|
|
It's really a shame system.
This is one obvious issue. However, my main issue is that such a system fosters competition between employees. I would argue that competition only works well, if the employees do not need to collaborate. Commissions on sales work well, if the employee has an exclusive territory - I would argue that it does not work well, if one employee can snatch the customer from another employee. Sames with those badges etc.
Long story short, she kinda had it coming for failing to do due diligence.
Nobody likes lying, and it's pretty hard to defend someone who gets caught telling a lie, but, do you really believe that Yahoo hired Scott Thompson because they thought he had a CS degree, from 1979, from some tiny college that nobody has heard of?
No, but do you want a CEO (who is also responsible for all employees) who lied in his CV and got caught? Isn't this lie "unethical" behavior and cannot be tolerated in a public company?
I think a spam mod would be more helpful - flag posts for review
We rather need it to flag some stories lately
Risk is damage * incidence. A high damage event with low incidence can be lower risk than a low damage event with high incidence. This is in fact the case when we compare nuclear with coal power.
This is correct. The problem is that apparently we cannot give concrete figures (in dollars) for "damage" nor for the likelihood "incidence" - otherwise it should be possible to get an insurance policy for nuclear power plants, or did I miss something obvious?
Great, so he could put "terrorist" and "pedophile" in the same sentence as "Internet". Only missing word is "killer game" in this sentence (for computer games that show violence). And the Americans might want to add "drug dealers" as replacement
This! Where are my mod point when I need them?
I doubt that people think that "if it comes from these sources, it must be true." for everything what Google or Wikipedia says. However, we can be sure that people think "if it comes from these sources, it must be false." for everything the RIAA CEO says about those laws. So, basically, he reinforced with his comment what people understood about SOPA etc.
nobody had a computer at home
Millions of households had computers at that time: Commodore VC 64.
Millions of companies started to use IBM PC compatible computers.
They were just not connected, except for some geeks providing BBS boxes.
The Internet didn't "take off" in 1983 for reasons that are completely unrelated to why this product failed. Most of it was because in 1983, computers were slow, modems were slow, and communication via the Internet wasn't nearly as practical as sneakernet.
And to make it clear, since this was my original point, the WWW is not the Internet. It is only a small part of it, though it is currently the most visible part of the Internet. But it is not the Internet.
The major reason was that the WWW - or better: HTML and HTTP - had not yet been invented in 1983. These ubiquitous technologies made the browser usable for the masses and replaced protocols like gopher and ftp for content access and rendering. And this was the reason for the Internet to take off - it became simple to use; even with 2400 baud modems.
Minitel succeeded?
In France ? Sure it succeeded considering that its been in use for 30 years, and only in june of this year will the service be taken permanently offline. [...] Minitel was BIG, so BIG that many doubted that Internet could even succeed in France in the ninties and early 2000s. The system was closed and not exceedingly expensive but it worked.
Minitel was a huge success - and a major road block in France for Internet services. Coming from Germany to France in the mid-90s, I was surprised how hard it was to get Internet access. At the end, I got it through a modem bank in my university, but ISPs were rather non existent. Thanks to Minitel, Internet was probably 3-5 years late in France.
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein