Arghh! This is annoying. I have ten discrepancies between what I show and what LinkedIn has. And, I didn’t even start reconciling what Outlook has.
# # # # #
LINKEDIN: Aligning what LinkedIn has
Monday, November 5, 2007
Leave a Comment » | 
LINKEDIN | 
Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
LINKEDIN: LinkedIn missed the boat?
Monday, November 5, 2007A LinkedIn Question
by Rob Richard
Entrepreneur & IT Consultant
*** begin quote ***
Has LinkedIn missed the boat?
Is it me or does LinkedIn seem stagnant; complacent? I’ve not seen any new features in eons, and it really is getting rather old.
With the recent and sizeable cash infusion to facebook from Microsoft ($250 million worth!), what is LinkedIn’s response? There are so many things that could enhance the service. Open it up to developers just as facebook has. I think facebook is more young-people / early adopter centric, but LinkedIn could at least learn a lesson from them and stake their claim in the business and professional networking sites by adding more stickiness.
On more than one occasion I’ve sent suggestions on how to improve the site and its offerings and never heard anything in return. Now as a web entrepreneur, if I have people giving me free suggestions on how to make it more useful, I’d listen. So the question I ask is: “Has LinkedIn missed the boat?”
*** end quote ***
A very tough question.
I personally am not sure of the benefits versus costs of LinkedIn. It may well be an “activity trap” where effort far exceeds results. I think that they have a tiger by the tail.
I haven’t seen anything better.
Facebook came the closest with it’s using college email addresses to define “networks” and with some widespread adoption. But they were aiming at a different value equation.
I think LinkedIn’s poor (in some case non-existent) customer service, it’s new five “idontknows” lockout, and the MONUMENTAL blunder about hassling the LinkedIn affinity groups like LinkedInNewYork and all of Vincent Wright’s efforts is indicative of their “cluelessness”.
Have they missed the boat? No!
Have they failed to capture the wave? Yes!
If Amazon, Ebay, the Ron Paul Presidential run, and other web20 successes taught us anything, it should be that within a very well defined meme let the users surprise you with their energy. And, then hang on tight.
I suggested eons ago, that LinkedIn give me three fields for each of my contacts. One for a private note, one for a note visible only to them, and one was a “last contact date”. The private note was for my use to trigger my memory or record an important fact.The mutually visible note would be for me to record how I knew the person or what I owed them. The date was so I could produce a “days outstanding” metric and sort a “make contact list” by age. NEVER, never, never heard anything back on the idea. It showed me that they weren’t serious about servicing my needs. Only their own.
Later when they hassled the user groups, I knew they had NO CLUE about making LinkedIn a success from my point of view.
So, “No, they haven’t missed the boat” only because there is NO competition to jump to.
imho.
# # # # #
Leave a Comment » | LINKEDIN | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
MONEY: A tale of two employers
Monday, November 5, 2007http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/10/28/build-wealth-with-a-virtual-employer
Build Wealth with a “Virtual Employer”
Sunday, 28th October 2007 (by J.D.)
This article is about Money Hacks, Hints and Tips
***Begin Quote***
Here’s the longest “money hack” I’ve ever posted. This is another reader comment from our recent discussion about the transition from “becoming debt-free” to “living debt-free”. In this guest-post from James, who is new to GRS, he describes how he created a “virtual employer” in order to limit his natural spending habits. By playing games with himself, he was able to go from $20,000 in debt to having over a million in savings in just fifteen years. This guest-post is long, but I think it’s worth it.
How is living debt-free different than becoming debt-free? If you are rational (and fortunate) it shouldn’t be different at all.
***and***
A tale of two employers
My real-life employer direct-deposited my paycheck into a money market account. This account used an automated bill-payment service to make deposits into my regular checking and savings account every two weeks. This last set of accounts was used for ATM transactions, and for paying all of my bills. Income into this account was my “salary”. I had to live within my means just like I ought. However, it was like I did not work for my employer, but for a fictitious employer. When I got raises or bonuses, they went into this fake employer’s money market account and did not appear in my salary — they were left to build my savings faster.
Once a year, I gave myself a raise by changing the amount of the bi-weekly salary that went into my personal bank accounts. My income kept rising, just a bit more slowly than in my real-life job. I never felt that I was scrimping because my virtual job was increasing my virtual salary faster than inflation. It took me about two years to pay off debt, and another 4-5 years to build up emergency savings and open a brokerage account and start investing.
***End Quote***
Here’s a great idea.
If only the tax code would let one be one’s own employer.
But, in any event, here’s a way to fool yourself into living within your means.
I think this is one of the more innovative things I have read.
# # # # #
Leave a Comment » | MONEY | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
INTERESTING: Thinking about PaiGow
Monday, November 5, 2007Can’t say if it’s “fun”. I think imho you are playing for the bonus. You’d have to be incredibly lucky to beat the house at this game. I’m focusing on how to exploit a “positive lucky streak” and stop an “unlucky streak”. We know from probability that there can be streaks. We’re not going to hang around for a long time and get ground up by the house edge. So we need to sense the streak, exploit, and exit.
(I watched carefully the big winner at the 60$ table. He was pushing in more when he was winning and less when he lost. I should have charted his play; not mine!)
At a twenty dollar table, can you play 30$? Assume not! But if you can, that might be a way to play more after a win. So, at a twenty dollar table, I’d suggest that you want to play $40! And 5$ for the bonus. Ignore for the moment pushes.
Start with two basic stakes — one for the game and one for the bonus. Let’s say 300$. Five losing hands?
So we start by setting up five “soldiers” at 40$ each and five for the bonus (45*5=225). The last soldier is a “double” of $80 and ten for the bonus ($90). And a stack of fives ($100) for the bonus replacement’s on pushes. ($415 total) That’s the exit indicator, soldiers gone, we leave.
So here’s how it operates:
Area#1 is for the “soldiers” playing the game. Area#2 is for the bonus play stack. Area#3 is the “bank” — once money moves in there, it’s going home.
Bonus wins, restack the 20 chip bonus stack; excess to the bank.
Bonus stack depleted? A soldier is sent to reinforce. (We’re playing for the big hit.)
Game wins:
If you win, you get $38 (if.eat., 40 minus the two commission). You should add 20, going to 60. Put 18 in your kitty.
If you lose, you’re out -40.
If you win the 60, you get 57. And add 20 going to 80. From the 37, put back a 25$ soldier and the rest back in your kitty.
If you lose, you’re out -40+18=-22.
If you win the 80, you get 76. Add 20 going to 100. From the 56, put back two 25$ soldiers and the rest back in your kitty.
If you lose, you’re out -40+18+37=+15
If you win the 100, you get 95. Add 20 got to 120. From the 75, put back three 25$ soldiers and the rest back in your kitty.
If you lose, you’re out -40+18+37+56=+81
If you win the 125$, call and quit your job cause the world is going to end.
And hope you catch a streak or a big bonus.
Now that’s gambling.
Do you agree with my numerology?
# # # # #
Leave a Comment » | INTERESTING | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
Reinke Faces Life 