Gee, It's nice to know that I am 30 years ahead of my time.

'The online revolution offers intriguing opportunities for broadening access to education. But, so far, the evidence shows that poorly designed courses can seriously shortchange the most vulnerable students.'

Any poorly designed course shortchanges students, whether it is online or traditional. People learn in different ways and have different circumstances. For some people, online courses are heaven sent. For others they may be hell sent. And in both cases it can depend on the teacher. The same can be said for traditional courses. When it comes course design, it is apropos to blame the messenger.

By the way, what where Exxon and BP's reported profits last year?

And how much did Exxon and BP pay in federal income taxes and how much did they get in subsidies?

Vomiting is caused by viruses. I thought it was caused by eating one thin little mint.

Shoot, now I'll have to go someplace else for Thanksgiving.

These standards are unnecessary since electronic voting machines (EVMs) should be banned. There is no way to verify or audit the vote with EVMs.

Paper ballots that can be read by humans should be used instead. If there is a problem, the paper ballots can be recounted.

Once, when I took an online course, I printed out my test before I submitted my answers. I missed a question and checked my printout. I had answered the question correctly. So, did I accidentally change the answer, did the answer get flipped in transit or did the answer get flipped by the computer? This is why EVMs scare me. Like my online test, there is no way to verify the result.

A business executive was once asked what is the best word processing program and responded by saying a good secretary.

Nothing will replace a good teacher. A good teacher helps you learn faster with more depth. That is not to say that computer based education is pointless because this type of education can help especially in areas of low resources, covering areas that might not be covered, or for basic knowledge.

So computers may help and may even be good alternatives in some cases, but just as there is no replacement for a good secretary, there is no replacement for a good teacher.

Consider what your grandmother liked.

If it is parks, then a plaque in the park is good. If she loved babies, then perhaps you could donate time to a crisis nursery or help them build a web application. If she loved animals, then perhaps do the same for an animal shelter. If she loved science, then you could help with a program that gets children interested in science.

With a little thought, I am sure you could come up with a great way to honor your grandmother's memory.

I do not smoke, and I hate smoking to the point that I feel smoking should only be allowed between consenting adults in their own home. However, employers telling me what I can and cannot do after hours is none of their business. There are many good reasons for banning smoking at work (and even in public), and that is legitimate, but on my own time I should be able to do whatever I want. If I want to get totally drunk at home, that is my choice, as long as I am sober and perform well at work, then it is none of the employer's business. Likewise, if a person wants to smoke when not at work, that is not an employer's business. Where will it end? Could employers tell employees they have to go to their church on Sunday? An employer needs to be concerned with how I perform at work. What I do on my own time is none of their business. We need to stop this foolishness.

Your reasoning is absurd based on the evidence.

The U.S. Spends more than 17 percent of its GDP on health care, the next nearest country spends 12 percent, or 40 percent more.

We have higher infant mortality and shorter life span than almost all other developed countries, and we leave 50 million uninsured. Even at its best, the Affordable Care Act will still leave about 25 million uninsured.

In the U.S. Medicare Advantage insurance costs 13 percent more than equivalent Medicare coverage and administrative costs for Advantage plans average 11 percent compared to Medicare's two percent administrative costs.

The evidence is in, government run health care is more efficient than the privately run systems in the U.S. I have yet to find a counter example. The evidence speaks for itself.

Our current health care system is a giant subsidy that cost Americans more than $750 billion per year. (Five percent GDP, which is about $15 trillion for the U.S.)

Sometimes, government regulation is needed and necessary. We are still suffering the subprime mortgage crisis caused by a lack of government regulation. A single-payer system would cost less and cover everybody.

Single-payer! The only way to control health care costs. Eventually the United States will have to go to a single-payer system. Otherwise, we will continue to have the most expensive and and worse health care system of any developed country.

The SIM cards are already too small and hard to handle. They should be made 20 percent larger.

Now I will have to change my password from "password" to "12345678."

--
A woman once said to Adlai Stevenson, "Every thinking person in America will vote for you," to which Stevenson replied, "That won't be enough, ma'am, I need a majority."

"The telescope is so sensitive that it could even pick up television signals from distant worlds — something that might aid in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."

Or remove all doubt that the extraterrestrial life is intelligent.