So, here's my idea (patent pending). Get RFIDs cheap enough for consumers to buy decent amounts of them (Walmart will do this once they force their suppliers to use them, they WILL get the lowest margins, yay for Walmart for once).
Next, there needs to be a cheap piece of hardware that lets you program/read the RFIDs. THe final step is to have open-source software developed that enables you to search for RFIDs in your house, and displays on a map of your house where the item is. And it could also keep stock of how many groceries were in your fridge and order things ahead of time if it needs to. It could also keep track of where people are in the house (useful for parents with little kids) and could be very useful for automating your house. Think "i put the coffee cup with its chip inside the coffee machine with its reader, it does the rest". Think "pull car into garage, have RFID reader automatically start dinner/announce your arrival."
And these are just some of the more obvious uses, I'm sure people would think things up that would be a lot more useful.
From the interview: "Q: There has been a rumor in Silicon Valley that you're going to sue Google.
A: Yeah, Google gets brought up a lot. They're high-profile, and they're one of the largest users of Linux. They have nearly 10,000 boxes, from what we can tell. They're a poster child. I think what's interesting about them is they have been able to develop a low-cost operating model because of Linux. If your model is going to hold up, you better make sure you don't have any infringing code in there. Otherwise, you need to adjust your financials based on how much you pay for your servers. "
The emphasis is mine. This is SCO's trump card for going after google. You see, any lawsuits based on IP would look VERY bad for potential investors when google wants to go public. I mean, licensing all of their 10k boxes would cost $6,990,000, but any amount looks bad to shareholders, especially since if SCO were to win (yeah yeah I know) they could basically say " we don't care how much you offer, we're not letting you use our IP" and google would be in a tight spot, and probably have to spend a LOT more than 7 mil to fix it.
Not to mention the fact that in order for that Xbox to be useful, he has to purchase games for it, which makes MS money. And well, if he decides to use the Live service......thats more money, and well, you get the picture. So instead, MS is hoping this will make them some money.
"First, what can an applicant do to improve his interviewing skills?
Second, should an interviewer try and compensate for an interviewee's subpar skills in an attempt to draw out the fact that he/she would actually be a good fit for the company. "
I have answers for your two questions. The first may seem obvious, and you may not like my answer to the second, but both are logical.
First, you can improve your people skills in general. I may not have much experience in advertising/marketing/PR (I'm a junior in college with 1 internship at a top notch ad agency), but I know how to talk myself up, and I know how to be very personable. Also, you need to learn to speak in such a way that makes them think you are in high demand. For example, I always make sure to mention that I was 2 out of 50 chosen for the Account Management internship. May not seem like a whole lot, but it DOES make it seem more selective.
Second.....well.....no, they shouldn't, not if they have the best interests of the company in mind at least. You see, while you may have superior computer skills to another candidate, there will ALWAYS (especially in the current economy) be someone out there equal in skill level, along with the social skills you may lack. In fact, it would be pretty easy to find at least one person like that. Now, which would be better for a company, choosing between two people with equal computer skills, but one has social skills and the other doesn't. Obviously it would be best for the company to hire the social one. So sorry, the interviewer's job is not to help you out if you're missing skills, their job is to pick the best person for the job. I don't mean that as harshly as it may have sounded, but thats life.
Interestingly enough, this made me think of something I read in William Gibsons blog a long time ago. I don't know where it is now though. It was about how in the future, people will be able to take a movie or something on their computer, and tell the computer to replace all the actors heads with dog heads for example, and change what they do and say with simple commands. Perhaps this software is the lower level beginning of making that happen, we'd just need some higher-level controls to make it easy for everybody to use.
I kind of agree that if some people want to be a jedi, they can.....but that they'll completely suck until they put MAJOR effort into it, above and beyond other characters.
However, I do understand why they came up with the system they did. Because it takes FOREVER to build up the character to make the jedi (subscription $$$) and then even more time to build up the actual jedi (more subscription $$$). This is Verant we're talking about, thats the only reason behind it.
Wow, what a rude ass you are. Here's a clerk, trying to do his (crappy) job, and you feel you need to hastle him. Guess what, if for whatever reason management saw him doing this, he would get fired. He has a script he needs to follow, that is part of his job, he gets paid for it. Don't take it out on him, take it out on management.
"This suggests to me that the application process is mainly to get your mailing address for junk mail, rather than, as many have assumed, to collect information about the types of products you buy to go in some nefarious consumer database."
It is both. They will milk that information for whatever they can. Oh, and don't forget, aside from spam, signing up for one of those cards establishes a prior business relationship, which also means it gets around the Do Not Call rules. Same thing with those "Win this car" raffles at malls. Trust me, they get FAR more money selling that info than the car costs.
" "I sorry ma'am but your request for perscription drug benefits has been denied because our records show that for ten years between 2000 and 2010 you consumed an average of 0.5 kilos of beef a week. Your present medical condition is a result of your own negligence."
This would NEVER happen, or if it did, they would be taken to court over it and would lose very quickly. You see, just because a supermarket knows what I bought, does NOT mean they know what I do with my purchases. How can they tell if I ate that huge box of twinkies I got. Maybe it was for a class party, or for a pregnant wife.
Now if they start putting RFIDs in the FOOD........well, thats a whole different story.
Just what college students need. A cheap, easy assemble setup that allows them to take pictures of things being destroyed at high speeds.
I give it a month before somebody kills themselves with it at a party whilst trying to perform some trick involving the device, a keg, and someone doing a kegstand atop it.
" I'd say that the reverse is true in BF1942. The sniper is very hard to get many kills with, but many people seem to like playing as a sniper."
Well, sorry, but those people suck. I snipe, and it is VERY easy to get kills with. Its gotten to the point where I can shoot someone from across Wake Island from the North Base while they're running down the sand embankment towards the airfield, in the head.
Also, some maps are very good for sniping. Omaha Beach is a sniper fest. My new favorite map DC Sea Rigs is as well. The middle catwalk is such a shooting gallery I can't even describe it.
So, I'm sorry, but what you described as how a team loses with snipers sitting around shooting wildly happens very rarely when you have good snipers. I have personally held off attacks by 10-20 players with only one other sniper. Its a hard thing to master, especially in multiple mods (they all treat it differently), but once you do, its devastating, especially in DC where the sniper rifle is semiautomatic.
One of the things this roundup didn't really cover was gaming mice. Since computer hardware towards gaming tends to be somewhat high end, I was surprised this wasn't mentioned. THe closest thing was that Logitechs mouse is 800 dpi, which is pretty high up there.
My friend has an older Razer Boomslang, which uses a ball, but is VERY high quality. Currently Razer offers two different types of their mouse, one for RTS which is much more responsive, and one for FPS, which is supposedly slower to help you play better....doesn't make sense, so if anybody knows which would be better for a FPS (cuz i have a hard time believing that slower would be better) from experience, please post.
Also, if anybody has opinions on what a good gaming mouse is, I'm in the market for the top of the line, best of the best.
Just out of curiosity. I'm a college student traveling to England (South Brighton) to visit my old roommate who's studying abroad there now over spring break. Any suggestions from the UK/.ers on cool info about it, or stereotypes of people from that area, cool things to do around there (clubs, pubs, etc)?
"Contrast it to my later experience in the Chicago northern suburbs, where drugs were sold openly around school. The young scions of the suburbs openly assaulted and battered people of different colors, shapes, and religions. Car theft was common. You'd see kids you know driving around and smashing people's cars with rocks."
I am curious what northern suburb of Chicago you are talking about. I went to HS in a NW suburb called Barrington, where 95% of kids at that school smoked weed, and it was almost an accepted fact by the police. Sure you'd see 1-3 kids you knew in the police blotter every week, but that's really nothing compared to the 2600 in the school. But this suburb is considered safe....it doesn't have much of other types of crime.
Ok, now I'm getting a little annoyed. You REALLY don't seem to get what marketing is. Perhaps before you continue reading this post you should look up the definition. Then look up the definition of advertising.
"If you REALLY "got it" you would not be in that line of work. Or, at least, not promoting products in a way that makes them out to be more than they are. I'm not saying you personally lie about things, but I've seen too many wild (and misleading) claims made for the purpose of advertising."
I'm in this line of work because I have a passion for business and psychology, and its a good merger of the two. And just because you don't have a love for the industry, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Promoting products/services in a way that makes them out to be more than they are is illegal. There are advertising laws against this, perhaps you need to look into that as well. The wild claims you see are often ads done by companies who cannot afford an advertising agency, and do it all in-house. These types of things are done by companies selling herbal enhancement pills and other such snake oil items.
"That's a problem. The people who actually make products should be driving the innovation. When marketing does it, it turns into bent truth, or flat out lies about a product."
When you say people who make the products, do you mean the people who actually put it together? Or do you mean the New Product Development people? Regardless, those people are usually given a direction for their ideas by marketing people, which helps everybody involved in the process, and is a good thing for keeping the company on a focused product path.
Marketing does not turn it into bent truth or flat out lies unless it is an in house marketing group making ads, and they're probably selling snakeoil. But you need to understand that advertising is a part of marketing, not vice versa. That is why I suggest you look up the definition. Marketing serves a much broader purpose.
And also make no mistake, we're not here to tell you our product is worse than someone elses. We'll tell you its a leader in its industry because thats what advertising law allows with the wording. Our goal is to enable our company to make money off of what they sell. And, hate to break it to you, but a lot of the advertising out right now WORKS. Thats why its out there, because the companies would not be spending money otherwise. I feel just as pissed off as you do when I see an ad or a marketing campaign which annoys the hell out of me. But guess what, if thats the case, odds are it wasn't targeted at me, which is something you need to learn to accept. Believe it or not, every marketer in the world is NOT interested in you, there are many different target audiences.
"The only ones who know that are the ones who made the decision. And since they chose what they did, they "do not get it."
Not necessarily true. Sometimes a situation is so broadly understood (especially within the industry, you'd be surprised how fast news travels) that other marketing types could tell you why something was done, but you'll never know till you ask. And they may very well "get it" regardless of their choice. You obviously have no clue how office politics can mess with someone trying to do a good job. Sometimes you need to make someone happy just to keep your job. They may very well get it, but just have different priorities, such as keeping their job, or making their boss look good to the higherups so that they in turn get a promotion/raise.
The industry is much more complex than the majority of Slashdot seems to comprehend. So before you reply to my post, I really would kindly ask you to read up a little on the definitions of marketing and advertising, as it would really help us to communicate better in this discussion.
"The thing that bugged me about Music Rebellion is that after the promotion ended everything immediately jumped to 90-odd cents.
I disagree strongly with that, as they have now given me little incentive to use them over iTunes."
Let me get this straight......they offered a limited time promotion......which you took advantage of......and then you were bugged when they stopped it and disagree with them stopping a limited time promotion?
I'm sorry, but excuse me if I have little sympathy for you.
" Previously (or maybe only in my fantasy world), a business had to have goods that someone wanted and might actually consider purchasing. Now some businesses take for granted that obnoxious and obtrusive ads (let alone spam for dru9s) will earn them my attention and not my anger and annoyance. "
Wow, your post rocks. This is something I feel the exact same way about. To simplify things when communicating, I break the two groups of buyers into "customers" and "consumers".
Customer - Someone who's purchasing dollars you have to EARN. You try not to be pushy to get their attention, while at the same time being as NICE and HELPFUL as you can, which means if they find your advertising annoying, STOP IT!
Consumer - Someone who's purchasing dollars you feel you are entitled to. Why not? If they're not happy with what you're doing, they're disposable as there is always some other consumer out there to replace them. Follow business practices that don't benefit the consumer primarily, but rather, the company, regardless of secondary effects.
Now, while I know that that is how I choose to break the two down, and others may not view the two groups the same way as we might, it is scary to think about how LITTLE I hear the word "customer" being used today, in regards to anything!
"Actually, if I were Supreme Emperor Of The Universe, I think ALL MARKETING would be the first thing to carry the death penalty. If your product is good, or if I need it, *I'LL COME LOOKING FOR YOU!* Stop trying to bang the front door into my brain down! It just makes me reach for the shotgun and blast you into oblivion before you can open your damn mouth to deliver your REALLY IMPORTANT MESSAGE!!! to me. Marketing types are "clue n00bs" - actually, they're not since they STILL don't get it."
Yes, we DO get it. Well, most of us at least (just like there's the good IT people, and the not so good IT people). And you have no clue what you're talking about if you consider us "clue n00bs". Perhaps you should take a job in the industry to straighten out your perceptions.
Marketing types are a driving force of innovation, one way or another. Not only that, but they a very smart at what they do. You think we don't know what is a good marketing move vs what isn't?
There will ALWAYS be exceptions, and these will stand out way more than good marketing would. Also, you have to understand the tension between an advertiser (person paying for the ads) vs the ad agency (people that make the ads and run them). The advertiser wants nothing more than to make money off of their advertising investment. The ad agency wants to make quality advertising that drives sales and that is creative enough to give it recognition, to help get more clients.
Sometimes the advertiser's decisions end up on top, sometimes the agency's. But there is absolutely no excuse to flame like you did at the end of your post.
Before you group us all together and go off making rash conclusions about an industry who's members you know absolutely NOTHING (from the content of your post) about, why not instead ask someone from our industry why that decision may have been made, and what sorts of things could have gone wrong to make it turn out the way it did, I'm sure the answers would surprise you.
"the ability for restaurants and other businesses to send a solicitation by text message to a cell phone when its owner wanders within range of those merchants.' Oh, wonderful, cellular popups..."
Actually while I know this isn't a good thing, it might be somewhat enjoyable. It would mean we were all being given an opportunity to confront people who seem to think this is a good idea to use.
If someone sent you a popup on your cell, you could at least go bitch that person out. And tell them, and any customers present why you will never do business there (again?). Finally a good way for us to start educating the masses. Unfortunately, a bad thing needs to happen before we can do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Next, there needs to be a cheap piece of hardware that lets you program/read the RFIDs. THe final step is to have open-source software developed that enables you to search for RFIDs in your house, and displays on a map of your house where the item is. And it could also keep stock of how many groceries were in your fridge and order things ahead of time if it needs to. It could also keep track of where people are in the house (useful for parents with little kids) and could be very useful for automating your house. Think "i put the coffee cup with its chip inside the coffee machine with its reader, it does the rest". Think "pull car into garage, have RFID reader automatically start dinner/announce your arrival."
And these are just some of the more obvious uses, I'm sure people would think things up that would be a lot more useful.
"Q: There has been a rumor in Silicon Valley that you're going to sue Google. A: Yeah, Google gets brought up a lot. They're high-profile, and they're one of the largest users of Linux. They have nearly 10,000 boxes, from what we can tell. They're a poster child. I think what's interesting about them is they have been able to develop a low-cost operating model because of Linux. If your model is going to hold up, you better make sure you don't have any infringing code in there. Otherwise, you need to adjust your financials based on how much you pay for your servers. "
The emphasis is mine. This is SCO's trump card for going after google. You see, any lawsuits based on IP would look VERY bad for potential investors when google wants to go public. I mean, licensing all of their 10k boxes would cost $6,990,000, but any amount looks bad to shareholders, especially since if SCO were to win (yeah yeah I know) they could basically say " we don't care how much you offer, we're not letting you use our IP" and google would be in a tight spot, and probably have to spend a LOT more than 7 mil to fix it.
It also handles extremely well on the track and when cornering, and has been even seen action as a Rally car.
I have answers for your two questions. The first may seem obvious, and you may not like my answer to the second, but both are logical.
First, you can improve your people skills in general. I may not have much experience in advertising/marketing/PR (I'm a junior in college with 1 internship at a top notch ad agency), but I know how to talk myself up, and I know how to be very personable. Also, you need to learn to speak in such a way that makes them think you are in high demand. For example, I always make sure to mention that I was 2 out of 50 chosen for the Account Management internship. May not seem like a whole lot, but it DOES make it seem more selective.
Second.....well.....no, they shouldn't, not if they have the best interests of the company in mind at least. You see, while you may have superior computer skills to another candidate, there will ALWAYS (especially in the current economy) be someone out there equal in skill level, along with the social skills you may lack. In fact, it would be pretty easy to find at least one person like that. Now, which would be better for a company, choosing between two people with equal computer skills, but one has social skills and the other doesn't. Obviously it would be best for the company to hire the social one. So sorry, the interviewer's job is not to help you out if you're missing skills, their job is to pick the best person for the job. I don't mean that as harshly as it may have sounded, but thats life.
Interestingly enough, this made me think of something I read in William Gibsons blog a long time ago. I don't know where it is now though. It was about how in the future, people will be able to take a movie or something on their computer, and tell the computer to replace all the actors heads with dog heads for example, and change what they do and say with simple commands. Perhaps this software is the lower level beginning of making that happen, we'd just need some higher-level controls to make it easy for everybody to use.
However, I do understand why they came up with the system they did. Because it takes FOREVER to build up the character to make the jedi (subscription $$$) and then even more time to build up the actual jedi (more subscription $$$). This is Verant we're talking about, thats the only reason behind it.
1.)You get killed by terrorists.
2.)We monitor your every breath.
Why does your example sound so familiar.
It is both. They will milk that information for whatever they can. Oh, and don't forget, aside from spam, signing up for one of those cards establishes a prior business relationship, which also means it gets around the Do Not Call rules. Same thing with those "Win this car" raffles at malls. Trust me, they get FAR more money selling that info than the car costs.
This would NEVER happen, or if it did, they would be taken to court over it and would lose very quickly. You see, just because a supermarket knows what I bought, does NOT mean they know what I do with my purchases. How can they tell if I ate that huge box of twinkies I got. Maybe it was for a class party, or for a pregnant wife.
Now if they start putting RFIDs in the FOOD........well, thats a whole different story.
You keep using that word, I do not think you know what it means.
God I love the Princess Bride
I give it a month before somebody kills themselves with it at a party whilst trying to perform some trick involving the device, a keg, and someone doing a kegstand atop it.
Well, sorry, but those people suck. I snipe, and it is VERY easy to get kills with. Its gotten to the point where I can shoot someone from across Wake Island from the North Base while they're running down the sand embankment towards the airfield, in the head.
Also, some maps are very good for sniping. Omaha Beach is a sniper fest. My new favorite map DC Sea Rigs is as well. The middle catwalk is such a shooting gallery I can't even describe it.
So, I'm sorry, but what you described as how a team loses with snipers sitting around shooting wildly happens very rarely when you have good snipers. I have personally held off attacks by 10-20 players with only one other sniper. Its a hard thing to master, especially in multiple mods (they all treat it differently), but once you do, its devastating, especially in DC where the sniper rifle is semiautomatic.
My friend has an older Razer Boomslang, which uses a ball, but is VERY high quality. Currently Razer offers two different types of their mouse, one for RTS which is much more responsive, and one for FPS, which is supposedly slower to help you play better....doesn't make sense, so if anybody knows which would be better for a FPS (cuz i have a hard time believing that slower would be better) from experience, please post.
Also, if anybody has opinions on what a good gaming mouse is, I'm in the market for the top of the line, best of the best.
We've seen studies in the past posted that correlated the two, so I am assuming there will be this time.
"This aerogel composite contains iron oxide introduced using chemical vapor infiltration. Nobody knows whose hand this is."
I am curious what northern suburb of Chicago you are talking about. I went to HS in a NW suburb called Barrington, where 95% of kids at that school smoked weed, and it was almost an accepted fact by the police. Sure you'd see 1-3 kids you knew in the police blotter every week, but that's really nothing compared to the 2600 in the school. But this suburb is considered safe....it doesn't have much of other types of crime.
"If you REALLY "got it" you would not be in that line of work. Or, at least, not promoting products in a way that makes them out to be more than they are. I'm not saying you personally lie about things, but I've seen too many wild (and misleading) claims made for the purpose of advertising."
I'm in this line of work because I have a passion for business and psychology, and its a good merger of the two. And just because you don't have a love for the industry, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Promoting products/services in a way that makes them out to be more than they are is illegal. There are advertising laws against this, perhaps you need to look into that as well. The wild claims you see are often ads done by companies who cannot afford an advertising agency, and do it all in-house. These types of things are done by companies selling herbal enhancement pills and other such snake oil items.
"That's a problem. The people who actually make products should be driving the innovation. When marketing does it, it turns into bent truth, or flat out lies about a product."
When you say people who make the products, do you mean the people who actually put it together? Or do you mean the New Product Development people? Regardless, those people are usually given a direction for their ideas by marketing people, which helps everybody involved in the process, and is a good thing for keeping the company on a focused product path.
Marketing does not turn it into bent truth or flat out lies unless it is an in house marketing group making ads, and they're probably selling snakeoil. But you need to understand that advertising is a part of marketing, not vice versa. That is why I suggest you look up the definition. Marketing serves a much broader purpose.
And also make no mistake, we're not here to tell you our product is worse than someone elses. We'll tell you its a leader in its industry because thats what advertising law allows with the wording. Our goal is to enable our company to make money off of what they sell. And, hate to break it to you, but a lot of the advertising out right now WORKS. Thats why its out there, because the companies would not be spending money otherwise. I feel just as pissed off as you do when I see an ad or a marketing campaign which annoys the hell out of me. But guess what, if thats the case, odds are it wasn't targeted at me, which is something you need to learn to accept. Believe it or not, every marketer in the world is NOT interested in you, there are many different target audiences.
"The only ones who know that are the ones who made the decision. And since they chose what they did, they "do not get it."
Not necessarily true. Sometimes a situation is so broadly understood (especially within the industry, you'd be surprised how fast news travels) that other marketing types could tell you why something was done, but you'll never know till you ask. And they may very well "get it" regardless of their choice. You obviously have no clue how office politics can mess with someone trying to do a good job. Sometimes you need to make someone happy just to keep your job. They may very well get it, but just have different priorities, such as keeping their job, or making their boss look good to the higherups so that they in turn get a promotion/raise.
The industry is much more complex than the majority of Slashdot seems to comprehend. So before you reply to my post, I really would kindly ask you to read up a little on the definitions of marketing and advertising, as it would really help us to communicate better in this discussion.
Let me get this straight......they offered a limited time promotion......which you took advantage of......and then you were bugged when they stopped it and disagree with them stopping a limited time promotion?
I'm sorry, but excuse me if I have little sympathy for you.
Wow, your post rocks. This is something I feel the exact same way about. To simplify things when communicating, I break the two groups of buyers into "customers" and "consumers".
Customer - Someone who's purchasing dollars you have to EARN. You try not to be pushy to get their attention, while at the same time being as NICE and HELPFUL as you can, which means if they find your advertising annoying, STOP IT!
Consumer - Someone who's purchasing dollars you feel you are entitled to. Why not? If they're not happy with what you're doing, they're disposable as there is always some other consumer out there to replace them. Follow business practices that don't benefit the consumer primarily, but rather, the company, regardless of secondary effects.
Now, while I know that that is how I choose to break the two down, and others may not view the two groups the same way as we might, it is scary to think about how LITTLE I hear the word "customer" being used today, in regards to anything!
Yes, we DO get it. Well, most of us at least (just like there's the good IT people, and the not so good IT people). And you have no clue what you're talking about if you consider us "clue n00bs". Perhaps you should take a job in the industry to straighten out your perceptions.
Marketing types are a driving force of innovation, one way or another. Not only that, but they a very smart at what they do. You think we don't know what is a good marketing move vs what isn't?
There will ALWAYS be exceptions, and these will stand out way more than good marketing would. Also, you have to understand the tension between an advertiser (person paying for the ads) vs the ad agency (people that make the ads and run them). The advertiser wants nothing more than to make money off of their advertising investment. The ad agency wants to make quality advertising that drives sales and that is creative enough to give it recognition, to help get more clients.
Sometimes the advertiser's decisions end up on top, sometimes the agency's. But there is absolutely no excuse to flame like you did at the end of your post.
Before you group us all together and go off making rash conclusions about an industry who's members you know absolutely NOTHING (from the content of your post) about, why not instead ask someone from our industry why that decision may have been made, and what sorts of things could have gone wrong to make it turn out the way it did, I'm sure the answers would surprise you.
Actually while I know this isn't a good thing, it might be somewhat enjoyable. It would mean we were all being given an opportunity to confront people who seem to think this is a good idea to use.
If someone sent you a popup on your cell, you could at least go bitch that person out. And tell them, and any customers present why you will never do business there (again?). Finally a good way for us to start educating the masses. Unfortunately, a bad thing needs to happen before we can do that.