Superior University Letter Head: Fill & Download for Free

Why does Trump ‘have a grudge against’ Canada? Neurotic personal reasons? Yes, he evidently has those.But those are not the reasons that weigh heaviest.The grudge is held for the same reasons defining the American conservative movement; that defines the Republican party - and is doing via legislation all that Trump can’t do himself with a few squiggles under the Oval Office letter-head. The grudge is held for the reasons that move that deplorable +/-40% of Americans who think their constitution went astray when it was recognised to, morally and rightly, extend its protections beyond landholding adult white males. That’s the same 40% who keep arsenals and ammo-dumps in the hall closet - to defend against those they fear covet their stuff - meaning, of course, their black neighbours and their brown neighbors too. Trump’s their man; the elephant in the room their spirit animal and political mascot.I speak of a 40% of Americans who see democracy not as a priceless end in itself but merely a means to an end - those who see the constitution’s freedoms as a paved road leading to some ‘manifest destiny promised land’ where they - they fortunate white and especially Christian Americans - are deemed to be naturally and inalienably an elite.Canadians have no truck with such appalling childish nonsense. None at all.Canada - Canadians - have taken legislative measures - writing in hard stone a document entrenching constitutionally the natural equal and same enjoyment of personal sovereignty by each and every individual. We created a Charter of Rights & Freedoms - an unambiguous (damn near a ‘powerpoint presentation’) contract informing and directing all elements of government and all individuals as to their recognised as inalienable natural rights - and responsibilities (mainly recognising that no one’s rights weigh an ounce more than any other’s - nor can they negate the rights of others.Canada’s national credo - our most sacred ‘holy’ writ - states, unambiguously, that we are, each and every one of us, fundamentally ‘sovereign’ - that we are free. That our freedom protects us not only from the tyranny of government - federal, provincial (state), or municipal - but from the tyranny of family - of parasitic parents for instance - and, pivotally, from the tyranny of any god(s).Every time an old ‘traditional’ (born of common law) law comes into conflict with The Charter that old law - no matter how hidebound - is made to change.The result is a nation whose laws have steadfastly evolved into ever-stronger manifestations of legal support and protection for sovereign personal choice.Nearly half of all Americans loathe such actual walk the talk expression of all those words between the flowery 18th century prose they recite as platitudes then repudiate in their political actions and daily behaviour.How much wiser - morally superior - is Canada’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms than America’s attempt?Here are a couple of examples. And these examples also explain America’s grudge against Canada. We are what America isn’t but boasts to be. And that is galling.Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a half century ago, as Justice Minister, declared “The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation” - and decriminalized homosexuality in Canada. That he, 15 years later, as Prime Minister , managed to create consensus with a conference of provincial premiers - all of whom led political parties at odds with his own - delivering The Charter which entrenches such personal sovereignty as a natural inalienable given is Canadian history.When ‘marriage equality’ became an issue our constitutional court pointed out that ‘same and equal rights’ means ‘same and equal rights’ - for everybody. Obvious and unequivocably.When ‘death with dignity’ became an issue the same constitutional court said ‘individual sovereignty is individual sovereignty’ - and (with safeguards) each individual has the right to medical assistance in ending their own existence if they’re suffering. The law continues to support this now recognised essential decency and to also accommodate medical practitioners who cannot bring them-selves to give such succor - while ensuring the patient is referred to someone whose ideal of ‘do no harm’ recognises that perpetuating suffering for people whose suffering is not going to end or ease is ‘doing them harm’.When ‘each woman’s right to choose’ became the issue the court recognised yet again that personal sovereignty is personal sovereignty. That, for the purposes of citizenship and law individual sovereignty begins at birth. For decades now, even during a decade of far right governance, ‘each woman’s right to choose’ remains unchallenged (with the exception of a backbencher’s effort that was put to a free vote and tossed).Universal nationally mandated/state administered healthcare. That’s the healthcare inanely vilified by the deplorably ignorant. Meaning those who spew nonsense about ‘death panels’; patients dying while waiting for critical procedures (that, supposedly, they’d not have to wait for if they were in America); and unspecified ‘inferior quality’ care. That’s the care that ensures that nobody, Canadian or not, will be bankrupted or impoverished by medical need. That triages procedures based on seriousness rather than the fatness of the patient’s wallet. (Which is the source of the anecdotal whining mined by American opponents of publicly-funded universal healthcare - the whining of some of my own baby-boomers whose value system prioritises the replacement of their hip over corrective surgery for someone’s child. Who see their ability to golf as more important than a child’s ability to walk at all. Ick.)Canadians support banning handguns and assault weapons -which gives the Trump constituency apoplexy.Criminalization of marital rape became a ‘well, duh, of course’ under Canada’s Charter of Rights & Freedoms - as nation-wide federal law - in 1982. America did not manage to motivate all of its states to do likewise until the mid-1990s. And a federal law (not a binding element of the nation’s constitution) slouched into US federal law in 1993.Canada, and the vast majority of Canadians, you see, want their nation to walk a truly liberal secular democratic walk. Not the liberal secular democratic empty pretense that results from America’s attempt to be simultaneously both a liberal, secular, and democratic - AND conservative, sectarian, and theocratic - society.The utter impossibility of doing so (not ‘difficulty’ - impossibility) is, with barely any consideration expended, obvious. A creed can be ‘liberal’ - based on keeping sovereignty by default an inalienable right of each individual - or it can serve the dominant community’s status quo which bottom lines as ‘the individual belongs to some ultimate other authority. A creed can be ‘secular’ - sworn to addressing the ‘here & now’ needs and desires of the nations aggregated individual citizens - or it can serve the mores of some dominant sect. Silly Christian Americans seem painfully short-sightedly blind to the no-brainer reality that has always followed the theocratization of a nation. That no-brainer consequence? That once the sect - the religion as a whole aggregation - is granted power in the here and now there follows a period of conflict during which the faithful - with all their various ideas of ‘The One True Faith’ - vie (usually spiraling into violent conflicts that are unparalleled in depth of blood and gore) to prove they are that ‘One True Faith’. As Americans tear down the wall that has protected them from religious tyranny (moving it to protect themselves - or at least their ‘Protestant’ selves - from Hispanic - aka ‘Catholic’ immigration - because that, truth be told, is the descriptor that white middle-class America most fears about Hispanics - that they are Catholic. America’s corrupting compromise of its constitutionally offered legacy of personal sovereignty; and of laws made to govern the people being a creation of the people for human benefit alone - that compromise has rendered those values vulnerable to betrayal. And betrayed they have been. By those who revile knowledge - and bow to ‘feels’ - to ‘faith’. This erosion (likely to be rendered democratically legally incorrectable with confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh sometime prior to this November’s midterm elections) condemns America to sectarian infighting that should keep its people occupied for quite a few years to come. Beirut/Lebanon on steroids. That alone should be enough to take America effectively out of the game.But even if America manages to somehow resist that historically established devolution? The contamination of the educational process from K-12 and into college and university - the contamination of the scientific essentials of open debate, of skepticism, of iconoclasty, of irreverence, of rigorous analysis and scathing eternal peer-review - that contamination is, in itself, enough to push America backwards into the ranks of the also-ran nations.America’s vulnerability to such perversion of its educational system is clear. When a Texas schoolbook committee effectively determines what is or isn’t in textbooks in virtually every state - and when that committee does to the curriculum such things as teaching that the Levitical Code is the basis of the United States Constitution and American law (when quite the opposite is true) the emerging American (mis)understanding of history and of governance is doomed. So too when any mention of one of the two contestants vying for the Oval Office in America’s recent Presidential election is edited utterly out of those textbooks. It takes a truly screwy take on reality to support the very idea that a mention of American electoral history that excludes that most recent go - and especially one of the contenders is somehow ‘okay’ - and not an obscene insult to the educational process.America’s insistence on subordinating science to superstition condemns the American scientific community to devolution. To regress. To being also-ran.China is poised to leave America eating its dust in terms of economic leadership. America’s military leadership is stalemated vis-a-vis nuclear superpower status - and its conventional military is poorly suited to addressing the type of conflicts that don’t evolve on battlefields. And America’s status as the liberal secular and democratic template - as the role model for peoples pursuing democracy - isn’t in the running when there’s an actual liberal secular democracy walking the talk in the form of Canada.Canada shames America by comparison. And that is something America can’t be ‘cool’ with. America’s egomaniacal mascot-in-chief least of all.

No. The Sholes layout was created because, while the alphabetical layouts that came before it were easy to learn and show off to potential buyers, they were rubbish in actual use. He reasoned that an efficient keyboard needed to put the letters most often used in English in positions where they were easiest to strike, and balanced between the hands to prevent jamming from occuring when adjacent keys were struck in rapid succession. Using the emerging research on letter frequency and a long series of experiments, he created a keyboard that did just that—allowing typists to speed up to previously unheard of velocity, as fast as their fingers and the mechanism could tolerate.This was the first keyboard layout to be of actual use in practice, and was widely used by clerks transcribing telegraph messages—for whose convenience, a few small tweaks were made.This created a market for the modern typewriter, and the expansion of business and government record keeping caused it to bloom in the early 20th century. The mechanism went through a series of further revisions, mostly by Remington and other companies involved in the early market, to further speed up typing by reducing mechanical limitations (which persisted right up until IBM’s invention of the electric typewriter with its ball-shaped strike head).Remington further corrupted the layout by making a few random changes intended to thwart existing patents, but the point was moot. Remington cornered the market, and their version of Sholes’ layout became the defacto standard.And naturally, it isn’t optimal. However, careful studies by the US Navy and later by several universities have found that the Sholes, or QWERTY layout is sufficiently close to optimal that if another layout (specifically Dvorak) truly is superior, it is by too narrow a margin to measure (by typing speed, at least). This is confirmed by the fact that world’s records for typing speed have consistently bounced back and forth between the Sholes and other layouts. If the perceived suboptimality of its design really mattered, it would have been left in the dust long ago.These studies have found that on any modern keyboard, typing speed is determined by effort and practice, with the layout having no measurable effect. So if you want to speed up typists, your time and money is better spent on letting trained typists practice on QWERTY than on retraining them on anything else. Furthermore, studies in the 1970s and ʼ80s, still during the era of the typing pool, found that in practice, professional typists seldom exceed 35 words per minute, whatever their peak performance on typing speed tests.Now, the Dvorak devotees and the “cult of the superior keyboard” will now chime in that even if all this is true, their favorite keyboard is more comfortable. Good, then use it. No one is stopping you. But the human hand is among the most variable biomechanical devices in all of nature. What works for you doesn’t work for everyone, so experiment and find your sweet spot.Actual science shows, however, that just as speed is not determined by keyboard layout, ergonomic performance is more impacted by posture, habit, and workstation design. Fundamentally, any flat keyboard will do a poor job of fitting human anatomy, but any contoured keyboard will be harder to use.As usual, life is a bag of trade-offs.

It is totally depends on you whether you are interested to do master's or not. According to my view it is great idea. Some information regarding this is given below. I think it will helpful to you.Academic RequirementsPlease see the programme website in order to find a detailed applicant's profile. Generally requested is:Bachelor in Engineering or Bachelor in Science related to your envisioned study programme awarded by an internationally recognised university-level institution.Very good performance in your undergraduate studies.Language Requirements EnglishFor all of our master's programmes: A certified proof of your competence in the English language through the completion of one of the accepted examinations listed below:TOEFL Internet based minimum of 90 pts/Paper based minimum of 577 pts.IELTS test minimum overall band 5,5 pts.Cambridge Test – Certificate in Advanced English (CAE),First Certificate in English (FCE), completed with B,Placement-Test of RWTH Aachen University's language centre (B2).For German applicants: Ein Zeugnis, das englische Sprachkenntnisse auf dem Niveau B2 des "Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmens (GeR)" ausweist. Dieser Nachweis wird z.B. durch die Vorlage eines deutschen Abiturzeugnisses erbracht, aus dem ersichtlich ist, dass Englisch bis zum Ende der Qualifikationsphase 1 (Jahrgangsstufe 11 bei G8-Abitur, sonst Jahrgangsstufe 12) durchgängig belegt und mit mindestens ausreichenden Leistungen abgeschlossen wurde.In general:The score reports must not be older than two years by 1 August of the year the degree course you are applying for will start.Some countries have special requirements for language profiency, please clarify this with your embassy in advance.A copy of the score report needs to be uploaded in the online application system, in case of admission the original scores have to be presented for enrolment in August.Exemptions for the language requirements are only applicable for nationals or first degree holders from USA, UK, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia.Letter of RecommendationPlease note that there is no standard form or format for the letter of recommendation required. The letter of recommendation can be issued by a university professor/lecturer or by a superior from your employment. It should, however, present the following information:your relationship to the authoryour academic/professional historyyour qualities/achievements/ambitions in your respective fieldyour personal traits and goalsthe author’s signaturebe written on the institution’s/company’s letter head (if possible)bear the stamp of the issuing institution/company (if possible)Additional Requirements - Professional Work ExperienceThe proof of work experience must include the following information:Complete address and stamp of the companyContact details and reference of supervisorDate of joining and, if applicable, resignation dateWeekly hoursJob positionShort task description