No, I was commenting on the OP that blamed IT/India Outsourcing which you can't really blame on anybody except whoever had the responsibility of dealing with the problem. Rightshoring/Outsourcing doesn't obviate an organization from being responsible for the data but it can make the problem much worse if upper management think it's not their responsibility anymore.
The evidence is clear: when has an American startup auto company ever succeeded by selling through auto dealers? The last successful American car company was Chrysler, which was founded almost a century ago, and even they went bankrupt a few years ago, along with General Motors. Since the founding of Chrysler, there have been dozens of failures, Tucker and DeLorean being simply the most well-known. In recent years, electric car startups, such as Fisker, Coda, and many others, attempted to use auto dealers and all failed.
Tucker's failure had to do with problems with the SEC and his own board of directors. Not because of anything having to do with dealerships but initially about selling accessories for cars he never produced. He had sold over 2000 dealerships at up to $30,000 a pop and it generated revenue, net inflow but because of these other problems he could never deliver the cars. The Dealerships weren't even a factor.
The DeLorean failed because of questions about the financial stability of DMC again by the SEC and selling a piece of crap that had reliability, quality and pricing problems. The DMC 12 had an MSRP of $25,000 which was pricey territory considering you could buy a full on European sports car for about $5,000 more that didn't have all of the problems the DMC 12 had. That and the fact that John DeLorean was caught up in in a drug scandal in 1982 didn't help the cause either. Ultimately DeLorean Motor Corp failed because nobody would invest in them because of these problems. The dealerships were actually on the side of consumers because they got tired of fixing problems that left the factory, so again, dealerships contributed to DeLorean's failure? No.
Fisker is recent history and it wasn't the failure of having dealerships. It was again, a $100,000 pile of crap that broke down and that coupled with the Obama Administration pushing green solutions (remember Solyndra?) agreed to loan money to Fisker so they kept expanding. When Solyndra blew up on the administration they stopped pumping money into Fisker citing delays. Fisker ran out of money because no more investment money was coming in and nobody was buying what they had because of the quality issues.
CODA failed because they built an ugly, overpriced vehicle that nobody wanted. Using an existing cheap Chinese car and making it electric while pricing it ridiculously high wasn't what the consumer wanted so it failed because of that. Were dealerships to blame for that strategy? No.
Given the author's dubious linkage to dealerships being a root cause of failure for these companies is disingenuous and it would seem more likely that:
1) Government Interference by Scrutiny/Questions about financial condition or impropriety and also including pushing your company to grow faster than you can.
- or -
2) Horrible/Overpriced Product with bad quality or lousy design that nobody wants to buy.
Are the more likely culprits here. We all agree Dealerships give people a licensed, well regulated licensed, way to print money by inflating costs to consumers. They don't really serve in the consumer's best interest and that's why all states have very strict laws governing how dealerships must operate and things like lemon laws should a vehicle become so deplorable that the consumer has a way out. In this day and age they are more outmoded considering other mechanisms for purchasing things that have evolved over the past 10 years however the guys who own dealerships have money and that money buys political influence. To a politician, a guy who gives you regular, large campaign contributions is somebody you'll listen to vs. Elon Musk who doesn't live in your state and doesn't even have a business address in your home district. In that case, the Dealership owner is going to win most of the time. Sure it's protecting the old boy network and it's against consumers but it preserves the status-quo and dealerships mean jobs and in some parts of the country, the highest paying kind of jobs and no politician will agree to put people out on the street if he's up for re-election especially for some guy out of state who wants to subvert the good-old-boy network.
Yeah I don't like Dealerships like today I received two phone calls, one from a dealership wanting to extend my warranty for a healthy price on one car and second a dealership wanting me to trade in my son's car that I just bought a year ago.... Both today and both coming from the good-old-boy network.
Couldn't we like get some other organization in place instead of one headed by the UN? The unspeakable retards who wander the halls, the perpetual bureaucrats who have no one to hold them accountable will be in charge of this? The ones that gave us the IPCC? Fuck that, we need an alternate Internet, one without the UN and their interference. Or how they are biased away from showing all sides of an issue instead favoring the most politically expedient ones.
“As I hurtled through space, one thought kept crossing my mind - every part of this rocket was supplied by the lowest bidder.” - John Glenn
It still amazes me that companies are willing to outsource or "right shore" their critical IT development and functions to third parties like this. Still, Target Management who have now been sent packing are ultimately held responsible, except of course the CEO and the Board who probably rubber stamped the deal because it could "save them money." At one time I held a senior position at a major transportation company and the first question during budget reviews with our CIO was "what are we going to outsource this year?" It wasn't about did it add value or add a capability we didn't already have, it was one of his initiatives that he received a bonus for meaning if he outsourced X% of what was considered "IT administration" he'd get his fat bonus.
There are a lot of competent IT outsourcing firms out there and they exist because IT isn't viewed as a value added function within a business like it used to be. Unfortunately with the competent ones there's a ton of incompetent ones. The real problem is the perception that it's just a few PCs and Servers in a closet and we don't change that much so why do we have all of this staff and budget. Therein lies the problem because the person responsible for that, the CIO, hasn't done his/her job of communicating effectively to their peers and the board about the role that IT plays in the organization. Sure, are there bloated IT organizations or functions that can be outsourced or eliminated? In most cases yes but that doesn't mean wholesale outsourcing is always called for or should be done at all. In this case Target fucked up and didn't have the proper management structure in place to address the problem when it was being pointed out to them.
Nope, I read it but I don't believe that's what was stated. Walton's ruling indicated that metadata over five years should be destroyed. What myself and the rest of the country is waiting for is an actual SCOTUS ruling on how this Mickey Mouse FISA court system is operating outside of normal judicial review since the Chief Justice appears to be the only oversight.
In his order, Walton denied the government motion to allow the holding of data beyond five years but "without prejudice," which gives the government the option to file another motion on the issue in the light of additional facts or legal analysis.
Now if the Government was quick about it, data could have already been destroyed prior to the effect of the TRO.
Good Point but they have no more right to naming something than anybody else. Just because scientists and astronomers say "we agree" doesn't make it correct. Think about this, Mt. Everest was named after a surveyor however for thousands of years it was called Chomolungma in Tibet and Sagaramantha in Nepal. It's only called Mt. Everest because the British Government wanted it called that, does that make it right? No and nor does it make what the IAU names something to be the de-facto standard name of something because for all we know ancient astronomers may have already named it something else and as the rules go if you discover it you can name it.
You're oversimplifying. The FISA courts have no constitutional authority and the judicial appointments to the FISA court have no oversight equating to a faux legal system with its own rules. Yeah the House and Senate built this retarded thing so what do you expect? You now have a proper court in which arguments both pro and con can be heard, making a decision that's in conflict with that. Who wins? Can FISA decisions be appealed? Not from what has been seen in the recent past and If the Attorney General is involved 99 times out of 100 "National Security" will be invoked and the Federal Courts bow to that will and throw the case out. So how is it that justice will be served in this bullshit system of winks and nods? Does the Chief Justice recuse himself from FISA cases because he's appointed the judges to the FISA court? Who knows? Can you see the difference?
I thought he made Meth not Metadata?
So a Federal FISA Judge (the leaded variety) says destroy it, a Federal Judge (the unleaded kind) in a Federal Court in California (not a California Government Court) says it's evidence so keep it. What we now have is a constitutional quandary as to who has jurisdiction. I guess the Appellate Court will have to take the matter up but they have no jurisdiction over the FISA court AFAIK. All I can say is that it's a fucking mess with dueling courts playing a game of Twister.
It's amazing that the IAU seems to think that they have the rights to name anything at all. Frankly they have no authority other than it's another drummed up French based "authority" created when Europeans thought they could create such things. Yes, they ponder such things as the definition of a "planet" but still it's not CERN and is only recognized by scientists and astronomers as a de-facto authority, that's all. So really they have no claim to naming things no more than anybody else.
Considering the news stories lately of MtGox and other exchanges failing or reporting thefts, it's newsworthy. More newsworthy than any Kardashi-West BS that graces the headlines constantly.
Given that peoples' attention spans are so short, this will blow over for the guy in a couple of weeks and everybody will focus on more important things like the new Cold War and for the EU and Ukraine the Russians will literally make it cold for them.
I'd say "Yeah I'm him, give me my $600 million for the Bitcoins I own and I'll tell you my story."
Which would begin...
"I was born a poor black child."
He should play it for all its worth.
Bullshit, people re-electing retards who become engrossed with their power in congress leads us to these things. Congress does two things, it either never reacts or then it overreacts. That's what happened here and because the American public has been complacent with a two party system you get idiots like Feinbitch and her bunch of retarded cronies voting for legislation that makes these things happen. The 1% don't control elections, sure they can buy air time but it's up to the voter to learn about the issues and make an informed choice, not to go and vote for the status quo.
We have the FISA court because of legislation passed by congress, it's not in the constitution it was passed by a legislative act. We have the NSA by a legislative act and it's not in the constitution. Both of these can easily be eliminated by another legislative act and all it takes is enough voters putting candidates into office who'll get rid of both of them. But never mind, nobody will go and vote or get informed on the issues. They'll tweet about it but not really go and do anything about it. That's not where the 1% win but the Democrats and Republicans win.