Sunday, April 14, 2002

"Price Fixing Since 1996 Caused CD Sales Slowdown" [Daypop Top 40] 9:48:39 PM

Myelin: "This is a web server, written completely in Python, that implements the xmlStorageSystem protocol used by Radio UserLand, a popular weblog tool."  [Scripting News] 11:49:05 AM

A Perl Hacker's Foray into .NET. We've all heard about Microsoft's .NET project. What is it, and what does it mean for Perl? [Perl.com Perl.com] 10:29:52 AM

CNet: Digital ads entangle "Spider-Man". Bizarre! [Hack the Planet] 10:14:10 AM

[New York Times: Opinion] The Executive Pay Scam. The linking of executives' compensation to their companies' stock prices looks like a sham now that the roaring bull market has run its course. Ok, so, here's my question -- is there any evidence that "pay for performance" actually results in better performance? I'd have to say I say several data points that suggest not. First, I've been at companies where I've seen people who had made their contributions in prior years, coasting, waiting for the options to vest -- deadwood bringing down the moral of folks trying to make a difference. Second, it seems like, as an investor, you don't want your executive to be in a position where he is rewarded for concealing bad news from you. Does this really incentivize the kinds of decision making that could really make a difference? Third, are there really good executives out there that would work less or make worse decisions because they don't get a piece of the action? The study described in Good to Great didn't see any evidence of it. This also suggests that you can find executives that will take the job even without these bribes. Maybe there are actually qualified people out there who would do this kind of work because it's something they enjoy? 9:54:17 AM