States support education because it is believed that higher levels of education mean better jobs and more tax money from businesses and individuals. (I personally think that correlation is pretty weak once you start to talk about a fixed population - smart people tend to get more education, but even if uneducated they would still be smarter, run businesses better, etc.) If making more money isn't the point of a college degree, why should the taxpayers subsidize you?
They have roaming agreements to cover all the US, but you can't buy their service from everywhere. And if you look at their data map, the 101 is pretty barren.
Your initial comment is very typical of the kind of people who insist that the US is a corporate-driven nightmare, while "civilized" countries don't have that problem. Because it's short, there is no nuance. I apologize if I was overbroad - after all, I did post a very short reply myself, one just as open to misinterpretation.
Such is the folly of leaving public health dependent on the profit motive.
You know, if a country thought it would be worthwhile to have some new antibiotics, it could just form its own socialized pharmaceutical company and support it. Yet they don't.
Minor nitpick: EHEC is not inherently antibiotic-resistant. It's just a particularly nasty strain of E. coli. Many EHEC organisms are, however, antibiotic-resistant.
Transistor radios weren't very large; a Sony TR-63 from 1958 would easily fit in a jacket pocket, so I'm not sure I'd call it "lugging". My point, though was that the technology was banned almost as soon as it became available, not a decade later.
Not that new, really. The FM radio rules came out in 1961, which was the same year that FM acquired the ability to broadcast stereo, about 5 years after the transistor radio started to become popular, and still quite a bit before the popularity of FM broadcasting. The personal-electronics rules weren't issued - as far as I can discover - until late 1993, or 13 years after the introduction of the Walkman to the US.
And yet headphones were OK on flights for a long, long time. The ban on electronics is only about 20 years old (except for radios, which have been forbidden for ages). Lots of flyers had Walkmans (Walkmen?) with them in the 80s.
Have you ever flown on a turbulent flight? When the plane starts dropping precipitously, you know it.
It's not as though anything you'll do prior to the crash is going to help you, except wearing a seatbelt (which you'd be doing anyway). Still, assuming that you've eclipsed that mark, humans are still cooperative enough that the person next to you might just poke you on the shoulder and notify you that, hey, didn't you notice the plane has lost a lot of altitude really fast? And the oxygen mask dropping in your face might be a good cue, too.
You're allowed to hold all sorts of non-electronic objects that fit that category. I think it's more about crew not having to determine which device you're actually using.
No. He is addressed directly as "Mr. President" as a sign of respect for the office. He is referred to as "President Obama" or "Mr. Obama" in news stories, largely depending on the style manual of the outfit doing the reporting. Extensive historical precedent for this, for Democrats and Republicans.
As long as we're talking about official etiquette, one does not retain the honorary use of the title "President" after leaving office. Clinton and GWBush are IIRC both officially styled "Governor", since most states permit the honorary use of that title after leaving office. "Former President" is also in common use.
Since Congress isn't actually going to adjourn over the Memorial Day holiday, his failure to sign it within ten days would still see it enacted as law.
That's a medical image reproduction device. I don't know if there are any cheap 8.5x11 ones out there, but anything certified for clinical use will be hideously expensive.
The collegiate financing mechanism whereby the cost of attendance is set at a ridiculously high number and then discounted by the financial aid office according to "ability to pay" is coming extremely close to capturing the entire net present value of the extra earnings over the course of a lifetime. In some cases, it's exceeded that.
Slashdot Mirror
States support education because it is believed that higher levels of education mean better jobs and more tax money from businesses and individuals. (I personally think that correlation is pretty weak once you start to talk about a fixed population - smart people tend to get more education, but even if uneducated they would still be smarter, run businesses better, etc.) If making more money isn't the point of a college degree, why should the taxpayers subsidize you?
Why do you put "ts" in front of Chernobyl? The letter isn't there in Ukrainian, Russian, or English.
They have roaming agreements to cover all the US, but you can't buy their service from everywhere. And if you look at their data map, the 101 is pretty barren.
Your initial comment is very typical of the kind of people who insist that the US is a corporate-driven nightmare, while "civilized" countries don't have that problem. Because it's short, there is no nuance. I apologize if I was overbroad - after all, I did post a very short reply myself, one just as open to misinterpretation.
The United States of America is not the only country on earth. Yet none of them do this.
I'm not a Yankee. Yours are the closest to me. But it does suck for them. Of course, it pretty much sucks for me, too, because it's not a short drive.
Such is the folly of leaving public health dependent on the profit motive.
You know, if a country thought it would be worthwhile to have some new antibiotics, it could just form its own socialized pharmaceutical company and support it. Yet they don't.
Minor nitpick: EHEC is not inherently antibiotic-resistant. It's just a particularly nasty strain of E. coli. Many EHEC organisms are, however, antibiotic-resistant.
Transistor radios weren't very large; a Sony TR-63 from 1958 would easily fit in a jacket pocket, so I'm not sure I'd call it "lugging". My point, though was that the technology was banned almost as soon as it became available, not a decade later.
Not that new, really. The FM radio rules came out in 1961, which was the same year that FM acquired the ability to broadcast stereo, about 5 years after the transistor radio started to become popular, and still quite a bit before the popularity of FM broadcasting. The personal-electronics rules weren't issued - as far as I can discover - until late 1993, or 13 years after the introduction of the Walkman to the US.
IIRC the law has been sufficiently vague on some occasions that you might want to wait until the day after her birthday. Just to be safe.
Fry's near-absence from the eastern US means that store is actually the one closest to Boston and New York. I'd say you've got it pretty good.
And yet headphones were OK on flights for a long, long time. The ban on electronics is only about 20 years old (except for radios, which have been forbidden for ages). Lots of flyers had Walkmans (Walkmen?) with them in the 80s.
Have you ever flown on a turbulent flight? When the plane starts dropping precipitously, you know it.
It's not as though anything you'll do prior to the crash is going to help you, except wearing a seatbelt (which you'd be doing anyway). Still, assuming that you've eclipsed that mark, humans are still cooperative enough that the person next to you might just poke you on the shoulder and notify you that, hey, didn't you notice the plane has lost a lot of altitude really fast? And the oxygen mask dropping in your face might be a good cue, too.
You're allowed to hold all sorts of non-electronic objects that fit that category. I think it's more about crew not having to determine which device you're actually using.
They do have seats to keep in districts that might, however misguidedly, like the PATRIOT Act.
I've not watched a lot of TV news, but in the parts I have, it's always "former President". NPR is quite careful to make the distinction, FWIW.
No. He is addressed directly as "Mr. President" as a sign of respect for the office. He is referred to as "President Obama" or "Mr. Obama" in news stories, largely depending on the style manual of the outfit doing the reporting. Extensive historical precedent for this, for Democrats and Republicans.
As long as we're talking about official etiquette, one does not retain the honorary use of the title "President" after leaving office. Clinton and GWBush are IIRC both officially styled "Governor", since most states permit the honorary use of that title after leaving office. "Former President" is also in common use.
You assume that the Democrats would not have voted differently had they been in the majority. Don't assume that.
Since Congress isn't actually going to adjourn over the Memorial Day holiday, his failure to sign it within ten days would still see it enacted as law.
I don't actually need any of that stuff - with as little color as I print, the cheapest printer is Kinko's. Or Walmart/Walgreens for photos.
That's a medical image reproduction device. I don't know if there are any cheap 8.5x11 ones out there, but anything certified for clinical use will be hideously expensive.
SWA got their start with intra-Texas flights operating out of Dallas' Love Field. Read about it here.
Southwest Airlines exists because of the possibility of intra-Texas flights, so I'd have to say that the TSA would fail.
The collegiate financing mechanism whereby the cost of attendance is set at a ridiculously high number and then discounted by the financial aid office according to "ability to pay" is coming extremely close to capturing the entire net present value of the extra earnings over the course of a lifetime. In some cases, it's exceeded that.