it does not matter whether the games are about candy or fruit: children eat more candy after playing a game involving food
So while the headline is technically correct (not always the best kind of correct), it's not the whole story. Games with food ads increase appetite. Games about fruit increase appetite.
Obvious answer: offer kids fruit instead of candy.
Can you give me any logical reason why I should not be able to protect my family?
"Protect my family" does not directly equate with "own a gun," any more than it does with "litter my yard with bear traps" or "drive the kids to school in a tank."
There are many things in life which can be summarised in three words that one might reasonably claim one should be able to do, but that doesn't mean that any and all methods of doing so should therefore automatically be allowed.
I should be able to feed my family. Doesn't mean I can go and cook my neighbour's dog with impugnity.
Don't just assume the law is right because it is the law
Don't assume it's "wrong" either. Sometimes it's neither one nor the other, it's just a matter of drawing a more-or-less arbitrary line so that everyone knows where they stand.
Even if there was some identifiable "safest" set of laws and limits to apply on a certain road, you'll always have people who don't abide by them.
A bit of context might help to understand the summary without having to play follow-the-link, especially if you only know "Dallas Buyers Club" as a film starring Matthew McConaughey - or don't know of it all.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC is the company that owns the rights to the film (I think) and has been attempting to get the names of ISP users that they believe have been illegally downloading the film, for the purpose of sending them letters demanding payment of a fine to avoid being taken to court (the "speculative invoicing" of the summary).
Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: We've Had Online Voting; Why Not Continuous Voting?
Because I've got box sets to watch!
How strong?
Super-.
That doesn't mean I can legally rob a bank while carrying it.
But you can legally carry it while robbing a bank.
And he also thinks this somehow hurts the music industry?
No, he doesn't actually think that. If anything he thinks the exact opposite, but really it's just a piece of performance designed to Make You Think.
You foist another Forbes link upon us to tell us about a discovery that's 43 years old?
Sheesh.
Physicists Theorize Out
Did they theorize the shit out of this thing?
^ That is all.
It's not even a drone.
Oh, give up. You've clearly lost that battle.
Man Arrested For Hacking 130 Celebrities
What with, an axe?
I hope Katie Hopkins was on the list...
Uh... you sunk my battleship?
Your odds of winning with no ticket are exactly zero. Your odds with 1 ticket are greater than zero.
No tickets cost $0. One ticket costs more than $0, and it usually costs more than (prize_money)*(probability of winning the jackpot).
"While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers,"
Those "some passengers" being the commie liberal terrorist sympathisers who request to opt out of the body scanners?
Google Planning New Messaging App With AI Chatbots
How do you feel about Google Planning New Messaging App With AI Chatbots?
take a right at Atlantic City, NJ
I'm not putting you in charge of navigation. You're supposed to take a left toin at Albuquerque.
Who cares, right? As the service itself states, If you're not sure what this means, our product is Not For You.
Ah, there's that welcoming open-source community spirit.
By what mechanism do they expect stresses in rocks to produce electric fields?
By what mechanism have you come to the conclusion that it's impossible and the idea is immediately dismissable?
Talk about argument from ignorance...
Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners.
It's not like fixed wing RC planes need a lot of runway.
Or any at all, in fact.
Alright, calm down Captain Righteous. Is anyone forcing you to use Adblock over something else?
There are not any ads that are acceptable. That's it. End of story.
Oh, so you're the arbiter of universal objective truth? Because I have some questions...
it turns out to just be three old guys
The oldest is 60. And what difference should their age make anyway?
Games Involving Candy Stimulate Kids' Appetites
it does not matter whether the games are about candy or fruit: children eat more candy after playing a game involving food
So while the headline is technically correct (not always the best kind of correct), it's not the whole story. Games with food ads increase appetite. Games about fruit increase appetite.
Obvious answer: offer kids fruit instead of candy.
Can you give me any logical reason why I should not be able to protect my family?
"Protect my family" does not directly equate with "own a gun," any more than it does with "litter my yard with bear traps" or "drive the kids to school in a tank."
There are many things in life which can be summarised in three words that one might reasonably claim one should be able to do, but that doesn't mean that any and all methods of doing so should therefore automatically be allowed.
I should be able to feed my family. Doesn't mean I can go and cook my neighbour's dog with impugnity.
(n,lswjtcaaiaago)
Regardless, the nice thing here is that this could do for prostethics what auto racing did for regular cars.
Ugh. People are going to starting putting spoilers on their legs?
Don't just assume the law is right because it is the law
Don't assume it's "wrong" either. Sometimes it's neither one nor the other, it's just a matter of drawing a more-or-less arbitrary line so that everyone knows where they stand.
Even if there was some identifiable "safest" set of laws and limits to apply on a certain road, you'll always have people who don't abide by them.
I hope you can see that 1. is by far more economical and feasible solution
Where would the human race be if we always did what was (immediately or otherwise) economical and feasible?
A bit of context might help to understand the summary without having to play follow-the-link, especially if you only know "Dallas Buyers Club" as a film starring Matthew McConaughey - or don't know of it all.
Dallas Buyers Club LLC is the company that owns the rights to the film (I think) and has been attempting to get the names of ISP users that they believe have been illegally downloading the film, for the purpose of sending them letters demanding payment of a fine to avoid being taken to court (the "speculative invoicing" of the summary).