Hopefully the developers of this change the name to something different. If it gets bigger they will forced to change the name and probably get a nice fat legal bill to go with it.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
And I'm not even sure about that one...
I dislike the separation of 'Perceived' vs 'Actual' performance. If I perceive it to be slow, it's slow. This reminds of of the Firefox devs that spent years saying how if an add-on makes their browser a memory hog and a slowpoke, it's not their problem because their performance is fine.
Devs.. If it's slow, it's slow. Call it perceived, call it actual, call it the Pope for all I care. It's a Slow Pope.
An opt-in system may make sense, but when it comes to material some find objectionable the opt-in list itself becomes and issue. Who controls the publication of the list? Will employers or political enemies use the list to smear or block people? Opt-in lists provide a chilling effect.
When one goes to buy a porn mag in a bricks and mortar store, one can pay by cash and remain anonymous as the store may check identification but is not required to make record of it. Not so with an opt-in system.
I for one do not like an opt-in for censored material system.
Reason to not use Facebook. Where is the assumption that I want to be grouped in with some off the cuff remark made by friend 1871. Who is that guy and why is he on my Facebook anyway? I should do some defriending soon.
Stop doing so many things that will be embarrassing if exposed to the light of day.
Wikileaks did some things that may or may not have been illegal in the United States. Wikileaks ability to do business and collect funds was taken down as it was 'in the cloud' and the provider was more worried about their own behind. The network connections were still up as the FCC and other regulators would go medieval on a provider who did this without just cause. This isn't the case for contracted services. An service that is 'unpopular' to a large entity can easily fall victim to this. For example in a large vs small company thing. Imagine Apple taking down thinksecret because they pressure thinksecret's provider threatening to eliminate any exisiting business with said provider. Same thing. It's why I have recommended to the ownership of our company that we do not outsource to the cloud. Instead I have recommended that we implement cloud-like technologies within our own network where it is still powerful.
Record companies aren't at the table here, or are you implying the copyright board is in the pocket of the record companies and just a 'vendor'?
The copyright board of Canada serves more functions than mere disbursement back to record companies. A significant portion of the percentage paid by new licensees (broadcasters) is for Canadian Content Development.
Companies such as Pandora and Sirius have ways around Canadian content regulations, therefore their expected cut of Canadian Content Development is significantly higher.
An artist that is semi-successful in Canada makes less than a McDonalds employee due to the small number of Canadians to whom to sell their music. A similar level of moderate success for an artist in the USA means you get to see them on 'Cribs'.
Canada's copyright board is not a 'vendor'. Canada's copyright board exists to keep Canadians making music, to put money back to the rights holders ('vendor') and to protect the existing players through essentially a punitive tariff. I would agree that parts 2 and 3 are not so great, which supports your earlier post. Ultimately the copyright fees are a cost of doing business and have shown to be negotiable.
I certainly would not call that a 'non-starter'.
Go back to the shareholders and tell them 'Sorry, we walked away from a deal that would add several million annually to revenue because we'd only get to keep half' The cost to Pandora to sell here is minimal, so does it really matter? They are throwing away revenue as every Canadian that I know that understands how Pandora works would probably sign up.
Pandora needs to get off the horse and get down to business.
A Similar problem existed for Sirius satellite radio. Sirius negotiated lower rates and people buy the product even though Sirius to this day pays large amounts of licensing fees and Canadian Content development fees. It is my understanding that Sirius pays more for Canadian Content development than all of terrestrial radio. This does not stop them from having success and seeing decent growth in their subscriber base. I would assume that the rate is high as the copyright board astutely assumes that Pandora's success will mean Sirius' loss, and they are out to protect that flow of revenue into the development of Canadian Artists.
Pandora is being either lazy, chicken, or greedier than the politician.. 'Oh no, big fat bureaucrat wants lots more money than our 2-bit business plan expected, run away'. They should go back to the table with some market research that shows their expected revenues and makes a fair case for how much they should actually pay. Comparisons to terrestrial radio will get you nowhere. Finding a pricing model that works within that franework is what is needed. They won't require a significant hardware investment to reach Canadians. So what if their profit margin won't be as large as hoped; It will still be a good profit margin if they negotiate to a lower rate.
Yes, one could go into arguments about the validity of Candian Content Development, blah blah blah. Bottom line is that the copyright board exists to extract higher fees from new entrants into the markets. Get over it and get on with business.
The Blues Brothers had the forward version of that, only more precise. One of the neatest car stunts I've ever seen.
Not only that, but some guys on Youtube decided to recreate the scene. Insanely funny.
We migrated to in-house Zimbra from a simple sendmail server (500 accounts), which has worked exceptionally well. We had quite a bit of pushback from die-hard Outlook people. We adopted a policy that all new hires would get Zimbra and a business case would have to be presented to get Outlook for that user. We also dont support any of the sharing features via Outlook, and all new training material is for Zimbra and not Outlook. We also chose a few high profile individuals and helped them become more efficient with Zimbra to help spead the word. We still have about 50% of the user base on Outlook, POPing off of Zimbra. We expect this number to dwindle as our users decide to start leveraging sharing.
A mixed mode can be supported, and its probably the only way to move away from a deeply entrenched tech like Outlook. Baby steps are required.
America is rated the world's most unfriendly destination for foreign travellers in a recent global poll. The War on Terror (which includes a $15 billion fingerprinting program that humiliates every visitor to America's shores and has yet to catch a single terrorist) has destroyed America's tourist industry, killing $94 billion worth of tourist trade, and 194,000 American jobs.
Link to Original Source
"Early this week an independent researcher, reviewing video archives of the BBC's 9/11 coverage, divulged the discovery of an earth shaking incongruence. BBC reporters announced the collapse of the 47 story Salomon Brothers Building 23 minutes BEFORE the actual sudden collapse. This building, also known as WTC 7, is clearly visible, standing tall, as a reporter gestures to the live view through the window behind her.""