
Conferences - ciscoriordan
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/05/conferences.html
======
wannabetechgeek
Timely for me as I'm missing TWTRCON (which costs $600!), but following the
Twitter stream as I write this. Yup, conferences are great for networking
especially for newbies like myself who don't have existing contacts in the
industry. The best way for newbies to go about it though is to find all the
free or inexpensive conferences available, or offer to volunteer. At least in
the Bay Area, there's no shortage of opportunities. I'm volunteering at two in
exchange for attendance, and have another four lined up that are free or under
$25. The BarCamp movement and related is great for tech newbies and really
speak to unbannable's points above.

~~~
c3o
You can also just go hang out in the lobby for free at most of them -- if you
don't care for the talks, that's just as good.

------
eugenejen
I can't help but say this out loud. "Fred is my kind of man!".

I really feel that most of conferences are power games and I am just averse to
power games. Maybe I am antisocial. But I believe doing the good work first
then people will follow it. If luckily people likes it and adopt it, it is
wonderful recognition. If unfortunately no one likes it, then I have to do it
again with a twist keep experimenting. But whether recognition is bestowed, I
do things because I like what I am doing. Life is never easy and it should be
never easy.

And the cool people are always outsiders, no matter in tech or arts.

------
rw
"So I avoid those most of all. Back in the 90s, I was unkown to the powers
that be and could not get into TED. I don't forget that and that's why I'll
never go to it. I don't want to play that game."

------
tudorachim
I don't know what the point of going to a conference is, if you can get videos
of the talks afterwards, like TED.

~~~
alain94040
There is a huge difference between watching the talks and actually being
there.

50% of the value is the content of the talks, which supposedly described the
latest and greatest.

Just like in academia, the talks are actually dated: they have been prepared
months before and don't really represent the _latest_. To know the latest, you
need to chat with various people to find out what they are working on right
now, that they can't quite announce yet.

What's on stage is canned, in a sense. If you want to be _in_ , you got to be
there in person to catch where the future is.

This has held true for me both in academia (research) and web 2.0.

~~~
ankhmoop
Given that the talks are canned, and the materials they are based on are
almost always published, why should I pay for a conference when I can already
leverage existing networking/social channels to stay in touch with the
_latest_?

~~~
kscaldef
It's hard to go out for a beer with someone who isn't in the same place that
you are. And people will definitely tell you stuff over a beer or two that
they won't write about in their blog.

~~~
ankhmoop
You don't need a conference to go out for a beer, and you certainly don't need
an exclusive conference to go out for a beer with someone interesting.

You do need a way to gather interesting people in one place, but you don't
need a traditional conference (especially an expensive conference) to do so.

------
sachinag
But even ostensibly open conferences can be difficult - I'm going to E3, and I
made sure I could get dual credentialed as press just to make it easier for
other people to talk to me. Some places are conferences just for the cool
kids, but the cool kids still self-segregate at open places. _That's_ why
Wilson's so smart - he knows that's going to happen any way, so he only goes
to places where his time won't be monopolized by the people he can talk to any
other time.

------
joshu
I liked conferences a lot when I worked in a different industry. Now I'm
immersed in web 2.blah and get enough of it at work. I mostly stopped going to
stuff.

------
paul9290
Going to conferences is good for feeding your EGO!

------
unbannable
Invitation-only events don't belong in the technological scene.

There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections,
inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is
past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One
side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the
capability but not the means.

Nerds are supposed to be on the side of the good guys.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections,
inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is
past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One
side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the
capability but not the means._

Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. People with wealth and connections are the
bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy.

What's ironic is that a) many of the people at the top started out at the
bottom and earned their way to the top, and b) those at the bottom are
ultimately trying to cultivate the same things: wealth and connections.

I find it incredibly naive to think that we're at some turning point in
history where suddenly the world is going to become some kind of meritocracy
and the people who are just starting out will behave any differently once they
make it than people have been behaving forever. I also find it humorous that
you think that people at the top are basically just dumb, boring people who
lack vision and talent, and who have only their inherited wealth and
connections to keep them on top. Give me a break.

~~~
unbannable
_People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy
at the bottom is the good guy._

It's not that simple. There are people who have both wealth/connections and
talent. There are good guys who are well-connected and wealthy.

The moral battleground is the exchange rate between these two fundamental
commodities. Talent should trade very high against property, but often it
doesn't. The good guys are those who are trying to make the exchange rate
proper; the bad guys believe the talented exist only to serve those who are
already powerful. So powerful people who use their resources to advance those
who are talented are among the good guys.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Yeah, it's not that simple. That's my whole point.

Also, can you provide some objective basis for the statement that talent
should trade very high against "property"?

~~~
unbannable
Those who want talent to trade highly against property are those who believe
the best and most capable should be making the big decisions. They have the
interest of humanity-at-large at heart.

Those who want the reverse are those who have power but lack talent, and their
supporters.

~~~
anamax
How do you determine "best and most capable"?

One way to do so is to let people trade their talent for property that they
use as they see fit. If they're good and not just lucky, they'll succeed
again, getting more property over which to make decisions.

However, that method seems to be in conflict with "talent should trade highly
against property".

> They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.

That's bullshit on stilts.

