To explain this last, allow us to illustrate with an example. Because we also allow registered corporate users the facility of including their corporate profile which will include valuable stats like their number of employees, areas of expertise and geographical location as well as a link to their portfolio; there is no attestation that the information provided by these companies is accurate. If companies so wish, they can request our attestation which will involve an in depth research conducted by our teams, to validate all date to ensure its accuracy. Of course, if we introduce a company’s profile, our attestation and authentication is absolute.

These and added features are heading to the webosphere soon, in Resource Pad beta!

Of course the implications are huge, but does this mean that Microsoft has finally accepted the fact that alone, it isn’t enough of a champion to provide even a hint of competition to Google’s search engine junta, capturing over 60% of the market share? Even if the merger goes through, though in all likelihood it will–the bid is 60% higher than the price of Yahoo!’s current stock value–the union will only guarantee them about 16% of the share, according to reports by BusinessWeek.

Google is naturally doing everything it can to stop the deal from going through, going as far as to say it would be damaging for competition, although Microsoft’s arguably suitably worded response, was that with Google dominating current market share, it might actually be a good thing.

Where will the FCC and EU weigh on such a merger if Yahoo! does indeed agree to be bought out now that it’s no longer the “golden child” of the Internet startup world?

Of course, aside from the obvious business implications, there are other things to consider: like how well the merger will actually go through, taking the people factor into consideration. For instance, the cultures of the two companies are widely different and critics have cited this point as being among the key opposition factors against the deal. But on in depth analysis, the companies’ core beliefs are the same and they share the important selling point: they both want to topple Google. Badly.

But looking back over the technology mergers over the years, things have never turned out particularly well from Time Warner’s acquisition of America Online (the rumor mill’s in overdrive over the fact that they are now looking to sell), HP’s trouble filled acquisition of Compaq, etc. Adding more fuel to the fire is the possibility of Google acquiring AOL which will basically leave Microsoft and Google standing in the ring, on the presumption that Yahoo! will be folded into the giant.

The answer to the question of who will remain standing in the long drawn out struggle between the software giant and the online world demigod, is up in the air but as things stand now, Google seems to be leading the pack with an astonishing distance between itself and its “competition”.

Of course the implications are huge, but does this mean that Microsoft has finally accepted the fact that alone, it isn’t enough of a champion to provide even a hint of competition to Google’s search engine junta, capturing over 60% of the market share? Even if the merger goes through, though in all likelihood it will–the bid is 60% higher than the price of Yahoo!’s current stock value–the union will only guarantee them about 16% of the share, according to reports by BusinessWeek.

Google is naturally doing everything it can to stop the deal from going through, going as far as to say it would be damaging for competition, although Microsoft’s arguably suitably worded response, was that with Google dominating current market share, it might actually be a good thing.

Where will the FCC and EU weigh on such a merger if Yahoo! does indeed agree to be bought out now that it’s no longer the “golden child” of the Internet startup world?

Of course, aside from the obvious business implications, there are other things to consider: like how well the merger will actually go through, taking the people factor into consideration. For instance, the cultures of the two companies are widely different and critics have cited this point as being among the key opposition factors against the deal. But on in depth analysis, the companies’ core beliefs are the same and they share the important selling point: they both want to topple Google. Badly.

But looking back over the technology mergers over the years, things have never turned out particularly well from Time Warner’s acquisition of America Online (the rumor mill’s in overdrive over the fact that they are now looking to sell), HP’s trouble filled acquisition of Compaq, etc. Adding more fuel to the fire is the possibility of Google acquiring AOL which will basically leave Microsoft and Google standing in the ring, on the presumption that Yahoo! will be folded into the giant.

The answer to the question of who will remain standing in the long drawn out struggle between the software giant and the online world demigod, is up in the air but as things stand now, Google seems to be leading the pack with an astonishing distance between itself and its “competition”.

This announcement, though not yet made officially, also comes with another deal breaker: Sony will release free downloads of several of its albums during the Super Bowl spearheaded by Justin Timberlake, an artist contracted to the label.

Sony’s abrupt shift in stance coming after the rest of the industry had not only put aside the rights management hassle but  aligned itself with the fact that no matter how hard they tried, people would still find a way around the problem, ala P2P sharing. They might as well get a slice of the pie, right?

Things are going good for Sony lately: with Warner Bros. now accepting the Blu Ray disc standard and the fact that it had the added foresight to package it into its PlayStation 3 gaming console is only icing to its layered cake.

With the fourth of the Big Four labels joining the DRM-free zone, what does this mean for the industry? In specific, what does this mean for Apple’s iPod and iTunes? Enter Amazon. Whereas Apple only instituted a standard 99c fee across any and all albums, labels and artists, Amazon has allowed some measure of control to the companies to shift their pricing policies according to their marketing needs. Rumor has it, the Big Four weren’t exactly pleased with Apple’s pricing, grumbling that it was on the low side, and not enough of a differentiating factor for new artists. Besides, it’s own DRM licensing software didn’t allow the tunes downloaded into iTunes to be playable on any other player, thus limiting the control and marketability even further. With Amazon and its diverse file formats, not only will iPods the world over benefit with .mp3 extensions, so too will every other player out there.

Will this significantly affect Apple’s market share? Not really. Apple can rely both on its reputation and the fact that it’s been out there for a longer period of time and even if Amazon and the music industry take rapid strides in this field, it still won’t be enough to get a leg up on Apple.

And of course, this opens up all sorts of options for consumers who can now choose between what services they subscribe to and how much they’re willing to pay to stock up their players. There is, however, an advantage for Sony’s BMG over iTunes–more songs–including all past material, up for download. Anyone who’s tried downloading classics will realize that they are an increasingly rare breed and difficult to find especially if you’d rather not risk the hazards of P2P software. With BMG unlocking its library of past albums, artists and songs under their agreement with Amazon, chances are they will see an increase in pie share.

But whether it will still be enough of a ‘competition’, remains to be seen.

Facebook, meanwhile, has shifted its previous ‘no opt’ policy for Beacon–it’s advertising gimmick of a platform–to an opt-in, where users will now be directed to a pop up box asking whether or not they can share the information with others in their network. What prompted such a reaction? MoveOn brought out a petition on the community, and in nine days amassed a collection of over 50,000 “signatures”. Users began to complain when surprise Christmas shopping wasn’t such a surprise anymore, after friends were alerted to what they were buying. Kinda takes the fun out of the whole thing, doesn’t it?

Though MoveOn hopes this will create a ripple effect in the industry, I highly doubt it. MySpace partnered with Google will in all likelihood create a revenue generating advertising campaign themselves, but unlike with Facebook’s Beacon, they have the massive conglomerate that is Google behind it. Chances are, they’ll find some loophole in there somewhere.

Meanwhile, though LinkedIn’s application interface is yet another example of how all social networking communities are jumping on the API bandwagon, if you think of the possibilities this could pose for the company, potentials are huge. However, if they were to link Facebook’s interface with their own, both from a usability and connectivity perspective, there are massive advantages. For one, while on Facebook, you can monitor your professional connections and possibly add those among your existing Facebook connections to LinkedIn. The only foreseeable disadvantage in this, is if one of your potential LinkedIn professional contacts, decided to take a trip through your Facebook profile and realize those party loving ways you’ve been careful to hide!

Technology’s moving at an alarming rate, people! Be careful what you wish for.

But according to an article published recently on ResourcePad, entitled ‘Web Video’s Shifting Focus’, the author narrates a different world. An almost inevitable world. A world of corporate policymakers, professionally shot videos, and great marketing for the entertainment and political industry.

Though the amateurs will still exist, they are destined for a much smaller share in the pie than before.

The article is available for view, here. Be sure to comment on it, too.

A lot of people I know, at least the conservatives, feel that you should get a few years of experience working in an established company, because the fact is you can’t tell about startups, or so they feel. It’s a risky thing, and you can’t always bank on their abilities to stay afloat in trying times. After all, they ask, do you really want to associate yourself with a failing company?

My answer to this is always the same: no pain, no gain. There are such things as calculated risks, and sure, maybe as a new graduate, you can’t always tell but in a world of today, nothing is no longer hidden. Everything’s available, which means you can get referrals from past employees, ensure that the company’s portfolio is sound by taking a look at their corporate website and their testimonials. You want to make sure the company and you are a perfect fit. Ask questions, be involved, ask the HR Manager. Do they have an HR manager? If they don’t, talk to the CEO, anyone who can give you appropriate information. This is your future you’re dealing with, right?

And…I know what you’re thinking, why should it be this hard? Because at the end of the day, there’s more chance for growth, more chance of expanding your career in a startup than there is at an established company. The range of products and people you’ll be working with is an experience you’ll always remember and cherish. There is an article on ResourcePad entitled ‘The Graduate’s Dilemma’ and it gives an insight on what working in a startup is like.

At the end of the day, one thing you can’t escape from. They’re all the rage!

The website exists on the principle that it’s been created for teenagers by a teenager, and to this effect has been used as a marketing gimmick for promoting new music bands and vocal talent, via a video widget on the site.

This just shows how far we’ve come in a decade, from the failed dot-coms to the teenage entrepreneurs, from internet chat rooms to major social networking portals, from offshoring on a local and small scale to a worldwide phenomenon.

AT Kearney sees the future of IT in outsourcing, and with politicians touting globalization the world over, it won’t be unsurprising. Especially taken into account the growing importance of social networking sites and virtual worlds — it makes managing projects with people in different countries that much simpler — something like an effective project management tool and alarm system all rolled up in one. With the introduction of Linked In, and other job networking sites, the chances of finding a reliable outsource provider is no longer the daunting task it was before. With websites like Elance, Guru, oDesk, etc., things are only going to get easier with time.

So if you’re asking why you should outsource, let me ask you why you shouldn’t?