Mostly IRC channels like #openbox, #debian and #debian-next on OFTC and #vim on freenode.
And as I've mentioned in a previous comment:
/r/debian (low volume of traffic/posters)
/r/solaris (very low volume of traffic/posters)
/r/openbox (very low volume of traffic/posters)
...and of course raspberrypi.org/forum
See caching plugins review: http://www.tutorial9.net/tutorials/web-tutorials/wordpress-c...
Did your site make it to the front page?
My website made it to #2 on HN front page yesterday : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3521309
I logged about 7k visits with ~200 peak concurrent visits. I wouldn't say that's server-stalling level traffic but the thing is my site is hosted on GitHub Pages so it's entirely static.
I don't mean to troll, I think there's a Wordpress plugin called supercache or something (google wordpress caching) .
But I do want to officially advocate that you rethink whether or not you _really_ need a mysql database, x plugins, and PHP to run a blog
Aside, one quick thing I noticed was that you are using Apache. I would recommend that you switch to nginx. You are already handling your comments with Disqus. I would think that generating static pages and handling comments through Disqus is ideal.
The main thing you need to do is add caching to wordpress (both w3tc and supercache work fine) and if there is still a problem you are probably on the wrong host and should upgrade to either something like linode or a mediatemple grid server or webfaction basic plan.
If you're on a VPS and have caching enabled and still can't manage the traffic I'd say something is wrong with your configuration but just looking at your site I see no caching from either of the plugins I listed.
I don't know if this is disruptive, but I hope this will help break the data lock-ins networks like Facebook and Twitter photo services are using to retain and attract users. (And what happens if one of the sites go belly-up with all your data?)
If I could make one suggestions, the site as it currently is looks like one for a generic software download. You should, eventually, try to make it look more friendly and inviting as if to say that this is a social ecosystem of sorts.
Best of luck! If you're in SF or NYC, you probably won't need it with all the people who'll throw themselves at you over a great idea like this. :)
2) I'm trying to sync 1 file and it's taking over 20 minutes (so far)
3) It'd be nice to allow one-way sync. I don't want to flood my MB Air's tiny drive with every photo I sent to Flickr, but I would want to upload all of my Air's photos.
That said, this service looks very slick and kmfrk makes a great point about using it to liberate your photos and such and make them available to people that don't have accounts. For example, links to facebook photos are useless for me since I don't have an account there, but if the people uploading their photos there could also have them mirrored to SocialFolders or even another network where I either have an account or don't need an account to view them, that would be sweet. If they could have that happen without doing anything extra on their own (after installing the software, of course), that would be pretty amazing!
Have you seen http://theopenphotoproject.org/ ?
Otherwise, looks amazing, gonna give it a whirl after work.
Edit: please give us a linux client.
Also, I assume that such modifications aren't propagated to the other copies?
Love the idea and the intro. Instant User!
Tons of questions about the syncing features with different services etc.
Wishing you great success! Happy hacking !
Can I get more than just photos (files)? Can I save my data or will that get you banned from a few of the providers you integrate with!
I use Backupify for this 'anti-Cloud' type service - it backs up my Gmail. Since I use more than one PC, I'd like to see this do similar to Dropbox - sync local, in the Cloud, and be accessible through clients on any device. I suppose I could do that by putting the SocialFolders into Dropbox - but I'm not sure I want to pay on the double then.
It did however take me till the last 30 seconds of the video to actually get how this would be useful to me.
Need to play with it to get you more feedback.
EDIT: Sorry - just realized the bioteam.net discussion centered on Backblaze pods.
This is the only one I remember, from a hotel review startup and I believe the server was just for backup.
I'd be really stoked if it was basically like google reader but had really nice typography - really that's all i want.
That being said, there are some trust issues that you will have to deal with and you should address them right up front. Basically right after a prospective users knows what you do, the next question in their mind is going to be how do I know I wont get screwed? you will have to solve for this problem.
I looks like you are letting them form their own groups, but I would assume for it to be truly powerful, users will eventually have to group up with people they don't know. Some people are going to want to pull in large number groups and their network will not be able to support that.
You should also track winnings if it is possible, so that you can build a winner rating for people. While it may not be a relevant state gambling is based of a lot of emotion so emotionally people with a winning record will be looked at as having a badge of honor and will be sought out to pool with.
You should research the laws to see if you can be a purchasing entity for tickets, that you then hold in pools for groups. You should check with state lotteries to see if you can become a retailer of tickets, if so you could build a revenue stream by selling tickets into a trust for pools. I would disclose any quick pick type numbers selected by the pool before the lottery drawings so their can be no question as to transparency of what is being purchased by the pool. Further, a system where you can estimate winnings would be valuable, basically taking the payout of the lottery and splitting it by the amount of people in the pool that way people get a good view of what joining a pool will return if it wins. I would use real immediate payout dollars and not the funny math the states use for advertisement.
As far as the idea goes, it seems like you could come up with something that finds a better niche in the market than this.
Can you explain why?
In my mind, this is the same as asking if its okay to not use linen for my biz cards.. it doesn't matter.
go do it :)
No you won't. Not on HN at least. Be yourself and make what you love, everything gonna be alright.
Or, if you want, here's the popular gif cursor party done in real life http://citybik.es/cursor_party
Furthermore, I'd point out that, depending on the form of a ban on lobbying, the recent SOPA protest might not have been able to happen. Google might have been prevented from blacking out their page as would Wikipedia, lest they run afoul of anti-lobbying laws. That's something worth thinking about.
It's also not just the business sector that has lobbyists. There are tons of other groups. The Sierra Club and NRA are two biggies that come to mind. As an individual, it's much more efficient for me to throw in with one of those groups to ensure my interests are protected than it is to do it myself. Both are exceptionally effective at getting what they want because they spend all day keeping an eye on elected (and unelected) government officials and their continued existence hinges on their success.
I'm not arguing that we have to like this current situation, but it's hard for me to think of a better scenario that doesn't infringe on the rights of people to assemble as a group and voice their opininon via financial support, advertising, etc... Just because some of the time we don't personally like the result of lots of lobbyists, doesn't mean this is the root of all evil. In the end, all the money in the world isn't going to compel ordinary citizens to vote for someone who doesn't have their interests in mind. Exhibit A would be John Corzine who had an incredible fortune at his disposal in his reelection bid as governor of NJ and still lost to Chris Christie in 2009.
The problem isn't lobbying. It's corrupt elected officials who at best accept bribes/payment to fund an overly expensive electioneering machine. The problem is that lobbying happens with no public over site and now accountability.
The problem is more complex than just removing lobbying. Do you really want government making decisions without asking companies advice? The same companies that the government expects to implement strategies?
Say for example the USA predicts a 20% increase in crude oil use over the next 10 years. Where the refineries should go, where the oil is best sourced, how the petrol products are best distributed are all important questions that the oil industry is well placed to help answer. Not dictate of course but their opinion should matter.
EDIT: Before anyone accuses me of supporting the current system please give me the benefit of the doubt. I understand the system is inadequate as it stands but to remove lobbying just creates another problem of equal gravity.
From my understanding, it isn't Congressmen that write the laws most of the time. AFAIK, many laws are written by industry and then handed to Congressmen read and modify, and such bills are handed with explanations and arguments to why they are needed. Such a process with always result in laws that move in the interest of lobbying powers due to the very nature of how negotiation works. In every negotiation, you have an "anchoring" effect, where the final outcome will be near the starting point. With that in mind, lobbyists define the starting point and therefore where the anchor is hooked on every debate.
The only solution I can come up with to this is a requirement that every single bill needs to be drafted in the open with a commit history of who made each and every commit to a bill. Only with this in place would we be able to see how much of the laws are written not by government but by industry. It would also give the people (specifically active concerned citizens) a voice early on in the process so that the position on which the "anchor gets hooked" is more balanced and representative.
Politicians, and especially lobbyists, today say things to the effect that it is difficult to draft laws and discuss things out in the open. What those that complain about this fail to understand is that that is the very essence of democracy. Democracy starts at the beginning of the discussion of public policy, not at the point at which policy comes to a vote.
Dodd, during his speech where he remarked that SOPA was a watershed moment, even said, "the white noise has made it impossible to have a conversation about this. We've gotta find a better way to have that conversation than we have in the last two weeks." This attitude is a clear sign of someone that doesn't understand what a democracy is. That white noise is democracy in action and the best thing we can do is make sure that democracy is happening at the inception of every idea that evolves into a law.
We basically need a super easy, useable git for laws accessible by everyone.
Instead, PG said "Kill Hollywood" because the SOPA/PIPA debacle finally made it apparent to him that these industries are ripe for replacement. Imagine you notice that some middleman in a purchasing chain is starting to try very hard to include terms in their contracts that prohibit their customers from going directly to suppliers. This might make you realize that this middleman is scared of becoming unnecessary as customers go directly to suppliers. The middleman is in a position to know their industry really well... perhaps it's time for you to start up a business matching up the customers with suppliers directly (for a tiny cut, of course), thus killing off the middleman and making yourself a successful company in the process.
Well, that's what PG saw going on here. The SOPA/PIPA behavior made him realize that these media companies are focusing on keeping their position rather than on improving their services, which made it obvious that they are in danger of LOSING their position. What a perfect time to launch a company intended to profit from the large-scale changes that will be happening anyway.
Killing lobbying, sadly, is not an option. It will force the influence vectors under the table and cause all sorts of nastiness. People wanting to influence power isn't bad; it just needs to be effectively channeled.
What is needed is more transparency. Going both ways.
Going up, we need some way for politicians to effectively guage the support or opposition to a proposed piece of legislation. The ad hoc activism model we have going now is Dark Ages crap.
I can see a future where reps and senators pledge to use an online polling platform for bills that voters registered in their district sign up to voice up with, and where not pledging to use such a system will be anathema to one's campaign.
Going down, we need something that makes campaign financing more effective. By more effective I mean that instead of finding out about donation opportunities ad hoc I have a systematic way of ensuring I have considered every candidate and that every candidate has been evaluated on every issue pertinent to me. Not terrifically complicated software.
Second stage of top-to-bottom transparency revolves around informing voters, but I think that is fairly well covered for the amount of influence it has and the number of people who regularly and actively follow elections.
1) We live in a highly interdependent society of 300m people. Such a society needs to be governed. Indeed, it needs a lot of government, like any amalgamation of people that are forced to interact with each other. The debate about "more versus less government" is only sensible in the margins. Its really more of a question of "good versus bad government."
2) The public needs to advise elected officials. Because of (1), elected officials have a huge range of issues to deal with. It is literally impossible for them to educate themselves about those issues. Lobbyists fill to role of educating officials.
You're not going to be able to run a society that has, e.g., no regulated industries (see 1) or one where representatives of those industries do not weigh in on that regulation (see 2). Forget about such childish ideas.
Stuff like "get rid of lobbying" is as useful in political debate as statements like "get rid of gravity" are in aerospace engineering. Yes, that would make certain things easier, but...
I agree with the idea, but the devil is in the details. Congress should start with a cooling off period for staffers to work for lobbying firms, but I don't even know what it means to "criminalize lobbying".
To show how the system works, I'll give an example. A typical State Senate campaign runs a budget of about $100k. Under our Clean Elections system, participating candidates must raise $15k in small contributions of $100 or less per person. They then qualify for a grant from the state of $85k to round out their budget.
The grants are funded by state auction of unclaimed property and the like, not by taxpayer dollars (though even if we didn't do it this way, clean elections would still be a worthy thing for taxpayers to support).
This system is purely voluntary, but 75% of all candidates participated in the last state election. Our current governor was the first ever elected under this system.
Of course, this kind of reform doesn't happen out of the blue. A previous governor of our found himself thrown in jail for bribes and corruption. Afterward, both parties found themselves competing to "out-reform" the other, and this campaign finance system was the result.
Politically active folks I know tell me that lobbyists at the State Capitol in Hartford are less than half of their former selves. They still exist, but don't hold nearly as much power as they once did, when we called our state "Corrupticut."
Our system isn't perfect, but I think it's far better than anything that's done in any other state.
More states should move in our direction, but that will require overcoming their own lobbyists first. Not easy, but we are proof that it's possible.
Sadly, many outsiders don't like our system. The US Supreme Court also might destroy it (and a similar system in Arizona). It would be like Citizens United all over again.
But don't just take my word on all of this. Here's more info for the interested:
EDIT: Wikipedia article going into more detail, see under 'Political Revenue': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_finance_in_Germany
A company should certainly be allowed to hire someone whose soul job is to educate politicians.
Probably though, they should not be able to buy them fancy dinner, give them gifts, etc. Probably it is even fair to say that lobbying must be transparent. Either through some new system which interfaces citizens with their officials; or, through some direct transparency with regard to intentions of the lobbyist.
Money is the problem, not the lobbying.
- Move legislators back to their home district
- Term limits
- Permit them to only accept contributions from registered voters in their district
- repeal the 17th amendment
The US Government should not have the power to regulate Doctors, drugs, food, oil, imports, exports etc. It should not have the power to go to war without clear and present danger. It should not have the power to make the Oil business viable by stationing floating fortresses in the gulf at our expense.
For those of you who want to tell me that we need "People To Regulate" Doctors, Drugs and Food: ask yourself, "Is the head of Monsanto the person I want to regulate Food?", because that's what you have. To Regulate Transport Safety, you have a man who makes high-power X-Ray machines.
The problem is not money or lobbyists. The problem is that there is a reason for them to spend their money. Of course, there will be a small number of fundamental rights that will need to be safeguarded - but they will be small, clear and understandable by Citizens.
Convincing democratically-elected representatives to stop receiving money, money they use to buy votes, is a futile fight. Even if you do, many will just be corrupt and still accept money or other kinds of payment. IMHO, I'm starting to think that this system is really good - at least you have the means to find out who paid what and to whom.
Killing Hollywood, or at least doing something to make them think twice the next time, now that's doable.
I'm sick of the "corporations only want to make money so shouldn't be held accountable" meme. The fact that they have no intrinsic consciences makes it more vital that they be held in check by extrinsic punishments.
Bottom line: you cannot buy a political office anywhere in America. You still must be voted in. You also cannot directly give money to a politician for their personal benefit; money can only be contributed to their (re-)election campaign. It's valuable because it buys media (that's 60% or more of a campaign cost).
So money, and lobbyists, are just proxies for large blocks of votes.
To fix this problem, you really need voters who stand by their own principles and aren't overly influenced by one-sided media (that's the only reason a politician needs money).
You also need to somehow disconnect the influence of media and advertising from actual voters. Would love to hear ideas on that particular problem.
More realistic changes include those that Lessig proposes: finance campaigns through what is effectively a capped tax credit offered to every taxpayer to allocate among candidates as they see fit, then repeal Citizens United.
Basically, publicly-funded elections could remove the corrupting influence of corporate money. Still not clear on how we get there, but I may pick up his latest book to learn more
What about limiting lobbying? The amount of money involved is obscene, at some levels. Why not change it to one US dollar per lobbyist maximum?
Although this may not be a great idea, my general intention is to level the playing field a bit, make the job less attractive/lucrative.
The same could be done for political positions, as well. It is my understanding that when the framers put this union together, they could not make a living being a representative. When all was said and done, they went back to their real method of earning a living, whether farming, law, medical practice, etc.
Hollywood, on the other hand, is vulnerable. They're a middleman in a world that doesn't like middlemen. If we destroy them once, they won't come back.
Corporations paying for legislation relating to oil drilling rights? That's lobbying. Unions paying for higher teacher salaries? Well, that's different!
The problem is that we, as electoral body, are interested in politics only and only if something outrages like SOPA happens.
It is not enough just to show up and vote who whatever had nicer TV comercial. Know your representative, talk to him/her, call offices, etc. Be involved.
Make it a democracy with direct participation, removing professional politics out of the equation. If everyone is participating in any vote (and this should scale now much nicely thanks to technology) and magistrates / executive branches were randomly selected for short mandates and with oversee of the complete electorate, then the only person to corrupt would be the citizens themselves. And that is a lot more expensive.
It probably wouldn't end lobbying entirely, but it would make the process a lot easier to monitor.
I really think the solution needs to be limiting the decisions that congress can make by limiting the amount of funds made available to them. The idea that congress should control all of the tax payer dollars made sense when the only expenses were Infrastructure and Security. But now there are just too many expense possibilities.
I would love to see some "real" action against the way congress is spending our money. What if everyone didn't pay their federal taxes in April? If I a board does a really terrible job at running a company, they usually don't get paid and often lose their jobs. Sure we have elections, but it's very clear that these elections favor the incumbents (ahem, lobbying). What if we really challenged their structure?
Lobbyists are the cancer of Democracy.
Please watch this video before you decide to toss around the word democracy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
The closest I could find in the US in a quick search was followthemoney.org and the Senate Office of Public Records site (which maintains an archive of filings as required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act).
Is transparency just a matter of making these isolated pieces of information more easily accessible and transformable/visual... and using an easy call to action to petition or donate to pro-bono lobbyists who serve the public as counteraction to corporate (or even foreign) lobbying.
The constitution originally provides for 1 rep for every 30,000 people. If say we go back to that.
The only solution I can imagine to mitigate this problem is to keep politicians in the government after their term has ended forever. I have no idea what they would do, maybe review legislation, be in committees, or just stay home. But, given the average age of a politician, I would imagine the increased payroll would not be to onerous.
google "Presidential vs. parliamentarian system" and you'll see what I'm talking about
How about this for a solution: regulate lobbying like sex. Anyone can do it but you can't pay a professional to do it for you.
1. Purge congress, and rehab it with genuinely honest legislators (not career politicians) --- for each and every state (or at least the vast majority of them).
2. Purge at least 5 corrupt Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) members, and replace them with honest, real justices. But you can't just fire SC justices (unless we change the law, that is; see #1, above)... so this process could take time (i.e., not overnight). And two more things relating to SC justices: first, we need to remove or rehab the corrupt farm system of justices which feeds corrupt ones to SCOTUS candidacy in the first place (and probably the farm system for politicians for #1, above), and second: ...
3. We need to purge the executive office of corruption, including the political party running as both democrats and republicans --- and rehab our political system to create real choice, honest Presidents and cabinets, and select honest SCOTUS justices (i.e., second part of #2, above). Only then should we expect to make any real progress as a nation, or more to the point, only then should we expect to have any chance to derail our current national train wreck.
So, your observation and point are spot on, but we have our work cut out for us. We need Democracy to work, but ours has not been so resilient under pressures of wholesale internal corruption. Can we recover our democracy, or, as far as our national political will is concerned, are we already the walking dead (harsh, but perhaps true)?
Bottom line: we need to rehab our democracy, our nation, our culture, our political expectations, and our political will, and perhaps our political science education system (i.e., from missing in action to addressing organized corruption head-on in curriculum), and then have a go at rehabbing as a nation.
People have been buzzing over a Facebook IPO for at least a year now, so when the moment comes you bet it will be a highly publicized event. Pre-IPO investing is already risky to begin with, and I have a feeling that all this media frenzy may make Facebook's stock unnecessarily volatile at the start.
Sure, the people buying in now may get lucky and see the stock rise in value, but it's also possible that this IPO may just turn out to be another Groupon. Although I'm still in my 20's, I'm not much of a risk taker when it comes to personal investments. Sorry, but I'll pass for now.
It's going to be an industry leader and there will be strong demand from money managers which one would imagine will only lead for a strong buy sentiment.
My wife is a solo-practice businesswoman (a piano teacher). From the beginning, I have advised her always to set her rates as high as those she hears about from other teachers in town. I know enough about her musicianship and her thoroughness as a teacher to know that she is worth as much as any piano teacher in town, and every minute that she contracts for at a lower price is a minute she could have contracted for at a higher price. Over the years, she has had quite a few long-term clients, and she has become quite busy. She is very grateful, of course, to clients she had when she was still building up her portfolio of clients. But whenever she adjusts her rates or her terms, she eventually sends out notifications of the new rates and terms to ALL clients, and the clients she wants to keep stick with her lessons. She has been sufficiently busy for a few years now that if a client balks at terms or conditions, she thanks them for their previous business and moves on. There is no need to keep a bothersome client in a world full of clients who are looking for the work to be done well and are willing to pay for that. Just make clear what terms properly reward you for your skill, and keep your life from being too bothersome, and serve the clients who meet those terms.
You don't "bring up" the new rates, you "inform them" of the new rates so they can plan accordingly. Cheap clients are just not worth it.
A few more points to consider:
* As others have mentioned, $25 is very low for consulting. Try shooting for at least hourly salary * 1.5.
* Think of what rate they would pay your replacement given today's market rates.
* You've likely grown in skill and experience from 4 years ago, so your rate should show it.
* There are other ways to show loyalty, such as market rate with 10% discount or providing a value added service.
* The nitpicking and increased expectations comes naturally when you're taken for granted. At this point there's very little you can do to win.
* Opportunity cost. The time you're investing doing work you feel is inadequate can be found looking for and doing better gigs.
For no other reason that this, I would drop them. I do not like having to justify my time after the fact. They hired me because I am the expert, as such if it takes 5 hours to complete, they should have an issue with that up front not after the work has been preformed. If a client tries to negotiate hours after they have been performed, it is the last time I work for that client. The issue is, what if they have a huge emergency that required a good portion of hours, if they nit pick over a few, there is a good possibility in this situation, they will have buyers remorse after the crisis is over, potential stiffing you with a lot of hours, worse yet a lot of hours at a sub par bill rate. There is a high potential for you to get stuck holding the bag with a client like this.
Get your diet together so you don't need too much sleep :).
What are you doing with your time in the morning? Usually no one else is up and around. When I woke up early I found that I could always workout and never have to trade exercising with other activities in the evenings.
Also, this was an Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpo...
Life imitates satire.
I'm an attorney and, although I can't give you legal advice, I can try to steer you in the right direction, presuming you're not already in touch with a lawyer.
Direct monetary democracy.
I dismissed the idea as too cynical and possibly illegal? A promise of monetary compensation for your vote is probably illegal. Monetary compensation with a suggestion of what the vote should be is completely different. The payment is not contingent on the action. I'm not sure that the money pool with no named recipient in advance abstracts that away enough.
Unlike PlainSite, it's open source and AGPL. Also some differences of approach which are hard to summarize here. Happy to collaborate with anyone interested.
I don't think anyone should consider starting a startup at 17 unless it's one of those rare situations where you stumble on something that takes off, and not focusing on it full time would mean letting it die. Zuckerberg was in this position, for example. But it is extremely rare.
And such poorly thought-out decision taking skills might eventually impact how (potential)investors would think of you.
I've found the most fun I've had was when I was working on side projects while taking relevant courses. I ended up staying at MIT for all four years + an extra year for their 1 year EECS Masters program. After graduating, I got into the YC summer batch. While at school, I was working on a variety of different side projects. I purposely picked relevant subjects like Machine Learning / User Interface Design / Behavioral Psychology that seemed to fit into the project.
Not only did it help me understand the subjects better, it let me master a number of direct cross-applications into web products. It does wonders for your creativity when you are actively thinking about new products while being exposed to so many new techniques.
On the topic of dropping out, an aspect that gets underemphasized is how strong of an ideation muscle you have. The more you do it, the better ideas you come up with. School for me was an excuse to building new things while hanging around taking a few classes. As each year passed, I realized I got better and better ideas. Back then, the first few "promising" ideas that I came up seemed like game-changers that would transform the world. Now I realize if you are the kind of person who comes up with good ideas now, you'll come up with great ideas later on.
Use those years in college to train up your ideation muscle along with your implementation skills (web dev languages / backend management / mobile dev, etc.) During your final year, apply to incubators using your uber product development skillset and amaze everyone. Not only will you no longer have the temptation to return to school, you will be putting yourself up for review when you are strongest.
Eventually,you will have to get a H1 visa to work in the US and that is really hard to do without a university degree. Stanford has many, many applications.
You may consider going to community college (first two years of university) in Silicon Valley. Cheap and much easier to be accepted with many of the same students that are in Stanford or Berkeley.
* http://www.snapengage.com (sales/support chats)
* http://www.zendesk.com (basic KB & support tickets)
* http://www.github.com & http://www.springloops.com (public & private repositories)
* http://www.geckoboard.com (dashboard of financial state of the company)
And I'm a power user of my own SaaS products:
* http://www.w3counter.com (realtime visitor analytics)
* http://www.w3roi.com (ad performance tracking)
* http://www.dialshield.com (automatically calls high fraud risk customers during the checkout process on my ecommerce sites)
Services I use on my own projects: url2png (thumbnail generation of web pages), pusher (real-time data push of server stats to a web page), google analytics (visitor stats)
My own SAAS projects: mindcast (corkboard for mashing up 3rd-party saas windows and notes), shadowcatcher (screen capture and screenshot sharing utility)
GitHub,Pivotal tracker,Basecamp,Campfire,Campaign monitor,Send grid,NewRelic,Litmus
Good question, would love to see others chip in!
1) github2) pivotal tracker3) campfire4) olark5) cheddargetter (technically)
The real problem is that people have been beholden to these monopolies who very obviously don't have their best interests at heart. We are now, thanks to internet and unprecedented levels of connectivity between people, in a position where we can (with a bit of effort, admittedly) take back some control and build something better for everyone.
So that's how I see it. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to SOPA/PIPA/ACTA (at least, not entirely). This is a call for people to make the world a bit better before the incumbent powers that be destroy our chance to.
I'm also a musician and software developer but I don't agree that there are "less employment opportunities in the industry than at any time in the last 100 years." That is just ludicrously false. You're saying that, in the Great Depression, to pick an obvious example, times were better and easier for musicians? Or during World War I? Or WWII?
Sorry - I think this is the golden age for being an artist. Never before has it been so easy to record and distribute. I can self-record as many albums as I want today for $3000 worth of pro-sumer level gear. I can print physical copies of the CDs for $1.50-$2 each and sell them for $10 at shows or make $7 by selling them online. I can sell digital copies for $0 upfront cost to me. I can have a free website with any number of sites. I can post my events on Facebook at no charge.
I'm sorry - I 100% disagree with you here.
Your definition of "best" and mine are vastly different.
They exploit artists, for great profit. There's such demand that they are able to exploit many artists. The costs are so low, that they can afford to employ many more artists than will succeed. The artists love their craft so much, and are often so desperate to make it big, that they will work for ridiculously low wages AND absolutely zero job security.
We all know that distribution used to be hard, and now it is not. Distribution used to be the main reason why you needed to sign with a label, or a studio. Reaching a "good enough" level of quality used to require an enormous, up-front investment of capital. Now, it doesn't.
Kill exploiters. Reward supporters.
1. Do you have any programming background or is this a first?
2. Why deadset on RoR?
I was in your situation a little while ago and moved to SF to be where just about every other person on a bike is a developer. If you want to learn and you want to learn quickly, SF is the place to be.