t's amusing to me that the summary tosses around words like "wrongly brand", when MySpace hasn't "branded" - which implies a public, overt identification - anyone as anything. And even if the woman's friends ask why her profile is gone, it's not as if they're going to accidentally and arbitrarily believe she really is a sex offender.
Come on - enough with the ridiculous nerd pedanticism. This has nothing to do with the definition of "brand" and everything to do with how (relatively) easy it is to mislabeled as something you are not using automated systems.
So sure today, MySpace's crappy database program mislabels you, but tomorrow it could be an automated service that determines whether you are eligible for a job or a home loan (or whatever). Yeah, you can say that the government hasn't labeled you, but would that necessarily be relevant? Hell no.
It is a well known fact in science that depriving yourself of calories (1200-1400 a day for a sedentary lifestyle instead of 2000) is one of the surest ways of extending your life and living healthy. That means kicking out caloric drinks.
Look it up.
Look what up? This is the Age of the Internet man, with hyperlinking! Throw us a bone, especially when making claims about scienfitic studies that seem like they could be interesting if we only knew where to look.
Anyway I'll let you off easy this time and do it for you.:) Very interesting study btw. I've always suspected that we probably don't actually need to eat every single day. This study shows that not only is it not needed, but it could actually be detrimental.
Ah yes. Then we'd get preached to about why Gnu/Linux is Gnu/superior to both Gnu/Mac AND Gnu/Windows which are all teh sux0rs to Gnu/Hurd which will be released any Gnu/Hurd/Day now.
Refused to sign a contract allowing Dell to buy MS products at substantial discount, unless they signed saying they WOULDN'T sell competing products. See how changing the wording makes this evil... If Dell hadn't signed, they'd have been forced to one of 2 things.. #1) Don't provide any MS products #2) Raise product price by $300+ to be able to include MS products. What would that have done to their bottom line?
I repeat - Michael Dell is a multi-billionaire. Why the concern over his company's bottom line? If he hadn't signed those deals with MS, perhaps he'd only be worth a few hundred million or maybe just one or two billion. At that level, I suppose he'd be in line at the soup kitchen.:)
It wasn't well done, or earned. It was blackmail pure and simple. Look, in the course of contract negotiations, all of the major PC vendors want the best possible price for an OS license. In order to get that best price, Microsoft has, in the past, forced the vendor to purchase a license for every machine sold, regardless of the OS to be installed.
I never quite understood this bit of criticism about Microsoft. Blackmail is when you threaten to tell someone's spouse that he/she cheated on them unless they give you a million dollars. MS signed a contract saying that they'd offer discounts IF they didn't sell competing products. There is nothing evil about this. If you don't like the terms, walk. If you can't survive without the price breaks, why is that MS's problem?
And why are we feeling sorry for people like Michael Dell, again? Lest we forget, this man became a multi billionaire largely due to the "blackmail" contracts he signed with Microsoft. Gateway also made billions in sales from MS contracts.
Great excerpt and you should be modded up. Hypocrisy is such an easy disease to catch. I'd love to hear how Paul Graham reconciles his current actions against his owns words. No doubt referring to his own exploding termsheet as an "IQ Test" helps quell the cognative dissonance.
My lifetime best was 1200 wpm, back when my eyesight was excellent. One trick for reading slowly is to stop after each page and precis the contents in your head. This also improves retention, though remembering the content of some books is not an advantage.
You, the parent, and grandparent post were probably scanning text. Every study done on speed readers has shown that the fastest readers top out at about 400 words-per-minute. We're talking 1000+ words read per minute with 50%+ comprehension. (I posted much the same in another reply, so mods, please don't shoot me for repeating myself.:) ).
Agree completely! My coworkers make fun of me for printing out everything (articles, code, emails, etc) but a computer monitor is a terrible medium for actively reading text (marking things up, etc) and like you, my eyes get tired much faster reading a backlit screen.
I only use my monitor when something is really short, I need to *search* for something, I need to transfer something in digitized form, or if I'm actively writing in code for an algorithm I've already worked out (most programmers only know how to "program" on the computer...sadly this will confuse most "programmers" out there.:) ).
So computers are great for storing, searching, and transfering information. However, they suck at allowing people to *process* it.
WTF? This is how I've always done speed-reading...
Everyone claiming to speed read is probably just scanning text. True speed reading (1000 words per minute with high comprehension) is basically a myth.
I hate to say it, but this REALLY.....REALLY sucks.
In a way I agree. BSG is great TV and I hate to think we won't be getting new eps after next season.
But I'm more eager to see how everything ties together. I think it'd be great if we limited all shows to 4 or 5 seasons (at most) and avoid the fates of shows like "X-files", "Lost", "Alias", etc. Often times, writers have maybe 3 seasons of great material, but are forced to water it down so broadcasters can squeeze more money out of it over the course of 6+ seasons.
There's a distinct difference between expecting someone to champion their project and being a bully and abusing them verbally. Telling every person that their project idea is "the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft." is just being downright mean. Especially when you just glare at them coldly after they defend themselves (as the article points out).
While I don't agree with Gates' management style, I don't think I'd quite characterize it as bullying.
Bullying is all about gaining a power trip over people. Bill Gates just wanted people to defend their ideas to make sure they thought everything through. And he'd back down if shown why his idea was worse.
The PS3 is an amazing machine technically, but it's too hard to develop games on it and unfortunately people still think of the PS3 as primarily a gaming machine, even though Ken and Sony execs would prefer they didn't. And bottom line is people aren't willing spend that much money for a gaming machine; especially one with games whose quality doesn't scale with the extra cost.
Free Will, addiction, sexuality, etc. Increasingly all these "soft" subject areas have been found to have at least some biological basis. Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) somewhat humorously refers to people as "moist robots".
I find this to be another offshoot of the whole "nature vs nurture" thing. All of these things are partially biological (and thus uncontrollable) and partially learned. I think the problems come when people insist it's either one OR the other.
That link to Backus's paper was incredible and *just* as insightful today as it was 30 years ago. After years of working in C-like languages and it's descendents (though I'm branching off in functional languages), I found myself nodding my head a lot.
Google's approach to growth right now resembles something like a gold rush, assuming that they know where the gold really is.
Few people do, including MS.
Anyway, due to the illogical insanity of the stock market, Google finds themselves flush with a ton of money way out of proportion with what they earn (PE 44.43 today). Can't blame them for throwing a lot of "stuff" at the wall with smart people and seeing what sticks. Sounds like a decent enough plan for growth to me. This essentially is what all companies do anyway, even if they can't admit it to themselves. No one "knows" the future in business.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems rare that these kinds of kids keep improving at the same rate. Is it politics that are involved in working in organizations that cause this drop off in rate of improvement? Or maybe I just expect too much. Perhaps the problems are just too hard beyond this level.
"Absolutely. Get your ass off your chair, walk over to the users, and talk to them about what they need. Then write yourself a detailed spec if you feel you need it. Then turn that spec into some paper-based mockups and walk the users through it. Then make any corrections needed. Then write the software.
And count your lucky stars that your company is incapable of writing proper specs - if they were, they would have outsourced your job to India or Brazil a long time ago."
If there were a once-per-year +20 mod, I'd give it to you right now, KDan. This is SO on the point on so many levels.
If you are operating inside a company Intranet environment or you're consulting, THIS is what you need to be doing. And as KDan said, don't cop an attitude if your users can't seem to do these things. Interacting with user is your biggest value-add. They need you right there talking to them and helping them face-to-face. Otherwise, yes, your company may as well ship your job overseas to some offshoring company for half the price.
Tip #1: get salary info from friends with similar experience in a similar job before the interview
Tip #2: whoever mentions a number first, loses.
Agree with #1, but somewhat disagree with #2. Thinking about who's winning and who's losing gets things going on the wrong foot. Keep your eye on the prize - what the market is paying for someone with your skills. Everything else, including this business about "winning and losing" is just pointless garnish. If the company can't or won't match what you should be making(or get into the ballpark), just walk and line up the next interviewing.
Wash, rinse, repeat until you get what you're looking for.
Now dependent upon this is being in a position where you don't have to have some kind of job to get income. How to get into that position is another post (now credit card debt, living beneath your means, etc). But the fact is most companies generally operate from a position of power and thus that's why you have "arrogant" employers.
Well I guess we can welcome Bram to the ranks of "slick talking" company executives (only he's not very slick). His snipe about Cuban is an extension of an ongoing argument (well...a couple of comments) between the two on Bittorrent, its cost, and legit traffic.
Mark Cuban started things off and Bram Cohen responded. Bram's problem is that he mischaracterizes Cuban's argument when he makes his case. For example, right in the title of his blog entry, Bram claims Mark predicts the downfall of Bittorrent. Mark never said anything like that! And in fact Mark responds to Bram's false accusations in his own blog. How many billionaire CEOs would you see doing this? Of course people will keep accusing Mark of being a self-centered, power hungry megolomaniac. That may or may not be true. However, we can provably show what someone did or did not say in a blog and in this instance, Bram is way off.
I love Bram to death for what he's given to us for free and I don't know if he's deliberately mischaracterizing this criticism or perhaps temporarily misunderstood what Mark was getting at, but this constant spinning of his is kind of lame.
"Yes! Switching jobs often makes you look like a "job hopper". You can do it once but your resume should have a job that spans several years right after it. That way you can lie about the short job and get away with it."
This is old school thinking. Increasingly even FTEs are being treated like contractors these days. I like the mercantilist thinking espoused by Die Broke. Basically you should look at yourself the same way professional athletes do - you are paid a certain amount based on your perceived value. If someone thinks you have a higher value, TAKE THE JOB!
Also keep in mind the poster isn't unemployed looking for work. He's being actively recruited at current jobs, so employers already know his history.
Your way of thinking insures you have large stretches where you're getting paid less (perhaps far less) than what the market is willing to pay for your skillset. You're doing youreself a disservice.
Slashdot Mirror
So sure today, MySpace's crappy database program mislabels you, but tomorrow it could be an automated service that determines whether you are eligible for a job or a home loan (or whatever). Yeah, you can say that the government hasn't labeled you, but would that necessarily be relevant? Hell no.
Anyway I'll let you off easy this time and do it for you. :) Very interesting study btw. I've always suspected that we probably don't actually need to eat every single day. This study shows that not only is it not needed, but it could actually be detrimental.
And why are we feeling sorry for people like Michael Dell, again? Lest we forget, this man became a multi billionaire largely due to the "blackmail" contracts he signed with Microsoft. Gateway also made billions in sales from MS contracts.
Great excerpt and you should be modded up. Hypocrisy is such an easy disease to catch. I'd love to hear how Paul Graham reconciles his current actions against his owns words. No doubt referring to his own exploding termsheet as an "IQ Test" helps quell the cognative dissonance.
I only use my monitor when something is really short, I need to *search* for something, I need to transfer something in digitized form, or if I'm actively writing in code for an algorithm I've already worked out (most programmers only know how to "program" on the computer...sadly this will confuse most "programmers" out there. :) ).
So computers are great for storing, searching, and transfering information. However, they suck at allowing people to *process* it.
But I'm more eager to see how everything ties together. I think it'd be great if we limited all shows to 4 or 5 seasons (at most) and avoid the fates of shows like "X-files", "Lost", "Alias", etc. Often times, writers have maybe 3 seasons of great material, but are forced to water it down so broadcasters can squeeze more money out of it over the course of 6+ seasons.
Bullying is all about gaining a power trip over people. Bill Gates just wanted people to defend their ideas to make sure they thought everything through. And he'd back down if shown why his idea was worse.
I guess Gabe Newell (head honcho at Valve) had it right all along.
I find this to be another offshoot of the whole "nature vs nurture" thing. All of these things are partially biological (and thus uncontrollable) and partially learned. I think the problems come when people insist it's either one OR the other.
That link to Backus's paper was incredible and *just* as insightful today as it was 30 years ago. After years of working in C-like languages and it's descendents (though I'm branching off in functional languages), I found myself nodding my head a lot.
Emporer Gates: It was I who allowed you to know have Robert Scoble. I assure you we are quite safe here in Redmond from your pathetic little band.
Anyway, due to the illogical insanity of the stock market, Google finds themselves flush with a ton of money way out of proportion with what they earn (PE 44.43 today). Can't blame them for throwing a lot of "stuff" at the wall with smart people and seeing what sticks. Sounds like a decent enough plan for growth to me. This essentially is what all companies do anyway, even if they can't admit it to themselves. No one "knows" the future in business.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems rare that these kinds of kids keep improving at the same rate. Is it politics that are involved in working in organizations that cause this drop off in rate of improvement? Or maybe I just expect too much. Perhaps the problems are just too hard beyond this level.
If you are operating inside a company Intranet environment or you're consulting, THIS is what you need to be doing. And as KDan said, don't cop an attitude if your users can't seem to do these things. Interacting with user is your biggest value-add. They need you right there talking to them and helping them face-to-face. Otherwise, yes, your company may as well ship your job overseas to some offshoring company for half the price.
Wash, rinse, repeat until you get what you're looking for.
Now dependent upon this is being in a position where you don't have to have some kind of job to get income. How to get into that position is another post (now credit card debt, living beneath your means, etc). But the fact is most companies generally operate from a position of power and thus that's why you have "arrogant" employers.
Great. Now we'll never hear the end of it.
I wonder how those human-habitation-on-the-moon projects are going?
Mark Cuban started things off and Bram Cohen responded. Bram's problem is that he mischaracterizes Cuban's argument when he makes his case. For example, right in the title of his blog entry, Bram claims Mark predicts the downfall of Bittorrent. Mark never said anything like that! And in fact Mark responds to Bram's false accusations in his own blog . How many billionaire CEOs would you see doing this? Of course people will keep accusing Mark of being a self-centered, power hungry megolomaniac. That may or may not be true. However, we can provably show what someone did or did not say in a blog and in this instance, Bram is way off.
I love Bram to death for what he's given to us for free and I don't know if he's deliberately mischaracterizing this criticism or perhaps temporarily misunderstood what Mark was getting at, but this constant spinning of his is kind of lame.
Also keep in mind the poster isn't unemployed looking for work. He's being actively recruited at current jobs, so employers already know his history.
Your way of thinking insures you have large stretches where you're getting paid less (perhaps far less) than what the market is willing to pay for your skillset. You're doing youreself a disservice.