With that many transactions they should be able to negotiate a lower fee than that. My company did a bit over 4 million in CC transactions last year and our rate is 1.9% and I believe the flat rate per transaction is 25 cents.
Everyone thinks (or at least when pitching will claim) they have a unique understanding that lead them to a product that fits the market they are targeting better than anyone else. As an investor the problem is trying to figure out who actually does have a potentially successful product and who doesn't. That happens to be incredibly difficult, so when looking at a business that doesn't have assets that are worth something even if the business fails, generally an investor is going to want a high potential payoff.
While I had the same thought, I did a few searches and haven't been able to find a site(trying everything from facebook and google to this site and disney) that doesn't have 'blocked' in the 'Parental Control' row in at least one of the boxes that appears. It's to the point that I think I must be interpreting the results incorrectly.
Shock of all shocks, the first thing I see when opening a link to an anonymous picture sharing site is two severed penises with a knife cutting through them.
Very nice over all. Some parts definitely need some polish, though. I get what you're going for with the player-piano type dots crossing the line, but I really couldn't tell what was going on the first few times I brought it up. It was just too busy with the current line of code in it's own highlighted box and the line and the dots. I also accidentally clicked one of the numbers and didn't know why all the dots and stuff wouldn't get off the screen.
If he was in the movie industry would he refuse to work on anything that wasn't G rated(and even a good number of those) because it would be inappropriate to show to 4 year olds?
Most of the movies on the AFI 100 Years 100 Movies list would be tough for an editor to explain to his kid if they were sitting there while he was cutting, splicing, and reviewing. Does that somehow make them unethical?
To me, it seems like a waste of time to have everybody constantly monitoring the status of every card being worked on when you can just have everybody stand in one place for 10 or 15 minutes, then maybe another 15 minutes of subgroups talking about potential solutions to issues that were brought up.
On top of that if you really want the tool to show everything everyone is blocked on at any time, you wind up spending a lot more time than strictly necessary just typing status updates.
In my team's standups, people frequently wind up shifting plans to cover issues that are brought up or offering work arounds to mitigate blocking issues and kick them down the road a bit to give the scrum master(who is also our VP) time to clear them. We also wind up frequently offering to pair with different people based on what they're working on(i.e. one dev is working on something that touches part of our system that's particularly fragile, another dev more familiar with that area will offer to pair for the morning).
Since we started doing morning standups I've seen our team get more productive.
In addition to the other issues brought up, there's the problem of pubic hair getting stuck in the film reducing it's effectiveness and making removal painful.