<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Brian Sullivan</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/d9c1905bdca69cbb4df75dab02a9650b/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 12:55:40 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Seesmic: Still don&amp;#8217;t really get it</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/seesmic_still_don8217t_really_get_it/#comment-148785</link><description>I feel the same way -- I just don't get video blogging in general. I loved the Owen Thomas/Vallyewag quote:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;""Video is one of the most inefficient means of communication, suited only for self-important types who overvalue their own thoughts and undervalue the time of those they speak to.""&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I have much the some reaction to most audio podcasting. There may be good stuff out there but I just don't have the time or energy to weed through all the crap. If there were better tools to sort it out I might consider spending so time listening (at least audio doesn't require your undivided attention for the whole length of the piece).</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brian Sullivan</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:03:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dual-class stock = enlightened dictatorship</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/dual_class_stock_enlightened_dictatorship_37/#comment-422320</link><description>Is the "Don't go Public" option really an option? I think in the US anyway once you get to a certain number of individuals holding shares -- like when you give key employees shares you end up having to report as a public company with none of the benefits.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If I recall this drove Google (and maybe Yahoo) public (or was a significant factor in the decision).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I am not totally sure I understand this dual class share option as it relates to public companies anyway. Doesn't fiduciary duty still apply?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brian Sullivan</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 19:12:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Disqus and Seesmic Pair Up For Video Comments</title><link>http://avc.disqus.com/disqus_and_seesmic_pair_up_for_video_comments/#comment-464425</link><description>So you are arguing that video can be useful on the web? Isn't that a bit of a strawman? I don't think anybody here (or anywhere) that I have seen has said that video is not useful. But there are many situations where video is decidely a waste of bandwidth, mindwidth and time. I am pretty sure the list of these is much longer than your list.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Off the cuff created, unscripted, unedited talking head video is absolutely the most wasteful form of video usage in my opinion.  I am guessing that a very large percentage of video comments will be just such video.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brian Sullivan</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 19:06:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: When all else fails, declare victory</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/when_all_else_fails_declare_victory_65/#comment-534754</link><description>A guy I once worked with claimed that the best way to have a huge success was to declare loud and clear for all to hear the success and never waver(regardless of whether there was success or not). He was in sales/business development and extremely good at it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This works often not only in business in all sorts of fields (look at Rove's tactics in the U.S.).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Looks like the RIAA is just a follower of that philosophy.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brian Sullivan</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 12:55:40 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>