This is the first country love song released by Brooks. A man lies awake at night, thinking what would happen in his love's mind if he were to die the next day. The first line in the chorus reads: "If tomorrow never comes, will she know how much I love her?" He goes on to compare this situation with his own lost loved ones, and how he made a promise to say each day how much she means to him. The song begins with a soft guitar solo and gradually builds up to a more orchestrated accompaniment. Brooks has written many love songs since. This song is about the love of a father to his daughter, not to his lover. Garth said that on stage at Belmont University to Britt Todd and in his music video he has his daughter playing next to him while he sings.
Get lyrics of Mp3 juice red if savage ocean and kung fu tomorrow never comes song you love. List contains Mp3 juice red if savage ocean and kung fu tomorrow never comes song lyrics of older one songs and hot new releases. Get known every word of your favorite song or start your own karaoke party tonight :-).
Get lyrics of Tomorrow never comes mp3 juice if tomorrow never comes song you love. List contains Tomorrow never comes mp3 juice if tomorrow never comes song lyrics of older one songs and hot new releases. Get known every word of your favorite song or start your own karaoke party tonight :-).
Get lyrics of Migos albums mp3 juice red if tomorrow never comes song you love. List contains Migos albums mp3 juice red if tomorrow never comes song lyrics of older one songs and hot new releases. Get known every word of your favorite song or start your own karaoke party tonight :-).
Unfortunately the soldiers never notice the other military aged male who crawls out of the pickup truck bed (where the soldiers had no visual) and plants an improvised explosive device (IED) on the side of the road, in front of a casually parked civilian car-bomb on the street. The distracting civilian is on a suicide mission; only obliges for detention after allowing enough time for the IED to be successfully buried. The intent of the perpetrators is to wait for U.S. HUMVEEs to roll out of the base, and detonate the charges remotely when U.S. soldiers drive past them. Enough ordnance was planted in a matter of seconds to utterly destroy two HUMVEEs. This training scenario is, unfortunately, very real. 64% of all U.S. lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan so far, were lost due to IED explosions that have been treacherously planted like this, exploiting the humanity and rules of engagement of U.S. soldiers. Let us look at the next scenario where my research comes in for the rescue.
My teaching philosophy is to foster methodical doubt in engineering students, and redirect it to a positive outlet. I believe student curiosity is the fundamental resource for engineering education. My vision of the aspiring engineer of tomorrow is the one believes those who are seeking the truth, but doubts those who find it. It is therefore a tragedy to evade teaching engineering students to doubt and thus depriving them from the key to a sustainable engineering education that will not stop at the diploma. Some students, and I consider myself fortunate to have been one of them, are bitten by the monster curiosity bug, and those that survive the after effects can doubt unassisted. The better share however are not thus fortunate; they either never met the bug or bitten by a baby such that the effects have worn off due to career concerns. It is on our shoulders as the educators to spark their natural inquisitive behavior by a healthy injection of doubt. Either way, my intention is to maximize the total curiosity in the classroom, to make every class interesting, practical, challenging, and most importantly, learner-centric (i.e., effective) so my students look forward to coming to class, and feel bad for missing any.
Removing "or later versions" would lead to many new free software projects later arriving in the same mess the Linux copyrights are in. If an absurd interpretation of GPLv2 was ruled valid by a court tomorrow, what would Linux do? It would have to relicence and it would be a mess. FSF foresaw this mess decades ago and put two infrastructures in place. One is the "or later versions" language, another is the copyright assignment for GNU projects.two quick points.Firstly, i have heard this "what if the GPLv2 is ruled unenforceable" boogeyman a number of times. It is just not happening. What is happening is that the GPLv2 is alive and kicking and enforced (and even litigated) in lots of important jurisdictions. A healthy number of precedents have built up in Europe for example, and in the US 99%+ of the defendants rushed into settlements without even thinking about a trial. Judges in Germany, the US and elsewhere are showing a clear and deep understanding the GPL and the obligations attached to it.Please think about it, and dont just accept the FSF's position at face value. Please show some critical thinking. On one side of the equation are more than 1 billion lines of code, worth tens of billions of US dollars, given away for free, with a few common-sense conditions attached to it, described in very clear words (in the GPLv2) that is easily translated to many languages, and which has been enforced to the true letter and intent of that license in important jurisdictions.On the other hand we have the theoretical worst-case possibility of some other jurisdiction suddenly growing an "absurd" interpretation of the GPLv2, which, i assume, would mean the forfeiture of the whole codebase and its putting into the public domain. What is better protection against absurdity than the plain and clear language of the GPLv2. Secondly, what kind of judge do you think would do that to a body of work that has such a huge value, which wouldnt immediately be overturned on appeal? Judges are often amongst the fairest and most objective people in most societies (even in dictatorships), and the law is based on thousands of years of history of fairness. I trust judges a lot more to interpret my license than i trust a mathematician that is currently presiding the FSF ...Secondly, it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the only option is a total rewrite of the GPLv2. There are lots of options. The FSF could add a limiting language like: "if any portion of the license becomes unenforceable then we reserve the option to correct that language, with the minimal amount of changes needed to make it enforceable again".Problem solved via GPLv2.01. But i get the feeling that giving up power and letting the community go is quite hard for Richard Stallman to do ... The crux of the issue Posted Oct 6, 2006 14:52 UTC (Fri) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link] 2b1af7f3a8