And you should take a sample of living bees and see what the insecticide concentration is in those guys. That alone would prove or disprove a link, but would give clues for further investigation.
TTY users are declining. I don't know the statistics, but 80% of my interaction with the Deaf is by Videophone (VP) (aka video relay service (VRS)).
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.
Oh, you know how to program? Ok, great, that's the minimum you need to get a job. I hope you can read too.
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.
"Angela worked at Bullhorn for about three years. She left the company on her own terms in October 2010 to work as a software trainer at a Boston-area hospital, but after seven months decided "it wasn't what I wanted to do." So she took a job as a business analyst with another company that sells software to recruiters."
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).
Outlawing non-competes would make employers less likely to hire because they're not just about trade secrets.
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.
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?
#1 is a huge open field. You can live almost anywhere and not pay a lot in education and accomplish #1. Not that it's easy. It takes a lot of work and some talent and some luck, but there isn't the educational entry costs of #3 and #4.
Actually, people in the time of Columbus knew the the Earth was round. That's been in European cultural knowledge for about two thousand years. It was Columbus who was mistaken. He thought the earth was much smaller than everyone else did. That he could sail west to Asia in a few weeks. He was completely wrong. A fool who was funded by a fool.
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.