The HTC Wildfire S is the 2011 update to the Wildfire. Like the original, this phone is also an entry level model. This is apparent in the choice of processor, amount of RAM and memory, display size and resolution. Each of these factors adversely affects the performance of the phone. The 600 MHz speed will make the phone stutter even during an Angry Birds session, so gaming is best avoided. The meagre 40 MB of internal memory will prevent you from installing all but the most essential apps. The display size of 3.2" and resolution of 320 by 480 are as low end as you can get for a phone that costs 13,000 rupees. The now dated HTC Sense 2.1 overlay on top of the Gingerbread OS rounds off the internal aspects of the phone.
The external features include a well designed construction using composite materials. The phone is mostly plastic save for the front bezel. The back is a one piece battery cover with a pleasing matte finish. The touchscreen itself is made of Gorilla Glass and is responsive. However, in direct sunlight, screen visibility is low. The back exposes the camera lens and an LED flash. The 5 MP camera takes satisfactory pictures in daylight but suffers from noise and blurriness in less than perfect light conditions.
Battery life like on other HTC or for that matter, all Android phones, is dismal, lasting only a day or less. However, turning off the internet connection will allow the phone to stay on for 2.5 days.
A similar model, the HTC Explorer is available for 11,000 and has the same configuration except for Gorilla Glass. The phone has a 3.2 MP camera. However, it includes the newer HTC Sense 3.5.
Many a time a graduate fresh out of college will make the mistake of selecting and working a job based on the salary offered. This is by itself not the issue but the reliance on the salary offered as the sole criteria. So new job seekers put the profile of the profession as the first priority in searching for the right job, but that leads to another debate as to which is more important: profile or salary. Logically speaking, the two should match each other as the pay can be used to gauge the worth of the profile (or the employee). But, there is another criterion not usually apparent to first timers.
A commonly overlooked aspect of a newcomer's search for the beginning of a work life is the work culture. You are going to spend a significant number of hours of your life working and therefore a significant portion of your life in productivity. So, it makes good sense to take into account the aspects of work beyond the pay, the responsibilities. People and work policies form a major part of the work experience. These work conditions must be evaluated before committing to a profession.
Usually, this complex factor of the work experience is only discovered well into the first job. Sometimes the consequences of overlooking this cause the dissatisfaction that finally leads to attrition. As human beings, we need to understand our own motivations productivity choices we make because they can and will have social underpinnings. Simply doing work mechanically under the guise of professionalism is not feasible. Individual and group expectations need to be met and satisfied. Satisfaction cannot be met by the remuneration received and job description alone. In fact, true satisfaction comes from the individual satisfaction from achievement, a sense of purpose, and enjoyment at work.
The first experience with a job aims for the growth possible with the job. It is possible and common that the individual expectations cannot be met in the first job. The first-time worker will experience the interaction and reaction of the entities in the work environment. If the worker is working in a company, the company itself is an entity that the worker must deal with. Some companies may not have the employees best interests at hand and may stagnate an employee's career with false commitments.
A company may eschew the employees wants in favor of subverting his or her goals to serve the company's own needs. It, or they -- the people higher up -- may attempt to shift the employee's focus from his or her long-term goals to that of short term goals. Another method would be to offer no change but to offer the employee a chance to pursue what is supposedly his/her goal that is not recognized as formal responsibility. These are efforts that could effectively stave off a worker's ambitions
Negotiations by the entity, in this case, the company, in order to retain the employee, may degenerate into arguments to convince the employee to stay by propounding fallacies to the opposite effect. At this point the solution is simple for both parties as the subtleties of company professionalism have been cast off inadvertently casting off the the employee's desire to stay on. The company may employ attacks on the person herself, calling her motivations and even her character into question, e.g., implying (or stating) that she is confused. A company may throw a red herring to cast doubts on the avenues beyond the company.
No doubt the company is doing itself a great disservice but not all companies need be like the one mentioned. In fact, many realize the importance of their employees and do their best to invest in them. In any organization, an organization's workers are its greatest asset. A satisfied, productive employee does his or her part in a productive organization that successfully imbibes the human aspect of a corporation. And this is where the job seeker will head next.
A commonly overlooked aspect of a newcomer's search for the beginning of a work life is the work culture. You are going to spend a significant number of hours of your life working and therefore a significant portion of your life in productivity. So, it makes good sense to take into account the aspects of work beyond the pay, the responsibilities. People and work policies form a major part of the work experience. These work conditions must be evaluated before committing to a profession.
Usually, this complex factor of the work experience is only discovered well into the first job. Sometimes the consequences of overlooking this cause the dissatisfaction that finally leads to attrition. As human beings, we need to understand our own motivations productivity choices we make because they can and will have social underpinnings. Simply doing work mechanically under the guise of professionalism is not feasible. Individual and group expectations need to be met and satisfied. Satisfaction cannot be met by the remuneration received and job description alone. In fact, true satisfaction comes from the individual satisfaction from achievement, a sense of purpose, and enjoyment at work.
The first experience with a job aims for the growth possible with the job. It is possible and common that the individual expectations cannot be met in the first job. The first-time worker will experience the interaction and reaction of the entities in the work environment. If the worker is working in a company, the company itself is an entity that the worker must deal with. Some companies may not have the employees best interests at hand and may stagnate an employee's career with false commitments.
A company may eschew the employees wants in favor of subverting his or her goals to serve the company's own needs. It, or they -- the people higher up -- may attempt to shift the employee's focus from his or her long-term goals to that of short term goals. Another method would be to offer no change but to offer the employee a chance to pursue what is supposedly his/her goal that is not recognized as formal responsibility. These are efforts that could effectively stave off a worker's ambitions
Negotiations by the entity, in this case, the company, in order to retain the employee, may degenerate into arguments to convince the employee to stay by propounding fallacies to the opposite effect. At this point the solution is simple for both parties as the subtleties of company professionalism have been cast off inadvertently casting off the the employee's desire to stay on. The company may employ attacks on the person herself, calling her motivations and even her character into question, e.g., implying (or stating) that she is confused. A company may throw a red herring to cast doubts on the avenues beyond the company.
No doubt the company is doing itself a great disservice but not all companies need be like the one mentioned. In fact, many realize the importance of their employees and do their best to invest in them. In any organization, an organization's workers are its greatest asset. A satisfied, productive employee does his or her part in a productive organization that successfully imbibes the human aspect of a corporation. And this is where the job seeker will head next.
|
I'm not sure if the rest of the world paid much attention to President Obama's question and answer session at St. Xavier's College - or "University" as he mistakenly called it - on November 7, 2010. But the Indian media ran live broadcasts of it.
Basically, United States President Barack Obama gave a short speech in front of "300 carefully selected [college] students" (The Telegraph) and spent about an hour with them, giving a short speech and then entertaining question from students. I can't say what was the selection criteria for these students from Mumbai University but they are supposed to be the best students of each college, or you could imply, the best young minds from each college, or the best college minds in India ("Selected on the basis of their academics and classroom participation, the students, dressed in suits, chudidars, T-shirts and jeans, flocked in from different strata of the society." - The Economic Times) . Unfortunately the questions were posed by an even smaller section of India's youth.
The most questions were asked by those from South Mumbai colleges (HR and St. Xavier's are in South Mumbai). Actually, this is quite fitting St. Xavier's College, Mumbai, has become a popular - and over-used - venue for events of any sort. Of course, the whole event can be criticized or taken as it is. Nothing serious could have been accomplished but it was a PR exercise. I'm not sure what the American public's reaction to the visit has been - a Google search will bury you with news items from the Indian media - but it could have been better. No, I'm not talking about the President but the students themselves. They are supposed to be the finest students of Mumbai University's academia and these are the probing questions they asked. Terrorism and jihad, as one student's question was based on, are screwy topics that lack easy, polite material for debate and are bound to offend one group or another. Thankfully, the President was as politically correct as can be. I'm surprised nobody asked him about his objectives pertaining to his visit to India, but that's because every student who got the mike didn't prepare questions beforehand and was interested in getting their shot at fame.
I'm sure President Obama "won hearts over" with his namaste, but since when do college students or Indians for that matter greet like that?
Michelle Obama danced better, to the embarrassment of her hosts, who looked as if they didn't know how to shake a leg to their own beats.
Try Neal Rosendorf's blog post on the University of Southern California's Public Diplomacy site at http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/barack_obamas_india_trip_the_view_through_a_soft_power_lens/.
Basically, United States President Barack Obama gave a short speech in front of "300 carefully selected [college] students" (The Telegraph) and spent about an hour with them, giving a short speech and then entertaining question from students. I can't say what was the selection criteria for these students from Mumbai University but they are supposed to be the best students of each college, or you could imply, the best young minds from each college, or the best college minds in India ("Selected on the basis of their academics and classroom participation, the students, dressed in suits, chudidars, T-shirts and jeans, flocked in from different strata of the society." - The Economic Times) . Unfortunately the questions were posed by an even smaller section of India's youth.
The most questions were asked by those from South Mumbai colleges (HR and St. Xavier's are in South Mumbai). Actually, this is quite fitting St. Xavier's College, Mumbai, has become a popular - and over-used - venue for events of any sort. Of course, the whole event can be criticized or taken as it is. Nothing serious could have been accomplished but it was a PR exercise. I'm not sure what the American public's reaction to the visit has been - a Google search will bury you with news items from the Indian media - but it could have been better. No, I'm not talking about the President but the students themselves. They are supposed to be the finest students of Mumbai University's academia and these are the probing questions they asked. Terrorism and jihad, as one student's question was based on, are screwy topics that lack easy, polite material for debate and are bound to offend one group or another. Thankfully, the President was as politically correct as can be. I'm surprised nobody asked him about his objectives pertaining to his visit to India, but that's because every student who got the mike didn't prepare questions beforehand and was interested in getting their shot at fame.
I'm sure President Obama "won hearts over" with his namaste, but since when do college students or Indians for that matter greet like that?
Michelle Obama danced better, to the embarrassment of her hosts, who looked as if they didn't know how to shake a leg to their own beats.
Try Neal Rosendorf's blog post on the University of Southern California's Public Diplomacy site at http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/barack_obamas_india_trip_the_view_through_a_soft_power_lens/.
|
Posts
