Australia has had authoritarian, paternalistic governments since, at least, the end of WWII. Consequently, the best and brightest tend to leave the country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_diaspora). This leaves Australia with two major pastimes: digging coal out of the ground and selling houses to one another.
There's already a mechanical compulsory licencing regime in most countries for music, including Japan and India. That's how radio stations work. You don't need to even talk to, let alone negotiate with, record labels. http://megalv.com/2014/03/17/l... outlines how it works.
Don't turn away customers. Spotify *still* (checking calendar, yes it is 2015) refuse paying customers from Japan. That's 120 million potential first world customers right there. They are ignoring China and India, which are many hundreds of millions more potential middle class customers. They *still* geofence, making their service suck for travellers. They *still* apply discriminatory pricing. They *still* provide a reduced service to people depending where they live.
Here's a suggestion. Stop your discrimination. Accept all customers. Treat them equally and with respect. Charge them all the same price. Make their customer experience awesome. You will make so much money you won't be able to eat it.
Yes, I know that there are all sorts of issues with lawyers and licences. Stop making excuses. Fix them. That's the value you add.
Guys, it really is that simple. Work out who your customers are and serve them.
....forgive me, but if we're talking about EMPLOYEES installing their own software on company equipment, I think I have a better idea on how to make the workplace more efficient. It has nothing to do with with browser choice, either.
Yeah, sack the IT people who are still insisting on insecure-by-default, non-standard, closed source browsers.
We genuinely must be looking at different maps. I can see only one station in all of Shinjuku, the one on Yamanote-dori. That's it.
You might need to recalibrate distances in Tokyo. It might take 30 to 45 minutes to drive 11km in central Tokyo.
You might need to recalibrate your cultural expectations. The ku boundaries in Tokyo are very meaningful to residents, and the distinct cities are much more than technical boundaries. Cities in Japan don't work the same way as cities in the U.S.
Off the top of my head, there are around 6 gas stations within a 10-15 minute walk (or 5 minute drive) of where I live. This is typical. That's why I called bullshit on the headline. There are simply not more charging points than gas stations in any practical sense.
The government of Shinjuku-ku will be surprised to discover they are not a city. Please feel free to let them know. I will look forward to my tax refund.
As for the number of charging stations, did you notice that the majority of them were not in Tokyo at all but different prefectures (states)? That's like saying that charging stations in Arizona and Nevada are in San Francisco. Of course you had to scroll down to see Tokyo. That's like saying you have to scroll down from a map of the western US to see Los Angeles.
It's hard to tell, but by eyeball estimation from the map there might be 30 stations in Tokyo 23 wards. Most of which seem to be in dealers or car parks. The latter are generally useful, but average less than 1 in a city. Hardly the immense market penetration implied by the headline. In fact there are clearly more gas stations than charging points.
You know nothing about Japan. Each ku is a distinct city with it's own city government.
You know nothing about Tokyo. Shinjuku-ku is not little bitty, it is the most populated city in Japan.
You know nothing. You must be Jon Snow.
Exactly one charging point in Shinjuku, my city. The most populated city in Japan. You must be joking. Where did you get the number 453 from? What a waste of time.
And yet I live in Tokyo and I have never seen a charging point there. Can anyone tell me where there is a public point?
Anonymous Coward trolls: "Or hide in your anonymity and know you are a coward, your idealogy is FALSE and that you blindly and sheepishly support a failed system". How true.
Because he implies when someone loses something it's because they are stupid; which is false.
Which implies all people not losing stuff are smart.
I sure as hell feel stupid when I lose stuff.
That in no way implies that I feel smart when I don't lose stuff.
If you want to counter the science, counter it with more science, not with silly videos or FOIA requests for private emails.
It needs to be science before you can counter it. A basic requirement of science is reproducibility. That's what's wrong with much of alternative medicine, and taht's what's wrong with so called scientists like Michael Mann refusing to release fundamental data. If an alternative medicine quack released a study claiming his treatment was effective but refused to release the underlying data due to "confidentiality", exactly how much weight would you give it?
In the case of Mann, suing people trying to get data to reproduce his results places him firmly in the pseudoscience camp. And if the video was so "silly" why spend money to threaten legal action? Maybe because satire is a perfectly fine way to criticize poor science?
It's clear that my drawing parallels between Mann and quacks has incensed you. Sorry, but that's how it looks to me. I predict your next response will be an ad hominem attack.
The only instance I can find is when he filed a countersuit regarding a FOIA request trying to get private emails. It wasn't trying to silence dissent, that's just how you dispute a request.
Sure. Here's a link: http://bit.ly/udox81
MIchael Mann does *exactly* what these alternative medicine people do. He threatens and/or files libel lawsuits against critics. Everyone seems pretty happy to damn this behavior as "not real science" when alternative medicince is involved (and I agree). I'm just wondering why the same yardstick doesn't apply equally to all.
Such as Michael Mann,
These lying quacks are trying to use the legal system to silence legitimate scientific inquiry into their scam.
Does that logic also apply to climate scientists who resort to legal action against critics?