Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Your stupid assertion is that risk is the same if you can't prove the risk is different. By that standard, parachuting without a chute is no more risky than snorkeling in a 5 ft pool. Neither are well defined risks, so we must accept them as equal.
No, I don't believe in that religion. I'll stick to more traditional risk management practices.
Or, to put it in the framework of your wrong religion, the risk is that the outsourcing company is lying to you. That is an additional risk that will always make outsourcing more risky than insourcing. It's the lazy and incompetent managers that mutter "core competency" while outsourcing the vital portions of the company. And the piles of consultants who make money writing rigged reports recommending outsourcing. Liars cheats and thieves.
And you there, leading the charge.
If you look into this, you'll find the rumors regarding "talks of surrender" are greatly (and cleverly) exaggerated.
After Hiroshima, the Allies requested a surrender. Japan surrendered. The allies rejected the surrender (unacceptable terms). Nagasaki was nuked. Japan revised their terms of surrender. That one, still with terms, was accepted.
Which of those sentences are false? If none are false and they are in chronological order, the US committed mass murder to negotiate better terms of surrender.
However, if you study the military history, you'll find the reality is that Nagasaki was a major sea port and industrial center (including the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works), making it unquestionably a military target.
And it made the torpedoes used in Pearl Harbor. If it were hit in 1942, it would have undoubtedly been a military target. But hitting a civilian manufacturing town (even if the civilians were manufacturing implements of war) just days before a surrender, and after talks of surrender had started makes Nagasaki more a terrorist act than Dresden, which was thought quite poorly of at the time (by both enemies and allies).
Hiroshima nuking killed about 20,000 troops. Nagasaki nuking killed less than 200 troops. Two orders of magnitude. The Nagasaki bomb wasn't intended to weaken the military's ability to fight, but was intended to weaken the public's will to fight. One is a military goal, the other terrorism.
Yes, if you moved to Antarctica, you'd have few services. And yes, unincorporated Alaska has no services either. But middle-of-nowhere Alaska, if still an incorporated area, will likely have 4/4 for the services I mentioned. You'd have to deliberately avoid the services to end up somewhere they weren't.
And you seem to be assuming something about me. "you want to be treated special". Who us "you" and what special treatment did I ask for?
Or phone and electric were built to serve all, even in a particular customer was served for a loss, so why do you think that Internet is less of a fundamental service than electricity or roads or water or phone?