Wanting to believe, wishing there was something more...

There's always something terribly intriguing about the possibility that "we are not alone", and that  some form of alien life exists somewhere out there in the universe. It would just open up so many more avenues of explanation as to who we are, how we got here, what does it all mean, and naturally, that perhaps death might not be the end, after all. We wish!

As much as most of us did not necessarily concur with Fox Mulder that there is something out there, one could not help but empathize with his passion and belief that there was - he was a hunter looking for answers, and all of us at one time or another have wished that there was "something more" to life than the occasional bare bones of human existence. 

Ironically, a similar pursuit that is much "closer to home" but proves equally elusive is the currently en vogue hunt for a variation on the missing link. It's a bit of a stretch to go hunting for alien life and the sophisticated flying machines that bring them to us, but surely it would be a much more realistic goal to prove the existence of a creature between us and the great apes on the evolutionary staircase?

This desire is of course at the very center of the clash between creationism and evolution, but if we are all so sure that evolution is how we got to today, then God knows there has to be some remnants of our ancestry remaining out there in the development void?! However, as we all also know, there is enough of a gap remaining that creationists are able to claim that there is nothing to find, and that's why people can't find it. Even in the face of extraordinary evolutionary evidence and the brilliance of the brightest minds alive, such as Stephen Hawking and his astounding "no boundary" proposal, there remains a justification for creationist conservativism.

Hence the emergence of a show on Animal Planet called "Finding Bigfoot", which started out as reasonably entertaining, but (inevitably?) went the way of "Paranormal State". It's a show about the search for proof of the continued presence of our hominid ancestry among us, somewhere out there. They resort to the same dramatics as the other show referred to above, i.e. build up some tension, raise the volume, just as the thing (whether demonic or beastly) appears, then cut to the break. Huge letdowns all round, then return from the break, and then they show that it was just a cat playing behind the shower curtain, or a deer in the woods. Aww, shucks!

To say that the team on the show is reminiscent of Fox Mulder would be a huge understatement - it's not so much "I want to believe" as it is "I godamn DO believe, because they exist!". It's often quite hilarious to hear one of them studying the ground and saying "Wow! That's a sure-fire squatch track!" or "Look at this deer skeleton, with the rib cage opened, so that the goodies can be sucked out. That's precisely what a squatch does!", as well as clearly believing that any knocking or crying out in the woods at night is proof positive that "we just ran into a squatch!". 

And yet, after countless dark nights out in the woods in the middle of nowhere, we eternally get to daylight with nothing even remotely scary happening to any of them. I admire their dedication to the cause because sometimes one of them stays out all night in the woods on a solo mission, which can't exactly be a bundle of fun either. But what it proves more is that there in fact appears to be nothing out there - period. 

No demons. No witches. No ghosts. No devils. No beasts. Apart from the zoologically classified beasts, anyway. Yet the four members of the BFRO (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) maintain their belief in and passion for the cause, and head off onto ever-new pastures in search of something to believe in. Of course, the cynical can add in that they are presumably all being paid big bucks to make a TV show, and yep, if you pay me a truckload to even pretend that I believe, well, maybe I could suddenly find a reason to believe!

The bottom line is that we have not yet seen one barely credible piece of actual evidence, never mind the remotest form of proof that the sasquatch, yeti or yowie do in fact exist. For all the "This is exactly where squatch like to hide" and "From what you have told me, you definitely saw a squatch so welcome to the club, man" comments, there is the undeniable underbelly - that the BFRO are simply delusional. One might even have some empathy for their cause, while simultaneously realizing that it is based on delusion. Such is life in the hunt for answers to life. 

When the belief outweighs the (or any) evidence and facts? Well, you simply move back into Fox Mulder territory, which was based on pure fiction. It was a TV show, nothing more. "Finding Bigfoot" is similarly a TV show, but I will carefully avoid calling it another example of the dreaded "reality TV" genre, because it has little to do with our reality. It remains fantasy for now, which, just like the desire or need to believe that aliens, ghosts or demons exist can make for distracting entertainment, it is hardly based on anything we refer to as science.

Hard science needs hard evidence, and that is the one single thing that the BFRO and "Finding Bigfoot" are sadly lacking. In any case, our relationship with the great apes is unquestioned by most today, and the finding of a missing link would not change that too much now. Yes, it might make for a stronger argument against creationism, but I kind of like the fact that not everything in life is indisputable as yet, and it's fun to hear the arguments from both sides. They both want to believe, just in different ways, and well, DNA effectively sells the story and seals the deal in the end.

Quite where the missing link went or is hiding remains a mystery. But given mankind's capacity to go to war and fight with it's own species, I have no trouble at all believing that our hominid ancestors went out of their way to eradicate their closest relatives, who were thus their biggest competitors for food. If you think of how we have fought over, say, oil, then it's hardly a stretch to imagine early humans eliminating the biggest threat to their own food supply. 

Sadly, I think that "Finding Bigfoot" has a most definitely finite lifespan, and at Season 3 today, well, it might already have run its evolutionary course. It will be cancelled before it ever discovers the missing link. But speaking of missing links, I have not yet had the mid-morning coffee that takes me from breakfast to lunch, so off I go on a hunt for that rare Guatemalan jungle dark paradise blend! Happy Easter ;)  - Kevin Mc

When one little tweet sounds like Hitchcock's birds!

In a recent post, I commented about the desire to have it all in social media (e.g. Twitter), via the current phenomenon of associating an employer's cooler branding with an individual's Twitter account, but adding in a contradictory disclaimer stating "opinions are mine" or "opinions are my own, not my employer's", etc. What-ever.

I am not going to go back into why it is not possible to so have it all, but rather, I will utilize a very recent example to further underline the point that just because it's social media does not mean that you can say/do whatever you want, as long as you have some kind of disclaimer. 

Employers don't care as much about some arrogant-sounding disclaimer on a social media account which you use to promote yourself ,via their brand, than they do about how much something you do say impacts their brand negatively. Disclaimer or no disclaimer, if you associate their name, brand and trademark with something risque, you can expect there to be both scrutiny and discussion.

I read with great interest of the recent firing of a female consultant-employee, Adria Richards, who is something of a self-proclaimed tech expert, social media evangelist, brand advocate and blogger, among other activities. It seems that as part of her duties for SendGrid (a cloud-based email service provider), Ms. Richrards was attending the PyCon conference in Santa Clara, and overhead some offensive comments from two men sitting behind her at the meeting. 

Having been offended by what are presumably quite typical jokes/comments from relatively young men (I find no need to repeat said comments in this piece) to her rear, she tweeted her commentary (plus their photo!) out to the masses. Not satisfied with that, she went into further details on her blog targeting the men in question, and further appeared to have contacted the conference organizers asking them to deal with the men in question.

To cut a long story short, what happened next has all of Silicon Valley buzzing, and it sure raises the issue of how social media is not simply a useful tool for spreading your word (whether it's warranted or not), but that it can and will be used against you when you mistakenly assume you are so important that you can say whatever you want. Wrong!

First off, the men in question were escorted out of the conference. I mean, really?! Had they made their offensive comments (I think a penis analogy was made) to or about Ms. Richards, fair enough. But she overheard two young men simply using some tech-speak terminology in analogy to the penis, and it seems doubtful that they were trying to offend anyone. There was zero claim of an "anti-women" sentiment in their joke, it seems. 

Have we become so politically correct today, that as long as your beef is apparently coming from a stiff politically correct place, then the world must be seen to agree?! So now we cannot joke about anything that some prude or reactionary will rail against, because if it becomes public then it will be used against you in a barrage of public outcry and media scrutiny?

One of the two men in question was subsequently fired from his job at PlayHaven, a game company, and Andy Yang (CEO) even took to the company's website to address the issue. All this with no recorded proof of what they said or in what context or tone it was said in. A father of three, now sitting at home unemployed. Quite a victory for our Ms. Richards, you might say?! Nope.

In a quite ironic twist of fate, it did not go unnoticed that in her Twitter bio, Ms. Richards did what I warned about in a recent blog, and allowed herself the luxury of associating that account with SendGrid. One of those terrifically cool-sounding co-branding titles such as "developer-evangelist for SendGrid". Couple this with her own outbursts on her website/blog, and well, it was only a matter of time. 

The irony was emphasized by the subsequent firing of Ms. Richards from her position, by SendGrid CEO Jim Franklin who said that she had crossed the line. The very person who SendGrid had hired to improve brand awareness and help build a stronger sense of community had in the end become a divisive force within the company itself, as well in the larger community. She had to go. 

Her mistake was not the fact that she complained about offensive behavior, even if she did take even that way too far. The biggest error she made was posting a photo of the "offenders" in her tweet, with no actual evidence of what they said or its context, obviously with the intention of exposing them. Jim Frnaklin suggested that this alone was enough for her to be fired, given that she was there on SendGrid's behalf and used a Twitter account on which their name is associated. 

It is unclear what will happen to Ms. Richards now, because who is likely to want to hire someone that appears to be both a loose cannon and/or a divisive individual with an agenda, when seeking a social media and brand evangelist? But I would worry a little more for the father of three who made what was probably meant to be a joke among two colleagues, and who ended up losing his livelihood because of it. The punishment is totally out of line with any supposed misbehavior. 

However, the story makes the point that I made recently, quite perfectly, and demonstrates the risks of insisting on having your company's name on your Twitter bio, just so that you might look even a little bit cooler than you are as a mere individual, speaking for yourself. People insist on needing to have both - "My Twitter comments are totally my own opinions and even if I post naked pics of myself, just because I have Company X associated with my account, it should not be assumed that they approve of it, which thus allows me to post whatever I want, right?" Wrong.

Either align your Twitter with the branding of Company X and stick to it, or feel free to be a lot more risque on your Twits primarily by keeping Company X off your profile. Even then, with some companies you should still be careful if you worry about keeping that precious job. 

In this case, one single tweet has severely disrupted two lives (at least) and caused the loss of two such precious jobs, and that is surely an indication that the stakes in social media have just gotten higher. 

"What you say can and will be used against you in a court of (social media) law, you have the right to an attorney and if you can't afford one, one will be appointed to you." 

All this over some form of penis referencing in a joke. As much as this case is destined to become some kind of cause celebre for those insisting it's really about discrimination against women in the workforce, I would suggest that it's all attributing way, way too much importance to the penis - and coming from a guy, that's saying something! ;) - Kevin Mc

Meet the new boss - same as the old boss?!

And so the white smoke so hotly anticipated finally billowed forth from the sacred chimney, signalling that as of March 13th, 2013, the Catholic church had a new leader: he who would become known as Pope Francis, the 266th man elected to the Papacy.

A number of firsts were achieved by the election of Cardinal Bergoglio, including being the first Jesuit Pope, the first Pope from the Americas, and the first from the southern hemisphere. He is a  native of Buenos Aires in Argentina, and was far from being an obvious choice - in fact, basically no one was watching him as a likely candidate, and when he walked out onto the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, you could sense the confusion (disappointment?) in the crowd. 

The bottom line was that nobody knew who it was, as he had been totally off the radar among the contenders being discussed in the media and among religious circles. He chose the name to align with Saint Francis of Asissi, and has stated that he wants the Roman Catholic church to be both "poor" as well as advocate for the poor. 

Indeed, by all accounts, Cardinal Bergoglio is not likely to be as indulgent as his predecessor was in terms of all the pomp and glory, and the ceremonial dressing up as some kind of cartoonish dandy that was a trademark of Ratzinger's much more grandiose preening. When he held his first meeting with the media, for example, he came out wearing his own black shoes (bought for him by friends) and not the dandyish trademark red shoes of Benedict XVI. 

I suppose if after his helicopter ride to the hills south of Rome to meet his predecessor, next week, and both were wearing the same red shoes, it could have been a clash. But Pope Francis is no Ratzinger, and he seems to live a very frugal (if not outright austere) life and could probably teach Ratzinger a whole lot about personal humility and the benefit of service with respect. But it will be a very historic meeting, that of a retired pope and a sitting pope which is hardly a common event. I doubt very much that he needs to learn anything from Ratzinger, other than maybe to stay away from the steamed pudding served on Friday nights for dessert. 

So, fine, it is nice to see a more modest man in the top job, who expresses a concern for those less fortunate than most, and who will refocus the church into one that works for the poor, but that is hardly some radical groundbreaking avenue. The thing that disappointed me the most was his age: another man on the edge of being 80 years old. I cannot help but feel that this has been the root of the problem with the church, for simply ages.

Why is it that they refuse to choose someone dynamic, full of energy and vitality, and who is a sprightly 65 years old, for example? This is hardly young by any standard and yet it is more than old enough to have gained insight and wisdom, and to execute a vision for cradling the church through the troubled waters that must be navigated if there is to be any future at all?! 

I don't care what anyone says, there is a bloody good reason why you never hear of people in their 70's being chosen as the CEO of companies. Well, it's rather simple actually. They have already retired, and are not considered to be youthful enough to handle the pressure and stress of the top job, anymore. So why would you take an institution as soiled as the Catholic church, that was worsened under Ratzinger's "guidance", and choose someone way past retirement age to try to rescue it and run it? It is crazy!

It's a simple fact of life that we are rarely in touch with the Zeitgeist and ways of the world, at 75 years old, or older. In fact, in the great majority of cases, one has to some extent retired from that world, too, and become more introspective and contemplative, with concerns other than the running of an institution that has over one billion faithful followers/members. How can someone at 80 years old be expected to either understand never mind deal with issues of the times, that he never lived through and has no experience of? 

It would be a bit like dropping a smartphone or laptop into the hands of an 80 year old today, and saying, get on with it. Yes, yes, I can hear the bleatings about how my grandmother has an Apple Macbook or my grandfather loves his Samsung Galaxy S4, but it's far from typical - especially when we are talking about old-fashioned old school conservative types who usually get elected as Pope. It appears we are in for more of the same, in all likelihood.

The reality is that they are as out of touch with the times as the church itself is - and that has always been the problem. Francis is an outsider in terms of the Curia, and that's one heavy administrative and political hurdle that is going to be a real challenge to cross over, and get working for him. Don't forget, he was elected by the conservatives who dominate the Vatican and church leadership, and he owes them now. They didn't vote him in to become some hip trend-setting Pope who wants to do away with the rules and regulations!

Speaking of rules and regulations, and how many the church has broken in the name of the holy father, I really wanted to see a straight shooter get the top job; someone along the lines of the much-loved Cardinal Dolan of NYC. A man who would come out in the first weeks and totally clarify their disgust at the various sex scandals that are plaguing the church, and vowing to take a flamethrower and clean house, pronto. That's asking too much, I know - but it shouldn't be. Especially if they actually want to get back to business and claw back generations of lost respect and belief in recent years.

Having said that, I did hear something this morning from my own "men on the street" inside the Vatican, who whispered to me that Pope Francis has banished Cardinal Law of Boston out of Rome and into a monastery. The new pope was going to give mass in the Basilica Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, and Law just couldn't resist a chance to see him, but when Francis realized it was him, he promptly issued papal orders for Law to be banished and kicked him out of his cushy apartment there. Now that is something more like it!

Law "resigned" as Archbishop of Boston back in 2002, in the midst of a disgraceful series of sex abuse scandals, wherein Law was accused of having protected what was virtually a pedophile gang of priests. Ironically, those of you who have read "A Quiet Resignation" already know this because Law made it into that book, but his fate has not been quite as fateful nor as final as that of "Father Danny"!   ;)       Kevin Mc 

Link in, turn off, tune out - if you wanna be truly cool!

                                    

Among the wave of internet companies and social media outlets that have arrived onto the scene in recent times, LinkedIn has enjoyed a fairly privileged status given that it strictly had a lot more to do with careers and job hunting/status than the others. The new social media for the employment business, if you will. It wasn't just for fun, this is my career, people!

Grab a coffee my dears, this is likely to be a lengthy one! ;)

LinkedIn was serious business mostly for employees initially, not least because employers were way behind on anything social media, and initially, old school executives balked at the idea of using the internet to either advertise a job never mind actually hunt/screen candidates there. It was all so public, somehow. Especially for activities that companies still often prefer to keep private.

All that changed with the pervasion (you might call it "invasion") of social media into business in general, with old school, old fashioned marketers squeezed out by the brave new breed of at least semi-trained internet savvy professionals. I use the term "semi-trained" purposefully, because there are still a lot of people out there who, because they can set up a Facebook page, and can bleat all day on Twitter, feel that they are hip and are even social media guru-mentors. Uh-huh. The dreaded lesser-spotted social media web crawling beetle-like species!

Anyway, now LinkedIn has become all grown-up - employers, headhunters and job-seekers alike all co-exist happily (really?!) under one virtual roof,  and Linked even went public a while back. Like Facebook, the valuation was either "rich" (if one is being kind) or "ridiculous" (if one is being real) with their market cap being somewhere around $8-9B. I find it to be staggeringly optimistic, not least as that number represents at least 20X their revenues for 2011, for example. I don't see anywhere near that kind of valuation. But you can't blame 'em for riding the wave, right?

One of the earliest mistakes various levels of people made was linking (for want of another word!) all of their social media accounts, so everything they spouted on Twits or FB would also appear on their professional Linked page. While this may have been fine for a senior executive (read, "older") who only ever used social media for his company's work, it was not fine for almost all employees, especially the dumb ones.

Quite why anyone would think that it was fine to have their Friday night FB wet T-shirt pics or drinking party Twitpix and Twits emissions couriered over to their LinkedIn accounts, even on a weekend, is beyond me. Ne'er the twain should meet! It was and is a total myth that everything should be "linked"and "synced" between personal and professional lives, at least for the over twenties. I detest the viral disclaimer that the sheep put on their Twits descriptions today also: "opinions are my own" or "comments are mine, and do not reflect those of my employer"or whatever.

It comes across as rather arrogant to me, as if you regularly spout great opinions and commentary on a whole slew of hot topics, being read by thousands, and you just know it will get back to your employer. As I said in a blog last year, Twits is really set up to promote the star system, and on Twits, everyone is their own little star! But the salient point is rather, if you want to distance yourself from your employer then why do you insist on having them as part of your Twits descriptor?!

It's really very simple, kids. If you want to look so hip and cool, and blast back to your gals about a party suggestion "f**k yeah, count me in, biatchh!", then you should probably get your employers name off your Twitter profile. Even then, it does not prevent said employer from scanning your social media activity and raising an eyebrow. But at least you ain't "linked"and "synced". Conversely, if in order to appear professionally cool, you want to have your employer's way cooler brand on your Twits descriptor, then accept the price for doing so, and keep it aligned with their brand, not yours. Make a choice, kids, because you cannot easily do both.

So, frankly, LinkedIn should have nothing to do with employees FB and Twits accounts, in most cases. However, in order to keep up with the others, LinkedIn has encouraged thought leaders (and now anyone who thinks they have something relevant to say) to promote themselves on the site, and share their blogs and emissions on LinkedIn as well as on all the other sites they already spout on. I find it redundant, personally, in all but the most rare of examples. LinkedIn was not meant to be about reading so-and-so's blog post - I have his blog for that! I don't need to read so-and-so spouting about his brand strategy on Linked, as I can see it on their website and FB page and blog. LinkedIn was for the job seeker, the employee, and the employer.

Lines are getting too blurry again, and LinkedIn has started to get a bit too "social media" and a lot less functional as a professional career and skills presentation site. But frankly, it has already become dysfunctional and abused, to the point where someone's number of connections is almost meaningless to anyone seriously looking for quality individuals. Just like their kids' Twits and FB pages, the aging, graying executives have suddenly tuned in and turned on to LinkedIn and have started their abuse (based on their seniority) of the "connections" system. Something which has caused many of us to simultaneously "drop out".

There are essentially four main species on LinkedIn: your real life friends (who in many cases might not be appropriate for this particular site); people who you (have) work(ed) with (who therefore are truly colleagues, but may/may not be actual "friends"); people who know someone on your contact list and can therefore scan you as a new "recruit" (also known as the "scavengers"); and last, but by all means least, the headhunters.

For sure, LinkedIn is no real place for real friends, unless they work in the same functional area as you do, and we have FB and Twits berths for them. People one works/has worked with are truly eligible and even if they are not our biggest fans, or we theirs, they fit into the deal. We have worked together and we can apparently support the credentials of the other. That works. Notwithstanding the fact that someone that has been adversarial in the workplace is probably a spy, and/or may even copy/clone your unique style. But what can you do? Anyone watching reasonably closely gets to see who is the organ grinder, and who is the monkey. And the truly original will always stand out and stand above the copycats, who have to look away from the mirror that stares back disappointed at them and embarrassed by the image it is reflecting.

The scavengers are the bottom feeders that are ruining the site. The second you make a new connection, following a meeting or conference, and all of their contacts see you are newly added, the shameless among them arrogantly send you an invite to connect, even when you have no idea who they are. Maybe at best, you sort of vaguely know who who they are, but never had to deal with them. LinkedIn used to encourage this behavior just like FB used to encourage sharing your private information with anyone who wanted it, but they have changed their tone somewhat. Now when you ignore/delete an invite, something which I find really interesting is that there is a pop-up which classifies the reason for so doing as "I don't know this person". Wow! So therefore, we are not supposed to be inviting connections or accepting invites from people we don't know and never met?! Now there's a new concept!

It actually has become one small step up from spam. After making a new connection recently, with someone I do know, I received an invite from a senior colleague of that person with a truly ridiculous (if not downright nauseating) supposedly "personal" yet generic invite that read "I want to connect with you on LinkedIn, and look forward to meeting you again!"-  this, from someone who I never met? I find that particularly insulting, and I don't care who you are, you are not joining my little club. Even if it's the Queen of Sheba, if I see that you write me a personal sounding note that is clearly generic (or worse the standard pre-programmed Linked invite) then my response will be equally generic - delete. It's abuse. Or as bad as those who prepare a generic cover letter (rapidly becoming a thing of the past) for a job application, directed at no particular employer in particular. It's terrfically insulting! But it's assumed on Linked that people are so desperate to be known, to be loved, to be "connected", that they will add numbers to another's bigger pile, in the vain hope of getting there themselves or getting that new job.

The other main form of scavenger is often, but not exclusively, grey-haired aging types who had a three line LinkedIn "profile" with no photo, for a decade, and who suddenly become active out of the blue. After total resistance and downright refusal to change, they suddenly realized it's not that complicated and even kinda fun to swarm around vacuuming up all the names you stormed through over the years. All to go from zero-to-ten connections, to get to the revered 500+ category inside a month or two. I love spending my afternoons now just hoovering up names from the contact lists of others! How magnificent!

I came across another sub-type of this species recently, and it proves my point entirely. An aging, grey-haired specimen who has done rather well for him/herself, but due to age, sloth and resistance to change had nothing but the vaguest of LinkedIn "profiles". I had been physically in touch in previous months regarding a new venture and he/she was supposed to get back to me, and while hearing nothing did receive an invite to connect on LinkedIn a few months later. It made sense, so I did so. Why not allow someone I have worked with in to the game, and look supportive, especially as they may be considering me for a position?

But then followed the silence. Coupled with the vacuuming up and addition of many of my connections to their profile, and the numbers kept piling up. I even predicted to a real colleague/friend, that they must be on the hunt for a big job and felt forced to climb the ladder, fast. This is exactly what happened, after they reached 500+ connections, and a year later, I have not heard a single word from them. It is using, abusing and misusing of what LinkedIn is supposed to be about, and I refuse to play that game for anyone, anymore. No matter who they are! The idea that's it's all about one big happy well-connected family has become a joke. It's more selfish than ever before. It's all about the me-myself-I - nothing more.  


One needs to value one's own self. As opposed to virtually masturbating oneself, by the meaningless vacuuming up of people who one doesn't know, doesn't care for, will never help and probably will never even meet, all to make one look hot, FB style, because you have bigger numbers than them, or your peers. It's high school FB stuff for supposed grown-ups. One needs to refuse to be a scavenger and to deny these scavengers access to one's page, and moreover, or particularly, access to one's real colleagues. They only want you for what you can give them - never the other way around. It's insulting and demeaning.

"Ask not what your connections can do for you, but ask what you can do for your connections!"

Hold yourself in higher esteem. Don''t be yet another social media sheep. Following the (misguided) herd. Be yourself, be proud of who you are, and value your contact list highly. It is your professional currency. It should never be given away easily, not least to some wannabe socioprofessional climber, or even to a more senior person who almost wants to intimidate you into allowing them access to your full profile and list. The "smart" thinking is: "well, they are quite powerful, so I got no choice, right?"

Wrong. One always has a choice. I love to buck the trend and refuse invitations from scavengers. You increase your value by so doing, in many ways. Sure, it may take longer for you to reach some magic number that fits you, but trust me, the really smart people know what "500+ connections" usually means. That is, that it's usually meaningless. It's completely image over content. But isn't that what LinkedIn has become, right now? More BS about how "great" you are, and how "popular" you also are, because of how many "friends" you appear to have?! It aligned with the FB model, which was a serious error.

It's just the kids'  FB page for grown-ups, without the bullying and scratching. Theoretically. Those of you with individuality, personality, uniqueness and talent should invest for the long term, and create a LinkedIn profile and list that has real value and meaning; one that will carry you a lot further in your professional life than the copycat wannabe guru scavengers and their massive six month old profiles. Don't worry about them, they are old, or total wannabes, or both!

As for headhunters, well, apart from the very best, they are the ultimate bottom feeders. As long as you are in the running for the job, they love you. The second you drop out (meaning you are kicked out) of the race, you are dropped, unceremoniously. But at least they are honest about it! It's still better than those who you consider(ed) to be real friends/colleagues, who you heard nothing from for perhaps years, during a downswing in your career, but who suddenly reappear full of renewed interest in you - when? Well, after you get a brand new shiny job and you might be of some use to them, now - that's when! These are the lowest form of the species because they come with two faces, one when you are clearly of no use to them, and another when they suddenly might need you, or want to (ab)use you.

It's actually a sickness. A virus that spreads rapidly among the weak, the sheep, the social media crawling wannabes, and often, even among your so-called friends and colleagues. The ones who cling to you when you are a success are rarely your real deal. Do yourself proud, don't be afraid to stand alone, stay above the noise and the mess and the fury, and remain firm in the belief that you will ultimately look stronger than the masses for refusing to follow, as they all do. Having the courage to say "no" has somehow become devalued, having the class to remain somewhat "private" has been made to seem almost weird, and having the smarts to dictate the use of and how you value the exclusiveness of your online presence is deemed egotistic when it doesn't follow their "rules".

It's laughable! Believe me, one sleeps much better at night for neither being a copycat nor a sheep. The days of the individual are not behind us, and irrespective of the invasiveness of social media (and that now includes LinkedIn in a big way), staying true to oneself is often the best medicine in this selfish, abusive, totally public online life we feel pressured into joining. We are free to decide, and one can have it all.

So by all means LinkIn, but turn off a lot of the public aspects of your online identity that you do not wish to share with the public, and be totally prepared to tune out all the noise and all the pressure/abuse that the sheep foist onto you. When it came to LSD, the mantra was tune in, turn on and drop out, but when it comes to LinkedIn, I say LinkIn, turn off and tune out!

Guess what? I just got a brand new shiny job myself while refusing to play the traditional game, or in my opinion, by playing it better, and smarter, and that's proof positive that it still does work! So let's hear it for the individual, who will never become one of the sheep that the marketers dream we all can be. In fact, aren't sheep supposed to be more useful to send us off into dreamland? For sure, by the time you have counted even a fraction of them, you are already off in la-la land! ;)  Kevin Mc

Samsung getting ready to actually swallow the Apple?!

One of the aspects of the express train which drives new media/communication device technological advances that I find simultaneously annoying yet awe-inspiring is the ever-decreasing length of time that anything remains new, anymore. 

In a remarkably short period of time we have gone from buying laptops at high end prices as a several year investment to almost seeing them as disposable after a year, or two. Things change so quickly that your machine is out of touch and second class very quickly, sometimes in mere months. The tech geeks and the marketing machine have never been more in sync, with one moving so fast that the other barely has finished the campaign for the last model before they have to ramp up a new campaign for the next model!

Naturally, the perhaps most aggressively moving device area is the now ubiquitous smartphone segment. The smartphone wars are alive and well, thank you very much, and it has almost become a legal sport for two giants (Apple and Samsung) to lock horns in court. The jury is still out on who will be the ultimate victor in this war, but as of today in early 2013, it seems that Apple has held onto its edge, with Samsung snapping at its heels. For now.

But Tim Cook is under some pressure, and the rumors that Apple, again, will not be releasing a brand new model (iPhone6) but will instead release an interim model (iPhone5S) is far from encouraging. Apple was heavily reliant on the aggressive design ethos and demand for excellence of Steve Jobs, and he is being sorely missed it appears. The imminent showcase of Samsung's new Galaxy SIV (to be unveiled next week in NYC) might well be the moment that Samsung finally takes the lead in this war for world dominance. They have already taken a bite out of the apple, but now seem ready to swallow it whole. 

Samsung Galaxy SIII was only released last year, and here we are again, ready for Galaxy SIV?! It's all very well, but the thing that irritates an old school guy like me is that when I buy something super cool, I buy it to last. The smarter among us realize that it all really comes down to brilliance in marketing, and no question, Samsung are doing a great job at making new devices seem irresistibly desirable. It's all about the newest model, and who has it first, and who gets all the envious stares in the coffee shop or across the bar. 

But you know, my Samsung Galaxy SII is a tremendous device that already combines my two prerequisites - cool aesthetics and hot functionality. Yes, it no longer turns the apples green as it did when I first procured it, but the SIII and SIV take care of that for sure. It comes down to simple economics, really. Why spend more money on a slightly differently-shaped newly-tweaked model, when mine works beautifully and I am barely a year into a three year plan?

This raises another important issue - the ridiculous herding of smartphone users into three year plan commitments in order to get a decent price on the phone. This outdated trend has actually been rendered anathema to the consumer because the new models are coming at the rate of three in three years, yet we must commit to our phone for those three years? Technological advances and the rapid appearance of new models are not catered to by the service providers, who need to rethink their business model. 

I do enjoy watching the Apple-Samsung wars though, and if rumors are to believed, the new SIV is gonna give you some serious bang for your buck, and kick some royal Apple ass at the same time. There's whispers of an almost five inch screen that is unbreakable, a new fancy camera that will allow 360 degree shots, eye-tracking technology that will turn the page automatically as your eyes reach the bottom, and although it might be more fantasy than reality, it may include the powerhouse Exynos 5250 quad-core processor. In any case, it's sure to at least come with the Snapdragon 1.9GHz Qualcom processor, and you know, 2GHz until fairly recently was considered red-hot for even a laptop! Bottom line - it's gonna be real fast!

The Samsung Galaxy SIV is the future and it's here already. Quite how Apple are going to tackle this new beast remains to be seen, but one thing that's great about this war is that it drives the delivery of uber-cool new smartphones into our hands at record pace. Much as I like it, I refuse to buy into it totally. So I buy one new model when it is issued, fall in love with it, and then ignore the next one or two models that follow it, and then maybe when the fourth one appears, I become all new and shiny once again.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like the smartphone, or computer, or smart TV, or even (or especially!) the new car which I buy suddenly feeling old/redundant a mere year later! I prefer to buy something cool and look after it, and this can in fact turn just as many heads years later. It's also a question of being happy with what you have, and not being obsessed by trends and the marketing machine. 

What's the upside? Well, in design especially, what goes around comes around. In cars and phones, one model year it may be that sharp lines and boxier looks are in, then it's all about curves and colors. I am quite sure in a year or two (when it has been more or less forgotten) someone is gonna stare across the counter and ask "Oh my God, is that the new Samsung Galaxy model? I love it, it's so beautiful!".

It's only a matter of time, I think. And speaking of time, it surely is time for a mug of my new favorite brew - the Pharoah's Signature Dark Chocolate Roast, all the way from Egypt! ;) - Kevin Mc