And the idea is, from this we can actually teach everything -- well, everything that can be taught in this type of a framework.

Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case, fall back on the popular phobia against atheism: Teach your children evolution in biology class, and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual "pre-version."

The redefined physician is human, knows she's human, accepts it, isn't proud of making mistakes, but strives to learn one thing from what happened that she can teach to somebody else.

The poem that's coming up is based on him trying to tell me a little something about a domestic point of etiquette in country living that I had a very hard time, at first, processing.

So to put that number in perspective, for Andrew to reach that same size audience by teaching a Stanford class, he would have to do that for 250 years.

But what is this technology worth to a teacher in a classroom trying to show a bully just how harmful his actions are from the perspective of the victim?

So for 15 years now, starting from my Ph.D. at Caltech and then leading Stanford's Vision Lab, I've been working with my mentors, collaborators and students to teach computers to see.

And if you don't understand that in your mental model of this stuff, what happens inside of a cell seems completely mysterious and fortuitous, and I think that's exactly the wrong image for when you're trying to teach science.

I'm trying to teach my children that turning yourself up is just not some perfect idea of how to be great, it's a way of living -- constantly looking for what makes you different and how you can amplify it for the world to see.

Do I tell him that even if he pays for his Skittles and sweet tea there will still be those who will watch him and see a criminal before child; who will call the police and not wait for them to come.