Funny you put quotes around "bad". How do you know they said such a thing? Maybe they said, "Wow, Sally, that lunch sure looks tasty. Would you like some chicken nuggets to go with it?" And maybe "Sally" happily took the nuggets and decided that she didn't feel like eating the other parts of her meal.
As for what they were supplementing, I'd assume it was to give her some extra protein. Maybe the nuggets were unnecessary, but if you're backpedaling from "evil leftist nanny state stole her lunch" to "they gave her a bit of free, extra food that wasn't strictly necessary", well, you might just want to find something else to get angry about.
They're filling and only have around 100 calories, plus a decent amount of fiber, potassium, and vitamin C. All in all, a pretty healthy choice for a snack.
Yes, you can. If you mod things flamebait or troll and the metamodders disagree, and it happens frequently, you get permanently banned from moderating.
No, that would only be the message if they do start charging and charge everyone no matter how nutritious the packed lunch is. The far more likely scenario is that they either will continue their current policy of providing the food for free, or they will only charge in cases where the lunch is clearly inadequate.
Stop listening to demagogues. They're making you paranoid. Your kid's lunch lady isn't out to get you, I promise.
Since always. Apple juice is just flavored sugar water. Tons of empty calories with no nutritional benefit to speak of. You're much better off drinking plain water, or flavored water (e.g. Vitamin Water, Mio), or iced tea, or even diet soda.
Obviously, anything is fine "in moderation", but what makes you think this kid was drinking it in moderation?
Check out the mods on this post. "Overrated". Nevermind that it is objective truth, and a quick debunking of what is a clear piece of demagogy, it's "overrated". That's always a sign that the conservative propagandists are out in force. By pushing down the truth by marking it "overrated", they don't risk losing their modding privileges in the future.
These people are experts at manipulating public opinion.
The mother was NOT charged. She received a form letter, sent to all parents, that the school might start charging for extra food given to students at some point in the future. However, since she is voluntarily enrolled in a program for poor parents, she would be exempted from paying regardless.
Please stop repeating these right-wing, scaremongering lies.
It's bad enough that a demagoging article like this would be posted in the first place, but that can be written off as the editors making a mistake and being tricked.
But you... either you lied about reading the article or you lied about its contents. From the first article:
'She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,' her mother said.
the other article:
While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch. The mother says the girl was so intimidated by the inspection process that she was too scared to eat all of her homemade lunch.
And yet you claim that "The School Person REPLACED the whole lunch with an ALTERNATE version, not just 'supplemented'," and then go off on a rant about the evil leftwing nanny state. You should be ashamed of spreading these hateful lies.
The article is a lie. The kid did not have her lunch confiscated. She was given extra food on top of it, because her mother had voluntarily enrolled in a special program. The girl, being four years old, was simply confused and thought she wasn't supposed to eat the food she brought from home.
Apple juice is terrible for you. It's just flavored sugar water. See for yourself. The fact that it comes from a fruit doesn't automagically make it healthy.
The mother voluntarily enrolled in a program to give her kid extra food, since she was unable to provide full meals every day. She received a note from the school that she may be charged for such extra portions in the future, but not a single parent has been charged to date.
So please, enlighten us as to how this is "the nanny state gone mad", and not just a case of morons being fooled into thinking that a mole hill is a mountain?
And who votes the shares in a 401(k) or any other managed investment? The fund manager, who is obligated to vote in whatever way he thinks will make the most money.
If you're going to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, you really ought to at least know what proxy voting is.
I think you're on to something there! If we each buy 4 shares, we'll have 120% ownership. That way, even if half of us don't support net neutrality, we'll still have a 60% majority in favor!
It shows that Chinese labor costs only make up about 2% of the cost of the iPad. We could triple their salaries and have prices rise by only around 5%. Obviously it would vary by device, but no way would it be 50%.
If every man, woman, and child in the United States, and Canada, and the UK, and Germany, and France, and Italy, and Spain, and Poland, and Switzerland, and Norway, and Sweden, and Denmark, and Japan, and South Korea, and Australia, and New Zealand (sorry if I left your country out!), we'd have about a billion shares.
AKA 30% ownership.
AKA less than the combined shares of just the top twenty shareholders. The #1 shareholder alone holds more shares than the adult population of the United States.
Sorry to disillusion you, but people really need to understand just how little power the 99% has.
You think Foxconn, Apple, Samsung, Nokia, HTC, Motorola, TSMC, GSMC, ASE, KYEC, and basically every other electronics company on earth will all just voluntarily shut down, rather than be forced to raise their prices by 5%?
Yes, crappy jobs are better than no jobs at all. You know what's better still? A decent job, with fair pay and reasonable conditions.
If we refuse to buy phones and such from companies that run mandatory twelve hour shifts and force college students to "intern" doing manual labor for a pittance, that doesn't mean that all those jobs will come back to the US. It means that companies like Foxconn will be forced to pay better wages, shorten shifts, and generally treat their employees better. Shorter shifts also means more people need to be hired.
End result? Our tech gadgets cost a few percent more, tens of millions of Chinese people get lifted out of poverty, and we can rest easy in the knowledge that we're not growing fat off slave labor. If it keeps a few more jobs from being offshored, all the better, but it's just gravy at that point.
Obviously you've probably heard a million different bits of dieting advice, so one more will probably go unheeded, but have you tried cutting out high calorie beverages? After gaining 30 lbs in a year by eating at restaurants too often while traveling, I've dropped 20 lbs by reducing my calorie intake without reducing the amount I eat or increasing my exercise simply by only drinking zero calorie drinks (with occasional beers as exceptions). By my estimation, that change has cut about 500 calories a day from my diet, which is supposedly a difference of about a pound a week, without making me feel any hungrier.
Fitness = fit for a purpose. What is your purpose?
Let's start by getting the average American to be able to climb a flight of stairs without needing to catch their breath, and see where we go from there.
That's not really the way interval training works, though the fact that you exercise at all puts you head and shoulders above most people in this country. Real interval training requires you to do a bunch of short intervals of exercise with only slightly longer periods of rest in between. For example, sprint for one minute, slow jog for two, repeat that cycle six times. Most exercise machines (treadmills, bikes, ellipticals, etc.) have such an option as one of the built-in programs.
But regardless of whether or not what you're suggesting is "real" interval training, the fact remains that it is exercise, and for most people, even modest exercise is enough to keep them from getting fat and weak. Just remember to wear deodorant, because under the proposed regimen, you're not going to be showering after each interval.
You Republicans are remarkably good at mental gymnastics. On the one hand, government regulation is bad and should always be reduced. On the other, it's always Obama's fault if regulators move too slow.
The truth is Obama most likely has never even heard of Lightsquared. Believe it or not, the president doesn't micromanage every single government function.
Well done tacking that flamebait onto an otherwise reasonable post, by the way.
It's a good thing the military is still funded... Because who needs progress in science?
It's stunning that this post made it to plus five, and shows just how insidious misinformation can be.
Obama's budget CUTS military spending. Not reduces the growth rate. CUTS. By tens of billions of dollars. The DoD budget in 2012 was $671 billion. Obama's proposal for 2013 puts it at $620.3 billion
If you follow that second link, you can see the cuts/increases broken out by department. You'll see that the biggest cuts hit the military, the Department of Homeland Security (especially hitting the TSA), the FBI, and the ATF. There are also big scary red circles on the DOL (but that's due to decreasing unemployment and thus decreases in unemployment benefits paid out) and Federal Student Aid (but look closely and you'll see its a reduction in mandatory spending offset by a matching increase in discretionary spending). And finally, there's NASA, being cut by a whopping 0.3%.
This is like a Slashdotter's dream budget. Cuts to the military and the TSA and all the other three-letter bogeymen, increases to science spending, and a reduction in overall spending. But by focusing one single tiny program, just 0.006% of the budget, the article submitter was able to masterfully manipulate scores of people into thinking that this budget is bad and anti-science.
A doubling over ten years does not mean double it now and keep it that way for a decade. It means "sometime in the future, when I'm not in office anymore, the next guy should double it". The fact is that compared to funding levels in 2000, their funding levels only received inflation adjustments through to the 2007 budget. Only in 2008 did they get a noticeable increase. This information is readily available on the organizations websites, such as here.
Now please, try to refute the parts about the Republicans supporting creationism or using "intellectual" as an insult. This should be a fun read.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny you put quotes around "bad". How do you know they said such a thing? Maybe they said, "Wow, Sally, that lunch sure looks tasty. Would you like some chicken nuggets to go with it?" And maybe "Sally" happily took the nuggets and decided that she didn't feel like eating the other parts of her meal.
As for what they were supplementing, I'd assume it was to give her some extra protein. Maybe the nuggets were unnecessary, but if you're backpedaling from "evil leftist nanny state stole her lunch" to "they gave her a bit of free, extra food that wasn't strictly necessary", well, you might just want to find something else to get angry about.
They're filling and only have around 100 calories, plus a decent amount of fiber, potassium, and vitamin C. All in all, a pretty healthy choice for a snack.
Yes, you can. If you mod things flamebait or troll and the metamodders disagree, and it happens frequently, you get permanently banned from moderating.
No, that would only be the message if they do start charging and charge everyone no matter how nutritious the packed lunch is. The far more likely scenario is that they either will continue their current policy of providing the food for free, or they will only charge in cases where the lunch is clearly inadequate.
Stop listening to demagogues. They're making you paranoid. Your kid's lunch lady isn't out to get you, I promise.
Since always. Apple juice is just flavored sugar water. Tons of empty calories with no nutritional benefit to speak of. You're much better off drinking plain water, or flavored water (e.g. Vitamin Water, Mio), or iced tea, or even diet soda.
Obviously, anything is fine "in moderation", but what makes you think this kid was drinking it in moderation?
Check out the mods on this post. "Overrated". Nevermind that it is objective truth, and a quick debunking of what is a clear piece of demagogy, it's "overrated". That's always a sign that the conservative propagandists are out in force. By pushing down the truth by marking it "overrated", they don't risk losing their modding privileges in the future.
These people are experts at manipulating public opinion.
The mother was NOT charged. She received a form letter, sent to all parents, that the school might start charging for extra food given to students at some point in the future. However, since she is voluntarily enrolled in a program for poor parents, she would be exempted from paying regardless.
Please stop repeating these right-wing, scaremongering lies.
It's bad enough that a demagoging article like this would be posted in the first place, but that can be written off as the editors making a mistake and being tricked.
But you... either you lied about reading the article or you lied about its contents. From the first article:
'She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,' her mother said.
the other article:
While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch. The mother says the girl was so intimidated by the inspection process that she was too scared to eat all of her homemade lunch.
And yet you claim that "The School Person REPLACED the whole lunch with an ALTERNATE version, not just 'supplemented'," and then go off on a rant about the evil leftwing nanny state. You should be ashamed of spreading these hateful lies.
The article is a lie. The kid did not have her lunch confiscated. She was given extra food on top of it, because her mother had voluntarily enrolled in a special program. The girl, being four years old, was simply confused and thought she wasn't supposed to eat the food she brought from home.
Apple juice is terrible for you. It's just flavored sugar water. See for yourself. The fact that it comes from a fruit doesn't automagically make it healthy.
The mother voluntarily enrolled in a program to give her kid extra food, since she was unable to provide full meals every day. She received a note from the school that she may be charged for such extra portions in the future, but not a single parent has been charged to date.
So please, enlighten us as to how this is "the nanny state gone mad", and not just a case of morons being fooled into thinking that a mole hill is a mountain?
And who votes the shares in a 401(k) or any other managed investment? The fund manager, who is obligated to vote in whatever way he thinks will make the most money.
If you're going to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, you really ought to at least know what proxy voting is.
I think you're on to something there! If we each buy 4 shares, we'll have 120% ownership. That way, even if half of us don't support net neutrality, we'll still have a 60% majority in favor!
The 5% I mentioned was not a guess at all. We had a /. article on how little money goes into Chinese manufacturing a while back. Here's the link to the slashdot story and here's a direct link to the article.
It shows that Chinese labor costs only make up about 2% of the cost of the iPad. We could triple their salaries and have prices rise by only around 5%. Obviously it would vary by device, but no way would it be 50%.
You're adorable!
If every man, woman, and child in the United States, and Canada, and the UK, and Germany, and France, and Italy, and Spain, and Poland, and Switzerland, and Norway, and Sweden, and Denmark, and Japan, and South Korea, and Australia, and New Zealand (sorry if I left your country out!), we'd have about a billion shares.
AKA 30% ownership.
AKA less than the combined shares of just the top twenty shareholders. The #1 shareholder alone holds more shares than the adult population of the United States.
Sorry to disillusion you, but people really need to understand just how little power the 99% has.
How is that even remotely likely?
You think Foxconn, Apple, Samsung, Nokia, HTC, Motorola, TSMC, GSMC, ASE, KYEC, and basically every other electronics company on earth will all just voluntarily shut down, rather than be forced to raise their prices by 5%?
Yes, crappy jobs are better than no jobs at all. You know what's better still? A decent job, with fair pay and reasonable conditions.
If we refuse to buy phones and such from companies that run mandatory twelve hour shifts and force college students to "intern" doing manual labor for a pittance, that doesn't mean that all those jobs will come back to the US. It means that companies like Foxconn will be forced to pay better wages, shorten shifts, and generally treat their employees better. Shorter shifts also means more people need to be hired.
End result? Our tech gadgets cost a few percent more, tens of millions of Chinese people get lifted out of poverty, and we can rest easy in the knowledge that we're not growing fat off slave labor. If it keeps a few more jobs from being offshored, all the better, but it's just gravy at that point.
Obviously you've probably heard a million different bits of dieting advice, so one more will probably go unheeded, but have you tried cutting out high calorie beverages? After gaining 30 lbs in a year by eating at restaurants too often while traveling, I've dropped 20 lbs by reducing my calorie intake without reducing the amount I eat or increasing my exercise simply by only drinking zero calorie drinks (with occasional beers as exceptions). By my estimation, that change has cut about 500 calories a day from my diet, which is supposedly a difference of about a pound a week, without making me feel any hungrier.
Fitness = fit for a purpose. What is your purpose?
Let's start by getting the average American to be able to climb a flight of stairs without needing to catch their breath, and see where we go from there.
That's not really the way interval training works, though the fact that you exercise at all puts you head and shoulders above most people in this country. Real interval training requires you to do a bunch of short intervals of exercise with only slightly longer periods of rest in between. For example, sprint for one minute, slow jog for two, repeat that cycle six times. Most exercise machines (treadmills, bikes, ellipticals, etc.) have such an option as one of the built-in programs.
But regardless of whether or not what you're suggesting is "real" interval training, the fact remains that it is exercise, and for most people, even modest exercise is enough to keep them from getting fat and weak. Just remember to wear deodorant, because under the proposed regimen, you're not going to be showering after each interval.
You Republicans are remarkably good at mental gymnastics. On the one hand, government regulation is bad and should always be reduced. On the other, it's always Obama's fault if regulators move too slow.
The truth is Obama most likely has never even heard of Lightsquared. Believe it or not, the president doesn't micromanage every single government function.
Well done tacking that flamebait onto an otherwise reasonable post, by the way.
Easy to say, but are you going to be the one to take away their kids?
In some cases.
The fact that sharing IP can be a good thing does not mean that everyone should be required to give away all of their IP all the time.
It's a good thing the military is still funded... Because who needs progress in science?
It's stunning that this post made it to plus five, and shows just how insidious misinformation can be.
Obama's budget CUTS military spending. Not reduces the growth rate. CUTS. By tens of billions of dollars. The DoD budget in 2012 was $671 billion. Obama's proposal for 2013 puts it at $620.3 billion
If you follow that second link, you can see the cuts/increases broken out by department. You'll see that the biggest cuts hit the military, the Department of Homeland Security (especially hitting the TSA), the FBI, and the ATF. There are also big scary red circles on the DOL (but that's due to decreasing unemployment and thus decreases in unemployment benefits paid out) and Federal Student Aid (but look closely and you'll see its a reduction in mandatory spending offset by a matching increase in discretionary spending). And finally, there's NASA, being cut by a whopping 0.3%.
This is like a Slashdotter's dream budget. Cuts to the military and the TSA and all the other three-letter bogeymen, increases to science spending, and a reduction in overall spending. But by focusing one single tiny program, just 0.006% of the budget, the article submitter was able to masterfully manipulate scores of people into thinking that this budget is bad and anti-science.
A doubling over ten years does not mean double it now and keep it that way for a decade. It means "sometime in the future, when I'm not in office anymore, the next guy should double it". The fact is that compared to funding levels in 2000, their funding levels only received inflation adjustments through to the 2007 budget. Only in 2008 did they get a noticeable increase. This information is readily available on the organizations websites, such as here.
Now please, try to refute the parts about the Republicans supporting creationism or using "intellectual" as an insult. This should be a fun read.