Ha, you should see what happens in Egypt when you type google into google!
1. I would not do the same things second time around, wouldn't be doing full time university and full time work, I would quit the university, do full time not for 5 years as I did but for maybe 4, move onto the contracts then as I did at first, but not do contracts for 10, instead do it for 5 and start my own business 6 years sooner after getting just enough experience anyway.
2. I wouldn't bother buying and fixing and renting/selling properties as I did on the side, that diluted my effort and pulled me back from starting my own real business.
Basically if I could talk to myself 20 years ago, I would tell myself to skip college altogether, work right away (as I basically did anyway, but I did full time studies and full time job, which was unnecessarily difficult). I would make sure to explain to myself how to properly save money from much younger age and tell myself to start the business much earlier.
Nobody teaches you how to handle 100,000,000 simultaneous user requests. Throwing more and more hardware at it is what you cannot escape when dealing with tens of millions of users a second. At least Google is not a bank, where things really need to be synchronized across accounts and be perfectly transactional. It doesn't matter to Google that there are no transactions. A piece of data presented to a user in the USA may be different than the one presented to a user in Japan, but it isaybe an answer to the same question, but the data did not propagate all the way everywhere yet. Even so, it is quite a challenge to deal with hundreds of millions of users daily and tens or hindreds of millions concurrent user requests a second. They are doing it really well too. I can only imagine the massive problems that need to be solved. It is jarring. Good stuff.
So I read that this problem dates back to 1988 (so they say). Reminds me of a two envelope joke. A president steps down due to scandals, gives his replacement 2 envelopes. Tells him to open the first one when there is the first serious problem he cannot handle and the second one in case of another problem.
The replacement starts on the job, eventually there is a serious political problem he cannot solve. He opens the first envelope and it says: blame everything on the previous guy. So he does and the problem goes away. Later there is another problem that cannot be solved, the guy opens the second envelope and in says: prepare 2 envelopes.
I think somebody opened the first envelope.
"Its slides are oversimplified, and bullet points omit the complexities of nearly any issue.
- I see, so the reasons to use PowerPoint are exactly the same reasons as the ones to ban PowerPoint.
Competition in government granted monopolies (ahem "Franchise Agreements"). Good one!
That's why we must preserve what little is left, for its rarity makes it finite and precious.
I like that better than adopting a defeatist attitude and assuming all is lost.
That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.
The FTC does not, and should not, do summary rejections. Even evil corporations have a right to due process.
In general I would agree with you, but not in this case. That they are natural monopolies would be grounds for a summary rejection. There's no reason that cannot be a special exception.
Who said this was approved? Answer: nobody.
That it got this far without being summarily rejected is problematic all by itself.
A summary rejection, now that would demonstrate the slightest concern for preserving competition.
I supply various systems, including retail chain management built with security by design. It is hard to achieve proper security in stores and offices, the users are so far away from being computer savvy it hurts. We move them off windows in many cases to Linux solutions. In any case POS should not be connected to the Internet. We set up linux machines as router / firewall and as a store management server. It talks to everything on the inside, it provides connectivity for the bank terminals, the cameras and another administrative computer. POS gets its instructiin s through it and offloads sales data to it and then everything is synchronized with the central system by it.
The amount of crazy that happens in stores is staggering, almost inconceivable. We have to prevent meltdown with minimal resources and as little pain as possible but it is not easy when a retailer has a few stores and maybe one admin. Remote administration is vital, proper backup solutions are vital, the whole thine can degrade in no time if none is watching.
You are a gigantic liar, which became clear as day over the course of this thread. Good luck to you in all your endeavors, liar. A liar lies even as his lies are clearly pointed out.
'Corporations are not and have never created jobs' + 'corporations create jobs because they buy labour'. This is on you, I have nothing to do with it. Production allows consumption, never the other way around. Without production there is no consumption. Production creates the markets. You don't understand that part, fine. That is just economic ignorance and stupidity and likely class warfare, but making opposing statements and denying them outright in the same thread is a clear sign of a liar and I do not waste time on liars.
Inflation is in double digits and nowhere near 0. Of course you can choose to believe government propaganda or you can choose to see reality of 0% interest rates for 6 years but that is your choice.
Inflation is not just bad in a conventional sense, it is absolutely destructive to the economy and thus society. It is what destroyed savings and productivity in the USA and some other countries, it is the actual reason behind the demolition of quality of life of people in the USaa since 1917 ( when the Fed was authorised to monetize government debt).
Inflation is what caused the Great Depression, stagflation of the seventies, collapse in the late nineties, collapse in late 2008, and the current state of destruction of the economy and the impending collapse of the USA bonds and the dollar.
USA is Greece but with a printing press and with what is considered 'the reserve currency'. This allowed the USA to run the scam for much longer than anybody else. This is why the collapse will be so much more spectacular.
The rich should not be forced to do anything by the mob and the state for anybody, they should be left alone to make profits. Profit is what creates the economy. Without profit motive there is no economy. Of course the world lost that understanding, but not everybody. Those who get it are the economy of the world and the funny thing is they are the biggest capitalists and they give communism good name... The USA is a collectivist semi socialist semi fascist state, but it gives capitalism bad name. USA is not a free market society, which is what it should be, why people used to go there. China used to be communist or whatever sollectivism they had and yet they are now the biggest free market there is. Funny how things go and funnier still how blind people like you are.
My problem is oppression by the mob and or state of the individual. Personal charity is personal matter. Nobody should be forced under any circumstances for any reason and for anybody to give up their time and or savings. Anybody can make a case for private charity and people are often generous. Nobody should think they have entitlement for institutional theft and redistribution.
That is a private charity case. Only an idiot like you would fail so bad by appealing tovemotion with me. Policy built on edge case scenario and being forced down everybody's throats is exactly the wrong 'solution', which as I said leads to long term instability and destruction and it is an immoral policy of violence and oppression of the individual by the mob.
As to your case, the violence of the parents in that case is criminal and justice can easily include financial retribution. But all of that is beside the point.
The point is that all edge cases need somebody willing to be charitable and if absolutely nobody is and nobody would help, then the person will be left to fend for him or herself on their own and correctly so. Nobody should be forced by the violence of the state to give up their savings and or time. If the person dies that means that nobody was willing to help and that is a completely acceptable outcome for all involved. The person couldn't make a charitable case and nobody did on their behalf, too bad for them, I guess nobody liked them and nobody had savings to spare, thus the markets are still protected against destruction in the long term and the resources are put to better use.
'We' shouldn't be doing anything. 'We' means oppression and theft. You, as an individual can spend your savings however you want, run your charity all you want. Children should be raised by their parents or somebody feeling charitable to children. You can start and advertise an orphanage, that is your right. Nobody ever should be forced to participate.
The only one?