Probably the fact that when you graduate you aren't as likely to get shot at by hostile fire. If you do a cost benefit ratio between military and civilian, military doesn't look bad if you stay in long enough. But that getting shot at as part of the job description thing really does slow down the potential applicants. The fact that they are moving to more and more drone based missions doesn't help either.
Hasn't been a good decimation since Caesar's day.
Sadly, WY has just one University. It's about four hours away from Newcastle where he lives. There are only seven community colleges. None of them are nearby either - the closest are two to three hours away from him. Even to Rapid City, SD, it's an hour and 1/2.
So, while online options might be available, depending on bandwidth to the town of 3,500 people, signing up for evening classes is largely out of the question.
At least in the F17 vintage, you could turn off all the services you wanted and then start them in order in rc.local essentially throwing out systemd all together, thus reducing your system boot time greatly. systemd would eventually boot a server with many services, but there were too many loops with networking that just didn't work properly if you were still using network instead of network manager to boot quickly. Perhaps NM has now gotten to the place that you can define bonds and VLANs and the like, but the last time I tried they were a nightmare compared to good old network.
In any large metropolitan area (and most small towns) there is always some criminal or civil investigation active. It would be great if the data expired, but the exception you mentioned would prevent the data from ever being deleted.
Hope that's programmable as the interstate speed limits in large portions of the country are 75 or 80.
Old designs were safe for their rated life time. The trouble is that due to the inability to permit new plants, many old plants that should have been retired and replaced have been pushed into years or decades of additional service. Every time the licenses are extended it is based on the best estimates of the engineers as to how much longer the plant can last after needed rework is complete. But every time you rework and push another x years out of an old plant, you increase the chances that something will go wrong.
Get a reasonably safe storage plan or store securely on-site and permit new standardized plants.
Design once... replicate the design.
The problem with civilian nuclear power is each power plant is largely re-engineered from scratch. Every company wants the latest and greatest technical advantages versus something that just works. You see this with other power sources than nuclear, but it stands out more there because so few new nuclear plants are built today versus coal or gas plants.
If the shipyards built vessels for the Navy the way civil engineers design power plants, each nuclear sub - for example - would have this great big bulge on the hull in the reactor area. Each individual sub in a particular "class" would have the bulge be a different shape and be in a different spot. Some would come with multiple bulges. All would drive varying numbers of screws.
Military nuclear has worked relatively well because they have largely repeated what works well enough. I'm sure they all have changes they would like to make and some do get integrated in over time, but it isn't redesigned from scratch for every new ship.
Nuclear can work and some of the newer modern nuclear designs are pretty much fail safe. If we'd standardize on one of them and reuse its plans for every new plant we built, we'd be in much better shape and costs would be much less. If you have a standard layout and control system like the military does for a given class of ship, you'd reduce the operating cost as well - both in terms of people manning the control rooms and doing repairs and in parts.
For what it is worth, there is nothing in the Bible that says the fossil record is fake. There is also nothing in the Bible to say that the carbon dating of those fossil records is appreciably inaccurate. For God to have done that, he would have been intentionally trying to deceive His creation and that doesn't fit His nature.
Therefore, I assume that the interpretation of the Bible wielded by the young Earth creationists is in error and look for an alternative view. Fortunately that isn't hard to do and leads to a more consistent reading of the Bible.
While not a fan of the long time period "day", I also am straining to see the inconsistencies. Most of 2 deals with the creation of a specific place for man and describes it in some detail. The earlier sections are dealing with a general reconstruction period where the earth is restored to a second habitable state post Lucifer's fall.
If anything, the description between the day 7 rest and the detailed description of Eden can refer easily to the original creation from Gen 1:1 or possibly simply refer to the fact that the new plants had not yet fully matured. It could also be a description of the particular place where Eden was located before its specific creation.
The Bible makes no claims as to the age of anything you mention. It all hinges on three words "In the beginning" which could be any time. Any Bible interpretation suggesting a young age, is just that - an interpretation. My interpretation is that the same Bible requires an old age.
None of this is relevant to the primary work of the Bible - to show the reason why man needs to be reconciled to God, to show the method of that reconciliation, and to warn of the consequences of not reconciling.
You're forgetting Passover. Crucifixion Wedn. afternoon, high holy special Sabbath for the Passover celebration (Wedn. sunset to Thursday sunset), normal day (Thursday sunset to Friday sunset) during which time the women prepared the items to take to the tomb, normal Sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset), resurrection after Saturday sunset, followed by their first day of the week and the discovery that He was risen.
Three days and three nights. Consistent.
I voted for classrooms. There is arguably only one spot in the list where 100% of the people should not be texting and that is the classroom. You are there to learn something. Don't distract yourself. If you have a bad teacher, and think you are so smart that you don't need to take the course anyway - take a tougher course next semester! Ask some insightful and relevant questions to generate some discussion if it's a Q/A type of environment. But tuning out and texting is just plain wrong. Our kids need all the help they can get preparing themselves to work in the real world. Texting doesn't help this at all.
For cars, it doesn't matter if passengers text. For restaurants, it is incredibly rude to text when you are with others, but if you are with a bunch if inconsiderate people who don't care, it doesn't affect me.
Sidewalks while moving - I'd agree. Sidewalks standing against a building - no problem. You would again be banning legitimate usage to fix the problem of a few. This is the current bad philosophy that gets us riled up in so many other facets of our existence. Why add another stupid restriction?
The only of the 10 commandments that was not carried forward to the new testament defining what sin was was specifically the admonition to keep the Sabbath. That was because of what the religious order of Jesus day had done to the tradition of Sabbath keeping. In fact, God, through Christ, went out of His way on occasion to specifically annoy the religious order in their Sabbath traditions by healing on the Sabbath and then commanding the man who was healed to take up his bed and carry it home.
The rest is still there in the new testament. The old testament commandments relating to food are gone because the Jewish people were not wandering about as nomads any longer. The old testament rules for sacrifice that were implemented to specifically cover the people's sin and acknowledge God are gone since Christ paid the price on the cross to do this. Everything else is still there. In fact, over and over again in the sermon on the mount Christ used a phrase similar to - you have heard it said ----, but I say unto you ---- where His standards and thus the standards of the new testament were higher and tougher than what was imposed in the old testament for how people should treat each other, specifically because He had come and was in the process of showing them how it was possible to live righteously and because He would send the Holy Spirit to in-dwell believers and, if they obeyed His promptings, lead them on the right path. Clearly, most don't and they will answer for that before God one day. The higher the position of authority, the more they will have to answer for.
But the law still remains as it is what will be used on the day of the great white throne judgment at the end of the recorded history in the Bible when God judges those who did not accept His plan of salvation before sending them to hell for eternity.
The new covenant is simply the final means of salvation which was alluded to from the time of man's downfall in the garden of Eden. It doesn't eliminate the definitions of sin that cause people to need salvation in the first place, and it certainly gives no indication that God treats it any more lightly on an eternal basis.