service

Double billing for a single service is a neat trick if you can pull it off.

But it might require actual customer service; that must have made them think twice.

She arrives 8am to prep and leaves 11pm after service, 6 days a week when she was working for someone else.

And a stubby service is a pretty pathetic service.

There were a lot of wacky ones around externalizing services, but not as many as you might think.

Facebook -- that is, the stock service they offer with walls and friends and such -- is the killer app for the Facebook Platform.

If you read through the comments there's a lot of angry users demanding refunds and questioning the service.

In order to tell whether the service is actually responding, you have to make individual calls.

So now my domains can be hosted by a company famed for its responsive and transparent customer service!

I feel like it's almost a right of passage these days to rely heavily on a Google service, only to have something go wrong and be left out in the cold.

We don't do internal service-oriented platforms, and we just as equally don't do external ones.

You can have infallible technology, or you can have a decent customer service experience.

By exposing questionable decisions and arguably a number of war crimes, Manning broke his oath with the US Army but did a much greater service to the rest of us.

> An even bigger conflict of interest with auto dealers is that they make most of their profit from service, but electric cars require much less service than gasoline cars.

And why should this be relevant to board service?Politics, religion, and social worldviews divide people and have no place as limiting tests in a business environment.

To sue the startups themselves for allegedly providing unlicensed money services is also quite dubious.

Nobody can make any real forward progress until very serious quotas and throttling are put in place in every single service.- monitoring and QA are the same thing.

To sue investors basically for having chosen to fund high-profile startups that the plaintiff deems "unlicensed money service businesses" is flaky and will never hold up.

I was kind of hoping that competitive pressure from Microsoft and Amazon and more recently Facebook would make us wake up collectively and start doing universal services.

From the time Bezos issued his edict through the time I left, Amazon had transformed culturally into a company that thinks about everything in a services-first fashion.

A teeny tiny sampling of these discoveries included:- pager escalation gets way harder, because a ticket might bounce through 20 service calls before the real owner is identified.

But when your service says "oh yes, I'm fine", it may well be the case that the only thing still functioning in the server is the little component that knows how to say "I'm fine, roger roger, over and out" in a cheery droid voice.

But other large regional ISPs pretty quickly learned not to set fire to their customer base, and, by the end, I think our customer service was pretty much at par for the whole area; we were no longer truly different based on support.

But that does not mean a private party should be able to indiscriminately sue anyone around who happens to be offering services that involve some form of money handling, or their investors, for the results of the existing system.

The problem continues recursively until your monitoring is doing comprehensive semantics checking of your entire range of services and data, at which point it's indistinguishable from automated QA.

One competitor can indeed sue another competitor for private damages and other relief if the other competitor is gaining an unfair competitive advantage by falsely advertising that its products or services do something that is material to the customer's decision to use that product or service.