Re: I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.
Burried monoliths distort the gravity field too.
3274 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jan 2010
The hype around autonomous cars was bult by Uber so they wouldn't have to pay humans to drive humans around. Everyone followed their hype without thinking: Is this the real problem?
I think the real benefits of FSD are on long(er) distance, intercity routes (e.g. Motorways/autobahns/autoroutes/etc). And then, probably the first use case would be lorries/trucks: Human drives the truck to motorway, flicks the switch and then goes to sleep until the truck drives unit the exit/off-ramp. (If you've got multiple autonomous trucks, you could get them to talk to each other and slipstream safely)
The Post Office and Fujitsu put many people through hell, pushing two to take their own lives. There should be an unreserved appology and rapid & generous compensation payouts* for the hell they inflicted. Then we should lock up the execs at PO & Fujitsu and throw away the key.
Unfortunately, this is too much common sense so the chance of this happening is zero.
My sympathies to the people who had to endure this corporate f**k up.
[*] And the money should go to the victims, not line the pockets of lawyers.
You shouldn't be using an experimental submarine for commercial gain and hiding behind stupid cover-your-arse disclaimers.
Sure, the inventor/designers can fill their boots with tests in it, but as soon as you start risking other people's lives with this thing, you'd better have some solid engineering behind it. (part of that engineering would be some destructive testing to find the flaws in your design.)
It's good that abuse of the current system is being looked into. I'm not convinced that just getting a warrant from a court is enough to prevent further abuses. Courts often just wave through requests and how much data is going to be published about these warrant applications so a meaningful oversight of the process can be made? You almost want a mini-trial where you have an independent "defense" lawyer arguing for a client they've never met. (If you have a pool of these defense lawyers, you can security vet them to ensure they're not going to spill the beans.)
...the [Customer Success Services.] org "ensures that customers get the most value from their Oracle purchases, from planning to activation to implementation to support to anything else they need to succeed.
"We think this unique approach, which customers already tell us they love, ultimately drives overall customer satisfaction. And that results in higher renewal rates, expansion rates, and references."
Firstly, no, you're not the first company to have customer success teams. Lots of other companies do this (some do it very well)
Secondly: Who'd have thought that helping your customer (rather than firing lawyers at them every five minutes) would incentivise customers to buy & use more of your product, or to act as a good reference sites to help you sell to new customers?
The saying "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is a joke, not an instruction.
But Microsoft’s Exchange came to dominate, in part because it focussed on email and calendaring while Notes/Domino was pitched as an environment in which to build and run messaging-centric apps
It was also the peak of FUD at Microsoft which saw Microsoft squash many other software companies through dubious practises.
normally a call to the BT/GC/VERIZON/AT&T/VODAFONE account manager sorts it especially if it’s only a month or 3.
ROFL
Do they still have account managers? Do those people actually understand either the customers they're supposed to serve or the products their company provides?
Thought not.
For a one-off job, you're right, you don't need a second source.
But NASA want flights to ISS (& the Moon) to be a more regular occurence. And if you're going to be buying more than a couple of something, you really don't want to be held to ransom by a sole-supplier. (If you're in the UK just take a glance at Motorola & the Airwave debacle. El Reg passum)
...is bought in from one of the big corporates, who's main area of expertise is extracting money from clients that don't have the skills or expertise to define what they need
You'll find the big corporates are quite happy to pay expensive lawyers to tie the public sector in legal knots. The public sector just can't compete with the legal budget. The corporates know this and are happy to continue to pay for the expensive lawyers as it's a legal way to win big contracts - and to continue squeezing money out of the public sector.