salento blog

train times galatone gallipoli  = https://www.fseonline.it/risultatiricerca.aspx?type=1

beach in gallipoli  10minute walk from gallipoli station

restaurants near bed and b

Qualo

23 recensioni

N. 7 di 25 Ristoranti a Galatone

€Italiana

Piazza San Demetrio, 10, 73044 Galatone, Italia

Trattoria da Santino

Questa è la vostra struttura?

45 recensioni

N. 8 di 25 Ristoranti a Galatone

€Italiana

Via Armando Diaz 34 | G, 73044 Galatone, Italia

+39 380 795 3637

Scialaba'

141 recensioni

N. 16 di 25 Ristoranti a Galatone

€Pizza, Pesce, Mediterranea

Piazza Umberto I, 8 | Nei Pressi di Via Regina Elena, 73044 Galatone, Italia

london

me

John Peters Ringo (May 3, 1850 – July 13, 1882)—known as Johnny Ringo—was an American Old West outlaw loosely associated with the Cochise County Cowboys in frontier Tombstone, Cochise County, Arizona Territory, United States. He took part in the Mason County War during which he committed his first murder.

 He was arrested and charged with murder, but escaped from jail. He was affiliated with Cochise County Sheriff Johnny Behan, Ike Clanton, and Frank Stilwell during 1881–1882. 
He got into a confrontation in Tombstone with Doc Holliday and was suspected by Wyatt Earp of having taken part in the attempted murder of Virgil Earp and the ambush and death of Morgan Earp. 

Ringo was found dead with a bullet wound to his temple. Modern writers have advanced various theories attributing his death to Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, Frank Leslie, and Michael O'Rourke

I wanted to punch a grown man in the face the other day.

I wanted to punch a grown man in the face the other day.

He'd been in a shit job  for years earning about 1,600 euros a month  , and we decided to meet up for coffee at the suggestion of a mutual professional connection.

I spent 90 minutes pouring every ounce of passion I had into this guy , coming up with at least a dozen ways he could take his personal story and work history and create a new narrative both online and in person. I showed him how he could use tools like LinkedIn to circumvent the gatekeeper system and start connecting and engaging with the actual decision makers and hiring managers of the places he wanted to work at.

The Walking Dead

The guy just slouched lower in his seat, nodding meekly as I went all Sgt. Slaughter on him. It took everything I had not to jump up, shove the table between us aside, grab him by the collar and shout: "Hey! You want something? You have to go get it! You need to hustle! You need to show a pulse! You need to personalize your approach and show others how once they hire you, they'll realize they can't live without the value and benefit you bring their business!"

By the time we were finished, I was emotionally exhausted. I might as well have been trying to motivate a mannequin. As a test, I gave the guy my card and said, "Email me, and ask me to make the introductions to the people I told you about, or to give you more advice on the job search strategies I'm telling you about, and we can go from there."

The guy never emailed.

The Land of Plenty

What makes encounters like that one all the more maddening is that we're living in a time of almost limitless opportunity.

Think about it. We now carry a portable television studio (iPhone) in our pocket. We have the ability to broadcast our own television show to the entire world for free thanks to outlets like YouTube.

We have the ability to create our own personal printing press or online company thanks to blogs and websites. (Again, for free!)

We can write and publish books on the world's largest bookstore (Amazon.com) for free in a matter of minutes.

We can locate, engage and network with leaders and decision makers at every large and small business on the planet (again, at no cost) thanks to LinkedIn.

And your excuse for being out of work or staying stuck in a job you hate is what again?

Reality Bites

Here's the deal: You are going to die.

I don't say this to be morbid, but rather to remind us all that you only get one shot to really live.

I believe you were put on this planet for a reason, and that you have a unique value and benefit to share with the rest of us - in the business world and beyond.

So why are you wasting another 24 hours sitting on the sidelines of life?

Why aren't you chasing your dreams and doing what you love?

Passion. Purpose. Persistence.

Somebody turned me onto Napoleon Hill's book Think and Grow Rich a few months back.

I was intrigued because Hill kept saying there was one simple secret behind the most successful people on the planet - men like Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and countless others.

What I discovered is that it really boils down to three things: Passion, Purpose and Persistence.

Passion is the activity we'd pay someone else to let us do, let alone doing it for a living and getting money for it.

Purpose is what we want out of life. And the more specific we can be about that, the better. Purpose also fuels Passion. As a mentor of mine likes to say, "You'll never make seven figures with six figure work habits."

Persistence is the most important of all. The life you want and the career you crave will not happen on its own.

"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence," Calvin Coolidge said. "Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

Arguably the greatest - and most clutch - basketball player in NBA history is Michael Jordan, winner of six NBA titles and five league MVP awards.

Jordan got cut from his high school team as a sophomore. He missed more than 9,000 shots during his career. He lost more than 300 games.

"I've failed over and over and over again in my life," Jordan is quoted as saying. "And that is why I succeed."

Let's Make a Deal

The only thing holding you back from living the life you want and doing the work you love is you.

That's why I wanted to punch that guy in the face the other day.

Will you make me a promise? Will you share this with someone who needs a kick in the pants? (If that person is you, print this post out and keep it on your desk!)

Look, the last thing we need is one more professional working a job he or she isn't passionate about. It's bad for you, it's bad for your customers and its bad for your employer.

So get after it!

labtop

Astudy just appeared in Education Next, under the title “Should Professors Ban Laptops?” The study worked like this:

Researchers went to West Point and tracked students in three sections of Principles of Economics. One section was technology-free—no laptops or tablets permitted in the classroom. A second section gave students the freedom to use laptops and tablets at their discretion, with no controls or requirements. A third section was “tablet only,” a method “designed to replicate the intended use of Internet-enabled technology as a non-distracting resource during class.” The aim of this section, and of such methods generally, was to implement technology in the classroom while preventing students from hijacking it for non-academic purposes.

The experiment was run with 50 classrooms and 726 students over two terms. Each instructor, too, taught at least one no-technology section and one of the other two sections. The decisive measure was performance by students on the final exam. The results were striking—and disappointing for people who believe that better classroom technology and implementation will produce higher student achievement.

Here is the finding for unrestricted technology use relative to no technology use: Exam scores dropped by 0.18 standard deviations.

And here is the finding for restricted technology use relative to no technology use: Exam scores dropped by only slightly less, 0.17 standard deviations.

The small difference suggests that attempts to streamline classroom technology to academic purposes alone are ineffectual or, when they are effectual, indicate that something inherent in the technology is part of the problem.

When we convert the numbers to GPA measures, the finding goes like this:

[A] student in a classroom that prohibits computers is on equal footing with a peer who is in a class that allows computers and whose GPA is one-third of a standard deviation higher—nearly the difference between a B+ and an A- average, for example.

There is more. When the researchers broke the sample up into subgroups by race, gender, college-entrance exam scores, and high school GPA, “in no group did students appear to significantly benefit from access to computers in the classroom.”

The findings support those of us who have banned technology from our classrooms for many years. We have been called “Luddites,” people captive to “moral panics,” and get-off-my-lawn curmudgeons. Just the other day, in a puerile defense of Twitter and texting as writing platforms in the Wall Street Journal, an English teacher referred to people who bemoan the writing that takes place on social media as “schoolmarms.” (The piece stands behind a paywall.)

But while the pro-technology innovators have typically cast traditionalists as hidebound and unempirical people caught up in myths and anxiety, the truth is the opposite. Technology enthusiasts are the real ideologues in this debate (and a lot of them make a whole lot of money on the wiring of schools). The empirical evidence against computers in the classroom is mounting (the Education Next article reviews several other studies).

At the very least, the jury is out on the value of computer-assisted instruction. Some day we may have evidence of genuine academic advancement arising from the outfitting of classrooms and students with the latest devices, which cost millions of dollars. Until then, teachers should draw back, return to pencil and paper and chalkboards, and determine for themselves whether the promises of digital instruction are just so much hot air.