WingForward
Training staff on how a VRS or TTY relay call works is pretty simple. A few general rules are: 1) Talk as if you are addressing the Deaf person directly (don't say, "tell her hello", say "hello"). 2) Speak in discrete chunks of meaning with pauses in between to give the interpreter a chance to catch up. 3) Expect everything you say to be interpreted.
It's not though. The whole article presents her as unemployed because of the NCA. That's inaccurate. She can and did work in her field.
But what do you know about the clients? Who at Company B needs to be handled with kid gloves? Who likes it when you're pushy? How much can you negotiate with Company C on the timeline? What are the strengths of the other developers both in house and at other firms?
That's the stuff you can only learn by working in the industry. That's what makes an employee valuable. That's the real skills, the stuff you won't learn in school.
She chose to quit two jobs before running into trouble at her third.
And "sic" is used to imply that the original quote was grammatically incorrect. Your usage implies I misused the word "chose" when you should have rephrased your sentence to make the tense correct.
In this story, you had a 21 year-old work for a company for three years. That company invested time in a green worker. After three months, maybe after two years, she actually started producing for the company.
After she is trained and producing for her company, she quits and gets another job in the same field (but not a direct competitor).
She quits that and tried to work for a competitor of her original employer and is let go.
She is collecting unemployment (possibly at the combined expense of employers 1, 2, & 3 and the people of Massachusetts).
I don't see what the inequity here is.
They're about encouraging employers to make the investment in a new employee, knowing the time and effort put into that person isn't going to be easily transferred to a competitor.
That said, you can negotiate a non-compete, either doing away with it completely, or changing the terms.
Non-competes generally have at least three limiting features: industry, time, and region.
You can negotiate on the industry side: from "same industry" to "company's direct competitors".
You can negotiate on the region:"the Northeast" to "New England" to "metro Boston".
And you can negotiate on the time: twelve months, to six, to three.
I've just thought of this, but I think it would be fair it limit the non-competes based on the time worked in a position in a company. Less than one month and more than five years in a position, the non-compete clause goes away. Or the terms change.
Oh, and something about the page with the circle on it prevents my browser from reloading.
Does a day make a difference? A week? A month?
I don't know the answer to that, but I'd like to, but not enough to do the research myself.
Here is the primary source: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/1/W...
The chart in the original post has in its title "Web-based e-mail". That chart represents the amount of time spent using web-based e-mail. Not the number of e-mails sent or received on web clients. Not e-mail app usage. And not mobile usage.
Mobile e-mail usage amongst teens has gone up 40%. Isn't that a more likely reason for the decline in web-based e-mail that an unquantified Facebook influence?
But you're right, in that they had as much evidence as you have about Mars. As in, with a some hours of observation, you too could establish that the Earth is round and that Mars is a planet and know as much as a 15th century nobleman. All from first principles. You just need to view the evidence.
That's different than religion and "faith". Those don't require evidence. In fact, faith require the absence of evidence.
You can try to equate evidence-based beliefs and non evidence-based beliefs, but they are not the same.
Those are the talk radio/cable news responses to your proposals...
This web tool is cool, but there should be a way to incorporate the political realities of these actions, like cutting defense spending.
Now, "stuff" (advertising, equipment, factories, employees) is cheap.
Now, borrowing is cheap.
Now is the time for a business to spend.
The US government is more like a business than an individual. Both are interested in generating wealth rather than consuming it.
But in the case of "my friend"...if he were looking to borrow in order to generate wealth, say buy a house for rental income, I would completely support him.
Connecting the Internet to the television is one of its great accomplishments.
He really hasn't written anything that good since the late 90s.
The Red v Blue wars in America? Weird. The latter Enderverse novels could have been cranked out by current AI. Treasure Box? Enchantment? Snoozers.
Why would that be?
A business cycle doesn't have a defined length, which is one of the problems of the approach. I think 3-7 years is a decent range.
50% represents maximum dissension.
How many other questions were there? How did they coincide with the presented questions? What is the expected distribution if answers were assigned randomly?
2) A question that deals with global or national finance often can't be accurately stated in a single sentence. I look at, say, the minimum wage, or the sports franchise question, and I think, "It depends."
3) There's an assumption in the questions that contain "should". That assumption is that economists all share the same goals. They don't. The ones who do may agree about the methods to achieve it.
Security is about battling a combination of Time + Talents/Tools + Determination + Opportunity.
Firesheep greatly increases the Tools someone has to hack an account. Eric has made browsing much less secure.
The intended result is to bring the security issue to people's awareness, which he has done. But the result should have been to increase security. That will only happen if the the change in required Tools is balanced by a decrease in Opportunity (free wifi becoming simple password wifi at a minimum).
I doubt that will happen. Releasing Firesheep was a mistake.