Mrs Oh certainly has my sympathies.
I've been in that position, just not as bad as hers. It was during the dot-com days when things started going down hill. We had just finished our year-end reviews and my managers said I was doing excellent work. My review went really well and I was pleased.
One month later when the economy was getting really bad I was let go. My manager pulled me into a meeting to talk and said I was letting go due to performance reasons. Nothing had happened in that one month. When I asked how I was being let go due to performance reasons when just a month prior I had been given a good review he merely said, "This is not up for negotiation."
It really sucks when the company is just beginning to tank and they don't want to admit that the company was on a fast track to bankruptcy (people were already being let go before me). So, in order to cover their asses, they tell you, "Hey, it's your fault." That's just cowardly BS (as Mrs Oh says). It made me particularly cynical since this was my first job out of college and I had worked so hard (internet start-up).
In the year following, more and more people were being laid off until it reached a skeleton crew of people who supported old projects.
Since then I've seen companies do various things of questionable morality such as laying people off during maternity leave (which is basically illegal).
No, you aren't. But it's besides the point. Someone can be an asshole and a great leader too. When it comes to Apple products, people aren't buying them because the CEO shares his toys in the sandbox.
I'd like to offer a perspective different from the PR stunt that people seem to think it is.
Perhaps they are just artists. Granted, they've probably made enough money from their prior albums to no longer need to worry about money. They are treating their music like a piece of art. Real art should be free and open to the public (which is why public museums in London are free to the public). If this was their intention then I applaud Radiohead.
Personally, I'm a fan but not the biggest fan. I would've liked to sample the album beforehand but their reputation and previous albums are good enough for me to put money on the line.
As someone who works for a company that would probably qualify as "Web 2.0", I'm really sad to the see the skepticism of Slashdotters. I can understand why though: it's the Slashdot bandwagon to jump on. Dump on Web 2.0 because it's all just hot air.
Personally, I'm refreshed at the resurgence of technologies since 2003. After the bubble burst, there was little or no investment in tech/Silicon Valley. It was no-mans land.
Since then, I've seen a bunch of products that would be classified as Web 2.0 that I found exciting. To many it's just a marketing word, but to some, like me, it means an evolution of what we had from "Web 1.0" (or the web back in '96-'01).
Here are some:
digg/reddit: stories that are truly user moderated. sure it's not perfect but a way for the community to submit and vote for stories. more freestyle than slashdot.
flickr: finally someone got something that had been done (photos) but made it easy and friendly for everyone.
myspace/facebook/your social networking site here: yes, the social thing has been way overdone. but after you get over the initial bitter taste in your mouth, you realize that there is some value with maintaining a network of friends. more competition can only mean better products. as much as you mock the wanna-bes, competitors or the fact that a concept seems overdone, competition drives innovation.
youtube: video for the masses. certainly didn't exist in web 1.0. sure a lot of it is copyrighted content, but there IS a large amount of legitimate use if you actually use it that way. i personally use it to upload videos i want to share with friends. i've also found some individual artists that create AWESOME content.
I can go on and on. Web 2.0 doesn't just mean AJAX. And, frankly, AJAX has made interface much better in some ways. All user-generated content isn't crap. Yes, there are lots of it but you'd be stupid not to expect it. But don't let the crap make you think that there are no gems. And, finally, there is some value behind social networking and bringing the web to the common person who is not a geek, does not know HTML, barely has a concept of a URL, and simply wants to use the web to share their digital photos, home videos, or maintain their network of friends online.
Check your sources. Straight from the main page of tuckermax.com:
"My name is Tucker Max, and I am an asshole.
I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable, and just generally act like a raging dickhead."
Not really the type of guy whose opinion I'd respect.
Any exposure is good exposure, in this case. Whether or not the ad is racist and despite it staying up or coming it, it has accomplished it's goal. It's got tons of eyes seeing it. People can argue all they want but, just like the parent said, now we all know that a white PSP is coming out. THAT was the goal of this marketing campaign and they were willing to accept the risk of negative exposure. If enough people complain, they can simply take it down.
Well, you also have to consider that it's one guy (and his small company) making this. If you had a big carmaker produce you can definitely expect the price of it to drop. Efficiencies in production, higher demand by the overall public, better electric technology (batteries) are some of the reasons for this. In all likelihood, the car would be MUCH cheaper than $100k.
With that said, the reason why Ferraris cost so much have nothing to do with a roof, stereo or leather seats. The cost of those alone run a couple thousand (trivial compared to the $250k price tag on some of their cars). The reason why they cost so much are because they are hand made and very rare (as well as having high performance engines).
Hmm. One kid embarassed for doing a stupid video vs $400k that's going to come from mortgaging someone's house or someone's college fund. That's a hard comparison.
People need to learn to laugh at themselves (to some degree). If I were him I'd OWN it like there was no tomorrow. Dude.. look at cos-play freaks who dress up as Darth Vader when they went to see the release of Star Wars? These people own it.
No matter what age you are, if you can't laugh at yourself for doing something stupid, you're going to have problems in life. When you're young it's teasing, when you're older it'll manifest itself in a different way (eg., being unnecessarily bitter). I've seen harsher done to kids when I was young.
Well let's see. When I use a public bathroom I assume the building doesn't install cameras inside the stall to watch what I'm doing. When I go home I assume the authorities aren't peeking in through my windows. When I use my phone I don't assume I have to use secret codes in order to convey information. When I'm in my car I'm assuming that I'm not constantly being monitored by the authorities.
I think there's just a sense that we have an inherent right to privacy. Of course this changes if you're doing things in public (eg, the theaters, a park, a public square) but tapping into someone's private communications is certainly a violation.
Tell that to Google. It's not like money can be made from ads.
I believe the last stats I read had MySpace user registration doubling every six months. They are rated number 8 on Alexa, only behind companies like Google, Yahoo, MSN and eBay.
Perhaps the apparent business model of a social networking site isn't immediately obvious. That is, until, you think about what a media conglomerate like News Corp can do with such an active community. News Corp has holdings like Fox News and primetime shows like American Idol. You can bet that they will leverage their MySpace internet real-estate to push users towards their old media offerings. That, in itself, will generate a lot of revenue.
First of all, it takes time to find a job/company you really like. But don't give up! Don't give in! I went through several jobs until landing a job AND company that I can truly say I love. Nothing is perfect, but it's magnitudes better than any other job/company I've been at.
It's going to take time. Expect to spend several hours of week. Sometimes your effort may seem fruitless, but that's because this is a difficult mission. It's easy to find bad companies or jobs that you don't want.
I suppose this doesn't really help you seeing that you are incredibly busy. I suppose I'm assuming that you can find a couple hours on the weekend to devote to some online job searching. The best thing you can do is keep at it!
Shameless plug: Try out this awesome meta-job search engine (the company I'm currently at): http://www.simplyhired.com/
Very interesting comments, indeed, but it had a tinge of someone lost in the ivory tower and a bit out of touch with the real world, imho.
WRT "The Age of the Software Monopoly is Over":
IBM lost its grip on computer consumer business because computer quickly became commoditized for the reasons you stated (basically globalization). However, I don't know if I could make the same analogy to software. Yes, it's easier for people in eastern europe/china/india to build software. Open source is a big help at that. However, I can't see any sort of specialized skill becoming a commodity. Check that -- I can see certain simple programs being sold as a commodity (widgets for doing x, y, and z which have been done 1000 x over, but just in the latest technology). But I cannot see the building of the next generation browser, IDE, Office suite EVER being commoditized.
Starting a software business does take little investment if you plan to be a 1-man shop doing x widgets for random clients. If you ever have ambitions to grow to a real company you need investment. Even the exceptional companies of two guys starting a company only made it because an interested VC was willing to put some money on the table. Without that your little business will always stay a little business.
You don't need to live in Silicon Valley to start a successful, groundbreaking business but it helps bigtime. It's the single-largest source of highly qualified technical talent out there. And, even THEN, it's tough to recruit good people. Not only that, but it helps to be geographically close to Sandhill Road and helps to meet potential partners, VCs, advisers, and technical gurus. With that said, I recognize there are hotbeds of talent outside of SV and that it is still possible to grow a tech company outside of SV, just a bit more difficult imho.
You definitely fall under a certain category that was address in the article:
If we see a recommendation that says "smartest person I've ever known" combined with "I wouldn't ever want to work with them again," we decline to make them an offer.
No, that's not the answer I was looking for. And I see the confusion. The title of your post is not relevant to the body of what you wrote. I was simply responding to the title, not the content.
Ok, that's a bit harsh, but one sentiment I got from RTA was that Microsoft has TOO much order now. It talks about competition against Skype, Google, Adobe, etc. using AJAX. The problem with a big company is that Gates needs to send a big message. That's fine. But Microsoft really seems to have this herd mentality.
Herds are a double-edged sword. While it gives you a lot of man power, it also prevents you from having small, able groups do their own things. Why would that be good? Because then you can have people do some things different that eventually leads to innovation. There's a cost associated with all of it though. But Microsoft clearly is lacking in the innovation dept due to herd mentality.
It's kind of weird but it's almost like Microsoft needs an internal, civil war. It might be bad for morale but nothing breeds innovation like competition. Making everyone play well together is very limiting, especially when the orders come from up top.
This sentiment is based on Gates mentioning AJAX. I can see the web people at Microsoft never using a technology unless it was sanctioned by someone higher up at Microsoft or if it's a commonly way things are done. Having been to Microsoft conferences, I get the impression that the employees are encouraged to work in a certain way which is the optimal route designed from years of experience (i could be totally wrong). Experience is good, and doing things in a way that works is fine, but it always guards you against doing things differently and innovating, imho.
You seem to think that evolution says things it does not. At its core, it's really quite a simple theory: living organisms change in response to external forces, and those changes drive separated groups of organisms apart. God, or lack thereof, simply isn't addressed by the theory, and it's a mistake to claim otherwise, regardless which side of that debate you stand on.
Exactly! I guess some people do get it!
Evolution, per se, is not a refutation of God. It is the story of how beings evolved. It's a story of how humans came to be. But it it purely scientific. It does not enter the religious domain.
Now if one were to use some sort of theological argument as far as why evolution is a refutation of God (e.g., it stands in direct contrast to what it says in the Bible and that Bible is the word of God) that would be a bit more plausible. But that's NOT what is goign on here.
And, finally, to address the original question of a "laissez-faire" God. Theoretically speaking, what's to say that God was laissez-faire about things? What's to say that he didn't intervene at each step? What's to say that God did not initiate the progress of evolution?
your saying "god created evolution, to create us", but thats contaradictory to what evolution says. if god was a guide to evolution, then evolution is not "natural selection", as God is not natural.
From everything that I've learned, evolutioned is a theory of how single-celled organisms became multi-celled organisms. And from there, they back bacteria, then insects, then cold blooded creatures, onto warm-blooded creatures... you get the idea. But nowhere have I ever read it as a religious statement as the proof that there is no good. Evolution is about science, not about theology. So where you get that, I have no idea.
The same goes for natural selection.
Sure, the church, at the time, identified it as a threat. But evolution, as people know it now, talks about the survivial of the fittest, natural selection, and how organism evolve. None of these have anything to do with deities.
Because once you accept this scientific theory (and you really must, or else lose the last century and a half of biology) you must accept that either there is no god or whatever god does exist is so inscrutable that it is impossible to know anything about it. Either of these is tantamount to atheism.
Sounds nice, but makes no sense (to me). How exactly does it: 1) mean that you must accept that there is no god or 2) god is inscrutable == atheism??
First of all, I would humbly like to correct some spelling errors: it is "ridiculous". Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.
Anyway, I agree with what you said in general. The only point I would make is that this is not the fault of the media, but of misinformed people (imho). I'm willing to bet that if you looked at the actual news releases, that they specifically not that these representatives are from the episcopal (sp?) church. However, non-religious people, in general, probably can't distinguish the differences between a Roman Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, or Baptist. Heck, they probalby don't even know what the church of LDS is unless you say "mormon."
People are misinformed. They take opinion as fact (no thx to Fox), and word of mouth as news. Personally, I'm a bit uninformed myself considering how I did not know this was the Vatican's position and I am Catholic.
Well, from the word of my friends who actually work for Pixar, when there's bad morale people being to leave Pixar to go to other studios like Sony (who pay pretty well btw). This happened on a previous film where there was a lot of discontent. A lot of good people left. If Disney buys Pixar and a bunch of employees are discontent (and then leave), they are pretty much buying a lemon IMO.
Ugh horrible idea. Adding that would've made it thicker. Thin is good.. especially when leaving out a camera that you will probably never use (just like the one in my phone).
Slashdot Mirror
Mrs Oh certainly has my sympathies. I've been in that position, just not as bad as hers. It was during the dot-com days when things started going down hill. We had just finished our year-end reviews and my managers said I was doing excellent work. My review went really well and I was pleased. One month later when the economy was getting really bad I was let go. My manager pulled me into a meeting to talk and said I was letting go due to performance reasons. Nothing had happened in that one month. When I asked how I was being let go due to performance reasons when just a month prior I had been given a good review he merely said, "This is not up for negotiation." It really sucks when the company is just beginning to tank and they don't want to admit that the company was on a fast track to bankruptcy (people were already being let go before me). So, in order to cover their asses, they tell you, "Hey, it's your fault." That's just cowardly BS (as Mrs Oh says). It made me particularly cynical since this was my first job out of college and I had worked so hard (internet start-up). In the year following, more and more people were being laid off until it reached a skeleton crew of people who supported old projects. Since then I've seen companies do various things of questionable morality such as laying people off during maternity leave (which is basically illegal).
No, you aren't. But it's besides the point. Someone can be an asshole and a great leader too. When it comes to Apple products, people aren't buying them because the CEO shares his toys in the sandbox.
I'd like to offer a perspective different from the PR stunt that people seem to think it is.
Perhaps they are just artists. Granted, they've probably made enough money from their prior albums to no longer need to worry about money. They are treating their music like a piece of art. Real art should be free and open to the public (which is why public museums in London are free to the public). If this was their intention then I applaud Radiohead.
Personally, I'm a fan but not the biggest fan. I would've liked to sample the album beforehand but their reputation and previous albums are good enough for me to put money on the line.
Personally, I'm refreshed at the resurgence of technologies since 2003. After the bubble burst, there was little or no investment in tech/Silicon Valley. It was no-mans land.
Since then, I've seen a bunch of products that would be classified as Web 2.0 that I found exciting. To many it's just a marketing word, but to some, like me, it means an evolution of what we had from "Web 1.0" (or the web back in '96-'01).
Here are some:
I can go on and on. Web 2.0 doesn't just mean AJAX. And, frankly, AJAX has made interface much better in some ways. All user-generated content isn't crap. Yes, there are lots of it but you'd be stupid not to expect it. But don't let the crap make you think that there are no gems. And, finally, there is some value behind social networking and bringing the web to the common person who is not a geek, does not know HTML, barely has a concept of a URL, and simply wants to use the web to share their digital photos, home videos, or maintain their network of friends online.
Check your sources. Straight from the main page of tuckermax.com:
"My name is Tucker Max, and I am an asshole.
I get excessively drunk at inappropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable, and just generally act like a raging dickhead."
Not really the type of guy whose opinion I'd respect.
Precisely.
Any exposure is good exposure, in this case. Whether or not the ad is racist and despite it staying up or coming it, it has accomplished it's goal. It's got tons of eyes seeing it. People can argue all they want but, just like the parent said, now we all know that a white PSP is coming out. THAT was the goal of this marketing campaign and they were willing to accept the risk of negative exposure. If enough people complain, they can simply take it down.
Well, you also have to consider that it's one guy (and his small company) making this. If you had a big carmaker produce you can definitely expect the price of it to drop. Efficiencies in production, higher demand by the overall public, better electric technology (batteries) are some of the reasons for this. In all likelihood, the car would be MUCH cheaper than $100k.
With that said, the reason why Ferraris cost so much have nothing to do with a roof, stereo or leather seats. The cost of those alone run a couple thousand (trivial compared to the $250k price tag on some of their cars). The reason why they cost so much are because they are hand made and very rare (as well as having high performance engines).
Hmm. One kid embarassed for doing a stupid video vs $400k that's going to come from mortgaging someone's house or someone's college fund. That's a hard comparison.
I'm with the last response.
People need to learn to laugh at themselves (to some degree). If I were him I'd OWN it like there was no tomorrow. Dude.. look at cos-play freaks who dress up as Darth Vader when they went to see the release of Star Wars? These people own it.
No matter what age you are, if you can't laugh at yourself for doing something stupid, you're going to have problems in life. When you're young it's teasing, when you're older it'll manifest itself in a different way (eg., being unnecessarily bitter). I've seen harsher done to kids when I was young.
Well let's see. When I use a public bathroom I assume the building doesn't install cameras inside the stall to watch what I'm doing. When I go home I assume the authorities aren't peeking in through my windows. When I use my phone I don't assume I have to use secret codes in order to convey information. When I'm in my car I'm assuming that I'm not constantly being monitored by the authorities.
I think there's just a sense that we have an inherent right to privacy. Of course this changes if you're doing things in public (eg, the theaters, a park, a public square) but tapping into someone's private communications is certainly a violation.
"This study has been brought to you by your friendly neighbors Nokia, Siemens and Motorola."
Tell that to Google. It's not like money can be made from ads.
I believe the last stats I read had MySpace user registration doubling every six months. They are rated number 8 on Alexa, only behind companies like Google, Yahoo, MSN and eBay.
Perhaps the apparent business model of a social networking site isn't immediately obvious. That is, until, you think about what a media conglomerate like News Corp can do with such an active community. News Corp has holdings like Fox News and primetime shows like American Idol. You can bet that they will leverage their MySpace internet real-estate to push users towards their old media offerings. That, in itself, will generate a lot of revenue.
I've definitely been in your position.
First of all, it takes time to find a job/company you really like. But don't give up! Don't give in! I went through several jobs until landing a job AND company that I can truly say I love. Nothing is perfect, but it's magnitudes better than any other job/company I've been at.
It's going to take time. Expect to spend several hours of week. Sometimes your effort may seem fruitless, but that's because this is a difficult mission. It's easy to find bad companies or jobs that you don't want.
I suppose this doesn't really help you seeing that you are incredibly busy. I suppose I'm assuming that you can find a couple hours on the weekend to devote to some online job searching. The best thing you can do is keep at it!
Shameless plug: Try out this awesome meta-job search engine (the company I'm currently at): http://www.simplyhired.com/
WRT "The Age of the Software Monopoly is Over":
No, that's not the answer I was looking for. And I see the confusion. The title of your post is not relevant to the body of what you wrote. I was simply responding to the title, not the content.
This is like asking if you could fit a Civic engine into a Nissan 350z body. Why would you want to do that?
Ok, that's a bit harsh, but one sentiment I got from RTA was that Microsoft has TOO much order now. It talks about competition against Skype, Google, Adobe, etc. using AJAX. The problem with a big company is that Gates needs to send a big message. That's fine. But Microsoft really seems to have this herd mentality.
Herds are a double-edged sword. While it gives you a lot of man power, it also prevents you from having small, able groups do their own things. Why would that be good? Because then you can have people do some things different that eventually leads to innovation. There's a cost associated with all of it though. But Microsoft clearly is lacking in the innovation dept due to herd mentality.
It's kind of weird but it's almost like Microsoft needs an internal, civil war. It might be bad for morale but nothing breeds innovation like competition. Making everyone play well together is very limiting, especially when the orders come from up top.
This sentiment is based on Gates mentioning AJAX. I can see the web people at Microsoft never using a technology unless it was sanctioned by someone higher up at Microsoft or if it's a commonly way things are done. Having been to Microsoft conferences, I get the impression that the employees are encouraged to work in a certain way which is the optimal route designed from years of experience (i could be totally wrong). Experience is good, and doing things in a way that works is fine, but it always guards you against doing things differently and innovating, imho.
Exactly! I guess some people do get it!
Evolution, per se, is not a refutation of God. It is the story of how beings evolved. It's a story of how humans came to be. But it it purely scientific. It does not enter the religious domain.
Now if one were to use some sort of theological argument as far as why evolution is a refutation of God (e.g., it stands in direct contrast to what it says in the Bible and that Bible is the word of God) that would be a bit more plausible. But that's NOT what is goign on here.
And, finally, to address the original question of a "laissez-faire" God. Theoretically speaking, what's to say that God was laissez-faire about things? What's to say that he didn't intervene at each step? What's to say that God did not initiate the progress of evolution?
From everything that I've learned, evolutioned is a theory of how single-celled organisms became multi-celled organisms. And from there, they back bacteria, then insects, then cold blooded creatures, onto warm-blooded creatures... you get the idea. But nowhere have I ever read it as a religious statement as the proof that there is no good. Evolution is about science, not about theology. So where you get that, I have no idea.
The same goes for natural selection.
Sure, the church, at the time, identified it as a threat. But evolution, as people know it now, talks about the survivial of the fittest, natural selection, and how organism evolve. None of these have anything to do with deities.
Sounds nice, but makes no sense (to me). How exactly does it: 1) mean that you must accept that there is no god or 2) god is inscrutable == atheism??
First of all, I would humbly like to correct some spelling errors: it is "ridiculous". Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.
Anyway, I agree with what you said in general. The only point I would make is that this is not the fault of the media, but of misinformed people (imho). I'm willing to bet that if you looked at the actual news releases, that they specifically not that these representatives are from the episcopal (sp?) church. However, non-religious people, in general, probably can't distinguish the differences between a Roman Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, or Baptist. Heck, they probalby don't even know what the church of LDS is unless you say "mormon."
People are misinformed. They take opinion as fact (no thx to Fox), and word of mouth as news. Personally, I'm a bit uninformed myself considering how I did not know this was the Vatican's position and I am Catholic.
Well, from the word of my friends who actually work for Pixar, when there's bad morale people being to leave Pixar to go to other studios like Sony (who pay pretty well btw). This happened on a previous film where there was a lot of discontent. A lot of good people left. If Disney buys Pixar and a bunch of employees are discontent (and then leave), they are pretty much buying a lemon IMO.
Exactly. I think Gates has always had the ambition, but where he's been lacking is the execution.
Ugh horrible idea. Adding that would've made it thicker. Thin is good.. especially when leaving out a camera that you will probably never use (just like the one in my phone).