I really dig the concept. Having seen the downsides of vagrant on a few projects, I'm definitely interested in the feasability of cloud-hosted dev environments. Virtualization on top of cloud servers could make this cheaper than running your own, and if you got clever you could probably setup shared services for SOA heavy architectures.
I'm also curious about the downsides of using Vagrant.
Correct me if I'm wrong but if you have full access to the command line you can probably get your recipes working there. If this works, I understand it's not as easy as provisioning with Vagrant but it's a workaround for now.
production: noun. 1 the action of making or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of being so manufactured.
I'd say if you make a factory that takes raw materials and creates a series of one-off items, that you are engaging in production.
It seems like what you're really saying is, "this is not how production has been done in the past". With 3-D printing and related automation technologies, this will start to change very quickly. (It's already started, in fact).
I've thought about this, too. Certainly much communication on the modern internet is realtime, so arguably a protocol based on realtime communication makes more sense than a protocol conceived for asynchronous communication. A system that allows a conversation to move between the two seems ideal -- look at how Facebook collapsed the distinction between IMs and "messages". Trying to have a realtime conversation over email (even with a thread-aware, modern client like Gmail) is still an exercise in frustration.
The core support for the concept of presence in XMPP is also pretty compelling -- especially in remote collaboration settings, where transparency around another person's comings and goings can significantly reduce conversation friction.
That being said, the current XMPP protocol, even including the large set of approved protocol extensions, still falls very short of what would be needed for it to serve as a viable email replacement. As others in this thread have mentioned, the core protocol doesn't include any specification for how to handle messages directed to offline users, and while XEPs have been developed to address this, implementations still vary widely between implementations. Limited by the structure of JIDs, the protocol extension for multi-user chat ends up being a clumsy hack. It looks like there are also problems with large binary data transfer (see http://metajack.im/2008/06/10/binary-data-is-xmpps-achilles-...).
Obviously, a lot of these problems can be resolved with additional protocol extensions, but this risks creating a hodgepodge of conflicting standards and generating a menagerie of different implementations before drafts are settled on. The fact that the core XMPP RFC makes no allowance for offline messages, which is essentially the core of email, makes me think it might be unwise to try to hot-swap the two.
Interesting point about public transportation -- by creating a private bus system, tech companies are actively suppressing demand for better public transport between SF and the valley.
You do realize, of course, that all of these companies have offered to help pay for new bus routes, or are working on helping to build rail bridges, or helping to propose private/public partnerships on better light rail, or ...
Several people have alluded to this outreach elsewhere in the thread. I'd certainly believe it. Any links/references on what these companies have offered?
It's not secret, just not very well known.
As I said, you can usually find it in mountain view committee meeting minutes (for Google), cupertino council minutes (for Apple), etc.
You're assuming that a large share of those riders would take public transport, but most of them would probably drive, since that's what the large majority of people in SF who don't have access to a corporate bus do.
The bus provides an appealing (relative to the Caltrain) option that's appealing to people who could also easily afford to drive. (They're more convenient than the train or driving, to boot, whereas taking the train is much less convenient.) In doing so, they take tens of thousands of cars off the road each morning.
You are perfectly welcome to start your own mass transit system (rail, bus, boat, helicopter, etc). Chances are that you'll quickly find that between he high capital investment, highly variable fuel prices, environmental requirements, and demand challenges that it will be really hard to turn a profit.
Hence, not very many private entities want anything to do with the market.
Well most cities have subsidised public transit, so it is pretty hard to compete, even if it were legal (in cities like my own it is 100% illegal).
Variable fuel prices doesn't really change any of the other private mass transit systems, like air, ship, and train (or even taxi?).
Environmental requirements are essentially irrelevant, especially compared the the fuel that will be saved.
High capital investment? I could start with a single van and one frequently travelled road. Or provide the service exclusively to one employer (ala Google style).
Demand challenges meet multi linear optimization. Our fire stations, electrical grids, gasoline stations, highways, office buildings, and eateries all have demand challenges.
Why would the profit be especially lower? If it were too low, entities would leave the market, if it were too high entities would enter the market.
One point nobody seems to have touched on: men should be just as pissed off about the "booth babe" thing as women. A company using this tactic is basically telling the straight men at a conference to think with their dicks, not their brains.
It's taking a product that could only exist through cultivating the higher functions of the human mind, and selling it by appealing to our basest lizard-brain instincts. It'd be like marketing a product by having two gladiators fighting to death in front of the booth. Impressive, but a step backwards for the species.
And yes, it's totally degrading to women as well. Even if the models involved were willing/wanted to participate.
I agree that it could have been phrased better (dorkitude's post seems to suggest a causal relationship) but I don't think that's what he was really saying.
As people have observed elsewhere in this thread, there's a natural human tendency for the privileged to underestimate their own privilege, and to overestimate the power of other groups. There are several comments in this thread that try to put the blame on women for not defending themselves more effectively, or even for contributing to the problem of sexism (see dizzystar's opening volley). This is flawed in the same way that it would be flawed to shout-down critiques of institutional racism by saying that minorities are as much to blame as white people. Of course there are sexist women and racist minorities. But they and their actions are not on an equal footing with those of the dominant holders of power in this country.
The fact is, in situations of social power imbalance, blaming the victim is an easy, shitty way to avoid addressing hard problems. The very defensiveness being displayed in this thread is further evidence that the members of this community need to calm down, look in the mirror, and consider their own privilege.
(And no, I'm not saying everyone in the HNN community is a straight, rich, white guy, but I think it's pretty clear we have a stilted demography).
I've been running into this problem while working through marketing docs/accelerator apps/etc. with a new startup. There's still a huge hole in collaborative document editing. Tools are either too simple to do this well (thinking of hackpad) or too complicated for quick uses (editing mode in word/comments in google docs).
An elegant solution for this kind of back-and-forth editing dialog on short-form copy would be huge. Surprised it doesn't exist already. And the concept of one-click "commits" is a powerful one for versioning -- makes it much easier to find things than google's atomic "save everything" version control.
"The neuroscience of [fill in the blank] — not saying this will all be non-legitimate, but that it’s a field where a lot of goofballs are right now". Love it.
