Well that I think depends on other issues. I mean if having a soda with you meals makes it way easier to stay on a healthy diet and thus your eating habits improve over all. And you don't have any soda outside of meal times. Then it still can't be argued to be that bad of a thing. I mean sure a good diet+no soda is technically better but if it's to hard for the person to stick to well then they aren't getting any benefit from it. Where with the soda they are getting some even if it's less then if they had also cut out the soda.
Also what kind of soda's are they drinking? could it be that they are sticking to a diet, or sugar fee kind? That do exist even if they aren't as popular.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
And we finally hit Godwin's law.
While I would of preferred someone else in office. I do believe he's going to do a better job then Hillary would of. Sure she can talk a good game, but she had more then a few chances to put her money where her mouth was in her current job yet what she actually did was quite the opposite. Not to mention a certain stunt she pulled that showed she's either wanton negligent with money or was setting up backroom deals in a way that she could cut out the paper trail when needed. Neither of which is someone who is a good fit to be in charge.
As for the popular vote thing, I don't think it truly reflects the popular vote. On the surface it seems like it would, but you gotta remember that most people knew on some level the effect EC would have on the vote. Even if all they knew was that votes from their state only count towards the one who gets a majority in that state. Meaning that votes for a 3rd party candidate or a write in basically don't count unless by some rare quark they mange to get a majority in that state. So thus I think a large amount of votes both Hillary and Trump Got where not for either candidate but against the other one. I also think a large number of people who could of voted, and would of in a straight popular vote, didn't because they where already certain which way their state was going to go so it seemed pointless to put out the effort. So I think had it been known to be a straight popular vote during the voting a lot of people would of voted much differently, and I believe we probably would of seen a 3rd party candidate taking office.
Also i don't think Trump is going to un-globaltize The US, or push in sweeping policy changes that turn the us into a Fascist or other type of government then it is. He wouldn't have the support he needs to get those plans implemented anyway. I think what he's actually doing is taking a closer look at the agreements to make sure they really benefit the US and the ones that don't offer enough benefit for what they are demanding he'll rework. It's just he's not coming from the angle that we must trade more no matter the cost, rather does this trade actually benefit us or not.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
While I would agree the soda's are not the most healthy drink out there. Still in moderation it's not that bad, I mean really if your otherwise eating a healthy diet and getting a decent amount of exercise Then having a soda with all your meals will not make you fat or diabetic. Now if you don't have the best eating habits or don't get enough exercise then drinking soda's will make the situation worse but it's not going to be the sole cause of your problems. Just as simply cutting soda's out of a borderline unhealthy diet will not magically make everything fine and dandy.
I think it's cool they are spending money, that they don't have to spend on helping to find other possibly more effective cures for the problem. And while over use of soda's might be part of the problem it certainly isn't thee problem.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I don't think that machines will completely over take humans in any restaurant, and while it might be that there will be less people working in the chain ones, I don't see them edging out the popup's or the food trucks. I don't see this kind of automation taking off in the small business. They might get more then they have now, but I think for the smaller businesses they will still do most of the work by hand.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I'm not to surprised by this, given that they are talking about a new console coming out soon, and how when the Wii-u cam out how it didn't take them to long to shut down all the extra's for the wii system and that the Wii-u supported all the same stuff the Wii does, which both support the gamecube games. I'd guess that a lot of people who haven't already gotten a wii-u are pondering if they should wait for the next console to come out, which if the trend continues will support everything from the game cube onwards, will not have it's online features discontinued shortly and get to play all the new games for probably about the same price as it looks like the Wii-u is still in the same price range as other current gen systems that don't have the next gen about ready to spring on them. So I can see sales being quite down. plus Wii managed to strike an interesting balance between casual and regular that the Wii-u did not, likely because the casual players weren't interested in upgrading their wii's while the few games they wanted stil play fine on the wii they have.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I get a lot of the arguments here. as I'd guess they used an automatically generated list of landmarks in the area, and they'd have to manually go in and tell it to exclude places from the list. I can also see the argument that isn't more traffic a good thing, and the argument about why in some places it isn't. I would agree that some areas while it's good that those places get more well known, if they aren't there for the right reasons it makes it more difficult for the people who are to use it for such. And those are the places that are wanting to be removed from the game. As for the memorial wanting less foot traffic they want to have less people who are just passing though, and more who are coming to learn or remember the event the memorial is for. But This app seems to be creating more who are just passing though.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
the idea of unions is a good one, and are there upsides for being in one, but they aren't always a good thing. I've been in a few jobs that have had them and haven't had them.
on one hand they did help negotiate raises when the company was thinking of not doing it and the cost of living had gone up, They also once kept me from getting unfairly fired at a job over a big problem that sprung up that pretty much exploded when I was there but the union was able to prove it would of done so for the next person even if they where doing everything right, and I just happened to be the unlucky one so I got off the hook, and they found the person who actually started the domino effect. But on the other hand one time they told us they wanted all of us to go on strike because another company in the union was having one and they where having problems getting them to negotiate so wanted to put more pressure. Pretty much none of us did as we didn't have any issues with our management, and we never meet those other guys. Also more recently I wanted to switch to a different department in the company, the one I'm in doesn't have a union, that one does. But I can't because the Union manged to get a hiring freeze put in place until they get their agreements, so doesn't matter that they need the help and I've heard from people working there they really could use it. but no such luck because of the union.
So yea, I don't think unions are inherently bad, but when it goes beyond just the workers in the one company and becomes an entity itself; that's when unions often hit the slippery slope.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Time to throw my two cents into the fray. So first off the article doesn't mention how the school found out about what the guy did, it also didn't mention anything about how willing the partner was, nor does it mention where he was doing the deed, or how they found out about it. All these things can really change the picture of what went down on and the proper level of severity that should of been applied.
I mean for all we know the guy could of been using some passive aggressive tactic to guilt his partner into doing the deed some place on campus perhaps just leading up to those big tests, and they where found out because the bathroom or classroom they thought would be far enough out of the way ended up being needed as the original testing room was unavailable and it caused a major disruption, but instead of reporting all this and shaming the guy even more they figure the punishment was bad enough and he doesn't need further shaming. Would the punishment be so extreme then?
Now I'm not saying that is what happened, but still given what little we do know it's still completely possible, it's also possible as may have suggested that the guy was doing this off campus, with a fully willing partner, and might of just bragged about it at the wrong time. And then there is room for an argument that the school went overboard. Then again if he was constantly bragging about it and trying to make others feel bad that they spent their time studying instead of getting their own action on and this wasn't the first time they had to deal with this guy doing that. The argument against the school would be again weakened. But still the article makes no mention for or against either happening. it just says there seems to be more to the case. so really all we can be sure of is that likely the punishment wasn't just for this one instance but that backstory that we aren't being told plays in.
But with out knowing more details we really don't know how big of a mess this actually was, so thus it's a whole lot harder to say if they went overboard.
One argument I would still make in the schools favor is that he was going to a private school and was on a upper class sports team. So in both ways he was being granted the privilege of prestige from the school he was going to and that school in order to maintain it's prestige has not just set standards but actually enforce them. We are also talking about just high school here. regardless of if he was old enough to do the deed or not if he wants the extra prestige of going to that private school and not the public one then he should be expected to follow the same rules everyone else does.
But on the other hand we also don't know if the school actually was not punishing others they had caught, or how and why they found out about his fling and the situation surrounding it. It would be natural to assume that if some of these extenuating circumstances existed that there would he more mention of them in the article, but again we are just assuming here we don't know what more to the story there really is.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I got 10 on my computers, and honestly it's not that bad. though I'd have to admit it takes way more messing around with settings and some 3rd party programs to get it into a workable setup. and it's no where near the disaster that 8 was
2 ( +2 / -0 )
this board ate my first post, that's annoying.
anyway, I think they are completely off the mark here. while there might be some that do think that way, I think had they put male actors in those same roles that had an equivalent level of popularity as the female actors did that it wouldn't of significantly affected the overall reaction to the films by the public. So there for it's not misogynistic that people don't like this film, because the fact that the main chars are female is not the main reason this film has so much ire thrown at it. Heck I think more people are upset at that the new versions of the chars aren't close enough to the old ones is more the reason then the gender of the cast is. I believe that most people are upset because the film seems to be a bad remake of the original, for reasons other than that the female cast is mucking it up.
As for people referring to this as the "all female Ghost Busters" and not using "all male ..." tacked on to other movies like "the Expendables" is not as bad as they are trying to make it out to be. for one thing the name of this current version is the same as the name of the original there's not subtitle or anything else that can be used to refer to one or the other so we gotta make something up. Granted other things about it could be used but that is the most notable change in this version as compared to the others. As for why in other movies most people won't say the "all male cast ..." when referring to a certain version of other movies released is because that fact is usually not a distinguishing feature of those movies.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
a manly shade of pink
now that's something that would get a laugh out of a bunch of people I know. though I think pink can be just as manly as any other color personally.
As for the Color changing cans, I'd have to agree with other posters here this isn't anything new, we've had them over here for at least 6 years now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MTY2qx3tJA
0 ( +0 / -0 )
As far as the issue on tuition goes, it's not a unique thing to "Trump U" I've been dealing with my own messes with the local state college and finical aid messes that where caused by some of the newer federal rules, and a run of bad luck.
is Trump a liar and a Fraud? probably. But Clinton certainly is and even more so. As much as I would of preferred not to have to pick either of them. Given the choice between a untried but rather loose cannon, and one that we already seen how much it misfires. well at least we got somewhat of a chance with the former. So while I don't really support trump I do acknowledge he's the lesser of the two evils so I'll vote for trump over Clinton.
And I think it's pretty obvious she's getting desperate here, especially since she's been implicated in some rather high profile lies and scandals that she's hopping we forget about as she accuses Trump of being a liar.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
After reading/heading about a bunch of articles like this on a whole variety of different issues, what I think is really happening is that we are getting away from this one size fits all model for how we do things. and so when ever anyone talks about "the end of" a certain piece of tech or way of doing things it's not really. I just hope those who are in charge of stuff catch on to this. As I could see there will be a sizeable people who are going to love this idea, as to them having to look though menus was to much effort so they'd rather have some mock conversation with a bot deal with a menu. while others won't care and still others will find the bots more annoying then the menu's where.
I see this happen in other areas, where there has been only one main way of doing a particular task, what that way is has changed over time. But there has only really been one main way, as it's not been technical possible or cost effective to keep the other options. So there's a lot of people seeing this as just the next change in the way things are done. but I think we've gotten to the point where now it's not only possible but desired that there is more ways to do these tasks.
0 ( +0 / -0 )