Re: Wireless Power Nearly There

Some do and some don't. The ones who don't never do have money to waste. One of my more frustrating days was when i could not convince a housemate that the bigger package was a ripoff though the higher per unit price was clearly printed on the label.

It usually not the staffers that are doing this. It is the pandering politicians dictating the disposals of books.

Kris seems to have a higher standard of civil. Kris may very well be right in trying to keep higher standards.

Yep. I had an "F" at mid-term, but "B" as a final grade.

...Jim Thompson

You're talking software; I was talking hardware.

jmfbahciv wrote in news:WIydnYvs04eIHifVnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@rcn.net:

Given that you made no allowances for individual preferences/abilities that fall outside of your observations, all I did was add a significant detail to your statement, based in part on what I've read abotu brain studies, and part upon people I've known personally. That's very different from saying "you said X".

I'm not "arguing", I'm stating the biological fact re: chromosomal makeup and the meaning of "statistical norm". This is related to both my university degree and my past profession, as well as continued reading/study; the notion of "win/lose", with regard to that, is irrelevant.

All I said is that, although most females you have personally observed (or perhaps noticed) seem to prefer algebra, that doesn't mean that *none* prefer geometry.

JosephKK wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Probably true - but then *they* ought to be given the proverbial boot. Again, injustice is never rectified by merely imposing additional injustices. Similarly, the abilities and opportunities for one group cannot be promoted by removing a given set of opportunities for *all* groups.

CHildren shoudl be exposed to all sorts of things and encouraged to pursue their interests and abilities. When nitwits start passing decrees that result in reducing the opportunities for children to explore, they not only create miserable individuals, but they *also* harm society at large, because their ignroant hubris and, let's be honest!, gender-based

JosephKK wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'm not alone in that desire. Mainly, "being civil" simply means taking a minute to consider what someone is trying to say, consider the other person;s perspective, rather than react with habitual knee-jerk emotional reactions. Too many poele seem to wake up in the morning with the idea that others are merely out to insult them (as tho' they're the epicenter of everyone else's thoughts); I suppose it can also be described as "having a chip on one's shoulder". The problem is that this egocentric defensiveness and its accompanying aggressive (or worse, passive-aggressive) "first strike" mindset shuts out anyone who even slightly disagrees with, or is even slightly different from, the person who has this mindset.

From a purely practical standpoint, i.e. not involving any "warmfuzzy- touchyfeelie" stuff, that sort of hubris is at best unconstructive, and at worst, destructive, especially in situations where a problem needs to be solved; defensiveness, emotionalism, and aggression/passive-aggressiveness don't solve anything, and instead, egotistical tantrums distract others from concentrating on what is significant. That sort of narcissism values nothing, nobody, except for itself - and therefore is not only incapable of comprimise, but also, erroneously views simple civility as either "weak" or "stupid", or some variation thereof. One of the central concepts of civility, after all, is the fact that the rational individual doesn't necessarily have to like someone in order to acknowledge that at least some of the other person's ideas have value/merit; additionally, one learns nothing by only surrounding oneself with those who have the same ideas and opinions and so on as oneself - and, more to the point, when dealing with an adversary, learning is quite important.

Last but not least, as it says in Proverbs 15:1, "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger", and the real-life (as opposed to online fantasy life) advantage of treating others with at least some modicum of civility is that it helps one avoid things like being punched in the face or having one's tires slashed. But hey, if someone else chooses to think that is "stupid" or "weak" to avoid inciting others, then heck, he's more than welcome to "prove" his "cleverness/manhood" by having *his* tires slashed, or getting punched in the face, if that's what floats his boat. After all, some people do seem to thrive on contention and aggravation , tho' personally, I prefer a jovial gathering over grilled brats and good beer ;)

JosephKK wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

What I find incredible is that I was always told I was "an idiot" at math, because I "only" scored in the bottom of the upper third percentile in the aptitude tests, and got a D in 2nd semester Calculus. When I see the complete lack of even the most rudimentary arithmetic skills that is currently the proud norm, I find it sickening. For all of the fancy stuff that schools *supposedly* teach, I see less and less evidence of basic knowledge, basic thinking skills, and basic coping skills...

They believe big government will take care of them ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Then you can use that as a test when you consider getting involved with somebody financially.

/BAH

Nope. I place the blame of this trend at the feet of the so-called intelligensia. They keep reminding me of the story about opening the gates to the barbarians. The reactions of liberal females to McCain's choice of VP is astounding. Most comments are vicious and start off with denigrating the fact that this woman is able to put dinner on the table without a man (she knows how to fish).

/BAH

college

for

Kewl. Most people would have quit.

/BAH

I was talking about both.

/BAH

What was your past profession?

My observations were in the math dept and listening to some very, very smart women.

Where did you get your observations?

/BAH

You both are contributing to the problem by playing the blame game and overlooking that it has become acceptable to dumb down the entire population. It's become more than acceptable; to object to this practice makes you a social pariah.

/BAH

college

for

to

I was influenced in my youth by, of all people, a sportscaster on WSAZ TV, Huntington, WV, Jack Bradley (Budnick)... "Winners never quit, quitters never win".

...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Only when you're quitting the same thing you were hoping to win. :-)

Folks from Weird Al Yankovic to Michael Dell to Bill Gates are arguably much better off for having quit college than sticking with it, after all.

My father attended college back in the mid-'60s and was allowed to drop classes up to six weeks into the semester (with no ramifications), by which point you'd done some homework and typically had your first exam. His policy was that if he wasn't getting a B or better at that juncture, he dropped the course (and, if it was required or he really wanted to know the material, took it at a later date from a different professor). Unfortunately, by the time I went to college (same place -- UW-Madison), you had all of two weeks to drop classes without it showing up on your transcript, so this "strategy" was no longer applicable.

---Joel

for

Rather more than an ordinary recovery. So what kind of things did you learn?