As many (now old) kids of the eighties I was part of the ZX Spectrum tribe (are you still there, Commodore folks???) and if now I do what I do for living, I have to thanks Sir Clive Sinclair‘s genius that through his glorious microcomputer showed me literally a brave new world.
Now he’s back with the ZX Spectrum Vega project: a crowdfunded project to manufacture a console with a thousand of original “old time” games.
I hope that the project will raise enough money to actually release the Vega Plus, but even if it doesn’t, offering support (as I just did) is a way to say “thank you Sir Clive!”
If you book the Alitalia’s cheapest fare on a flight it might happens (twice in two weeks, to me) that you aren’t entitled to get a decent quantity of miles for the Mille Miglia frequent flyer programme and mandatory given an (often) uncomfortable seat.
This Ryanair-like attitude (everything is an optional) might make sense for long hauls or mid-distance travels, where the passengers are available to pay a surcharge to board first or get some other goodie. But is completely useless for one-hour, taxi-like flights, were people go for the cheapest fare, and either don’t actually care about being good seated or earning a few miles.
Of course, Alitalia must justify the different fares for exactly the same thing (moving people from A to B), but this should be done by adding something more to the standard, and not by lowering the quality of the service first, and ask for more money to get something that was always been taken for granted until yesterday.
To put it short, letting a few “privileges” for the short-distance travelers wouldn’t have done any harm to Alitalia’s pocket, while it would have made people’s day better. Instead, the company chose to worsen its customers’ travel experience, without getting an actual benefit. This affects the passengers’ loyalty to such a company, and as soon as people is offered alternatives, they will surely catch it.
A classical application of Carlo Cipolla’s Third Law of Human Stupidity.
Blog and Social Networks are very different tools of expression (and, for what it worth, online marketing.)
A blog gives you absolute freedom and exposes your thoughts to potentially a huge quantity of people. People, on the other end, can enjoy the things you do without necessarily disclose their identity, unless they actually want to do.
A Social Network page/profile, instead, implies that the majority of your audience is made by those you already know or, at least, you are acquainted with. Yes, I either know about the existence of “public” pages or the possibility of “following” somebody else, but this doesn’t change the point.
To blog is more like living into the wild, where you can meet other peers, predators or none at all (and in this case ask yourself why are you still blogging if nobody cares.) While “living” in a social network is fairly safer but actually less challenging because of its “Walled Garden” design.
While is obviously possible to use a blog to stay in touch with people and a social network to publish contents aimed at a (personally) unknown audience, it would be more efficient to use the proper tool designed for the specific task.
Unless you are left without options, why should you use a hammer to cut a wire and a screwdriver to hammer in a nail?
Become a legal IT security expert doesn’t need a lot of effort and, with the due care, you can build your legend in a short time-frame following ten easy steps:
- learn the lingo (security is a process, not a product; don’t use simply-to-guess password, is your company ISO-27000-1 compliant? and so on),
- give yourself an “authoritative” demeanor and look (always talk in a “visionary” way, making people feel like they still live in the stone age) and dress accordingly,
- Talk legalese with techies, technical with lawyers,
- attend (possibly) international IT technical, legal/management conferences and try to get as much pictures as possible of you with reputable people although they don’t know you, and regularly update your facebook/google+/blog with those pictures,
- try to give a speech at some university students association, so you can claim to be an “invited speaker” at the university (without mentioning the name, of course),
- create your own “digital-something organization”, become its chairman (and sole member, BTW) and champion for digital human rights,
- flood the newspapers with press-releases that will be regularly ignored until some journalist that is out of time to finish an article stumbles upon your statement, thus promoting you at the level of “source”
- try to catch-up with some low-level civil servant involved in trivial stuff related to the trade, give him some vapourware hint that makes him look smart at work, and use him as a source of petty-information that let you look like you’re part of the “inner circle”,
- try to have as much as possible Linkedin connection,
- get the European Computer Driving License (at least, you must know how to switch on a computer to work in this field, don’t you?)
By following these steps you start a loop where your legend become more and more solid up to a moment when you will be considered a “guru” and nobody will ever check your actual background.
And don’t worry, if you ever get a client, as soon as you stay stick to these ten commandments you’re safe: nobody will ever challenge the outcome (if any) of your work, because nobody will ever admit to having being fooled into hiring a fake…
Strictly speaking, the boaring mock of the New Zealand’s and world’s most famous rugby team All Blacks and of its “war chant”, the Haka made by an Italian toothpaste manufacturer works. In fact, as much as I dislike it, here I am talking about it and sharing the link to the ad.
True, this is not the first questionable advertising campaign, and we all have seen fairly worst examples of exploitation out in the (media)wild.
I just wonder what could happens if one day either the toothpaste maker or its advertising agency should meet somebody from the Team…
Fake quotes, misquotes and misleading attributions (Italian version here) is a short essay that made me stop and think about the role of quotes into the politics and business arena. As the author writes:
Wrong attributions may seem just silly. But they aren’t irrelevant – even if they are not deliberate cheats. There is a change in perspective when a thought or an opinion is perceived as coming from a different source.
It can be interesting to find that something sounding “modern” was said or written, with the same meaning, three hundred or three thousand years ago – or something that seems traditional is actually quite recent.
Or to notice the differences, or similarities, in sayings originated in other, close or remote, environments. Or to discover that ancient (or recent) nonsense (or lies) are being broadly and endlessly repeated without ever checking if they make any sense.
A dirty trick, when there is a disagreement, is to attribute to opponents something they never said – placing them in the uncomfortable position of having to deny it. Historians are busy trying to sort out problems of this kind.
A rather ample source is They Never Said It, by Paul Boller and John George, published in 1989 by Oxford University Press. A bit old, but still deserving a read.
In English, the title reads: “Red Alert in Beijng”.
A possible follow up could be “Yellow Danger in Asia”…
Italian politcians’ mantra, starting from the Chair of the Low Chamber, Boldrini and down to local parties’ minions is “The Internet is an opportunity but…” and then a stream flows of statement like “we need to regulate it”, “we need to keep it free for the righteous citizen”, “we must block hate speeches” and so on.
This reminds me of an old, untitled essay I read on Giancarlo Livraghi’s gandalf.it:
Yesbutters don’t just kill ideas.
They kill companies, even entire industries.
The yesbutters have all the answers.
Yesbut we’re different. Yesbut we can’t afford it.
Yesbut our business doesn’t need it.
Yesbut we couldn’t sell it to our workforce.
Yesbut we can’t explain it to our shareholders.
Yesbut let’s wait and see.
All the answers. All the wrong answers.
For the positive part, dedicated to the Whynotters, just follow this link.
Another (Volkswagen) Audi commercial, another interesting detail.
The TV ad for the Audi Quattro line broadcasted yesterday in Italy is based on creating a climax of even number, with the number “Quatttro” (four, in Italian) on the top of the ladder.
To obtain this effect, the copywriter of the Italian advertising agency thought of a line that reads something like “due sono le alternative” (two are the alternatives”) and then something about the uniqueness of the car. In other words, the script is based on this sequence: two (alternatives) to one and only car, the four (Quattro).
As much as this script looks tricky, it contains a logical fallacy: “alternative” include two options (either going right or left, fight or flight and so on) thus if the Audi script says there are two alternatives, it actually means four (different coupled) options. To be correct, the script should have said something like “there are two OPTIONS” instead.
No big deal at the end of the day: advertising, as a form of art, is entitled to be sloppy.
Carmaker, on the contrary, shouldn’t.
Since the sixties, Italy had a counterpart of the daydreaming Walter Mitty character: Ercolino sempre in piedi.
Different times, different places, same attitude…