<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.fastcompany.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/member_recent_content/128353</link>
 <description>Member recent activity block for member profile page</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-1530</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;It&#039;s the ala carte age. Although, if energy costs stay up, airline travel will return to the luxury it was in the 70&#039;s and before. If airline travel becomes more elite again (as some are predicting), then they will have to include food. But if it stays more of a bus in the air, then the casual and vacation traveler will probably choose to pay less and bring their own food.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:27:53 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Rallison</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">978034 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-1142</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I generally think federal solutions are the least attractive solutions because they are so far away from the ground where the real problems are. Part of the self-correction of our system happens when we let the chips fall where they may. I&#039;m not opposed to helping people who have gotten into a fix, but the long-term effect of a bailout is to relief a person or company from the consequences of their actions and keep them from learning the lesson that life is trying to teach them. Federal &#039;blanket&#039; solutions do this to the greatest degree.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-1142&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:33:10 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Rallison</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">939794 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-1117</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;There is no substitute for direct eye contact and a handshake. Certainly technology has already reduced the need and will continue that trend. My disagreement is with the word, &quot;obliterate.&quot; Anyone installing new equipment will have to travel. Anyone putting together a deal of significant proportions will want to meet their prospective partner face-to-face. Minor stuff can be done online, but most dealmaking and troubleshooting will still require talented and resourceful people on location.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:27:49 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Rallison</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">937895 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Comment on Node  ant</title>
 <link>http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-989</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;I guess I would care if he said, &quot;I tried using email and I just can&#039;t seem to get the knack of it.&quot; But I categorically do not care, in general, whether he is internet active or not. I know some (admittedly not young) upper management types that just don&#039;t bother. That&#039;s what staff are for. Timewise, you can tell an assistant to tell somebody a,b and c, a faster than you can sit down an email the person yourself.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastcompany.com/comment/comment-node-ant-989&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:37:16 -0400</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>John Rallison</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">927348 at http://www.fastcompany.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
