It's not always about impressing other people. "Status" doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to fit in with the richies, or impress some fool. I don't have nice things because I want the neighbors to be jealous; I have nice things because I like having nice things. It's a "self-status", so to speak, and I think it factors into any major purchase we make. In other words, I buy sleek, shiny, fun things, and while I do like to show them off, I just like lookin at em sometimes, and I also like seeing my friends' toys too. It's still status, even if it's just for personal satisfaction or to see who has the neatest gadgets; without the intention of saying "look how better than you I am now!".

Otherwise, we'd all be living well under our means with the bare minimum we need, and our economy would pretty much shit the bed.

Hell, this even translates to something as simple as the food we eat; we could live just fine on protein shakes and a legume once in a while. But that's not the way our society works: we like nice food, fancy clothes, fast cars, shiny boats, well-kept lawns, etc. All those things are for status (self or acquaintance related) and overall satisfaction, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, the point is this: nobody *needs* an iPhone, but lots of people like an iPhone, and purchase based on their desire for a neat, sleek, fancy phone that does lots of cool things reliably. Other phones meet some of those needs, or all of them, but they don't have an Apple logo, and I'd say a TON of people allow that logo to tip the scales when making a decision.

Yes.

I'm not knocking the hardware or those that purchase it, but status is absolutely a part of the decision to go with Apple devices. It's much the same as having a nice car versus an old yet reliable Ford Pinto. People want features, reliability, and the "look". Apple offers all 3, and I know it was a factor in *my* purchase. I can be honest with myself, too.

Agreed, if you can. Best advice I have is to not let it get to the point where you have to quit to avoid insanity.

Best to find a job, then quit. Better to quit, and then find a new job. Not so good to burn the place down over a stapler. :)

Your words are very true. The only problem is we really don't have much say in the matter, other than to keep our skills and resumes updated, and be prepared for opportunities as they come.

The days of 50 years, a pocketwatch, and a pension are long over.

Unions can be very powerful, but there aren't the checks and balances that are needed. My experiences with unions have been 100% awful; they don't care about me, as an individual, at all. They just cared about keeping their overtime and career paths in place.

Having had GOOD bosses, at good companies, I can say I'd MUCH rather work with a boss who cares about me than a union rep who doesn't.

This isn't the 50s anymore, and not every industry needs unions. I think unions make MUCH more sense for the blue-collar worker; there are safety and wage issues galore. In a call center? Not so much; tracking a bathroom break isn't something the union will stop. Call a CenturyLink to ask one of their reps if you don't believe me.

The only problem is this: I worked for Qwest / CenturyLink, who DOES have a union. Guess what? Bathroom breaks were still tracked, down to the minute, just like regular breaks, lunch, arrival, and departure.

On top of this, I was forced to quit my job there when the union didn't allow me to change my schedule due to lack of seniority. I had my kids coming home for the summer, and there's not a lot of daycares that stay open until 8:00 pm; none that I could afford on my salary.

Unions are great if they really do look after the workers, but this isn't the 50s anymore. If you need any sort of special accommodations, or the union decides some egregious policies aren't really an issue (bathroom breaks, mandatory overtime, etc) then you're screwed either way.

Quit and find a new job. That's my advice; you'll be happier.

I hear you there; my old help desk headset left a semi-permanent band around my head. Not just the indentation, but a tan-line too! Sexy, that.

#baldworldproblems

Heh - not only do mine still work, but the scars they left on my palm are almost healed now, too. Sadly, the bloodstains on the control stick are permanent.

A fun job is worth precisely the amount of money you need to live the way you want. Oddly enough, though, so is a crappy job.

Working's about paying the bills; if you do something you love, you're "jobbing" right, but bills are gonna come either way. Like most things in life, it's all about the various types of bastards:

-If you enjoy your job AND are living the way you want, stay there, you lucky bastard.
-If you don't enjoy your job and ARE paying the bills, establish a minimum salary you can accept and then bail on the shitty job like the bastard you are.
-If you have a job (enjoyable or not) that doesn't let you live the way you want, you'll have to find a new job of either type, you poor bastard.

Establish your "necessary salary" threshold, and then go from there. Keep in mind this salary changes based on location. Good luck.

Or, you know, my employer could pay me what I'm worth now that I have expertise with this new skill. You paid for the training. Great, thanks; much appreciated. Now pay me the new salary I can command, too. Them's the breaks. You needed the skill to be brought on board, and I learned it, now pay for it. Consider it an investment in a better employee.

I went in to ask for a raise years ago, having just graduated with my (you guessed it) CS degree, and also now that I had many more responsibilities and was travelling for the company.

I was told that "travel is a perk, and your responsibilities are the logical progression of your position. We can't afford to give you that large of a raise." So I found someone who could. Best job I ever had, but below a certain threshold, the money really did matter.

Honest employers realize this, and while everybody likes to save a few bucks, the best employers are the ones who care. It's a rare gift when you work for one.

If that's the case, then how on earth is the ad applicable (even tangentially or through parody) to the capabilities of the phone?

Even that nifty Nissan commercial that showed the Frontier snowboarding down a mountain, racing an avalanche, doing flippy tricky jumpy moves, used AN ACTUAL FRONTIER for the bits where it could; they didn't 'shop in a Frontier over a real-life snowboarder (and leave his feet in the shot, to... err... boot). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8Gl2rpTIU

You'll also note the disclaimer at the very beginning of the commercial, informing us it was a parody. This isn't just a cover-your-ass thing, either; it sets the audience up to know this is about to get ridiculous, and to prepare the suspension of disbelief. The whole point of the commercial was to say "this truck is FUN, and actually wants to ride the white wave (not cocaine, kids) with you."

None of that went into Nokia's commercial. It wasn't designed to put a product in the best light, or as a parody or joke to make an commercial memorable. It was designed to make us think this was the actual capability of the device, and it simply is not. What they should have done is come up with a real-world scenario where the tech would shine, even if it did require optimal conditions (e.g. Siri's commercials, which were at least possible). This error was on the advertising agency, not Nokia (unless they did it all in-house). A classic case of someone inventing a commercial idea, and jamming a product into it, instead of the other way around.

A big part of making a quality game is consistency, and it's plain easier to be consistent when you know exactly what hardware will be used. Having your lowest common denominator be basically identical to the highest end hardware your game will use gives you the opportunity to really push the limit of that hardware.

Maybe the topic of discussion should be re-stated as "consistent high quality, across the board, is generally easier to achieve with a console, while the same development for PC hardware requires setting the 'minimum acceptable quality' bar lower." Of course, this doesn't mean higher quality isn't possible on a PC, just that it's easier to be broadly consistent on a console.

This issue stems from the "minimal amount of work" part, not the differences in the hardware. Given the proper amount of attention, either platform is adequate, but optimizing for a console is easier. It works the other way, too; the latest release of Dark Souls on PC is pretty crappy compared to the PS3 version (I have both). It looks beautiful, but the controls just don't work form me.

The other thing is different genres are just going to work better on a PC (RTS, MMORPG, 4X, etc) due to more appropriate (or just plain more) control possibilities. It's not black and white, since - going out on a limb here - most people would prefer to play a game with a little less graphical perfection that includes the ability to actually play it.

Just cuz something looks better or has a better frame-rate doesn't mean it plays better, and the industry is littered with ports that fail; sometimes due to odd development choices, sometimes due to unrealistic ports, and, yes, sometimes due to hardware differences. It all comes down to developing for a discrete type of hardware, and not taking the effort to re-develop when releasing the software for another type of hardware.

You know, this is probably true, and well said, but it's always good to include the *why* of it for perspective. Otherwise people tend miss the point, as the guy you responded to did.

Consoles are (ostensibly) dedicated to gaming, and have identical specs, across the board. This just has to be easier to optimize for than trying to come up with a bare-bones, a mid-range, and a high-end graphic settings buffet for any PC that gets show-horned into running your game.

That said, we know for certain it's possible to tweak a PC game and have more realism, better performance, and more customization. You just have to have the higher specs and a bit of know-how, as you say.

As always, I much prefer having the choice of what my hardware consists of, though I have a PS3 and a Wii too. Different items used for similar but discrete purposes, like so many things in life.

Egos are like naughty bits; keep them both in your pants until it's time to use them.

Seriously; it's fine to be confident; but it's not fine to be arrogant. Ego can lead to either confidence or arrogance, but confidence is far more appealing to an employer.