And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:46:50 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:11:41 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> This cost us $1 million US. And yet it doesn't seem to "understand"  
>>> about VAT.
>>>
>>> (But then, neither do the guys in HQ, despite us explaining it  
>>> multiple times. They even had our accountant phone the Inland Revenue  
>>> to offocially ask if we can call it "sales tax" on the invoice. They  
>>> were really shocked when the answer was "no"...)
>>  Perhaps because shockingly Sales Tax isn't the same as VAT :-)
>
> Yeah... These guys don't seem to comprehend that the UK isn't the USA.  
> When we tell them things like this, they seem to think we're making a  
> fuss about nothing.

Try http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php for more 'the US is the World' fun.

>>> Initially the software was configured with the UK currency as "lbs".  
>>> (!)
>>  Hey it's historically accurate.
>
> Do you have a cite for that?


which also refers to weight and is what the currency was originally based  
on...no :-) Oh and it should be lb for the plural like sheep, so they did  
get that wrong.

>>> they send you a printed invoice with hand-written corrections, *what*  
>>> are you going to think about that company??)
>>  That they're a small firm with no grasp of IT systems, which is fine  
>> if they're plumbers.
>
> Yeah. Not so good in an industry that's ruled by computers.
>
> But then, this company generally seems to talk like a big firm and act  
> like a small 1-man band...

Been there...

>> <snip>
>>> This has trippled our accountant's workload.
>>  And HQ have been told this?
>
> Endlessly. Our accountant spent *months* trying to get them to  
> reconfigure the software to allow her to do her job properly. They  
> variously didn't understand what she meant, or thought she was just  
> being awkward for the sake of causing trouble.

Invite their accountant over to 'show' her how to do her job properly.

>> <snip>

>>  But at a 4x heightened efficiency no doubt.
>
> Well, it's Cisco, so at least you can geniunely say it's the best  
> product on the market. (Unlike the Dell thing...) It's expensive, but at  
> least you can say you're getting build quality.

It is kind of like buying gold-filigreed oars carved from the finest woods  
by master craftsman in order to paddle your hide coracle.

> OTOH, our current switches have worked perfectly for over 10 years too...

Ah due for failure then :-)

>>> 5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide  
>>> computer naming scheme.
>>>
>>> They want to name each computer according to where it is in the  
>>> building.
>>  Beautiful; you have pointed out that this will break the audit trail  
>> currently in place, breaks some software, only really works if you have  
>> one computer per location, and will cost time and money every time a  
>> computer is moved - whereas using the description field solves the  
>> problem that they state (being able to see where a computer is) without  
>> any of these problems.
>
> You just sumerised the whole CF, right there.

It's a knack,now just COPY* and paste it into an email to HQ.

*Just for you Warp.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message