The simple fact is that the Puritans and others like them didn't come here to be free from religious persecution, but so they'd be free to practice it themselves.
TVs were just laying around. And it didn't matter if there was something there. You hooked up to it. One on chan3 and the other on chan4, or 100 things on chan3, no problems, so long as one was on at a time. I had a spare attached to a TV, so if someone brought over a C64 or IIc, it's be a 2 second plug to be up and running. Took longer for the tube to warm up than to hook it up.
You must be a content expert to get hired, and not to teach. Generally to start teaching in high school, you must have a degree in whatever you are teaching (and a certificate in teaching), or a degree in teaching. Once you are a full teacher, it takes a basic test to be able to teach other subjects. As in, so basic that back when I was in high school, if I were a licensed teacher, there were no subjects I looked at that I'd be unable to teach. But the hoops to teach are quite high for someone who is an expert in their field and want to teach it at high school. You pretty much have to go back to school to get a teaching certificate. Some places have exceptions, but they are very specific.
Last I looked, the taxpayer paid about $3 for every $1 spent on education. Unfunded mandates like NCLB and such take most of the money. The rest of the non-classroom money goes mainly to facilities.
The problem isn't price, it's value. Public education is cheaper than most private education. All the conservative studies that show it expensive look at education-only schools (the ones that have the facilities provided out of a separate budget, and no government oversight, so almost no compliance costs). When you look at it with those constraints, private should be about 1/3 the cost of public. But it fails even then. Public is more effective and cheaper, in most cases.the government is always cheaper and more effective (like the IRS and Social Security), but the complaints are with the conservative legislators who saddle the department with stupid rules, not their ability to execute them.
The larger hole you missed was having fewer "super-teachers" and the super teacher does more and is paid less than today's teachers. If they are so "super" why are they paid even less than today?
I've seen the same in the "general population". The issue isn't intelligence, but that women are trained that "smart is bad" and "gossip is good". So, they conform, as do most people. When I've looked harder (say, the graduate level at a local university, when I went back for a degree), I've found that the intelligence is equal, but women are essentially trained to hide it. That you can't find it is your failure, not theirs. That they feel the need to hide it is society's failure, not yours or theirs.
The appeals courts are not supposed to re-try facts of cases. They look at procedural errors, and errors in application of law. Once those errors are identified, then it should be sent down to a lower court for a re-trial. That's how it is supposed to work, and how it does work in most cases. Sometimes the points of law changes the outcome of the individual case, sometimes the don't.
For example, in Roe v Wade, Roe "won" at the Supreme Court, but lost the case because the delays in being granted the right to have an abortion took so long the baby was born before any retrial could have occurred (I don't know the timing, for all I know, Roe gave birth before the Supreme Court decision that would have allowed an abortion). But the individual case, and the points of law are not related, other than the one case to trigger the appeal is obviously in the set of cases affected.
I read that the silverware was made of silver for royalty, but commoner's flatware was lead, and lead pots, lead utensils lead to lead poisoning. IT wasn't just the pipes, but that almost everything metal was made from lead (aside from things like armor and things for royalty).
All "legal" is sophistry. Pretty much by definition. And it works in places that are police states that pretend to not be (the USA, for one). They will pretend to give you an option, durring the torture designed to elicit a confession, regardless of guilt. And when you make a choice, they'll hold it against you. Either way. Professing innocence is proof of guilt. That's what Martha Stewart went to jail for, not confessing (called Obstruction). When your choices are to admit guilt or go to jail for failure to confess, then you live in a police state.
They won't let you touch the device, so if you gave a duress password, it would be the police, not you, that would be destroying evidence. And if there was evidence they were so sure was there, they can subpoena the evidence against you that you hold. They don't have to open the safe if they can compel you to provide the contents.
Ah, so you are wrong. You know you are wrong, and you are insisting you are right because you feel offended. You are an idiot for insisting you are right after having been proven wrong.
Why is it stupid to use the most accurate technical term for the location under discussion?
When I talk to friends outside the US, I will give units in metric. When I talk with friends inside the US, I use US/Imperial units.
Your argument is that if I'm talking with a US friend while outside the US, and someone overhears and complains about the terminology, that I'm "stupid" for using US/Imperial units.
I find that stupid. A US event on a US site being discussed mainly by US residents, I'll use the US term, even if that term is used differently elsewhere.
When submitting an editorial to the Canberra Times, I'd use different and locally relevant terminology.
Generally, the rules on Canon are that it's what takes the pictures. I mean, canon is the first occurrence, and official material that aligns with it.
Canon wasn't something that was talked about until much more recently. There were no discussions on whether the Superman TV series was canon, despite conflict with the comic book on some points, and closer proximity to the origin of the character. It wasn't until more recently when people started being continuity nazis.
Is the power to create an enemy-seeking plastic blanket from nothing a canon power? I've not seen it used anywhere else.
Reboots are generally considerd non-canon by fans, and canon by JJ Abrams.
I followed comics for about 30 years, but hadn't seen all the recent changes and reboots. I stopped following the major studios when they launched so many alternate universes, and future series. I hadn't realized it got worse, much worse.
That's the way I remember it, and the supreme court offering amnesty doesn't change the real facts from this fictional story. And apparently the line you remember is an alternate future in a "what if" story.
It's not about hate of the US, but recognizing that the US is not the best, and any of about 50 countries are roughly as good as the US, and probably better in some useful area.
I'm married an developed myself well enough to decide that it's best for my kids to have the 2 citizenships they have, so when they want to study overseas, they'll have more options than your kids will.
Why do you hate your children so much you deny them opportunity? Yes, sarcastic.
Now that I just got my second, I'm considering what we can do for a third, but we wouldn't do that until retirement age, so it won't help the kids.
One citizenship in US, one in EU, and one in OZ is about the most diverse and widely optioned trio one can get (for English-only speakers).
If you believe there are places "better", why aren't you there? No "hate" needed. And it does help your kids with their options, if they are already residents/citizens.
Yeah, shows that are attractive to those with disposable income are preferred to shows that attract those who don't spend as much on items. Commercials select content, rather than users, and commercials select based on the desires of the "more valuable" watchers.
I've already moved out. It's not that hard for a working adult to find a better place to target, find out the rules to get in, then do it. You don't have to go as an also-ran for your kid.
The first wasn't hyped. The third was more hyped than the first. Someone doesn't remember their 70's well. Did you even see any of them in their first run?
Slashdot Mirror
The simple fact is that the Puritans and others like them didn't come here to be free from religious persecution, but so they'd be free to practice it themselves.
TVs were just laying around. And it didn't matter if there was something there. You hooked up to it. One on chan3 and the other on chan4, or 100 things on chan3, no problems, so long as one was on at a time. I had a spare attached to a TV, so if someone brought over a C64 or IIc, it's be a 2 second plug to be up and running. Took longer for the tube to warm up than to hook it up.
I can't think of a single person who doesn't hate a subject because of a bad experience with a teacher. Eliminating that would be a good thing too.
You must be a content expert to get hired, and not to teach. Generally to start teaching in high school, you must have a degree in whatever you are teaching (and a certificate in teaching), or a degree in teaching. Once you are a full teacher, it takes a basic test to be able to teach other subjects. As in, so basic that back when I was in high school, if I were a licensed teacher, there were no subjects I looked at that I'd be unable to teach. But the hoops to teach are quite high for someone who is an expert in their field and want to teach it at high school. You pretty much have to go back to school to get a teaching certificate. Some places have exceptions, but they are very specific.
Last I looked, the taxpayer paid about $3 for every $1 spent on education. Unfunded mandates like NCLB and such take most of the money. The rest of the non-classroom money goes mainly to facilities.
The problem isn't price, it's value. Public education is cheaper than most private education. All the conservative studies that show it expensive look at education-only schools (the ones that have the facilities provided out of a separate budget, and no government oversight, so almost no compliance costs). When you look at it with those constraints, private should be about 1/3 the cost of public. But it fails even then. Public is more effective and cheaper, in most cases.the government is always cheaper and more effective (like the IRS and Social Security), but the complaints are with the conservative legislators who saddle the department with stupid rules, not their ability to execute them.
The larger hole you missed was having fewer "super-teachers" and the super teacher does more and is paid less than today's teachers. If they are so "super" why are they paid even less than today?
Individualized questions from a set of standardized questions is still individualized. It isn't personal, but is individualized.
I think you could have used more standardized questions on your vocabulary.
I've seen the same in the "general population". The issue isn't intelligence, but that women are trained that "smart is bad" and "gossip is good". So, they conform, as do most people. When I've looked harder (say, the graduate level at a local university, when I went back for a degree), I've found that the intelligence is equal, but women are essentially trained to hide it. That you can't find it is your failure, not theirs. That they feel the need to hide it is society's failure, not yours or theirs.
Sounds like you are the one here that doesn't understand the religions you are talking about.
And a large number of non desserts. Blood pudding isn't a dessert.
The appeals courts are not supposed to re-try facts of cases. They look at procedural errors, and errors in application of law. Once those errors are identified, then it should be sent down to a lower court for a re-trial. That's how it is supposed to work, and how it does work in most cases. Sometimes the points of law changes the outcome of the individual case, sometimes the don't.
For example, in Roe v Wade, Roe "won" at the Supreme Court, but lost the case because the delays in being granted the right to have an abortion took so long the baby was born before any retrial could have occurred (I don't know the timing, for all I know, Roe gave birth before the Supreme Court decision that would have allowed an abortion). But the individual case, and the points of law are not related, other than the one case to trigger the appeal is obviously in the set of cases affected.
I read that the silverware was made of silver for royalty, but commoner's flatware was lead, and lead pots, lead utensils lead to lead poisoning. IT wasn't just the pipes, but that almost everything metal was made from lead (aside from things like armor and things for royalty).
lead poisoning is, though.
All "legal" is sophistry. Pretty much by definition. And it works in places that are police states that pretend to not be (the USA, for one). They will pretend to give you an option, durring the torture designed to elicit a confession, regardless of guilt. And when you make a choice, they'll hold it against you. Either way. Professing innocence is proof of guilt. That's what Martha Stewart went to jail for, not confessing (called Obstruction). When your choices are to admit guilt or go to jail for failure to confess, then you live in a police state.
They won't let you touch the device, so if you gave a duress password, it would be the police, not you, that would be destroying evidence. And if there was evidence they were so sure was there, they can subpoena the evidence against you that you hold. They don't have to open the safe if they can compel you to provide the contents.
Most people don't commit crimes for fear of punishment, not because they morally object.
Every person I've ever heard say that also said that they'd not commit murder if it were legal.
So I assume everyone who says that is a hyporite. How about you? Are you a murderer, restrained solely by fear of punishment?
Ah, so you are wrong. You know you are wrong, and you are insisting you are right because you feel offended. You are an idiot for insisting you are right after having been proven wrong.
I myself find your standpoint pretty stupid.
Why is it stupid to use the most accurate technical term for the location under discussion?
When I talk to friends outside the US, I will give units in metric. When I talk with friends inside the US, I use US/Imperial units.
Your argument is that if I'm talking with a US friend while outside the US, and someone overhears and complains about the terminology, that I'm "stupid" for using US/Imperial units.
I find that stupid. A US event on a US site being discussed mainly by US residents, I'll use the US term, even if that term is used differently elsewhere.
When submitting an editorial to the Canberra Times, I'd use different and locally relevant terminology.
Generally, the rules on Canon are that it's what takes the pictures. I mean, canon is the first occurrence, and official material that aligns with it.
Canon wasn't something that was talked about until much more recently. There were no discussions on whether the Superman TV series was canon, despite conflict with the comic book on some points, and closer proximity to the origin of the character. It wasn't until more recently when people started being continuity nazis.
Is the power to create an enemy-seeking plastic blanket from nothing a canon power? I've not seen it used anywhere else.
Reboots are generally considerd non-canon by fans, and canon by JJ Abrams.
I followed comics for about 30 years, but hadn't seen all the recent changes and reboots. I stopped following the major studios when they launched so many alternate universes, and future series. I hadn't realized it got worse, much worse.
" he was born Kal-El on the planet Krypton, before being rocketed to Earth as an infant" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That's the way I remember it, and the supreme court offering amnesty doesn't change the real facts from this fictional story. And apparently the line you remember is an alternate future in a "what if" story.
It's not about hate of the US, but recognizing that the US is not the best, and any of about 50 countries are roughly as good as the US, and probably better in some useful area.
I'm married an developed myself well enough to decide that it's best for my kids to have the 2 citizenships they have, so when they want to study overseas, they'll have more options than your kids will.
Why do you hate your children so much you deny them opportunity? Yes, sarcastic.
Now that I just got my second, I'm considering what we can do for a third, but we wouldn't do that until retirement age, so it won't help the kids.
One citizenship in US, one in EU, and one in OZ is about the most diverse and widely optioned trio one can get (for English-only speakers).
If you believe there are places "better", why aren't you there? No "hate" needed. And it does help your kids with their options, if they are already residents/citizens.
Yeah, shows that are attractive to those with disposable income are preferred to shows that attract those who don't spend as much on items. Commercials select content, rather than users, and commercials select based on the desires of the "more valuable" watchers.
Do you not know how "Broadcast TV" works?
I've already moved out. It's not that hard for a working adult to find a better place to target, find out the rules to get in, then do it. You don't have to go as an also-ran for your kid.
The first wasn't hyped. The third was more hyped than the first. Someone doesn't remember their 70's well. Did you even see any of them in their first run?
They are in church, smoking weed and watching the gay marriage.