannot be stressed enough.
Contrary to your crazy, paranoid rants on the so-called system, most business travelers aren't particularly rich and the powerful - they just care about getting from point A to point B, and they are just trying to do their jobs with the least amount of inconvenience.
Does it basically come down to people paying to not have to stand in line with the rest of humanity at the airport?
Pretty much.
And that's a big bonus for business travelers. I fly at least twice a week, and on some weeks, it could be way more than that. So, I spend a lot of time standing in lines at the airport and spending time with idiot passengers who do not know how to pack. Before I get in line, I have my wallet, phone and everything else in my bag, I usually carry no liquids (buy 'em where I go or leave 'em at the client site), I wear a belt and a watch that can go through the metal detector with no problem and all I need to take off are my shoes and my laptop.
Some airports have various lanes for experienced and regular flyers, families, etc. But unfortunately, it is not based on your frequent flyer status, but rather you as a passenger are allowed to choose on your own. This is a big problem because Joe Idiot who flies twice a year thinks he is as "experienced" as your business traveler who flies several times a week and can breeze through. Of course, some airports have status-based lines, which are awesome (Gold, Platinum etc).
So, something like Clear is extremely useful - in fact, a lot of companies will let you charge that in as an expense (the way you can expense your membership to various airline clubs). If you are a frequent flier, the usefulness of not having to stand in line and breeze through is tremendous.
It also means half hour more that I can spend sleeping in on those early mornings that I have to fly out. Especially when you have a 6 AM flight (which I do, on every Monday) and have to get up at 4 AM. Or if I am just spending 2 days with a client, I want to make full use of my time there, and not waste it standing in line with idiots. That goes a long way for some of us.
I've always thought that religion was a plague to society, but then I've often noticed that a lot of folks who've had to deal with mental illnesses do better with religion and or faith, compared to those without.
I have read elsewhere that it is fact that mentally unstable individuals need a figure of authority, and religions and faith provides that, which makes it easier for people to handle their problems. Of course, it might also be the reason why some dictators can do so well by cultivating a cult of crazy assed followers, but I digress.
Either way, hey, if it helps you, go with it. I've known several folks with paranoid schizophrenia and really bad depression issues who turn to faith and religion in times of trouble. Interesting, that.
Well, as someone who is in consulting, we tend to use the term consultant to define someone who comes in, provides a solution, and goes out (e.g. strategy consulting, management consulting etc). Typically, the purchasers involve C-level execs (or other top execs) who want to define a strategy (short term or long term, business, finance or tech etc), oversee an M&A deal etc.
An example of a top tier consulting firm would be McKinsey.
Contractors are people who are hired to actually do the job (e.g. a coder who is brought in to code) rather than consult. A tech consultant in my experience would assist the architects with defining the technology strategy and choosing the right vendors, SOWs, SLAs etc, but would not be part of the implementation process. A PMO consultant would assist with the program management process, but not necessarily manage the program per se. A marketing segmentation consultant would analyze the right market segments and tell you what markets to pursue and how, but not actually do it for you.
If the economy is doing badly, people need consultants to optimize the organization, help them with the layoffs, assist them with restructuring etc. Also, bad economic conditions are perfect conditions for companies to swallow their competition and other smaller companies, so more M&A deals and an increased demand for more sales etc.
So, being behind white collar crimes when you are a superhero at night is fine, but you don't enjoy others doing the same? Interesting take, this Batman movie thingy.
I'm contracted to do 37 hours. I do 35 on a good week and 40 on a bad week. My American colleages don't get anymore work done than me.
That's a bit of a blanket statement, don't you think? I mean, at the end of the day, it depends on your job and what its demands are.
Some industries (law, medicine, consulting, finance etc.) usually do not have the regular structure and rigor that a 9-5 job does. And in these industries, crazy hours are the norm, and are in fact expected. My friends in the very top tier consulting, law and i-banking/PE industries have crazy hours that make my life look almost normal.
I do not know about your American colleagues; but I am certainly aware that mergers between American and European consulting firms have failed in the past because of different work-life balance expectations. In my experience, at least, what constitutes success is quite different in Europe than in the US.
Of course, Europe may be the exception here. My friends in Asia in similar professions have just as long hours, if not longer, than the ones here in the US. Personally, if I had a job with just 35 hours a week, I'd die of boredom.
It gives me the freedom to do other things - and I need not always be in front of a computer.
Expecting to hear back from a client? Do not know when they'll call back? That's absolutely fine. I can go out and have a blast, and if something comes up, I'll know immediately. If I'm working from home, then I can go out and do other things without having to worry about an important email, or without forgetting about a meeting on my calendar.
To me, that flexibility is part of what I like about having a Blackberry.
Granted it sounds like you're a type A personality
So I've been told. I guess it's just the nature of the industry that I'm in.
but when do you un-plug ?
I do outdoorsy stuff all the time, and I give advance notice when I have something coming up. It just takes a little bit of planning.
Don't force your choice on others.
Neither should you, because at the end of the day, it's a double edged sword.
At the end of the day, it boils down to the lifestyle that you choose to have, I guess. Me, I cannot imagine my work life without my Blackberry.
That said, it is a very conscious choice that I made. I am a management consultant (cue the Douglas Adams jokes), and if something needs to be done at 2 AM on a Saturday night while on vacation, I do it. Hell, my manager is on vacation in the Virgin Islands this week and I get emails from him at 5 AM asking for updates.
To me, this is perfectly acceptable because I chose this lifestyle knowing full well the ramifications. I had a nice 9-5 corporate job, but at the end of the day, it was slow, work was challenging but not trying and there was a ton of mediocrity around. These days, I've a job where I fly out every week, work 60 hours on a good week and 80+ on a bad one, and it is strictly up or out. Given my lifestyle and the amount of travel I do, my Blackberry is my lifeline.
And just to your point, at least in my friends circle, receiving phone calls at 10 PM, 12 AM or even 4 AM is not out of the ordinary (and we are not talking about IT, either - a lot of them are in consulting or finance). It is just part of the lifestyle that we chose, and to us, it is quite normal.
That said, there are also times when folks decide to go incommunicado because they can't take it. That's fine, too. But I guess my point is that just because you can receive an email in the middle of the night does not mean you should reply to it. Secondly, you can always turn it on Silent - which is what I do if I do not want to be interrupted (important presentation, dinner date etc).
And oh some level, I find it strange when someone does not want a Blackberry. My only phone is my Blackberry, and to me, it is a one-stop solution. My calendar, my address book, my email, IM and everything else is all rolled into one. I can travel wherever I want, and as long as I have my Blackberry, I am quite content.
And to the point about compensation for overtime - while I do make a decent amount of money, I also put in enough of an effort in it. I do my job because I enjoy doing it, and folks that signed up for something knowing full well the outcome, and seek compensation later, should perhaps look for a different career path.
I do not know if Slashdotters do any trading, but if you look at commodities, the price of agricultural products (and corn and grains in particular) is on the way up.
Hell, even companies that process grains (e.g. CPO) are on the rise - just look at their 5 yr chart.
So, combined with the grain shortage, the gains from biofuel are minimal. So, companies are making less off of biofuel than they would off of food and grains. End result? Biofuel processing plants go belly up; food processing plants are making killer profits.
I know this is anecdotal, but I've a violin that's my grandmother's, which was her mother's (I think). It's very old, and German, and is a pleasure to play.
I also have several new violins that have been modeled after the really good old ones (including one that's modeled after a Bolshoi instrument). Now, the new ones sound fabulous, no doubt, but the old ones still have an ineffable quality to them that makes the music stand out.
For the longest time I thought this was psychological, but I've played both kinds of violins to friends and family with no music knowledge, and almost always, people say that the older violin just sounds richer. Even more interesting is the fact that the strings (both violin and bowstrings) are all quite new, so it most certainly is the body.
Secondly, it is also the collector's value - you have some excellent replicas of some of the world's most famous paintings, perhaps in better quality and in better resolution. However, that hardly diminishes the value of the original.
Do I enjoy playing my new violins? Hell yeah. In fact, I've some with fixed microphones inside which makes it easier for me to make recordings and the like (this is a problem because appropriate placing of mics inside a violin is hard, without affecting the harmonics, and there are some violins that take this into consideration).
And while some of my new violins can certainly take a beating, while I'm scared shitless of doing anything to my grandmother's violin. That does not mean that it diminishes the value of the old one - if anything, it makes it a delicate, valuable item.
I was talking about it in terms of skills - I've met plenty of marketing geeks who are very quantitative, and have strong technical backgrounds (including PhDs in engineering, statistics and economics). Given that a lot of what marketing has to do is analytical, this is not surprising. I've also met some socially challenged marketing people, which would be a curious thing for many Slashdotters who automatically assume that everyone in marketing is a schmuck who enjoys schmoozing with people.
Even the soft skills in marketing tend to be quite unique (e.g. it takes a strong, creative streak to come up with good design, catchy elements etc). Certain distinguishing elements of Google (like the colors, the fact that they change their logo periodically, their April 1st pranks) are obvious now, but quite obviously, it took some very creative people to think that up. That is not to say that there aren't bad designers out there; just that design is just one part of marketing, and good design (like everything else) is not something anyone can do. In some ways, I'm reminded of William Gibson's Pattern Recognition.
Apart from their specific skills (e.g. languages, art, design, user experience etc), most of the creative marketing folks are also skilled at ethnography and the like (either naturally, or because they work at it).
Sales on the other hand, does not require a lot of hard skills, just very good soft skills. As far as sales is concerned, they are tasked with selling something, and they will try and do their best to sell it. Now, this is by no means easy, but it (usually) does not necessitate any technical skills - be it in math, finance or whatever else. Which is why it is very valuable to have a technically strong sales person (imagine a sales person who is excellent at finance). While not particularly uncommon, it usually doesn't happen.
Most sales people usually tend to be very social (and sociable, affable) people who are just good at what they do. Their education helps, but is usually is immaterial because nobody is going to ask to see a sales person's CV - just their sales track record. On the other hand, you wouldn't want to hire someone to do marketing distribution channel analysis without an adequate background in the area.
So, yes, marketing and sales are related, but in terms of skills, both are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
There SHOULD be a "glass ceiling" for Marketing and Sales guys.
Okay, this always gets to me.
Repeat after me, marketing and sales are NOT the same. Both are completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Understanding a customer's needs is a core element of marketing, and that includes user experience, user needs and the like. To just about any company, that is a very important thing, and in Google's case, that is a very distinguishing element. In fact, separating all the crap from the data and getting to the crux of what users want, and translating those into requirements to be designed and developed in products and services is not something that's easy, and it's one of the things that marketing is usually tasked with.
Marketing also deals with such things as appropriate pricing models (which includes a lot of math, let me reassure you) to find out the best way to market and sell something.
Finally, marketing also deals with promotions, distribution strategies, distribution channels etc. All of this involves significant amount of data analytics to understand what needs to be done.
Now, a part of marketing also includes branding, but once again, good branding is backed by strong data to suggest and recommend appropriate branding strategies.
While sales involves a lot of, well, selling (which usually necessitates schmoozing), marketing is entirely different.
Not that I'd expect a Slashdotter to know the difference, but still, please don't club the two together.
I've not owned or watched television in over 5 years.
I do buy season DVDs of a handful of shows (could be counted on one hand) and watch or buy the occasional movie DVD, but I can't ever see myself watching broadcast TV in any form.
Well, I may, if they showed uninterrupted shows with no ads whatsoever, and perhaps a ton of documentaries and the like.
Ditto for my girlfriend. TV is a waste of time, and you don't realize that unless you actually get away from it. I look at folks who're addicted to having it in the background, or run their lives according to a show (those that don't have DVRs that is). In some sense, it is saddening, but in another, it is also amusing.
I'd rather go out and climb mountains, party with women and build my lego gadgets, than write off my life to the idiot box.
Yes, he graduated with a Computer Science degree, not a programming degree.
If anything, I've more respect for the man because of that. Since when did CS become equivalent to programming?
Any monkey can program, and an ideal CS degree should *not* teach programming (or should teach just enough to understand, but not give a damn about programming).
If you want to learn programming, go to ITT tech or something. Sheesh.
A good design should be independent of implementation constraints.
I've known people who are great programmers, but they are constrained by the programming languages that they're comfortable with. An ideal designer would not have any such constraints - s/he could always ask someone who is aware of implementation details, but a good design should not be limited by the implementation details.
If an architect finds that his developers cannot do something, or if his tools cannot accomplish something, he should be be looking at finding new developers and new tools.
I'd go further to say that having the reality check is a bad thing - and is one of the culprits of poor design, and poor practices.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, you don't know how to pack. Besides, it's not like most hotels do not come with an iron. Also, you can always dress smart. Wear a blazer, which gives you more freedom when you pack. Or have multiple pants for the same jacket (suit separates FTW!). Worst case, leave your suit hanging outside when you take a hot shower and it will be in good shape in no time.
While I can understand your sentiment, it is quite impractical and inconvenient for frequent flyers.
It simply is not possible for some of us to drive everywhere, and time is also a very big factor.
Security is a pain, I agree, but if you pack intelligently, you can breeze through it without a problem. Rude passengers? Ignore them, and there are far fewer of those than you think.
And tiny suitcase? I can pack enough stuff for two weeks in my carry-on alone. Between that and my laptop bag, I can literally pack enough stuff for a month without any problems (suits, casual wear, work-out gear, books and more). Most people are just too stupid to pack intelligently, and they do not use a lot of what they pack.
You may have had a nice scenic drive, but I'd rather cut my trip into a tenth of its time, and use my time for other things. And good luck on long distance destinations.
Okay, I wrote about this on the original Slashdot article when Clear lost the data, but let me reiterate this - the value of something like Clear for a business traveler cannot be stressed enough.
Contrary to your crazy, paranoid rants on the so-called system, most business travelers aren't particularly rich and the powerful - they just care about getting from point A to point B, and they are just trying to do their jobs with the least amount of inconvenience.
Pretty much.
And that's a big bonus for business travelers. I fly at least twice a week, and on some weeks, it could be way more than that. So, I spend a lot of time standing in lines at the airport and spending time with idiot passengers who do not know how to pack. Before I get in line, I have my wallet, phone and everything else in my bag, I usually carry no liquids (buy 'em where I go or leave 'em at the client site), I wear a belt and a watch that can go through the metal detector with no problem and all I need to take off are my shoes and my laptop.
Some airports have various lanes for experienced and regular flyers, families, etc. But unfortunately, it is not based on your frequent flyer status, but rather you as a passenger are allowed to choose on your own. This is a big problem because Joe Idiot who flies twice a year thinks he is as "experienced" as your business traveler who flies several times a week and can breeze through. Of course, some airports have status-based lines, which are awesome (Gold, Platinum etc).
So, something like Clear is extremely useful - in fact, a lot of companies will let you charge that in as an expense (the way you can expense your membership to various airline clubs). If you are a frequent flier, the usefulness of not having to stand in line and breeze through is tremendous.
It also means half hour more that I can spend sleeping in on those early mornings that I have to fly out. Especially when you have a 6 AM flight (which I do, on every Monday) and have to get up at 4 AM. Or if I am just spending 2 days with a client, I want to make full use of my time there, and not waste it standing in line with idiots. That goes a long way for some of us.
The church is made up of people, yes? Of course, one may debate if Christians are people, but I digress.
Either way, that only makes it all the more hypocritical.
That's just from doing your Mom. =)
Fantastic response.
I can't wait for an idiot to come along and say something along the lines of, "Physics as we know it today" or some such rubbish.
I've always thought that religion was a plague to society, but then I've often noticed that a lot of folks who've had to deal with mental illnesses do better with religion and or faith, compared to those without.
I have read elsewhere that it is fact that mentally unstable individuals need a figure of authority, and religions and faith provides that, which makes it easier for people to handle their problems. Of course, it might also be the reason why some dictators can do so well by cultivating a cult of crazy assed followers, but I digress.
Either way, hey, if it helps you, go with it. I've known several folks with paranoid schizophrenia and really bad depression issues who turn to faith and religion in times of trouble. Interesting, that.
Well, as someone who is in consulting, we tend to use the term consultant to define someone who comes in, provides a solution, and goes out (e.g. strategy consulting, management consulting etc). Typically, the purchasers involve C-level execs (or other top execs) who want to define a strategy (short term or long term, business, finance or tech etc), oversee an M&A deal etc.
An example of a top tier consulting firm would be McKinsey.
Contractors are people who are hired to actually do the job (e.g. a coder who is brought in to code) rather than consult. A tech consultant in my experience would assist the architects with defining the technology strategy and choosing the right vendors, SOWs, SLAs etc, but would not be part of the implementation process. A PMO consultant would assist with the program management process, but not necessarily manage the program per se. A marketing segmentation consultant would analyze the right market segments and tell you what markets to pursue and how, but not actually do it for you.
If the economy is doing badly, people need consultants to optimize the organization, help them with the layoffs, assist them with restructuring etc. Also, bad economic conditions are perfect conditions for companies to swallow their competition and other smaller companies, so more M&A deals and an increased demand for more sales etc.
Just my two cents!
Indeed. Also, I'd definitely like to read the original GS report that the article is supposedly based off of.
Pund-IT may be crap, but Goldman is not, so it would be interesting to see the original report.
Contractors, maybe. Consultants? Not very likely.
Reading Dealbreaker for the comments is like reading Slashdot for editorials (and spelling).
Yeah, Joker was awesome - but the biggest criminal of all time of course is Batman's alter ego, Mr. Wayne.
Mr. Bruce Wayne is the better class of criminal that the Joker talks about - someone who would make the white collars on Wall Street look like children.
So, being behind white collar crimes when you are a superhero at night is fine, but you don't enjoy others doing the same? Interesting take, this Batman movie thingy.
It's never a question of what's enough. There are simply higher levels of expectations and dedication from some jobs, compared to others.
One of my dream jobs would be as a climbing/mountaineering guide - which is once again a full time 100% job. Good luck asking for overtime for that.
Not all jobs are the same, and not all people look at their work and life the same way.
That's a bit of a blanket statement, don't you think? I mean, at the end of the day, it depends on your job and what its demands are.
Some industries (law, medicine, consulting, finance etc.) usually do not have the regular structure and rigor that a 9-5 job does. And in these industries, crazy hours are the norm, and are in fact expected. My friends in the very top tier consulting, law and i-banking/PE industries have crazy hours that make my life look almost normal.
I do not know about your American colleagues; but I am certainly aware that mergers between American and European consulting firms have failed in the past because of different work-life balance expectations. In my experience, at least, what constitutes success is quite different in Europe than in the US.
Of course, Europe may be the exception here. My friends in Asia in similar professions have just as long hours, if not longer, than the ones here in the US. Personally, if I had a job with just 35 hours a week, I'd die of boredom.
I look at it differently.
It gives me the freedom to do other things - and I need not always be in front of a computer.
Expecting to hear back from a client? Do not know when they'll call back? That's absolutely fine. I can go out and have a blast, and if something comes up, I'll know immediately. If I'm working from home, then I can go out and do other things without having to worry about an important email, or without forgetting about a meeting on my calendar.
To me, that flexibility is part of what I like about having a Blackberry.
So I've been told. I guess it's just the nature of the industry that I'm in.
I do outdoorsy stuff all the time, and I give advance notice when I have something coming up. It just takes a little bit of planning.
Neither should you, because at the end of the day, it's a double edged sword.
At the end of the day, it boils down to the lifestyle that you choose to have, I guess. Me, I cannot imagine my work life without my Blackberry.
That said, it is a very conscious choice that I made. I am a management consultant (cue the Douglas Adams jokes), and if something needs to be done at 2 AM on a Saturday night while on vacation, I do it. Hell, my manager is on vacation in the Virgin Islands this week and I get emails from him at 5 AM asking for updates.
To me, this is perfectly acceptable because I chose this lifestyle knowing full well the ramifications. I had a nice 9-5 corporate job, but at the end of the day, it was slow, work was challenging but not trying and there was a ton of mediocrity around. These days, I've a job where I fly out every week, work 60 hours on a good week and 80+ on a bad one, and it is strictly up or out. Given my lifestyle and the amount of travel I do, my Blackberry is my lifeline.
And just to your point, at least in my friends circle, receiving phone calls at 10 PM, 12 AM or even 4 AM is not out of the ordinary (and we are not talking about IT, either - a lot of them are in consulting or finance). It is just part of the lifestyle that we chose, and to us, it is quite normal.
That said, there are also times when folks decide to go incommunicado because they can't take it. That's fine, too. But I guess my point is that just because you can receive an email in the middle of the night does not mean you should reply to it. Secondly, you can always turn it on Silent - which is what I do if I do not want to be interrupted (important presentation, dinner date etc).
And oh some level, I find it strange when someone does not want a Blackberry. My only phone is my Blackberry, and to me, it is a one-stop solution. My calendar, my address book, my email, IM and everything else is all rolled into one. I can travel wherever I want, and as long as I have my Blackberry, I am quite content.
And to the point about compensation for overtime - while I do make a decent amount of money, I also put in enough of an effort in it. I do my job because I enjoy doing it, and folks that signed up for something knowing full well the outcome, and seek compensation later, should perhaps look for a different career path.
Umm, Hindian is not a language. Hindi is a language; and India has way too many languages to be learnt if you want to go that route.
I do not know if Slashdotters do any trading, but if you look at commodities, the price of agricultural products (and corn and grains in particular) is on the way up.
Hell, even companies that process grains (e.g. CPO) are on the rise - just look at their 5 yr chart.
So, combined with the grain shortage, the gains from biofuel are minimal. So, companies are making less off of biofuel than they would off of food and grains. End result? Biofuel processing plants go belly up; food processing plants are making killer profits.
Not necessarily.
I know this is anecdotal, but I've a violin that's my grandmother's, which was her mother's (I think). It's very old, and German, and is a pleasure to play.
I also have several new violins that have been modeled after the really good old ones (including one that's modeled after a Bolshoi instrument). Now, the new ones sound fabulous, no doubt, but the old ones still have an ineffable quality to them that makes the music stand out.
For the longest time I thought this was psychological, but I've played both kinds of violins to friends and family with no music knowledge, and almost always, people say that the older violin just sounds richer. Even more interesting is the fact that the strings (both violin and bowstrings) are all quite new, so it most certainly is the body.
Secondly, it is also the collector's value - you have some excellent replicas of some of the world's most famous paintings, perhaps in better quality and in better resolution. However, that hardly diminishes the value of the original.
Do I enjoy playing my new violins? Hell yeah. In fact, I've some with fixed microphones inside which makes it easier for me to make recordings and the like (this is a problem because appropriate placing of mics inside a violin is hard, without affecting the harmonics, and there are some violins that take this into consideration).
And while some of my new violins can certainly take a beating, while I'm scared shitless of doing anything to my grandmother's violin. That does not mean that it diminishes the value of the old one - if anything, it makes it a delicate, valuable item.
I was talking about it in terms of skills - I've met plenty of marketing geeks who are very quantitative, and have strong technical backgrounds (including PhDs in engineering, statistics and economics). Given that a lot of what marketing has to do is analytical, this is not surprising. I've also met some socially challenged marketing people, which would be a curious thing for many Slashdotters who automatically assume that everyone in marketing is a schmuck who enjoys schmoozing with people.
Even the soft skills in marketing tend to be quite unique (e.g. it takes a strong, creative streak to come up with good design, catchy elements etc). Certain distinguishing elements of Google (like the colors, the fact that they change their logo periodically, their April 1st pranks) are obvious now, but quite obviously, it took some very creative people to think that up. That is not to say that there aren't bad designers out there; just that design is just one part of marketing, and good design (like everything else) is not something anyone can do. In some ways, I'm reminded of William Gibson's Pattern Recognition.
Apart from their specific skills (e.g. languages, art, design, user experience etc), most of the creative marketing folks are also skilled at ethnography and the like (either naturally, or because they work at it).
Sales on the other hand, does not require a lot of hard skills, just very good soft skills. As far as sales is concerned, they are tasked with selling something, and they will try and do their best to sell it. Now, this is by no means easy, but it (usually) does not necessitate any technical skills - be it in math, finance or whatever else. Which is why it is very valuable to have a technically strong sales person (imagine a sales person who is excellent at finance). While not particularly uncommon, it usually doesn't happen.
Most sales people usually tend to be very social (and sociable, affable) people who are just good at what they do. Their education helps, but is usually is immaterial because nobody is going to ask to see a sales person's CV - just their sales track record. On the other hand, you wouldn't want to hire someone to do marketing distribution channel analysis without an adequate background in the area.
So, yes, marketing and sales are related, but in terms of skills, both are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Okay, this always gets to me.
Repeat after me, marketing and sales are NOT the same. Both are completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
Understanding a customer's needs is a core element of marketing, and that includes user experience, user needs and the like. To just about any company, that is a very important thing, and in Google's case, that is a very distinguishing element. In fact, separating all the crap from the data and getting to the crux of what users want, and translating those into requirements to be designed and developed in products and services is not something that's easy, and it's one of the things that marketing is usually tasked with.
Marketing also deals with such things as appropriate pricing models (which includes a lot of math, let me reassure you) to find out the best way to market and sell something.
Finally, marketing also deals with promotions, distribution strategies, distribution channels etc. All of this involves significant amount of data analytics to understand what needs to be done.
Now, a part of marketing also includes branding, but once again, good branding is backed by strong data to suggest and recommend appropriate branding strategies.
While sales involves a lot of, well, selling (which usually necessitates schmoozing), marketing is entirely different.
Not that I'd expect a Slashdotter to know the difference, but still, please don't club the two together.
You still have basic cable.
I've not owned or watched television in over 5 years.
I do buy season DVDs of a handful of shows (could be counted on one hand) and watch or buy the occasional movie DVD, but I can't ever see myself watching broadcast TV in any form.
Well, I may, if they showed uninterrupted shows with no ads whatsoever, and perhaps a ton of documentaries and the like.
Ditto for my girlfriend. TV is a waste of time, and you don't realize that unless you actually get away from it. I look at folks who're addicted to having it in the background, or run their lives according to a show (those that don't have DVRs that is). In some sense, it is saddening, but in another, it is also amusing.
I'd rather go out and climb mountains, party with women and build my lego gadgets, than write off my life to the idiot box.
Yes, that was supposed to have been a sarcastic comment (I was in a physics program in grad school, before changing tracks). :)
Yes, he graduated with a Computer Science degree, not a programming degree.
If anything, I've more respect for the man because of that. Since when did CS become equivalent to programming?
Any monkey can program, and an ideal CS degree should *not* teach programming (or should teach just enough to understand, but not give a damn about programming).
If you want to learn programming, go to ITT tech or something. Sheesh.
A good design should be independent of implementation constraints.
I've known people who are great programmers, but they are constrained by the programming languages that they're comfortable with. An ideal designer would not have any such constraints - s/he could always ask someone who is aware of implementation details, but a good design should not be limited by the implementation details.
If an architect finds that his developers cannot do something, or if his tools cannot accomplish something, he should be be looking at finding new developers and new tools.
I'd go further to say that having the reality check is a bad thing - and is one of the culprits of poor design, and poor practices.