Meeting Ticker(tobytripp.github.com)
tobytripp.github.com
Meeting Ticker
http://tobytripp.github.com/meeting-ticker/
11 comments
Alternatively, leave this open throughout the day to see how much money you've earned.
Alternatively, leave this open throughout the day to see how much money you could've earned, but didn't because you're reading the internet.
Yay for business models that decouple money earned from hours worked for the sake of working hours. After I get 3.0 of my app launched the website won't suddenly throw a FatalLackOfButtInChairException, even if I'm e.g. sleeping or on a date when I could be working.
Trying it out to see if it will help us have shorter and less frequent meetings.
[deleted]
Very nice approach. But it scares me to start this ticker when i look at the meeting schedules in our company ...
I knocked one of these up a while ago, used a stylesheet that's supposed to be good for an iphone, I haven't got one to try myself.
http://www.davedevelopment.co.uk/meetingclock/
http://www.davedevelopment.co.uk/meetingclock/
Nice app.
However, it assumes certain things about the size of the font displayed, without which it displays incorrectly. And guess what? In my case, it assumes wrong. Bad web design.
However, it assumes certain things about the size of the font displayed, without which it displays incorrectly. And guess what? In my case, it assumes wrong. Bad web design.
Indeed, it didn't work for me in the latest Chrome or IE.
Nice. I was told by an ex-Disney exec years ago that they implemented the exact same thing for high level meetings there. I can't imagine what a one hour meeting there costs.
Brilliant, I can't wait to use this (or rather... I can).
Doesn't work in IE6!
reminds me of "a meeting without an agenda is a chat"
IMO Github made a mistake in allowing this kind of personal web page. It's very nice and all but has nothing to do with their business.
What do you mean? Github hosts git repositories. git repositories are a great way to manage your website. github charges you money to use your own domain name for your github website, but lets you try it out for free.
The github pages concept adds value to your subscription, which seems like something that's very good for their business. Seeing this page is like free advertising for Github. "Wow, I could have a page like this too. Wow, I can manage it with git. Hey, only $7/month to get private repositories and my own domain name for this site. <buy>."
The github pages concept adds value to your subscription, which seems like something that's very good for their business. Seeing this page is like free advertising for Github. "Wow, I could have a page like this too. Wow, I can manage it with git. Hey, only $7/month to get private repositories and my own domain name for this site. <buy>."
Actually, the site at the top of the thread is free: tobytripp.github.com. You only have to pay if you want the CNAME support, as you suggest, but this example is not of that. So I suppose it adds value to the free subscription, yeah.
But .. is it really worth diluting the brand, and diverting the team's attention? I have seen personal articles on a username.github.com blog which have nothing to do with code. Someone seeing the site via one of these avenues for the first time would come away with the impression github is a free blog provider. And, amongst other things, they are!
And what happens when people start, saying, hosting large media files? It might not have happened yet but it will. Then one of them gets slashdotted, the site slows to a crawl, and the team's running around putting out fires caused by some free service which doesn't have anything to do with version control, just "adds value" to having an account on that site.
Well, I guess they've thought all this through and decided it's in their interests. I was just surprised, is all.
But .. is it really worth diluting the brand, and diverting the team's attention? I have seen personal articles on a username.github.com blog which have nothing to do with code. Someone seeing the site via one of these avenues for the first time would come away with the impression github is a free blog provider. And, amongst other things, they are!
And what happens when people start, saying, hosting large media files? It might not have happened yet but it will. Then one of them gets slashdotted, the site slows to a crawl, and the team's running around putting out fires caused by some free service which doesn't have anything to do with version control, just "adds value" to having an account on that site.
Well, I guess they've thought all this through and decided it's in their interests. I was just surprised, is all.
GitHub Pages is for hosting documentation: http://defunkt.github.com/ambition/
Sourceforge and Rubyforge both provide similar services. This is nothing new.
It's also for hosting static blogs: http://tom.preston-werner.com/
It's also for hosting personal sites: http://defunkt.github.com/
I love seeing creative uses of Pages. If we spent all our time worrying "what if," we wouldn't have a brand to dilute nor a team's attention to divert.
Sourceforge and Rubyforge both provide similar services. This is nothing new.
It's also for hosting static blogs: http://tom.preston-werner.com/
It's also for hosting personal sites: http://defunkt.github.com/
I love seeing creative uses of Pages. If we spent all our time worrying "what if," we wouldn't have a brand to dilute nor a team's attention to divert.
And what happens when people start, saying, hosting large media files?
There is a size limit. But unless Github is hosted off of someone's DSL line, this is probably nothing to worry about.
There is a size limit. But unless Github is hosted off of someone's DSL line, this is probably nothing to worry about.
The size limit is 300M. You might be surprised what a 50M file being downloaded a few thousand times in quick succession can do to even a 100Mb link.
These downvotes for sho seem to be done more along the lines of "let's downvote the heretic who doesn't love github" than actually being related to the arguments made. IMHO.
If I end up with a minus five too, I guess I was right :P
If I end up with a minus five too, I guess I was right :P
It's because the original comment only complained about Github, without adding to the discussion of the link.
The other Github bashing didn't even make sense. Github offering personal websites doesn't expose them to any more risk of bandwidth issues. Someone can already make a public repository full of 50MB files that can be downloaded by anyone. Having a lightweight interface that lets you display HTML files in your repository doesn't change that.
The other Github bashing didn't even make sense. Github offering personal websites doesn't expose them to any more risk of bandwidth issues. Someone can already make a public repository full of 50MB files that can be downloaded by anyone. Having a lightweight interface that lets you display HTML files in your repository doesn't change that.
It didn't complain about github. It raised an interesting discussion about github's business model. But you're right: it was not adding to the discussion of the link.
No it's for sho making a poor assumption: that github's directly running the site (e.g. by its own employees) instead of a github user running the site.
It's called "building a community". And that is very much central to their business. It seems they are doing quite well at it, too.