Not sure if you're an idiot or not.
I personally have little tolerance for stupidity, probably why I got into tech in the first place. I may have a better initial reaction to a pretty girl, but if she is a stereotypical dumb blonde, I quickly start talking down to her and say things like "in layman speak" - translation "I've seen smarter squirrels, so I'm going to really dumb this down for you, you petulant (because they often are) fool."
Fortunately, most blondes I knew in school were smart and completely against stereotype. I didn't have any girls in my college math courses (calc II-VI, and seriously, zero), but in pre-calc and calc my high school (accelerated math) study partner was Megan, a gorgeous, athletic blonde (she was all state in track) with a pretty nice rack to boot. Yeah, objectification there, but when I think of someone that had everything (brains and looks), I think of her. Unfortunately, she dated and mated with a dumb jock I intensely disliked and spurted out some kids right after high school graduation, so I doubt she went to college or got a job using her brains, which is unfortunate. That dumb jock did go to college (my college, which is how I know) on a football scholarship and failed out (rumors are with a 0.0 GPA, though that is possibly just rumors my friends started). I never saw or heard from either of them after that year, not that I've made any effort to look them up.
By the time women take the SAT, they've been culturally pushed away from math and science; for instance, I see this with my brother's girl, who HATES math with a passion just like her mom, and she is 8. If you're culturally indoctrinated by 8, there isn't much hope. OTOH, there is hope for one of my nieces, who is one of the top ranked girls in her state for math (in fact, I think she was the top ranked girl, but was behind a couple of boys overall) and has a geneticist mom. Unfortunately, I know far too many of the former mom/daughter pairs and too few of the latter.
It runs on OSX and Linux, neither of which have native DirectX support because Microsoft keeps their graphics technology under tight wraps. All implementations of it not shipped by Microsoft need to be reverse engineered from the API. OpenGL is licensed to hardware manufacturers (which is how development is paid for) and accessing the API is free for software developers.
Yeah, probably minimal, since it is bytecode level (what HLSL and GLSL compile into)
The bad - this is DX 9.0c, which is analogous to OpenGL 2.0 (with extensions - note that ATI drivers didn't support extensions at the time, so more like 2.2+ for them) and in console terms, XBox 360/PS3 tech. OTOH, OpenGL went through a major paradigm shift with OpenGL 3 and 4 that make it work more like HLSL, so I expect shader conversion is much easier. When I ported a DX10 shader to OpenGL 3 it was much easier (but much harder was porting the entire OpenGL 2 project to 3).
How's that old saying go? Security through obscurity is not security at all?
One compromise that I like is slides for complicated figures (that would take forever for you to draw, poorly, on the board) and handouts of those slides so that the students don't have to try to recreate them (again, poorly).
Indeed. I would even go so far as to say that this is not a compromise, but the actual, honest-to-goodness, correct use of slides in a presentation, and has been since the dawn of the slide projector. Complicated figures, photographs (of, say, an archaeological excavation or Civil War soldier), or the hypotheses of a theorem that you are planning to prove on the board are reasonable things to put on a slide, and are things that should be put up on the screen for reference. Lacking a projector, handouts are a good alternative (and, perhaps, might be preferable, except for the time that it takes to pass them out and the fact that most of them will end up on the trash).
The US government itself has little to do with nuclear energy. Congress gave that job to the NRC, and the NRC is both a salesman and regulator, so it has a serious conflict of interest. Basically, they are Westinghouse's (aka Toshiba Energy) bitch.
Ours is kind of on the small side...
In any case, I'm standing on a giant fission reactor and you probably are too (unless you're in flight) - that technology seems to work on a much smaller scale.
I've found the majority of people just ape what their party tells them, even if it is completely wrong, whether it be liberalism, socialism, communism (of which we only refer to the dictatorship form, not like in, say, the natural communism in some Amish or Mennonite communes), or whatever. For instance, socialism does not mean a nanny state, and in fact, works quite well with Capitalism as shown by employee owned businesses and co-ops. Applying socialist concepts to government is called bureaucracy, but it does not a socialism make, as Yoda would say.
Anyhow, I almost always want to bop people over the head when they talk about liberalism, socialism, or even conservative-ism because they are nearly always wrong. In fact, you can be liberal and conservative at the same time, since conservative essentially means keeping things as they were or bringing things back to the way they were (so, for instance, you could be conservative and bring back pensions where pensions were killed off - this extra spending will likely label you a liberal, but since you are bringing back tradition, you are conservative).