|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 04:34 AM EDT |
aah, but we don't need to, either MS management points a finger at someone, or
it's Microsoft's fault. And that's where the punishments go. That's the point
of the corperate veil, right?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Not on this one - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- Not on this one - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- Not on this one - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 12:32 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
If no one was assigned to task of checking compliance this is a major fault of
Microsoft executive management. Microsoft can't defend by saying "we didn't
comply because we assigned no one to check if we did and didn't think we had
to." [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ionic on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
You don't see lawyers on the line but you do see QA inspectors who ultimately
may have to answer to/through the lawyers.
Where was the QA inspector who shul dhave made sure that MS were complying with
this legal requirement?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jonathon on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
>You don't see lawyers on the line at Ford checking the brake lights.
What you do see is inspectors randomly check brake lights, and other parts and
components. Back in the day, and in plants where QA is a fact of life and not a
check-box, the inspector is required to shut down the plant, and manually check
every vehicle, since the last one that went through passed, if something fails.
At plants where both safety and QA are a fact of life, vehicles are pulled from
line, and deliberately crashed, to ensure that safety criteria are being adhered
to. If a vehicles fails the crash, then the line is stopped, and every vehicle
since the last successful crash is manually checked, to ensure compliance with
safety criteria.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
