digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at nature.org

Avoid Air Travel, Forget Face-to-Face and Go Green

nature.org — We live in a sea of communications options. So why do people still hop on cross-country flights for two-hour face-to-face meetings instead of using rich collaboration technologies like video conferencing, VOIP and virtual worlds? Save your money and the environment!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rtknox00, on 01/30/2008, -3/+63this is a good option, but you have to always remember to create a professional second life character for meetings. It's just not good business to show up to a meeting as a centaur with gigantic breasts.
    • Malevolant, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2Don't forget the raining down on dongs
    • someuser90, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1I think thats the guy who sold me that piece of ***** car!
    • bluemansteele, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Depending on the meeting, a semi silly avatar can be fun.
    • knobtwiddler, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1you must have a good penis for your meeting. go ahead and splurge.
    • raffyoh, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1lol! did anyone notice this ***** guy's picture in the article? i bet he knows a lot of ***** on an eye-level basis.
  • danitygo, on 01/30/2008, -6/+14IM, video conferencing, skype, and a plethora of other tools make telecommuting extremely easy. It'll save you time, money and a whole lot of carbon emissions . . . plus you get to work in your pajamas!
    • burkinaboy, on 01/30/2008, -2/+11My pajamas have polar bears on them, so I feel like I'm also doing something to promote their plight in the Arctic.
    • CthulhuDawn, on 01/30/2008, -3/+5It will be a sad day when we stop meeting face to face, just because we can.
    • Chewie67, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Skype is amazing. Video conferencing with Skype works very well if each side has a decent Internet connection. It's far better than a day of air travel for most circumstances.
    • TheKillDoctor, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3Comparing video conferencing to a real face to face meeting is like comparing webcam sex to doing the real thing.
      I'll travel for the real deal.
    • umrgregg, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1This may be heresy to mention on Digg, but doesn't (hasn't) the production/upkeep/upgrade of all the technology used in network communication produce quite a bit of waste over the long term? Wont it continue to produce waste as more and more people use this type of technology? Computers and electronics don't exactly last as long as jets, buses and trains.

      Additionally, our global network infrastructure just didn't appear overnight and it certainly wasn't produced with a low overhead of carbon emissions, solid waste, and toxic waste. It isn't a bad idea to take advantage of what we have built in order to reduce auxiliary waste--for example, meeting over the internet instead of flying around--but it's a bit of a misnomer to call it "green."

      If you ask me, the real "green" option is sustainability, reusability, and to some degree reduction in electronic materials.
      • knobtwiddler, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1you are directly and immediately contributing to burning the jet fuel every time you fly. your computer may be powered by nuclear, coal, gas, or god forbid some renewable energy source like geothermal or wind.

        for the sake of argument though, infrastructure pollution "overhead" being equal (which they're not) I still think the amount of fossil fuel being burned to transport you across the country far exceeds running your own 400 watt power supply, and your tiny fraction of power consumed by the 10-30 network hubs and switches along the network path.
  • Googler1, on 01/30/2008, -7/+10I've always wondered why meetings with people can't solely be done through the array of communication devices available today. It would save everyone a lot of money, and it would also have a positive impact on the environment.
    • 350Zed, on 01/30/2008, -0/+14In sales, nothing beats shaking someone's hand and looking them in the eye. That said, using technology to REDUCE air travel is a very good idea. Not every meeting requires that handshake/stare-down. ;-)
    • Chompy, on 01/30/2008, -2/+13Try teaching a roomful of physicists and oncologists how to calculate patient shift via webex or teleconference, then get back to me.
      • DuffyDirect, on 01/30/2008, -8/+5just make your point, you dont have to be snide with this "get back to me" business
        • Chompy, on 01/31/2008, -3/+3Learn how to punctuate a sentence, then get back to me.
    • raffyoh, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1get a job hippie
  • wrongonce, on 01/30/2008, -4/+7Very good concept that should be at the front of the movement towards reducing energy consumption.
    • Zera, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5Yep, even the MOST efficient air travel is still tremendously inefficient. A fully loaded 747 trip across the country consumes 140 Gallons jet fuel per person. All other scenarios, (smaller planes, partially full planes, shorter trips) are all less efficient, and therefore pollute more, per mile traveled.

      One cross country trip in a plane creates as much greenhouse gas as a hybrid car SAVES for every 32,000 miles driven.

      So if a hybrid car is driven 128,000 miles before it breaks down, the amount of pollution saved is equivalent to FOUR people taking a plane flight across the country.

      One cross country flight of a fully booked 747 carrying 400 people creates as much pollution as 100 hybrid cars will save their usage cycle.

      If we have any hope to actually solve some of our pollution problems, then we REALLY need to pay attention to the BIG things in our lives that pollute. Air travel is one of those BIG ones.
    • azdek, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Don't forget about that toxic battery that is carried around in your hybrid which needs to be replaces every 100k miles. Greenhouse gases aren't our only problem. Polluting our water and air supplies might actually kill us sooner than global warming.
    • mcquitty, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0Well, lets just make it a given that people need to get from point A to point B.

      Now, you have limits. Limits on time, for example. Let's say your mother is dying in NY and you are in LA. Now, suppose it takes 3 days to get from LA to NY. And suppose your mother has 2 days to live.

      Do you drive? Is a webex enough?

      Now, place demands on 300 million people in the USA.

      Tell people their vacations must be taken by car. Or they must vacation in 200 mile radius. Of course, living in NY and wanting to vacation at DisneyWorld is going to take a lot longer. How much more time are you going to need to be off work?

      Tell business not to send people to customers, prospective customers, or fly people for research. Tell business that customers don't count and they don't need to visit them..
      • Zera, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Noone is suggesting anyone force anyone else. I'm just saying that if we have any hope to make real, positive environmental change, then we MUST pay attention to the BIG ways we pollute, and spend time on those.
    • wrongonce, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Um, I thought this was raised as a challenge to today's business travelers -- to use real time telecon and video conference capabilities instead of travel by plane.
      Not in favor of going back to the horse and cart, just noting that there are more sensible ways to spend our fuel and time.
  • appleseed1234, on 01/30/2008, -4/+7As long as baby boomers exist, this ***** will go down.
  • Professr, on 01/30/2008, -4/+19What if the meeting is for sex? I don't think there's a proper RFC document for that remote-work protocol...
  • BingoPower, on 01/30/2008, -10/+5People still have meetings over tables??!
    • DavX, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1Yes, those with jobs. Generally people in basements playing counter-strike don't have meetings.
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/30/2008, -5/+29It's probably because a face-to-face meeting is much easier than a video conference. It's a lot easier to talk and negotiate with someone when they're sitting right in front of you instead of as a pixellated 2x2" image on your screen.
    • vertinox, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4Well one of the problems that many companies are facing with business travels is exponential rising fuel costs and prices air travel. Recently with new fuel surcharged, travel to Japan has doubled just in the past few years. Now large corporations can eat this cost, but smaller businesses won't be able to travel cheaply as they used to.
    • BDOUG, on 01/30/2008, -8/+3No offense but I think people who "require" face-to-face may be the ones who rely too much on their own "domineering" physical presence and "keen insight" into the body language of others. We're WAY beyond 2x2 pixellated images (update your tech already!) While I agree that video conferencing, etc, is not as good as "live and in person" it's more than good enough when you consider the resources saved and the petroleum unsquandered.
    • koreth, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2If by "easier" you mean arranging rides to and from the airport, going through the obnoxious security theater, sitting around in a departure lounge while your flight is delayed for an hour, sitting around in the airplane while the flight is delayed another hour, sitting around in the airplane being kicked in the back for five hours straight by the little kid behind you, getting sick to the stomach from the lousy airline food, and arranging for a hotel in the destination city because the next return flight isn't until the following day...

      ...then yeah, it's much easier to meet face to face than to fire up a video conferencing app.
      • reddikilowatt, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1That's the employee's problem, not the company's. Video conferencing is expensive (according to the IT department).
  • hazard, on 01/30/2008, -3/+20You can't swindle and talk ***** like you can face to face. Theres alot of people that pretend they know what theyre talking about and you cant ooze that charisma without being there in person, annoying the client.

    Brown nose in person, FTW!
    • dondara, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Dugg for great truth. ***** sells and they want to smell it before they buy it.
    • vertinox, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Truth be told, if your product and/or services require salesman to pitch your product in person rather than simply by the merit of your product and/or company then your product and/or services is most likley not worth the money.

      On a personal level, I frown highly on anyone trying to make a sales pitch and due to sociopathic tendencies charismatic sales is often lost of me. I won't take cold calls and if someone starts to get pushy I'll ask them if they are on commission. If they answer is yes, I tell them them they need to back down or I'm going elsewhere. The real problem is that most people are mentally weak and lonely and like being brown nosed and pay good money for it even though superior products and services are quite obvious.
  • tacroy, on 01/30/2008, -1/+18Because many meetings are not about information they are about a relationship. Many times the "client facing time" at the bar is more important than the "here is the info" part of the visit.
    • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4true.. theres always the dinner after the meetings and trainings with a few drinks and friendship factor...
    • vertinox, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Do the shareholders pay these people to have relationships with their vendors? The sales person I can understand (a shareholder can understand that such things are needed for a sale), but when you entrust procurement to persons who make decisions based on how much a vendor lavishes them in personal relationships rather than real needs and hard cold facts, then you'll often be left with inferior products and services.

      Considering that people leave companies all the time, it is in the best interest of those in charge to stamp out meeting with sales persons and vendors simply to have a change of culture internally.
      • DuffyDirect, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4news flash: real life isn't squeaky-clean and by the book!
      • jdpalite, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Many companies can deliver the same service, but those that take the time to treat the customer like a real person and develop a relationship are the ones who end up with increased loyalty and ultimately profit.

        Vendors are a case-by-case thing. I wouldn't take the Symantec guy out for drinks.
      • Ravatar, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1This just in, its NOT about the best product or service. It's about whoever sells it the best.
        • popfrogs, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2See Microsoft vs. anything or betamax vs. vhs for further proof.
  • Spero, on 01/30/2008, -1/+11Though I've never had to fly somewhere for business other than a large convention or two, I do realize the absolute importance of face to face meetings in certain situations. I wouldn't expect someone to trust me when dealing in the millions without meeting me face to face...let alone billions. Sure, it's a good idea, but as far as I've been educated, flying is (per individual) still a lesser evil of transportation means. Also, don't expect these ideas to catch on much until the old guard is out of the office building and retired.
  • JasonCox, on 01/30/2008, -3/+12Why? Simple. You either get to spend 8 hours on a plane, a night in a hotel, food, visit the client and then another 8 hours on a plane all on the company OR you can sit behind your desk for those two days on a webcam. Which would you choose?
    ;-)
    • negativefx, on 01/30/2008, -0/+13As someone that travels on a weekly basis, I can tell you that after two weeks on the job, free hotels and meals quickly wear on you and you want nothing more than a home cooked meal and to sleep in your own bed. And don't get me started on flights.
    • vertinox, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6Actually most companies require you to have a blackberry and laptop and work on secondary projects the entire time while you are flying and in the hotel. Not to mention the conference call interruptions when you are eating... I just saying.
      • extraspecial, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Careful with the way you throw words like "most" around... it almost implies you know what you're talking about!
    • sk11, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Have you been to airports lately?
  • heyphyuckyou, on 01/30/2008, -2/+7Hazard is somewhat correct. Some business transactions just require face-to-face interaction. Not to mention the different cultures that think it is disrespectful to not to interact this way.
  • akatherder, on 01/30/2008, -2/+7Here's the thing... a lot of people love flying for free and getting a hotel room and their food comped by work.

    There are a lot of technical issues. Basically there are too many options and no standards. I don't want to go sign up for a Webex account, then a Third World account, then a proprietary company ABC account, etc. Then when I have a Webex meeting 2 months later, I have to track down my username and password again. Or I can spend half a day installing some random software and setting up a POS computer with insufficient a/v capabilities in a conference room.
    • chemdiva, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3I have tried to have web meetings with industry clients in the past and in all cases we found that our respective security measures and software choices make it impossible. It's either plain old conference-call or travel. And then there's public meetings.... let's just say that I am not going to have a lot of credibility giving a presentation to small village concerned about their air quality if i can't be bothered going there. There's still a few good reasons to get on a plane.... Or maybe i am just trying to justify my free hotel and food.
  • rento, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3And what about if you do like travelling?
    • BDOUG, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3I don't think anybody is calling on a ban for pleasure travel, i.e. vacations. It's using business as a thin veneer of an excuse to travel on the company dime that's getting rather lame. If you like to travel then please do so, and please consider light rail and other means to supplement your air travel.
      • DuffyDirect, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2light rail doesn't travel beyond the outer suburbs of a given city's metro area! Railroad! choo-choo!
  • poidh, on 01/30/2008, -10/+30***** off with all this "do this and save the environment" crap. It's a stupid meme that people are using to either entice people to read articles or to appear "right on" or to sell things or to make people click on ads. We're not all going to become vegan hunter-gatherers just because some inadequate twerps whine constantly about the environment.

    We're not going to "save the environment" by telling people what they should and shouldn't do. We going to "save it" by developing better technology. Oh, and perhaps by not cutting down forests all the ***** time too.
    • BDOUG, on 01/30/2008, -6/+5But technology IS part of THIS answer! I agree with you that we need to be reasonable and moderate our zeal for environmentalism, but it's really a "no brainer" to use the new technology (you claim to be in support of) instead of flying in a damn jet just for a stupid meeting.
      • poidh, on 01/30/2008, -1/+8Well you've obviously never had the need for "just a stupid meeting", but since many Diggers are only 17 years old with no experience of life, I'm not surprised at all.

        Technology should be used so that we can continue to do the things that we WANT and NEED to do, without having to use fossil fuels to do them.
        Online meetings are no substitute for the real thing and are therefore unrealistic.
      • centerblack, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Um no. If flight is environmentally expensive, then engineer more efficient jet engines and cleaner burning jet fuel.

        You assume that a meeting in person is worth the same as a meeting over the phone. It's not. There are plenty of groups who work in the same building- why do they go have a meeting instead of talking on the phone to each other? Hmm?
      • erkokite, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4I'm assuming you have never worked in a professional environment judging by your comment. Networking, face to face contact, etc... are extremely important. I've tried both ways. In person meetings are definitely preferable to me.
    • bluemansteele, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3I don't want to tell people what to do. I do, however, want to tell them what they are doing. Most people don't know what effect a plane flight has on the world.
      • loki49152, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2And I'm sure that set of people includes you.
    • britoca, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1actually, you ***** off. thanks to people like u our world is an environmental mess. And if u don't believe me, u're obviously not following the science/environmental news, you PATHETIC IGNORANT.
  • DuffyDirect, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5if youre really that concerned about the environment, write a few days off your schedule and take an amtrak sleeper. the railroad is 3 times fuel efficient as trucks/buses to say nothing of planes...
    • centerblack, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Amtrak goes to Japan now? Cool.
      • DuffyDirect, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3There's around 30 million person-trips between the U.S. and Asia a year, 20% of that number business. There's around 200 million domestic business person-trips by air per year in the United States. Draw your own conclusion about which pollutes more, and please don't act like a pseudo intellectual on transportation infrastructure with me. I work for TSA, and I'm paid very well to know about these things.
        • kablaq, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2that last sentence made my copypasta buzzer go off...
        • popfrogs, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Oh, you work for the TSA, well you must be an expert on...having people remove their shoes before they pass through the metal detector.
        • knobtwiddler, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1save that attitude for work, jackboot. your taser won't work on the internets.
  • entdecker, on 01/30/2008, -4/+7I couldn't agree more with this approach. We use virtual worlds and voice chat and vid conf for most of our meetings. We probably save somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year by saving ourselves a long uncomfortable flight.
  • emelizabeth, on 01/30/2008, -6/+5I think the people that are saying they "like travel" are missing the point. The point is that the fewer flights you take each year, the less harm YOU are doing to the environment. People who can't keep track of passwords or don't want to download software are also missing the point. . . big time. Stop being lazy guys, it's the world we're talking about. . . not your comfort or ability to remember passwords.
    • centerblack, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3If I was lazy I'd have the conference call routed to my cell so I could stay in bed wearing my PJ's. There just isn't any substitute for face-to-face meetings. When we get the matrix this will work, until then, no.
    • mancat, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1If I don't go, someone else is just going to fill my seat.
  • McGuinness, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2This Digg brought to you by Cisco Systems. Your human network.
  • kowalzki, on 01/30/2008, -5/+3coz I don't wanna?
  • hendriks, on 01/30/2008, -2/+7There is no way you can build confidence and trust over the internet, and there is no way to check if people are paying attention. What does work is to send the sales person in the flesh, and have the technical person present over the net. That way you build report, and save 50% on travel emissions.
    • britoca, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1obviously u don't spend enough time making friendships online. U'd know u can "build confidence and trust over the internet", it's just a different medium.
  • UoMDeacon, on 01/30/2008, -5/+8This article is pretty naive. It's hard to development relationships without meeting someone in person.
    Formal meetings are good for formal presentations, which rarely result in major buying decisions. The majority of real business is conducted not in meetings, but usually in 1 on 1 situations outside of the actual work environment; whether it be a meal, or some type of activity. Then there's usually a follow up meeting to formally announce the decision.
    • popfrogs, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2I just wanted to comment here and tell everyone how true your statements are. Our current CIO came here from 7-11 headquarters, and he said most huge purchasing deals were made on the golf course with a handshake. There was some debacle about 5 years ago where they spent untold millions on Solaris infrastructure because the Sun rep was a golfing buddy.
  • ncnavguy, on 01/30/2008, -3/+4Because real sex > Than cyber sex?
  • diagonal, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4If business travelers sudden dropped in numbers, the airlines would be in a world of hurt. "Business Class" fares subsidize the cheaper fares, because the airlines know "if you have to be there, the price of a ticket is a non-factor".

    Most meetings are poorly run, so the "on site" meeting seems to be more productive because (1) people not really involved in the meeting get talked to anyway and creates value, (2) the "fly-in" person gets a visual of the office dynamics, (3) new factors are uncovered in the meeting that were previously unaddressed, because in-person meetings can be more leisurely.

    Again, this all comes down to adequate planning for the stipulated outcome that the meeting is supposed to create. Most meetings are not necessary if better communications were the baseline operating method.

    Interesting to note that airline travel is so dependent on business travelers, because 125 years ago, the majority of passengers going by rail were "traveling salesmen". They filled the trains. If those guys had not been around, passenger rail would have died early. After Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward invented sales by catalog, the number of traveling salesman (who sold via orderbooks to local merchants, who stocked what the salesmen sold) dropped significantly.(source: "Railroads Triumphant" Albro Martin).
    • sapped, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Dugg purely for mentioning your source.
    • dylanrush, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1***** the airline companies... but dugg for mentioning your source
    • britoca, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1oh, boooo, pitty the airlines
  • SlipstreamBRO, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4Maybe for computer geeks this works, but for true business people this is a terrible option for establishing true relationships with other companies. Sorry that it is still a fact of life and always will be that face to face actually means more than an email.
    • MattS, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2and that is unfortunate. I do agree that some face to face is required, there is also a great resistance to the newer, richer communication experiences. I work in a small tech company, and even here IM is shunned, and VTC is unheard of... I frankly don't get it... Any one have suggestions for expanding the use of this stuff to newer / hesitant users?
      • popfrogs, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2It's very simple, if you're in charge of IT, you start making policies. Include IM and other technologies every quarter and make sure people are decently trained on them so they see the value (as you see it) and start to see the potential of what you're pushing.
    • sapped, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yes, but surely once that relationship is established then some meetings at least can be handled remotely. I fly out to clients every single week and honestly it is just to give them some kind of comfort level. We could easily do the work by flying in only every 2-3 weeks. Sadly, I don't see that happening soon.
  • DeFex, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6Less likely to be strip searched, have your name mixed up with john smith the terrorist, and end up in Guantanamo as well.
    And you can save all that travel time to do some more work for "them", and make "them" even more $$$, (unless you work for an airline :) )
  • W00t1212, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2 I get what they're going at, but in some instances a face to face meeting is necessary. A face to face meeting has more meaning and is necessary sometimes.

    Online meetings that are within in the company are a great idea though. Saves money and you don't have to wear a suit to work.

    Only problem is that you could have some trouble getting everyones idea when a ton of people are chatting in an online world at once. It takes some to time to be able to read the messages as they fly by the screen.
  • BDOUG, on 01/30/2008, -5/+3Dugg for the uncommon common sense. This is such a blindingly obvious solution it's ignored by far too many jet-setters playing the hot shot role.
  • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -2/+3until they have wall sized lcd's and real life like perception quality... it will never dominate.
  • auralcircuitry, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2I can't be 6'5" and 240 lbs worth of intimidation over a video conference call, plus it's very hard to get good eye contact when the screen and the camera are in two different places.
  • Greenergrass, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Yes these methods could be more often developped, some meetings can be avoided, other ones cannot.
  • gunbuster, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4WebEx and conference calls are viable for your routine status meetings. But when you need to really get into the thick of it, white board ideas or collaborate with many people at once, face to face is really the only viable way. If you've ever been the only dial-in for a face-to-face meeting, you'll realize what a disadvantage you are at compared to the others who are there in person.
  • LawSchoolGuy, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2As many others have said, there are many many times when face to face meetings are required. The relationship is often more important than the content.
    • centerblack, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Not sure why you're getting buried. The telephone is great for setting up meetings, email is great for direct straight forward answers. For everything else, you just can't beat getting a bunch of people in a room and throwing ideas and opinions around. End of story.

      I've worked at companies who split projects up to two+ groups in different states, in different time zones. I've worked at companies who have everyone who is working on the project at MOST in different buildings that are a block or two from each other.

      I'd much rather walk down the hall and ask someone a complicated question than try to do it over the phone. We have a lot of production done over seas, am I just going to ask the person running the factory if everything is up to spec? NO I'm going to go and check the factory myself....
  • TinternAbbot, on 01/30/2008, -1/+0Because people would rather do deals with someone they've met in person than some image on a screen.
  • jizzlies, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3Seems like a win win to me!
  • bullcutter, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Another angle is, its easier to tell if somebody might be a douche from meeting them in person. Physical sincerity doesn't translate well into 2-D.
  • shoovi, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Real business require real contacts. This is not option this is rule.
    • britoca, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1real business has to change then! :/
  • madk, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3You know...I have to digg this down. There is nothing like face to face human contact with someone.
  • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Down side is the hug and beyond.
  • scoottie, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Because the infrastructure to support that stuff is not ready in the USA. ISP's like ATT refuse to spend the money needed to rip up the copper wires in the ground and replace them with fiber lines. The definition of high speed internet in the USA is 200kbps.

    http://www.speedmatters.org/
    • britoca, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1especially if there' no demand for it from important clients like companies and businesses... So quit finding lame excuses and change ur business habits. Besides, 200k is plenty fast for video conferencing
  • frostbyt, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2I have been saying this for years. The business I work at spends $100,000's of dollars a year in travel. All for a hand shake and some lunches/dinners. Meeting face to face is a waste of money and resources.
    • Ravatar, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4Meeting face to face is probably the only reason you still HAVE a job. If your company starts demanding VoIP confrences, you'll quickly lose business to the guy still working face-to-face.
      • frostbyt, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Nah. My job will be secure up to the point they turn the signs off and lock the doors for good. Face to face is soooo old why don't we just Chisel out our meeting minute notes on stone while we are at it. When I get my business going there will be two rules.

        1. No printers
        2. No traveling
        • bschonec, on 01/31/2008, -1/+03. No customers
          4. No profit
          • frostbyt, on 01/31/2008, -0/+15. No waste
            6. No worry

            yes there will be profit. Just cause someone says something to my face does not make me want to by it more.
  • DeskFlyer, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5The planes are going to fly no matter what you or your company decide to do.
    • dave6, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1If enough people don't fly, the planes get emptier and the airlines discontinue some of their flights. Half empty planes are big money losers for the airlines, especially with oil at $100 a barrel.
  • msfwebdude, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4rather, build better jet engines, running on a monopropellant. hydrogen peroxide + silver mesh(catalyst) = Massive Trust, and pure water vapor.

    Live life, experience new cultures, I am sure that computer chair is getting tired of your ass by now :P
    • dylanrush, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2That will totally be plausible once we are hit with a hydrogen peroxide comet surrounded with silver mesh. Until then, silver mesh and hydrogen peroxide will use energy (and ultimately fossil fuels) to manufacture. Moron.
  • vvortex3, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2Webex supports online meetings with audio/video/etc. www.webex.com
    • bschonec, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Webex doesn't allow you to shake your customer's hand however. In today's intimately sterile workplace, a face-to-face can make or break a deal.
      • britoca, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1who the ***** cares about the pettiness of the hand shake! what is this? are u granpa stuck in the mid-20th century old ways??? "I REALLY need that handshake or it's impossible to do business!" C'MON!
  • azdek, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4Maybe you should also do your vacation traveling and sight seeing virtually instead of creating more greenhouse gases by flying there. You could just sit at home and watch the travel channel. Oh wait, powering your LCD HD TV creates excess greenhouse gases as well. You should probably just stay home and read all the Lonely Planet books that you can... in the dark.
  • blackbamboo, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2how dumb is this article? Most business people, especially techies know about these technologies and try to use them. Now all of the sudden saving time and money through technology is really about saving the planet. Maybe your ALGORE loving boss is buying into it but I am not.
  • co79, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Take the train!
    • Spraypaint, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Yeah... make the railroad to go across the ocean, several refueling stations along the way, and a speedy train then we'll start talking.
  • govsucks, on 01/30/2008, -3/+5***** the environment *****, teleconference because it saves money that you can then use to hire more employees, who can then feed their children. Tell this "save the environment" crap to Al Gore and his private jet, like he couldn't spew his ***** on Youtube and save tons of carbon from going into the atmosphere. I guess all the GW believers just want to be able to smell at touch the fat ass sore loser. I mean, how can you bow to Al God over the internet?
    • britoca, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1yeah, and ***** you as well, it's thanks to idiot ignorants like yourself this world's a bloody environmental *****. Don't believe me, start reading the science/environmental news and put down your sports page for once...
  • frontporsche, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1They should have mentioned HP's "Halo" http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/feature_stories/ ...
    • manitoba98xp, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1To be totally fair, you should also mention competing telepresence products, like Cisco's:

      http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns669/networking ...
      • happyhour247, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Cisco's not the only player in that market, manitoba. You're not exactly being fair yourself.
        • manitoba98xp, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I'm just pointing out that HP's isn't the only product on the market. I'm just mentioning that there are competing products, since frontporsche's comment read (to me) like it was a remarkable revolution. I'm not pretending that only HP and Cisco have such products; I was using Cisco's as an illustrative example only.
          • frontporsche, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Good point, thanks. HP's is simply the only product I happened to have used.
      • fsweep, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0I prefer GoToMeeting--- a dumb name, but a great product.

        There are a few free apps out there that do the same thing. I have no clue why anyone pays the big bucks for netmeeting.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.