Unfortunately, some people simply don't have business acumen in them, just like some people just don't have tech skills in them. (possibly like me, wtf knows) Where this survey comes in interesting - of course, it's also bloody obvious - is where it says, "IF you are good at understanding business, big companies are more likely to hire you. If you are good at understanding technology, small companies will be more likely to hire you." Which would you rather work for?
It's neither. It's simply a weak argument through hyperbole. It assumes that the only options are A: all the people who set off the alarm will immediately be executed, and B: any of the people setting off the alarm aren't terrorists you end up not thinking the machine works at all. This man is apparently a neo-conservative, because he understands neither logic nor reason.
There used to be a second cafe in Portland right next to Portland State. I don't know if they're still around, but five or so years ago they seemed to be doing okay.
Probably because Windows 3.1 and 95 were such junk you absoultely required another option. No matter how bad Microsoft software is today, it's been worse. One might actually consider the former difficulty of use a protection from malware.... Back when everyone really knew what they were doing, they'd notice a virus as soon as it showed up. Now? Yeah, a few weeks later I hear a computer's running a little slow from a family member, and then I spend three or four hours cleaning it up.
I agree with you on the learning from the bust theory. This is the second time around. Wisdom seems to come from failure, and I would classify the first dot-com bust as a failure. It was supposed to change the world, but what ended up happening is Wall Street bought out the companies that really could change it, took over, and then gutted or bleached them.
If there's one company that will change the world in the way the dot-com's never did, and in a way that is more fundamentally sustainable, it is craigslist.org... Can you imagine trying to get funding for that kind of site? "Yeah, we're just gonna, well, not charge for anything and get our friends notified of what's going on and let it grow." Today, if the owner(s) were willing to sell out they'd have something worth more, in actual return on investment, than Amazon. But having seen what happened to so many good ideas when they just used money to gain as much momentum as possible, a lot of the smartest players are playing under the radar as long as possible and gaining momentum that has nothing to do with flashy junk. There are some that take a big check and quick exit. But I'm not sure I like them the best.
The people I have the most respect for are those that are in for the long haul, looking to use their talents for the real betterment of others rather than short-term personal gain. And the kind of respect that engenders may actually have a place again in the marketplace. It will ALWAYS have at least some spot, which is a definite advantage.
There's a fine distinction between, "If SWG didn't suck it would be cool" and "If pieces of SWG didn't suck it would be the coolest thing since sliced bread."
Heh. Purchasable structures? I made them. And starships. And weapons. And some armor, and clothes, and and and. Want to talk depth? Talk bio-engineering as a skill. You BUILD custom creatures. The content was there, just not that effective, because the skill system was a little gimpy. If SWG had EVE-online's time-based skill training system and solid ground / space combat and missions, it would be one of the most cool games in existence. The economy in SWG was probably one of the most interesting things I have ever witnessed.
SWG was huge.... There were pieces that sucked, but piecces that didn't. There were, in fact, pieces that were superior to virtually any game I have ever played.
I know, trust me.
And, just for reference, Puzzle Pirates is an MMORPG:)
Katrina is a horrible example because it was a sudden disaster. It's not like we're not completely aware that there's less and less oil in the ground. Katrina's real problem was that it was a governmental failure not a market failure. You can call our government a market entity, but then you have to remember that Katrina was NOT a failure to our government because it flat out doesn't care whether or not that portion of the country exists. Sorry.
And you're wrong about 'not switching over to biodiesel.' When it can be produced for the same flat market price as it costs to deal with all the crap that comes along with drilling for oil, they'll switch. At the moment they don't consider ALL the costs because our government subsidizes the cost of, for example, supporting really really bad governments in foreign countries. But it is extremely likely that the flat market cost of producing oil will soon be higher than the cost of producing biodiesel. That's when shifts will happen more quickly.
We're all waiting on a major breakthrough though, in reality. Without it modern society is really in deep trouble. What would be best would be ambient heat -> electricity, because we have so much excess heat in certain uninhabited areas, or scalable and effective cold fusion. But I don't see either of those happening anytime soon.
Generally, I believe the market is going to sort this problem out. What's the cheapest source of portable energy at the moment? OIL. Is it getting more expensive? YES. As the cost of oil rises, more and more people are looking for acceptable, viable alternatives. Eventually they will be found and implemented to an acceptable level. Has this happened yet? No, because it's not cheap to come up with a complete paradigm shift. BUT, the shift will eventually become economically necessary - barring complete market failure. I'm not ruling market failure out, but considering that renewable and clean and other more healthy forms of energy are becoming mainstream at a slow pace, I'd say market failure is not really a complete given yet.
If global warming, however, is as dangerous as advertised, well, then we have a market failure. But I don't think gasoline is going to be what causes it.
Well, with his userbase, he could definitely cash in and keep a large portion of it. And 'cashing in' wouldn't be as obtrusive as everyone seems to think; google-style text ads at the bottom of each page would bring in a crazy amount of dough.
I'm all starry eyed about this guy all of a sudden. I mean, a true public servant nerd. His very existence totally undermines some of the basic tenets of capitalism. Of course, he could just cash in so fast it's amazing. But he doesn't, for some reason. And they send this guy from the 'money news source' and he manages to impress him. Not to be stared at like some kind of crazy, but to impress him and then take him back to his hotel. I mean, it's not like Craig's List is that impressive- you could rebuild it in a month (week? Three day codefest?) with the right developers. So customer service is key.... And that's what he provides. I'm bowled over.
I love the 'give us the money instead' comment, though. I've always wondered if there would ever be a way for an Internet company to farm big corporations for real people.... At first, I thought that that was what Google ad revenue was doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, some people simply don't have business acumen in them, just like some people just don't have tech skills in them. (possibly like me, wtf knows) Where this survey comes in interesting - of course, it's also bloody obvious - is where it says, "IF you are good at understanding business, big companies are more likely to hire you. If you are good at understanding technology, small companies will be more likely to hire you." Which would you rather work for?
It's neither. It's simply a weak argument through hyperbole. It assumes that the only options are A: all the people who set off the alarm will immediately be executed, and B: any of the people setting off the alarm aren't terrorists you end up not thinking the machine works at all. This man is apparently a neo-conservative, because he understands neither logic nor reason.
There used to be a second cafe in Portland right next to Portland State. I don't know if they're still around, but five or so years ago they seemed to be doing okay.
Tetris is the ultimate in highbrow games.
Probably because Windows 3.1 and 95 were such junk you absoultely required another option. No matter how bad Microsoft software is today, it's been worse. One might actually consider the former difficulty of use a protection from malware.... Back when everyone really knew what they were doing, they'd notice a virus as soon as it showed up. Now? Yeah, a few weeks later I hear a computer's running a little slow from a family member, and then I spend three or four hours cleaning it up.
It's a dupe, too. So, I wouldn't really be that unhappy about getting it rejected :)
I agree with you on the learning from the bust theory. This is the second time around. Wisdom seems to come from failure, and I would classify the first dot-com bust as a failure. It was supposed to change the world, but what ended up happening is Wall Street bought out the companies that really could change it, took over, and then gutted or bleached them.
If there's one company that will change the world in the way the dot-com's never did, and in a way that is more fundamentally sustainable, it is craigslist.org... Can you imagine trying to get funding for that kind of site? "Yeah, we're just gonna, well, not charge for anything and get our friends notified of what's going on and let it grow." Today, if the owner(s) were willing to sell out they'd have something worth more, in actual return on investment, than Amazon. But having seen what happened to so many good ideas when they just used money to gain as much momentum as possible, a lot of the smartest players are playing under the radar as long as possible and gaining momentum that has nothing to do with flashy junk. There are some that take a big check and quick exit. But I'm not sure I like them the best.
The people I have the most respect for are those that are in for the long haul, looking to use their talents for the real betterment of others rather than short-term personal gain. And the kind of respect that engenders may actually have a place again in the marketplace. It will ALWAYS have at least some spot, which is a definite advantage.
"That man's been served so hard, he may never walk again."
There's a fine distinction between, "If SWG didn't suck it would be cool" and "If pieces of SWG didn't suck it would be the coolest thing since sliced bread."
Heh. Purchasable structures? I made them. And starships. And weapons. And some armor, and clothes, and and and. Want to talk depth? Talk bio-engineering as a skill. You BUILD custom creatures. The content was there, just not that effective, because the skill system was a little gimpy. If SWG had EVE-online's time-based skill training system and solid ground / space combat and missions, it would be one of the most cool games in existence. The economy in SWG was probably one of the most interesting things I have ever witnessed.
SWG was huge.... There were pieces that sucked, but piecces that didn't. There were, in fact, pieces that were superior to virtually any game I have ever played.
:)
I know, trust me.
And, just for reference, Puzzle Pirates is an MMORPG
An unsigned 8 bit integer has a max size of 64,727. This is 6x the size of this study. Your nerd card is hereby revoked.
;)
Awesome. Another Tsunami player....
Just read the script online. That way, you know what happened. The eye candy is pretty much fluff anyways.....
My bet's on not.
Katrina is a horrible example because it was a sudden disaster. It's not like we're not completely aware that there's less and less oil in the ground. Katrina's real problem was that it was a governmental failure not a market failure. You can call our government a market entity, but then you have to remember that Katrina was NOT a failure to our government because it flat out doesn't care whether or not that portion of the country exists. Sorry.
And you're wrong about 'not switching over to biodiesel.' When it can be produced for the same flat market price as it costs to deal with all the crap that comes along with drilling for oil, they'll switch. At the moment they don't consider ALL the costs because our government subsidizes the cost of, for example, supporting really really bad governments in foreign countries. But it is extremely likely that the flat market cost of producing oil will soon be higher than the cost of producing biodiesel. That's when shifts will happen more quickly.
We're all waiting on a major breakthrough though, in reality. Without it modern society is really in deep trouble. What would be best would be ambient heat -> electricity, because we have so much excess heat in certain uninhabited areas, or scalable and effective cold fusion. But I don't see either of those happening anytime soon.
Generally, I believe the market is going to sort this problem out. What's the cheapest source of portable energy at the moment? OIL. Is it getting more expensive? YES. As the cost of oil rises, more and more people are looking for acceptable, viable alternatives. Eventually they will be found and implemented to an acceptable level. Has this happened yet? No, because it's not cheap to come up with a complete paradigm shift. BUT, the shift will eventually become economically necessary - barring complete market failure. I'm not ruling market failure out, but considering that renewable and clean and other more healthy forms of energy are becoming mainstream at a slow pace, I'd say market failure is not really a complete given yet.
If global warming, however, is as dangerous as advertised, well, then we have a market failure. But I don't think gasoline is going to be what causes it.
Then you have to live there. I mean, that's just a waste of a case of paperclips.
.N00bs. You forgot the .Noo00OoOO0bs. The mercenaries of the code world.
Fair warning? This looks to be postdated; June 15th was a few weeks ago.
If it meant that less films like the last three Star Wars were made, I would argue the opposite.
I have mod points but can't use them. Fascinating response.
Well, with his userbase, he could definitely cash in and keep a large portion of it. And 'cashing in' wouldn't be as obtrusive as everyone seems to think; google-style text ads at the bottom of each page would bring in a crazy amount of dough.
I'm all starry eyed about this guy all of a sudden. I mean, a true public servant nerd. His very existence totally undermines some of the basic tenets of capitalism. Of course, he could just cash in so fast it's amazing. But he doesn't, for some reason. And they send this guy from the 'money news source' and he manages to impress him. Not to be stared at like some kind of crazy, but to impress him and then take him back to his hotel. I mean, it's not like Craig's List is that impressive- you could rebuild it in a month (week? Three day codefest?) with the right developers. So customer service is key.... And that's what he provides. I'm bowled over.
I love the 'give us the money instead' comment, though. I've always wondered if there would ever be a way for an Internet company to farm big corporations for real people.... At first, I thought that that was what Google ad revenue was doing.
I'm so cool I don't know how to spell it. How awesome is that?