As I sit typing this post in a Starbucks, whilst having a gallon of coffee (their choice, not mine) and an almond croissant, I overhear a conversation between a young mum and, I assume, her mum. As the mother sits with her white iPhone clamped to her ear the conversation (at least the bit I can hear) goes something like this: "... I left a message on your phone and wanted to make sure that you'd got it, so that's why I'm calling, I didn't know if you had received the message..."
Surely, the whole point of leaving a message is because you couldn't get hold the person you were hoping to converse with. You don't need to check that they received the message, otherwise you wouldn't leave a message and you would try again later.
The young mum in question went on to tell the relative how much their daughter had enjoyed going on one of the rides adjacent to the coffee house, whilst the 3- or 4-year-old sat on her own dribbling onto her sandwich. How important was that piece of information? Should I call my father when I have had a wash or issues a new press release for a client? No, of course not.
The problem with mobile phones, and mobile internet for that matter, is that we're all compelled to use these gadgets simply because we can. I remember when I got my first mobile phone and couldn't wait for it to ring; it didn't so I called someone, just because I could. In the early 90s there were few who had mobiles so it was very unlikely to have been called, especially as so many were worried about the perceived cost. At least when it as £5-a-minute (well 50p, I exaggerate) you only made the most urgent of calls. Now, with free talktime on offer it makes sense to try to use up your 6 gazillion free minutes talking absolute bollocks. Unless you work in the evening phone call trade, shall we call it, when you really are paid to talk about such matters (and probably paying £5/minute).
The same problem happens with e-mails. You send one and you sit their expecting an instantaneous reply. Why? What is it about having to have an instant response. You don't receive a postcard or letter and send a response back within minutes of receiving it, so why just because of a flashing icon on your screen?
No wonder that so much time is wasted on nonsense calls and e-mails checking to see if you have received an e-mail; or acknowledging that you have received an e-mail.
It is time to end this instant response mania, for surely it is becoming a mental problem (can I say 'mental' anymore?) for us to feel the need to respond within seconds of receiving a message.
At least I am wrtiting this in my lunchbreak between meetings, so at least these 10 minutes have not cost the economy a bean.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Chasing Ratings or Securing Oil Supplies
Whilst it is wonderful to live in a free country and to enjoy the democratic right to vote (irrespective of how powerful a single vote actually is) I would question the right of the West (with some Arab states) to interfere with the internal issues of a sovereign country, in this case I refer to Libya.
Colonel Gaddafi is no saint, but neither is Mugabe (and he's still in power), and it isn't good that he's attacking his own people; but, it is their country and they make the rules no matter how unpleasant we may view those rules. We might snipe from the sidelines about Gaddafi's despotic behaviour but it wasn't many years ago that everyman and his dog were lining up to do business with this reformed character. Blair, I seem to remember, led the charge and in the wake of the West's softening policy towards Libya much business has been done (and we do need his oil).
Indeed, I have an oil industry client who would be doing business with other such countries if it wasn't for the sanctions that make trade with Libya and Iran illegal. There must be hundreds of companies in the UK that are desperate for those contracts, which will go to other countries where there is no trade embargo.
That aside, I think what really stuck in my craw was when I heard Cameron talk about the need for urgent military action against Gaddafi and that if we leave him alone he will threaten not only UK security but world security! Where have we heard that before? The only time in recent years when military action was needed was the Falklands and possibly in the Balkans; other than that it seems that our presence (occupation) in other counties is actually feeding anti-western feelings that will put the UK in harms way and not vice versa as our politicians have us believe.
Looking at things cynically, this is fantastic opportunity for Cameron so that he can show that he is truly a world "stateman" (as Blair before who revelled in the war-mongering rhetoric), but what a pity it is always conflict that politicians like to associate themselves with in order to prove their statemanship. It is certainly disingenuous to start referring to Libya as a failed pariah state, especially, as mentioned above, following Blair's cosying up to trade with Libya.
As Churchill allegedly stated in 1954 (the words were spoken in private and so were never actually verified): “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war”.
I can't say that I have a solution to this crisis, but seeing burned-out buses and cars on bombed highways in Libya and you can imagine that the rebel's support for the no-fly zones will soon turn to anger as the death toll of innocent civilians begins to rise.
At that point everyone might stop and see if we can't "jaw-jaw" for a change.
Colonel Gaddafi is no saint, but neither is Mugabe (and he's still in power), and it isn't good that he's attacking his own people; but, it is their country and they make the rules no matter how unpleasant we may view those rules. We might snipe from the sidelines about Gaddafi's despotic behaviour but it wasn't many years ago that everyman and his dog were lining up to do business with this reformed character. Blair, I seem to remember, led the charge and in the wake of the West's softening policy towards Libya much business has been done (and we do need his oil).
Indeed, I have an oil industry client who would be doing business with other such countries if it wasn't for the sanctions that make trade with Libya and Iran illegal. There must be hundreds of companies in the UK that are desperate for those contracts, which will go to other countries where there is no trade embargo.
That aside, I think what really stuck in my craw was when I heard Cameron talk about the need for urgent military action against Gaddafi and that if we leave him alone he will threaten not only UK security but world security! Where have we heard that before? The only time in recent years when military action was needed was the Falklands and possibly in the Balkans; other than that it seems that our presence (occupation) in other counties is actually feeding anti-western feelings that will put the UK in harms way and not vice versa as our politicians have us believe.
Looking at things cynically, this is fantastic opportunity for Cameron so that he can show that he is truly a world "stateman" (as Blair before who revelled in the war-mongering rhetoric), but what a pity it is always conflict that politicians like to associate themselves with in order to prove their statemanship. It is certainly disingenuous to start referring to Libya as a failed pariah state, especially, as mentioned above, following Blair's cosying up to trade with Libya.
As Churchill allegedly stated in 1954 (the words were spoken in private and so were never actually verified): “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war”.
I can't say that I have a solution to this crisis, but seeing burned-out buses and cars on bombed highways in Libya and you can imagine that the rebel's support for the no-fly zones will soon turn to anger as the death toll of innocent civilians begins to rise.
At that point everyone might stop and see if we can't "jaw-jaw" for a change.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Be Careful WIth The C-Word
When presenters of Top Gear ever mention the c-word, you know you're in for a bit of fun; of course I refer to the word "caravan" and not the shorter Anglo-Saxon word that you were expecting.
The last time the three kidults went out in a caravan they "accidentally" set fire to it so that they could produce a memorable closing sequence: a car towing a smouldering caravan chassis. Amusing? Yes; hilarious really, but the messages are clear: caravans are their to be mocked, even hated.
As someone who has a caravan I can actually see the funny side of Clarkson's japes, childish and predictable as they are. The sad reality is that he doesn't want to understand what it is that caravans give you or to see just how much fun a holiday in your home-on-wheels can be.
But as much as I don't like the idea of having the fun poked at something that me and my family enjoy, you can see exactly how some of those who have caravans do give the rest of us a bad name. It's not just the matching fleeces, from the Edinburgh Woollen Mill (of course), it is the air of seriousness, general unfriendliness (rarely to you get a "good day") and that many caravanners seem to revel in the site rules. On too many sites there are the locked toilet and shower blocks, and frequently the "no ball games" signs littering the site. Just who are the site owners trying to deter? Football playing families that have no access to hot water, clearly.
Now, I enjoy a peaceful campsite with clean facilities, but we go caravanning for some freedom and sense of getting away from it all.
Take you caravan to Europe and everything changes.
In France, which is where we have taken our caravan since 2008, there is no issue with caravanners; you get the "bonjours" from complete strangers on the site or in the local towns and you have mixed shower and toilet blocks that aren't locked.
You meet people from all walks of life and you don't get the gleaming pumped-up Discoverys on steroids; most cars on French campsites are regular hatchbacks, MPVs and saloons. You could be next to a company director, a fireman or cleaner, but there is no real sense of social division. But of course France is much more egalitarian than our class-ridden society where integration between the have-nots and have-lots just doesn't happen.
Caravanning isn't about the latest 'van and accessories, it is about the opportunity to explore areas away from the confines of package holidays; it is about enjoying a simpler life and mixing with people and it is about relaxing and unwinding.
Clarkson and his type won't ever understand the enjoyment of caravanning and that's fine, but surely it's live and let live; I don't enjoy package holidays but many do; I'm not a fan of the idea of a cruise (I have never been on one) but they're increasingly popular. At least don't criticise what others do and neither should Clarkson.
I am looking forward to our next expedition with our caravan: a trip to the Alps later this year; we'll be in an area that enjoys 300 days of sun a year, with temperatures in the summer months as high as we enjoyed in the Charente-Maritime (high 20s).
The great thing about caravans is that the moment you hook-up your unit you are already on holiday; there's no checking in at airports and no worries about the weight of your suitcases.
As for the return trip: you have plenty of room to stash all that fabulous wine.
The last time the three kidults went out in a caravan they "accidentally" set fire to it so that they could produce a memorable closing sequence: a car towing a smouldering caravan chassis. Amusing? Yes; hilarious really, but the messages are clear: caravans are their to be mocked, even hated.
As someone who has a caravan I can actually see the funny side of Clarkson's japes, childish and predictable as they are. The sad reality is that he doesn't want to understand what it is that caravans give you or to see just how much fun a holiday in your home-on-wheels can be.
But as much as I don't like the idea of having the fun poked at something that me and my family enjoy, you can see exactly how some of those who have caravans do give the rest of us a bad name. It's not just the matching fleeces, from the Edinburgh Woollen Mill (of course), it is the air of seriousness, general unfriendliness (rarely to you get a "good day") and that many caravanners seem to revel in the site rules. On too many sites there are the locked toilet and shower blocks, and frequently the "no ball games" signs littering the site. Just who are the site owners trying to deter? Football playing families that have no access to hot water, clearly.
Campsite in the Haute-Savoie on the shores of Lac Bourget, France
Now, I enjoy a peaceful campsite with clean facilities, but we go caravanning for some freedom and sense of getting away from it all.
Take you caravan to Europe and everything changes.
In France, which is where we have taken our caravan since 2008, there is no issue with caravanners; you get the "bonjours" from complete strangers on the site or in the local towns and you have mixed shower and toilet blocks that aren't locked.
You meet people from all walks of life and you don't get the gleaming pumped-up Discoverys on steroids; most cars on French campsites are regular hatchbacks, MPVs and saloons. You could be next to a company director, a fireman or cleaner, but there is no real sense of social division. But of course France is much more egalitarian than our class-ridden society where integration between the have-nots and have-lots just doesn't happen.
Caravanning isn't about the latest 'van and accessories, it is about the opportunity to explore areas away from the confines of package holidays; it is about enjoying a simpler life and mixing with people and it is about relaxing and unwinding.
Clarkson and his type won't ever understand the enjoyment of caravanning and that's fine, but surely it's live and let live; I don't enjoy package holidays but many do; I'm not a fan of the idea of a cruise (I have never been on one) but they're increasingly popular. At least don't criticise what others do and neither should Clarkson.
I am looking forward to our next expedition with our caravan: a trip to the Alps later this year; we'll be in an area that enjoys 300 days of sun a year, with temperatures in the summer months as high as we enjoyed in the Charente-Maritime (high 20s).
The great thing about caravans is that the moment you hook-up your unit you are already on holiday; there's no checking in at airports and no worries about the weight of your suitcases.
As for the return trip: you have plenty of room to stash all that fabulous wine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)