"I'm sure the guy who said co-eds will get marked as a troll, but don't knock it till you've tried it..."
You might want to be sure about exactly what university policy is on "fraternizing" (not to mention checking up on state laws regarding just how old one has to be for what) before "trying" them.
It does take talent to teach, but not a talent for what's being taught as much as a talent for teaching (although a thorough understanding of what one is teaching is certainly desirable). There's a certain amount of truth to the old adage's extension : "Those who can do, can't teach". For those to whom something "just comes naturally" there's no need to analyze how they go about achieving their results, and they have no way to know what it's like to not instinctively know what to do, so they can't break down what they do into small, discrete steps that lets the average student gain an understanding of what's going on and why.
I wouldn't call Hussein especially dark-skinned but he looks a lot more like someone native to that time and place than does Mr. Gibson's casting choice. Of course in this case native doesn't necessarily mean the "original" original occupants of the area so much as "been there a few thousand years".
You say that the FCC essentially nationalized the public's airwaves (actually it was the Congress when they passed the Communications Act of 1934). If your contention is that prior to that the airwaves belonged to "the public", how else would you have proposed that the public arrange to share the airwaves other than via the stewardship of the government?
If I hadn't already commented I'd mod you up, but then if I hadn't commented neither would you have and at this point my eyes are starting to glaze over all over again:-)
"Keep a record of everything you do. Every dollar you spend, every phone call you make, and every trip you take. Upon being asked if you are a terrorist, make relevant portions of this record avaliable."
They will already have that record and if they decide that they don't like you they'll use selected excerpts from it to "prove" that you are a "terrorist".*
*They get to define the meanings of "prove" and "terrorist".
About 20 years ago Radio-Electronics magazine had an article on building your own out of plywood. Really. It used concentric rectangles that worked as a sort of lens at those frequencies. Like microwave waveguides that somehow use empty spaces as antenna elements, the physics involved was way over my head.
Actually if you sit there holding down the brake pedal with your foot you are using your body's (chemical) energy, you are putting that energy into the braking system as mechanical energy. That energy has to go somewhere and since it probably won't be converted into matter it will be converted into some other form of energy, most likely heat.
I suppose whether a career without pay is successful is a philosophical question (and, no, I don't consider income level the sole, or even a reliable, indicator of success--a well-paid teacher who imparts no knowledge has failed[just an example, not picking on teachers]), but if your parents couldn't afford you why didn't you starve to death in childhood? Perhaps they could afford you, but only by giving up other luxuries, as my parents did.
If you are going to indulge yourself in the luxury of having children*, don't whine about being unable to afford other luxuries as a result; you made your choice as to how to allocate your resources, deal with it.
It's a luxury because it isn't necessary for your own personal survival in the way that water, food, and shelter are, and it's a luxury because if you can't afford it you've got no business doing it and expecting others to pick up the cost.
You only have a "right" to reproduce and create dependants you can't afford to support if you concede that the neighbors and their kids have the right to kill you and your kids in order to gain access to scarce resources such as food and if they have to pay taxes to subsidize your family's existence then in effect you are taking their food.
I'm not saying that no one should have a family or that families aren't important for psychological reasons, just that people should be honest with themselves.
By the way, I didn't say anything about science being more (or, for that matter, less) important than familes. You must have misunderstood my humorous remark about time machines and paradoxes.
I mean the bigger cities in the state, especially the ones where the real estate bust happened because of a sudden fall in the oil-generated wealth which was driving the preceeding real estate boom.
"You missed something: that happy-with-poverty poster was a girl. Even today, it's fairly easy for a female, as long as she's attractive, to find a man who makes plenty of money to marry, letting her keep her low-paying job. Try taking this route as a man and you'll find yourself growing old both poor and alone."
Apparently the moderator who tried to give the above the +1 Insightful it deserves accidently clicked on "Flamebait" instead.
Yes, there are exceptions, but few and far between.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to be sure about exactly what university policy is on "fraternizing" (not to mention checking up on state laws regarding just how old one has to be for what) before "trying" them.
It does take talent to teach, but not a talent for what's being taught as much as a talent for teaching (although a thorough understanding of what one is teaching is certainly desirable). There's a certain amount of truth to the old adage's extension : "Those who can do, can't teach". For those to whom something "just comes naturally" there's no need to analyze how they go about achieving their results, and they have no way to know what it's like to not instinctively know what to do, so they can't break down what they do into small, discrete steps that lets the average student gain an understanding of what's going on and why.
Plus if you see anything coming up other than a blank page you know right away that something's wrong.
Right would have been descending hierarchy such as "(protocol).com.automobile.ford" or "(protocol).com.automobile.us.ford".
I thought Englebart = Xerox PARC.
I wouldn't call Hussein especially dark-skinned but he looks a lot more like someone native to that time and place than does Mr. Gibson's casting choice. Of course in this case native doesn't necessarily mean the "original" original occupants of the area so much as "been there a few thousand years".
Now come on, you know it's strictly forbidden to ever cast anybody as Jesus if they look even vaguely like a 1st century Jew.
You say that the FCC essentially nationalized the public's airwaves (actually it was the Congress when they passed the Communications Act of 1934). If your contention is that prior to that the airwaves belonged to "the public", how else would you have proposed that the public arrange to share the airwaves other than via the stewardship of the government?
Wasn't the Turk eventually shown to have been a fake, i.e., there was a small man inside doing the chess playing.
If I hadn't already commented I'd mod you up, but then if I hadn't commented neither would you have and at this point my eyes are starting to glaze over all over again :-)
Excellent :-)
They will already have that record and if they decide that they don't like you they'll use selected excerpts from it to "prove" that you are a "terrorist".*
*They get to define the meanings of "prove" and "terrorist".
But making the battery explode is easy.
About 20 years ago Radio-Electronics magazine had an article on building your own out of plywood. Really. It used concentric rectangles that worked as a sort of lens at those frequencies. Like microwave waveguides that somehow use empty spaces as antenna elements, the physics involved was way over my head.
"I am, it's Windows that isn't!"
It is the above to which the exceptions are few and far between.
Actually if you sit there holding down the brake pedal with your foot you are using your body's (chemical) energy, you are putting that energy into the braking system as mechanical energy. That energy has to go somewhere and since it probably won't be converted into matter it will be converted into some other form of energy, most likely heat.
If you are going to indulge yourself in the luxury of having children*, don't whine about being unable to afford other luxuries as a result; you made your choice as to how to allocate your resources, deal with it.
*(yes, I know it doesn't always feel luxurious :-)
You only have a "right" to reproduce and create dependants you can't afford to support if you concede that the neighbors and their kids have the right to kill you and your kids in order to gain access to scarce resources such as food and if they have to pay taxes to subsidize your family's existence then in effect you are taking their food.
I'm not saying that no one should have a family or that families aren't important for psychological reasons, just that people should be honest with themselves.
By the way, I didn't say anything about science being more (or, for that matter, less) important than familes. You must have misunderstood my humorous remark about time machines and paradoxes.
I mean the bigger cities in the state, especially the ones where the real estate bust happened because of a sudden fall in the oil-generated wealth which was driving the preceeding real estate boom.
Insert sued by SCO joke here.
Until just now I don't think any of us had any clue as to how to spell "mathimatician". :-)
So you've made your own choice of expensive luxuries.
"...old parents who need financial assistance."
Okay, so some luxuries are mandatory if you don't have a time machine and paradox resolver handy.
Seriously, though, didn't the bottom fall out of the metro Texas real estate market some years back, leaving a lot of newly constructed overcapacity?
Apparently the moderator who tried to give the above the +1 Insightful it deserves accidently clicked on "Flamebait" instead.
Yes, there are exceptions, but few and far between.