I find your lack of faith disturbing.
There is a terrific incentive. Take a look at the ads in your ISP's bill and in the junk mail they send you every other week. Remember the last time you talked to customer service? What did they try to sell you during the call? An up-sell to a faster connection. Most people can't tell the difference between their local connection being saturated and the data getting clogged further down the line. When their 15/5 service no longer cuts the mustard, the more savvy users will bring up speedtest.net and see that they're getting the speed they paid for. So they think, "Gee, if my Netflix and YouTube are too slow, I must need more bandwidth!" The rest probably think the Internet is like a computer and you need to upgrade every few years to keep the same relative speed.
Looking at the picture in the Businessweek article, there appears to be one small button on either side of the screen (the left one is for hazard lights, I can't tell what the right one is) and nothing else.
"...Franz von Holzhausen, can barely contain himself as he talks about the design of the Model S. “It’s like the leap of faith Apple (AAPL) took with the iPhone,” he says, explaining why the car has a touchscreen instead of the usual physical buttons."
This is monumentally wrong. Touch screens succeed on a phone because a phone is a portable device and the touch screen is lighter and smaller. Physical controls are preferable for humans because they model the physical world to which we've adapted. In a car, you need to use the controls without taking your eyes off the road. This means location by feel is important. A touch screen can't provide that.
It seems the entire design world has this backwards, include appliance manufacturers. I hate the buttons on my oven.
My Synology NAS backs itself up to an ioSafe fire and waterproof external drive.
Four years ago, my wife went back to school to further her career. After two years of working and school, we agreed it would be better for her to go to school full time. So for two years, we've been on one income and accumulating debt. But after she graduates, her income will go up, the debt will get paid off and if all goes well, eventually we'll be better off than we would have been if she didn't go back to school. So I figure I'm currently worse off, but potentially better off in the future.
I'm assuming you're assuming they're assuming.
The problem is that there's no suitable output from a code review. Other tasks are definable, e.g., delivering code that meets the requirements. A code review doesn't work like that. It's a nice thing to do for your peers to sufficiently examine their code in a review. But nobody gets kicked for doing a half-assed review. They do get kicked for missing a delivery. So when rubber meets the road, a thorough code review tends not to happen.
> Despite urging by the Yemen-based al Qaida leader Anwar Al Anlaki, Karim rejected the use of a sophisticated code program[...]
I don't think a guy with a job description of "blow yourself up" cares what HQ thinks.
(Alan Turing, Isaac Newton, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Francis Bacon, Henry David Thoreau...)
Hedley: "You said Alan Turing twice."
Applicant: "I like Alan Turing."
The Epson QX-10, QX-16 and Equity computers were standard issue for Drew University (drew.edu) undergrads starting in 1984. They've got to have a box of old disks in a dark corner of the computer center.