I believe they call that Reddit these days.
Fun fact! It's actually cheaper to produce oil off shore (lifting cost of $10/barrel vs $12.75/barrel) at least in the USA. It is much harder to find the oil though (2.5x the cost of onshore oil). Since the water reservoirs are already found and we can use the same tech as oil drilling there is a real potential there for comparatively cheap water.
Source: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6 The numbers are about 5 years old so it may have changed.
I work as support for a large number of small businesses and honestly it doesn't work very well there either. Every company we've worked with that had more than 5 people weren't happy with it for one reason or another. A very very large reason is having to have an internet connection unless you use a third party app (such as Outlook) or Chrome.
Don't count on it. I think they're seeing a massive cultural problem that is finally starting to hurt the bottom line and they want to do something about it. I don't know if they go the direction the employees want but I think they'll go a non Ballmer direction.
I'm pretty sure you typed that wrong. If what you meant to say was "Please explain why you are sure that the cessation of the ice age, with an accompanying moderation in temperature, is what permitted human agriculture [This is the assertion he makes, that consistent temperatures allowed/was favorable for farming] -- and not the reverse. [Are you suggesting that farming permitted the cessation of the ice age and moderation in temperatures?] Please describe an experiment to falsify your premise." I might be able to help with an experiment to test if moderation in temperature helped facilitate farming; otherwise please clarify what you are asking.
To the possible suggestion that human farming could have ended the ice age and moderated temperatures I can only suggest you go try and farm on a glacier and see how that works out. After you have sufficiently tested the farming on ice theory for the melting of glaciers and cessation of the ice age I believe we could create an experiment to test if consistent environmental conditions are conducive to more productive farming (and thus more favorable to cities and civilization).
First create an artificial controlled environment (Control) that exactly matches the conditions in a designated location (that has successfully maintained farming for an extended period of time) while removing variables such as pollution, vandalism, and other external hazards that would not effect the other environments.
At the same time we will create another artificial controlled environment (Variable) where the weather conditions will randomly selected (in a way to still coincide with the seasons, and within reasonable limits of annual extremes over the past 8,000-10,000 years) from year to year. The first year will be identical to the first year in the control environment with random selection beginning in year 2. This won't perfectly replicate long term variations (and the effects) in environment but should sufficiently test the effect of variability of environment on agriculture.
I propose one more artificial controlled environment (Constant) that has perfectly predictable weather conditions from year to year. Thus all years will have the same conditions as the first year of the control.
Further we can measure the performance of these environments in relation to the selected location to further control for possible unforeseen factors and for comparison to real world conditions.
The environment to have produced the greatest yields with the lowest costs/losses over an extended period (say 20-40 years) will be deemed the most successful and conducive to agriculture.
If you are proposing that cities and civilization either arose independently of agriculture or facilitated agriculture (instead of agriculture facilitating cities/civilization) our conversation is over and I would refer you to the extensive studies of early human civilization.
Great way to describe this! It's not that it's changing... it's how fast...
Except when they just disconnect you. Which has happened to me more than one time. However I've found in those cases it is almost always effective to start swearing at the IVR and it gets you over to a CSR.
Not everyone running the company has enough power to do this unfortunately and many that would try would be removed by the board.
One of these days...
Google takes the same size cut of the pie as Apple.
To be perfectly fair this is roughly how Microsoft achieved success. Let someone else blaze the trail and then come pave them over.
I suspect it is your phone mostly. The biggest problem Android has is that there is a huge quality range from phone to phone and manufacturer to manufacturer. The software and modifications that HTC, Motorola, and Samsung force on Android users are horrendous and lead to some absolutely horrible experiences with worse performance.
If you use the Android that Google releases (or something close to it, like Asus) there is a world of difference and (to me) a superior experience to iOS.
To be perfectly honest it's not really "in" the cargo pants...
Apple has been steadily decreasing the number of Samsung parts. Also is Samsung has to stop selling a few parts in order to sell a few phones (which I suspect are higher margin AND higher revenue) it makes perfect sense.
You're reading it wrong. He is saying Apple objected because they were asked to pay more for Samsung's FRAND patents then other FRAND patents (from other companies) not that Samsung was trying to charge them more than they were charging other companies.
The post was not worded as clearly as it could have been.