For both preservation and nostalgia, this is fantastic to see. Several of my formative years were consumed by Pinball Fantasies on the Amiga. I still play it regularly on FS-UAE and a (seemingly unmaintained / defunct) port on iOS.
I'd like to garner your opinions: what else could IAC have done in this situation? Or perhaps a better question is what you would have done in their shoes.
One property is threatening the business model of another in a visible way (at least in search engine rankings). I propose that the readership of OkTrends is minimal compared to the wider online dating market, so was this the prudent course of action?
Just watched it based on (and add support to) your recommendation. George Lois in particular demonstrates a clear and cutting vision that I shall try to stimulate in myself.
Unless you're in a group, and it becomes a social activity.
Unless computers become ubiquitous commodities that represent both consumer product and fashion-like icons of social status.
Unless services such as 1-800-GOOG-411 exist.
Although I do not disagree with what is being said here, do not overlook the fact that Nintendo, as content distributor (WiiWare) and arbitre of several distribution platforms have a vested interest in downplaying the role of piracy. They are certainly not an impartial observer.
I understand the sentiment expressed here. One thing I've recently done to mediate this is purchase a Kindle: transferring my once isolated consumption of copious content to a social activity around friends and loved ones. Far from a distraction, I find the ability to converse over coffee adds to my understanding and meliorates my memory.
I have thus far resisted smart phones and the like as I find ubiquitous connectivity distracting.
I've spent the past two years working for one of the monolithic IT consulting firms. Communication overhead is something anyone attempting to understand enterprise software needs to grasp. Omnipresent meetings occur as an individual's defence mechanism. It is a mischaracterisation to treat it as a problem divorced from corporate structure, as they really are two sides to one coin.
Holding a meeting keeps a paper trail of your attempts to solve a problem and dilutes responsibility across all those involved. Hence, despite the fact that all participants likely sit within ten metres of each other a meeting will still be scheduled: complete with calendar invites, hour-length time blocks (as less would not look like the issue is being given sufficient credence) and the scheduling of follow-up meetings.
Additionally, enterprise projects do not consist of harmonious teams. Each team is akin to a project of its own: each with its own corporate structure, politics, budgets, risks and resources. I recently had a manager from one team demand I attend dual hour-long meetings per day for her team. I politely declined, stating that to do so my team would require an additional resource to cover this gap. This did not ingratiate me.
I find it mildly interesting that the NYT article omits CS from her dossier. Does branding her as purely an Economics grad make her more of an 'everyman' and thus result in a more relatable story?
Contrary to the sentiment of the other replies, I feel this is an interesting question. For those nearing the parapet of potential acquisition it would be interesting to know how affirmative one's actions should be.