There is a saying that even one shit is enough to make you look dirty.... Or translated, it is enough even if one stupid HR, or developer (future co-worker) to throw a shit at you. And we all know that every company has its black sheep. or shitty sheep, or whatever.
And it is very powerful tool for discrimination, as after you have a criminal case, even without conviction, it will in the public record forever, for any future employer to find out, and to put your resume in the garbage bin.
But if he intends to make a written sworn statement (affidavit), then he could write it all down, sign it, in front of the sworn person, and voila. He has a legal record of his witness heresay.
No one forced you to go buy this little shiny iPad. So when you go home an see that inside the box instead of the device there is some shit, don't complain. Business as usual.
So, in a few words, Goldman Sach orchestrated the bankruptcy of "Dragon...", in order for their favorite, NUANCE, to acquire this technology, i mean to steal it, and to become the leader in "speech recognition software", without putting any innovation in it!!!
How so....capitalist way. We BUY and STEAL, we DON'T innovate.
I keep my Win7 only because of the games. Like DiabloIII. And some others. Nothing else. Actually, i found out that i do play a lot of flash games, for which you don't need WIN troll.
Keeping in mind that USA is in emergency state since....since it's foundation, i wonder why they just don't say it this simple: "WE NEED ACCESS ALL THE TIME. PERIOD".
Oh, and it reminds of the fact that USA cannot have standing army, unless they have declared war to someone...
Do you happen to now how COM/DCOM is working? By design? And how easy was some 10 years ago to "sniff" your IE without any trace? Don't bother, it is not a fish.
By "some form of permit" you mean what? A little innocent squirrel, or a big, giant whale, that only some big, giant monopoly could afford to move?
For you man, there is this saying: Free as a free beer.
It is not counter-intuitive. The opposite, the idea here is that a real monopoly is not only when you are the only player, but also if you hold the knife and the bread, so to say. Or with other words, the company/entity that holds the physical network (the cable, fiber, whatever) MUST NOT be allowed to hold the virtual one. And of course in order to avoid hidden monopoly like sharing the fiber only to our guys, that's why the "sharing" principle was implemented. As simple as that.
Actually, it is financially viable for many small players to move in this area. But unfortunately, the good government is having so many little nasty and expensive regulations, that only some big player with a lot of money and connections could manage somehow to be a competition to the existing ISPs.
As a friend of mine, who is in this business, said once to me, all he needs are 1000 customers, and with this user base he could provide them with a fiber cable. To every single home. Literally. In a matter of 1 to 2 years (depending of the population density). But of course all these regulations are too expensive to follow, and the final result is MONOPOLY.
Except if they want to force you to not use your bandwidth, or your cap limit, or this or that site that are producing a lot of traffic, or with other words, the ISP business is the only one that does not give 100% of your speed, and does encourages you to NOT use your cap limit. In fact, it is even worst, when they promote for example 3MBs, with 30GB limit, what they mean is that the regular Joe would use only 1/10th of this speed and only 1/10th of this limit. As a result, if their cable has the maximum capacity of 3MBs, then they will sell this same speed to 10 customers (with the hope that it will work out....somehow).
And yes, in most cases it WORKS. But as the users become more and more computer savvy, and are demanding more video and audio, and more Netflix like services, the final result is that this approach DOES NOT WORK OUT anymore.
So, to answer your question, what a sane business entity as ISP could and would do in this case?
1.Monitor the traffic and do anything possible to throttle down the "bad" users.
2.Upgrade their network.
Please, don't answer me, we all know the answer...
Why? WHY? Why no one seems to make the next natural step???
Step 1: One man with One woman
Step 2: One Man with One Man, or One Woman with One Woman
Step 3: One Man/Woman with Many Women/Men.
Step 4: Many Men/Women with Many Women/Men.
Step 5:...i wonder what it would be!!!
For some strange reason, searching for the description of some API is 10 times faster with Google than with MSDN. And i am not even discussing the usefulness of the Microsoft Way Of Documentation. We, the old dogs, have some old jokes about it:
Storm, raining, and a helicopter is trying to land, but does not know where exactly is the building, so after a flash from some thunder-strike. the pilot sees some man looking through window, and he asks him:
Pilot: WHERE AM I?
The Man: You are...in helicopter.
After this helpful answer, the pilot knew that the guy is Bill Gates, and the building was MS, so he knew where exactly he was, and he managed to safely land the helicopter.
The End. The Happy One. Unless you have to rely to MSDN only...
Actually, the question is not why he did google it or not, the question is why the others DID NOT google it? Really, was it so hard to press a few buttons? I still remember the old times where you had to actually dig for the original documentation, and in many cases you had to spend a lot of time to debug the things by yourself, simply because there was a lot of undocumented API and undocumented "features" which could cause a lot of strange behavior. And everybody tried to gather and keep a lot of helps, and docs, and even samples of source code, while now all you have to do is just to click Google.
Does Google makes me smarter? NO.
Do i learn something new with the help of Google? YES.
Could i have found out this new knowledge without Google? NO.
At the end, did i become better developer simply by using Google? YES.
Or maybe, these guys know how to configure XP, but intentionally did do it, because they HATE WinXP? Did you consider this scenario? Honestly, if my boss tries to force me to work under WinXP, i would anything, or if i am clever enough, i would do NOTHING to help him... Think about...
Slashdot Mirror
There is a saying that even one shit is enough to make you look dirty.... Or translated, it is enough even if one stupid HR, or developer (future co-worker) to throw a shit at you. And we all know that every company has its black sheep. or shitty sheep, or whatever.
And it is very powerful tool for discrimination, as after you have a criminal case, even without conviction, it will in the public record forever, for any future employer to find out, and to put your resume in the garbage bin.
But if he intends to make a written sworn statement (affidavit), then he could write it all down, sign it, in front of the sworn person, and voila. He has a legal record of his witness heresay.
No one forced you to go buy this little shiny iPad. So when you go home an see that inside the box instead of the device there is some shit, don't complain. Business as usual.
So, in a few words, Goldman Sach orchestrated the bankruptcy of "Dragon...", in order for their favorite, NUANCE, to acquire this technology, i mean to steal it, and to become the leader in "speech recognition software", without putting any innovation in it!!!
How so....capitalist way. We BUY and STEAL, we DON'T innovate.
You are both right. He wants the piece of cake. The China already has it.
I keep my Win7 only because of the games. Like DiabloIII. And some others. Nothing else. Actually, i found out that i do play a lot of flash games, for which you don't need WIN troll.
Really, but unfortunately, it would be only a wish. Except if Christmas exists of course.
Keeping in mind that USA is in emergency state since....since it's foundation, i wonder why they just don't say it this simple: "WE NEED ACCESS ALL THE TIME. PERIOD".
Oh, and it reminds of the fact that USA cannot have standing army, unless they have declared war to someone...
You do realize that "Open Source Women" are the one with the pretty old professional skill set??? What about open source babies(whatever that means)?
Helloooo, have you heard of WAKEUP WHILE POWER DOWN feature of all the newest Intel CPUs? No? Really? Where are coming from? The Moon?
Do you happen to now how COM/DCOM is working? By design? And how easy was some 10 years ago to "sniff" your IE without any trace? Don't bother, it is not a fish.
By "some form of permit" you mean what? A little innocent squirrel, or a big, giant whale, that only some big, giant monopoly could afford to move?
For you man, there is this saying: Free as a free beer.
It is not counter-intuitive. The opposite, the idea here is that a real monopoly is not only when you are the only player, but also if you hold the knife and the bread, so to say. Or with other words, the company/entity that holds the physical network (the cable, fiber, whatever) MUST NOT be allowed to hold the virtual one. And of course in order to avoid hidden monopoly like sharing the fiber only to our guys, that's why the "sharing" principle was implemented. As simple as that.
Just for the sake of the argument go outside and try to dig your fiber from your home to your neighbor across the street.
I have to ask, with or without fight? Because, as we know, it is too expensive for them to keep log for all the users..... LOL, Who am i kidding?
Actually, it is financially viable for many small players to move in this area. But unfortunately, the good government is having so many little nasty and expensive regulations, that only some big player with a lot of money and connections could manage somehow to be a competition to the existing ISPs.
As a friend of mine, who is in this business, said once to me, all he needs are 1000 customers, and with this user base he could provide them with a fiber cable. To every single home. Literally. In a matter of 1 to 2 years (depending of the population density). But of course all these regulations are too expensive to follow, and the final result is MONOPOLY.
Except if they want to force you to not use your bandwidth, or your cap limit, or this or that site that are producing a lot of traffic, or with other words, the ISP business is the only one that does not give 100% of your speed, and does encourages you to NOT use your cap limit. In fact, it is even worst, when they promote for example 3MBs, with 30GB limit, what they mean is that the regular Joe would use only 1/10th of this speed and only 1/10th of this limit. As a result, if their cable has the maximum capacity of 3MBs, then they will sell this same speed to 10 customers (with the hope that it will work out....somehow).
And yes, in most cases it WORKS. But as the users become more and more computer savvy, and are demanding more video and audio, and more Netflix like services, the final result is that this approach DOES NOT WORK OUT anymore.
So, to answer your question, what a sane business entity as ISP could and would do in this case?
1.Monitor the traffic and do anything possible to throttle down the "bad" users.
2.Upgrade their network.
Please, don't answer me, we all know the answer...
Really? Anyone? Really believes that the ISP are protecting you? Your privacy? With claws and fangs?
Don't forget, it is natural only if it is about in 10% of the cases. If it becomes 100%, then it is pretty much unnatural.
Why? WHY? Why no one seems to make the next natural step??? ...i wonder what it would be!!!
Step 1: One man with One woman
Step 2: One Man with One Man, or One Woman with One Woman
Step 3: One Man/Woman with Many Women/Men.
Step 4: Many Men/Women with Many Women/Men.
Step 5:
For some strange reason, searching for the description of some API is 10 times faster with Google than with MSDN. And i am not even discussing the usefulness of the Microsoft Way Of Documentation. We, the old dogs, have some old jokes about it:
Storm, raining, and a helicopter is trying to land, but does not know where exactly is the building, so after a flash from some thunder-strike. the pilot sees some man looking through window, and he asks him:
Pilot: WHERE AM I?
The Man: You are...in helicopter.
After this helpful answer, the pilot knew that the guy is Bill Gates, and the building was MS, so he knew where exactly he was, and he managed to safely land the helicopter.
The End. The Happy One. Unless you have to rely to MSDN only...
Don't forget COBOL. It is still floating around...
Actually, the question is not why he did google it or not, the question is why the others DID NOT google it? Really, was it so hard to press a few buttons? I still remember the old times where you had to actually dig for the original documentation, and in many cases you had to spend a lot of time to debug the things by yourself, simply because there was a lot of undocumented API and undocumented "features" which could cause a lot of strange behavior. And everybody tried to gather and keep a lot of helps, and docs, and even samples of source code, while now all you have to do is just to click Google.
Does Google makes me smarter? NO.
Do i learn something new with the help of Google? YES.
Could i have found out this new knowledge without Google? NO.
At the end, did i become better developer simply by using Google? YES.
Or maybe, these guys know how to configure XP, but intentionally did do it, because they HATE WinXP? Did you consider this scenario? Honestly, if my boss tries to force me to work under WinXP, i would anything, or if i am clever enough, i would do NOTHING to help him... Think about...