Was that a hit song in an alternate universe where the wealthiest people were actually getting less rich and getting taxed more?
If you have a cell connection, you can even drop the thing off in an out of the way place and travel for days before actually taking off. As you said, the pilot could be anywhere on earth.
[This stuff is fun to figure out... A base station of sorts could hold a second battery that keeps the cell modem alive and keeps the onboard battery charged up. Leave the whole thing out in the woods or on a rooftop or something while the pilot goes and hides out. Only the size of the base battery and the likelihood of discovery/accident limit how long it could sit in waiting until deployed.]
Columbine is by far the most common name for the flower, though, and is in fact the namesake of the town in Colorado. Also, Wikipedia seems to list most plants by their genus or genus and species. If you look hard enough (not you in particular), you'll find offense anywhere.
Honestly, I think any sort of skill at all would do. People holding a college degree or certification of mastery of some skilled labor or anything else would be a positive addition to our society. We're probably fine in the "people who can push a broom" category, though. It would only involve normalizing our immigration policies to those of most other countries. Intra-EU aside, most other countries aren't falling all over themselves to get as many of the unskilled, "immediately dependent on the state or crime" class of immigrants as possible.
This is (one of the reasons) why the idea of amnesty for current illegal immigrants is so backwards. Highly motivated people with money and PhDs take many years and tens of thousands of dollars to (sometimes unsuccessfully) get citizenship, but people with no skills, money, or education slip across a border (thus breaking laws in their first steps on US soil) and we'd give citizenship to them? Exactly what sort of society are we trying to build here?
Even for those who needed PowerPoint in order to present I would coach them to not read the slides. The audience will read the words on the slides as you speak. The presenter should be telling a story that engages an audience...
The easiest way to achieve this is to keep all but the most necessary words off of your slides. A big source of the disconnect between the audience and a speaker is the text being presented on the slide. The audience assumes that a slide full of text is a distillation of what the speaker is rambling on about (especially if the speaker keeps reading off of it).
Reserving the slides for helpful visuals keeps the audience's attention on what you're saying. This helps ensure that the Q&A part of the talk isn't just people asking questions that you addressed in your talk because they were too busy reading to listen to what you were actually saying.
"evolutionary criticism . . . is completely forbidden in US schools."
Well, unless you go to school in one of those states where the school boards also don't think children should be trusted to learn about puberty, carbon dating, and history that wasn't vetted by the Club for Growth and the Daughters of Confederate Heroes.
(Another pet peeve is that the whiteboard markers in the room will often be dry, or the chalk missing; which makes the whiteboard/chalkboard useless.)
If you know you're going to a presentation, pack a box of dry erase markers and chalk in your bag before you leave. Once I started doing that, and keeping my own laser pointer and spare batteries, the number of presentation hiccups dropped to nearly zero.
If you're really pissed that you're expected to do a talk without being provided markers, bring some sharpies! That'll leave an impression (or bring a chisel for a blackboard... that'll really leave an impression!)
The article is about research presentations and not classes, but I completely agree with you wrt classes. 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). Then everything else goes on the board while talking.
As for research presentations, I love chalk talks (both giving and attending) and loathe powerpoint presentations. There's something about ppt that seems to make everybody check out.
I taught a couple of the GRE prep courses in college and I disagree (though not for the reasons the prep companies will likely say). The prep courses make you practice, which allows you to solve the problems more quickly and this makes a huge difference. These are timed tests.
I don't remember the SAT well (it's been forever since I took it, but I did do extremely well which helped moderate my poor high school GPA), but the GRE was based very heavily around high-school level skills that needed to be performed quickly to score well. If you hadn't solved some of these problems in years, you'd get them correct but waste time remembering the best strategy for solving them. (Trig, for instance, isn't hard but I never use it and I'm in a math-based field. It took a little while to remember how to quickly solve the problems.)
There's no need to take the prep courses to do well (I didn't), but practice pays off big and the courses encourage you to practice.
Once again, your entire post is speculation and unsubstantiated assertions. My "appeal to authority" was to show you that my perspective has more sources than just my rear. Your position appears to be that there is no added risk to storing sensitive things online (that's the opposite of what I'm stating, and you keep arguing with me) or that the idea of mitigating known risks is nonsense. You're going to have to back that up with something more substantial than breathy rants full of ellipses that ramble on until concluding that your position is correct.
Maintenance and depreciation need to accounted for so that equipment can be kept in good running condition (periodic service or service contracts) and replaced when needed. It's easy for a single lab's equipment to be managed because all of the costs come from a single lab(!). But the costs for shared instruments need to be spread over all of the users and getting the users to pony up that money is really hard.
In the end, filling out a logbook (or electronic equivalent) is bound to generate way fewer complaints than asking everyone to kick in money for support on equipment that they may or may not even use. The equipment needs to be paid for... the lab gear fairy doesn't drop it off for free.
None of this crap needs to be directly connected to the internet with it's own IP address.
This isn't where the problem is. A decent enough firewall can take care of the security as well as it would through NAT and your router. The biggest issue is that none of this crap needs to be connected to creepy Peeping Tom companies and their "analytics". I would love to check my house temperature from work or see what's in my fridge while I'm at the grocery store, but I don't need some creepy company cataloging everything I do for their own sociopathic purposes.
"The Internet of Things" has less and less to do with empowering people in their use of devices and more to do with spying on people by corporate creeps who are looking for a quick buck.
Based on these comments, Slashdotters are also experts on moving goal posts.
Any number of novels by John Brunner, but Stand on Zanzibar if you have to choose one.
Fred Pohl's short-short "Day Million," about a cyborg spaceman and a transgendered otter-woman meeting, falling in love, exchanging virtual reality sex profiles and never meetin again.
Freeman Dyson's essay "The Greening of the Galaxy."
However, if you do use "good" passwords, chances are that you're also able to educate yourself enough about encryption to make - at least - an educated guess about the strength of an encryption scheme.
You're not getting it. Even Bruce Schneier says encryption is hard to get right. While the encryption scheme may be fine, the actual implementation may be utter crap (or subtly flawed). Trusting the encryption as your only line of defense is unwise.
In most companies...
This entire paragraph is just filled with speculation. You don't know the internal business practices of the cloud services any better than I do. Why would you assume that they care about security and separation of access privileges?
1. 2. 3. 4.
If you can't imagine solutions to simple problems like this, how do you feel qualified to judge the quality of encryption software?
As to 5, none of this relates to someone who wants to steal your passwords (as I specifically said in the post you responded to). This is more about mass harvesting of data in the cloud as is commonly done with credit cards, etc. Can you really not see the value in having access to hundreds or thousands of bank accounts?
If you think not blindly trusting random people at companies is paranoid then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.