Where I work Sales drives Product Management and PM drives Engineering. This is pretty much a good thing.
Maybe in your specific case, but in general that's a horrible idea. Then you get Sales promising the customer the moon, and the engineers being overworked and pressured to get something done, and it ends up being half-assed, and everyone is burned out.
No, your whole post is nothing but excuses for their shitty actions. Ok, say adding this feature is the only way to make the sale. Then the sales/marketing people need to be REALISTIC with when it can be delivered, and they need to consult with Engineering on how it can be done. Anything else is nothing short of assholish behavior.
No. While you said that just about everyone can hold down a marketing job, just about anyone can read "Teach yourself VB in 24 hours" and hold down a job for a while.
He still didn't answer it correctly. He could have still answered it honestly by just giving them a number that's based purely on the value of his labor, and not mentioning that the software was free at all.
No, you completely and utterly fucked up, and they were right to terminate you. The customers asked how much it cost THEM, not what the individual components cost. You should have simply given them a number based on the amount of work you put in, and the knowledge you had coming into the assignment.
You cost your company a lot of money by fucking up like that.
In the real world if a product is good enough you can't keep it a secret no matter how hard you try and the buyers will beat a frantic path to your door to make the purchase.
That's not exactly true. In the real world, a product can be the second coming of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it won't matter if the customer doesn't actually hear about it. And the customer won't hear about it without some form of marketing.
I have worked in sales and we took pride into making customers into victims.
Sadly, these places exist, and they generally have the slimiest of salesmen. But they're not the only types of sales outfits there are.
Why? Because the programmers are typically condescending, do not value what their clients do, and take the fashionable mentality of "Tell us what problem you are trying to solve and WE'LL design your solution." They inevitably return with something very powerful, horribly ugly, and far too complex for our employees to use.
Well, you are asking them to solve your problem. If you didn't need someone to solve your problem, you wouldn't be talking to the programmers in the first place.
I won't argue that a lot of programmers could use some help from a designer and a UI/UX expert in designing the interface
No, I disagree with Ron Paul on several issues. Gay marriage is only one of them.
Further, I believe Obama would be far more for gay rights than Ron Paul ever would be, despite how much his supporters like to say he's a "champion of individual liberties".
One is a natural right (self defense) which is enumerated by the Constitution.
"Natural right" doesn't mean shit. If we're going by "Natural Rights", then you have no Free Speech rights, no 4th Amendment Rights, no voting rights, and really, no rights as enshrined by the Constitution at all.
There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all as it traditionally is a religious institution, and should therefore not be in the discussion on the federal level in any way.
Wrong. Marriage has been a legal institution for just about as long as it's been a religious institution. Further, ISSUES ON WHETHER SOMETHING IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT IS A FEDERAL ISSUE.
By doing away with the IRS, Ron Paul would be removing one of the major federal sanctions of marriage, that being the income tax discount for married couples.
If you honestly think he could actually get rid of the IRS as President, then you obviously failed your Civics class in high school, and should never vote, not even for American Idol.
Voting for anyone else, including Obama, is likely a vote for war with Iran
Yeah, I don't believe this. Go ahead and try to fan the flames of conspiracy, though.
And nice job trying to use fear mongering for Ron Paul. All it does is paint his supporters as the loonies they are.
No. His stance is that the states don't have to follow the Constitution, as he doesn't want the issue of whether these gay marriage bans violate the Constitution to come before the courts.
Why do you consider a "let the states decide" concept such bullshit?
Why do you consider requiring the states to follow the fucking Constitution to be such bullshit? Specifically, the Amendment requiring Equal Protection Under the Law?
The idea is, Federal govt. shouldn't be dictating things that are in the realm of the states to handle
Probably not. However, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M ADVOCATING. I am advocating that the States cannot violate the Constitution with their laws, and that the Federal Court system is the court system designed to hear questions on Constitutionality of laws.
We already allow states to handle that however they see fit, and ultimately - it's just a legal construct anyway. Two people can choose to live together and get married without involving government's permission. All people are really fighting about, when it comes down to it, is a right to file their taxes as married and a right to have the courts treat their situation as per standards used for "married couples" in case of a divorce or other dispute.
And the 1100 other some odd benefits that get conferred upon marriage. To believe that these are insignificant is simply mind boggling.
The solution is removing unconstitutional laws that violate people's rights, not introducing more unconstitutional laws.
So the solution is to NOT do what Ron Paul did. Interesting.
And read the situation again. Ron Paul wanted to ban the Federal Courts from ruling on the Constitutionality of state gay marriage bans. The very court system set up to hear questions of Constitutionality.
As for states deciding if you could own a gun. That is essentially the same issue as gay marriage.
Which is why I mentioned it. I find it funny that most of the Conservatives want to ban gay marriage, but would balk openly at the ability of a state to ban guns.
Neither the states or the federal government has the right to take your right to marry another man, under any circumstances. Marriage is a private or religious matter, not a legal or political matter.
Yeah, except it's not. Marriage is very much a legal matter, and to say otherwise shows you are completely ignorant of the situation.
Nope. The internet is a result of government research.
Further, all of the fuckings over of people are because of that free market. The actions of Comcast, of Verizon, of all those companies that have fucked over their customers, are because of that free market. And you can't deny it.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I work Sales drives Product Management and PM drives Engineering. This is pretty much a good thing.
Maybe in your specific case, but in general that's a horrible idea. Then you get Sales promising the customer the moon, and the engineers being overworked and pressured to get something done, and it ends up being half-assed, and everyone is burned out.
Wrong. Sales would not go on for long if there wasn't an actual product to sell.
The sales guys are the ones that made the shitty, unfounded promises. They are just as much, if not more, to blame.
No, your whole post is nothing but excuses for their shitty actions. Ok, say adding this feature is the only way to make the sale. Then the sales/marketing people need to be REALISTIC with when it can be delivered, and they need to consult with Engineering on how it can be done. Anything else is nothing short of assholish behavior.
No. While you said that just about everyone can hold down a marketing job, just about anyone can read "Teach yourself VB in 24 hours" and hold down a job for a while.
He didn't necessarily turn him into a liar, in that I'm sure there was some amount of work integrating phpBB into the product.
He still didn't answer it correctly. He could have still answered it honestly by just giving them a number that's based purely on the value of his labor, and not mentioning that the software was free at all.
No, you completely and utterly fucked up, and they were right to terminate you. The customers asked how much it cost THEM, not what the individual components cost. You should have simply given them a number based on the amount of work you put in, and the knowledge you had coming into the assignment.
You cost your company a lot of money by fucking up like that.
It's also entirely possible that she was shitty at her job. But nice try at assuming he's a misogynist.
you could have known this had nothing to do with me, I was just too desperate for a job to reject it.
That has everything to do with you. You have to be willing to walk away from a job like that, otherwise they're going to assume they can abuse you.
Doubtful, unless they involve you being very naive.
So you're saying they can do their job without PC's, laptops and phones?
A good salesperson? Yes. Those things are simply tools that help them out, but a good salesperson can do the job decently enough on their own.
Further, if you're in that shitty situation, make it clear that they will either rectify it or you leave.
In the real world if a product is good enough you can't keep it a secret no matter how hard you try and the buyers will beat a frantic path to your door to make the purchase.
That's not exactly true. In the real world, a product can be the second coming of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it won't matter if the customer doesn't actually hear about it. And the customer won't hear about it without some form of marketing.
I have worked in sales and we took pride into making customers into victims.
Sadly, these places exist, and they generally have the slimiest of salesmen. But they're not the only types of sales outfits there are.
From Minority Report came many touch/kinect-like interfaces, Back To The Future with hoverboards and self tying shoes, etc.
Funny how we're close to the Minority Report interface, but we still have yet to get self tying shoes.
Are you honestly going to say that you don't do the same? That you don't try to get the maximum amount of money out of your employer?
Why? Because the programmers are typically condescending, do not value what their clients do, and take the fashionable mentality of "Tell us what problem you are trying to solve and WE'LL design your solution." They inevitably return with something very powerful, horribly ugly, and far too complex for our employees to use.
Well, you are asking them to solve your problem. If you didn't need someone to solve your problem, you wouldn't be talking to the programmers in the first place.
I won't argue that a lot of programmers could use some help from a designer and a UI/UX expert in designing the interface
What middle manager is going to fire his sales guys for meeting his numbers, even if his strategy goes against the corporate mission statement?
If it's his company, someone who actually does have ethics.
The immoral part is having to create an artificial need
As a programmer, you're helping to do this. No one actually needs the stuff you do, as it's not food, water, or shelter.
Yeah, no. There's nothing backing that statement up.
No, I disagree with Ron Paul on several issues. Gay marriage is only one of them.
Further, I believe Obama would be far more for gay rights than Ron Paul ever would be, despite how much his supporters like to say he's a "champion of individual liberties".
Marriage and guns are not remotely equal issues.
Why the fuck not?
One is a natural right (self defense) which is enumerated by the Constitution.
"Natural right" doesn't mean shit. If we're going by "Natural Rights", then you have no Free Speech rights, no 4th Amendment Rights, no voting rights, and really, no rights as enshrined by the Constitution at all.
There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all as it traditionally is a religious institution, and should therefore not be in the discussion on the federal level in any way.
Wrong. Marriage has been a legal institution for just about as long as it's been a religious institution. Further, ISSUES ON WHETHER SOMETHING IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT IS A FEDERAL ISSUE.
By doing away with the IRS, Ron Paul would be removing one of the major federal sanctions of marriage, that being the income tax discount for married couples.
If you honestly think he could actually get rid of the IRS as President, then you obviously failed your Civics class in high school, and should never vote, not even for American Idol.
Voting for anyone else, including Obama, is likely a vote for war with Iran
Yeah, I don't believe this. Go ahead and try to fan the flames of conspiracy, though.
And nice job trying to use fear mongering for Ron Paul. All it does is paint his supporters as the loonies they are.
No. His stance is that the states don't have to follow the Constitution, as he doesn't want the issue of whether these gay marriage bans violate the Constitution to come before the courts.
Why do you consider a "let the states decide" concept such bullshit?
Why do you consider requiring the states to follow the fucking Constitution to be such bullshit? Specifically, the Amendment requiring Equal Protection Under the Law?
The idea is, Federal govt. shouldn't be dictating things that are in the realm of the states to handle
Probably not. However, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M ADVOCATING. I am advocating that the States cannot violate the Constitution with their laws, and that the Federal Court system is the court system designed to hear questions on Constitutionality of laws.
We already allow states to handle that however they see fit, and ultimately - it's just a legal construct anyway. Two people can choose to live together and get married without involving government's permission. All people are really fighting about, when it comes down to it, is a right to file their taxes as married and a right to have the courts treat their situation as per standards used for "married couples" in case of a divorce or other dispute.
And the 1100 other some odd benefits that get conferred upon marriage. To believe that these are insignificant is simply mind boggling.
The solution is removing unconstitutional laws that violate people's rights, not introducing more unconstitutional laws.
So the solution is to NOT do what Ron Paul did. Interesting.
And read the situation again. Ron Paul wanted to ban the Federal Courts from ruling on the Constitutionality of state gay marriage bans. The very court system set up to hear questions of Constitutionality.
As for states deciding if you could own a gun. That is essentially the same issue as gay marriage.
Which is why I mentioned it. I find it funny that most of the Conservatives want to ban gay marriage, but would balk openly at the ability of a state to ban guns.
Neither the states or the federal government has the right to take your right to marry another man, under any circumstances. Marriage is a private or religious matter, not a legal or political matter.
Yeah, except it's not. Marriage is very much a legal matter, and to say otherwise shows you are completely ignorant of the situation.
Nope. The internet is a result of government research.
Further, all of the fuckings over of people are because of that free market. The actions of Comcast, of Verizon, of all those companies that have fucked over their customers, are because of that free market. And you can't deny it.