Most of us would probably commute in this thing.
This is not a sensible commuting car. A plug-in hybrid with a 30 mile all-electric range would make more sense. Why pay for for a 265 mile battery range when you are just going to use 10% of that capacity? For longer trips you will also have the ability to fall back on gasoline.
The problem with his analysis is that he assumes the hardware is free. Also, not many people pay a marginal rate of $0.066/kW-hr for electricity.
I'm sorry, I must have missed where we were shooting down their satellites.
What makes you so sure that we didn't shoot it down?
We've been through this for decades, with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc.
The leaders of two of these countries (Iraq and Libya) gave up their WMDs. They are both now dead. If we want the leaders of rogue nations to give up their nukes, maybe should stop killing them when they do.
The lobbyists, being based in the US are not doing anything illegal.
It is a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to bribe any government official, anywhere in the world.
Imagine the outrage in the US if Chinese or European groups drafted a law for congress.
Why would anyone care? A proposed law should be judged on its merits, not its origin.
What cause would that be? Evading taxes?
The more taxes he can avoid, the better. He is putting the money to far better use than the government would.
Attempting to buy a legacy?
So what? What difference does it make what his motivations are? His foundation has already saved millions of lives, and improved the lives of millions more. All those lives are not worth less just because his motivations are not pure enough for you.
If you are young and briliant you have a choice, help the world or help yourself and become filthy rich
False dilemma. Profit seeking capitalists have done far more good for the world than philanthropists.
One school I attended only allowed two CLEP tests per semester. I have absolutely no idea why both in this practical situation or in theory.
Possibly because wider acceptance of CLEP test results for material learned online would put them out of business.
A professor cannot teach 300,000 people.
Of course not. But 300,000 people can watch one professor's lecture. Teaching is more than just lecturing, but by delivering the lecture to a mass audience, you can divert a lot of resources into other aspects of teaching.
That's nothing more than a video presentation, which no more replaces an actual teacher than a book is a substitute for a class.
So do you also think we shouldn't use books?
What you're describing isn't bringing technology to school. It's just using technology to send information.
No it isn't. You should visit a modern "flipped" classroom. The students watch the lectures online at home, and do the "homework" at school. The teachers don't lecture, they teach , mostly one-on-one with any student that is having problems. By using mass lectures, you are not commoditizing education, you are freeing up resources so that you can customize it for each student.
They only interviewed 42 faculty members for this study? Seems like too small of a sample to come to any kind of conclusion.
It is also a very biased sample. Asking professors what they think about instructional technology is sort of like asking Luddites what they think of looms. It would make more sense to ask the students.
Why? What do "today's tech/IT settings" bring to the table that is of actual benefit to the learning environment?
Lower costs and better instruction. By using technology, a professor can teach to 300,000 instead of thirty. So instead of having 10,000 mediocre professors each teaching to 30 students, you can have the single very best professor teach to them all.
Interaction?
Along with the video, provide a web forum where the students can discuss the presentation, ask/answer questions, collaborate on homework problems, etc. That is a much better interaction than is available in most classrooms. The professor can read the forum, and use the feedback to improve the lecture video for the next semester.
This is the actual answer.
No it isn't. The real reason is that Australia has a relatively small population, so the cost of translating all the documentation into Australian is spread across fewer customers.
storming of Bastille
America was already a democracy when the Bastille was stormed. It would make more sense for the French to celebrate July 4th.
modern Western power structures
Is that a good thing?
and Napoleon Code.
Except for Louisiana, American law isn't based on the Napoleonic Code, and Louisiana has long been the worst governed and most corrupt state in the country.
"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.
