I think someone is abusing their moderator privledges. How is this even considered off topic? Or does someone simply don't like my opinion on what should be done?
Yes, it is an opinion I stated. It is not a fact. I can contact legislators all I want. I could even get an initiative done. That doesn't mean it will be done, or people will think the way I do.
One, I don't believe there should be anyone running our nation's schools. It is a state issue.
Two, as I said, it wouldn't be infringing on those who have no problem with soft drinks because they would still be free to bring them from home. However, those who do have problems with it, trouble saying no, this would help a lot because they wouldn't have the convenience of buying it at school, and parents can more easily prevent their child from bringing pop to school.
I'm not going to get into this issue in depth. The fact is, sodium benzoate is most likely harmful, according to the article, therefore, I am illogically going to conclude that the chemicals put in pop, whether that specific chemical or not, may pose a risk. We might not know the risk for some time. I feel it is better safe than sorry. I feel the state governments should restrict k-12 public schools from selling or serving soft drinks. Pay attention to the adjestives I used.
Conspiracy theories alone aren't sufficient to ban pop sales in k-12 public schools, but perhaps given the recent news article of sodium benzoate being harmful (assuming it is true), maybe some of those theories were justified. Maybe we should play it safe and prohibit k-12 public schools from selling pop.
This does not prevent students from bringing their own pop to school. This does not prohibit stores from selling pop to children. This does not add a tax to pop. This simply prohibits k-12 public schools from selling or serving pop, especially when they have a vested interest in the profits from soda sales. The issue should be trying to get the government to provide more funding to schools so they don't have to worry about trying to get it through other means.
Over the years, there have been conspiracy theories and scares regarding to the chemicals in soft drinks. I feel it is safe to say that each state should take it upon themselves to prohibit k-12 public schools from selling or serving soft drinks solely because of this.
To ban soda drinks (students still free to bring their own from home) based on sugar content alone isn't sufficient. Although I feel it would be a good idea, as a small portion of the population has trouble saying, "No." when it comes to the availability of such products, it would be infringing on those who have no problem. Afterall, a caffeinated beverage before class can be useful, can it not?
Nonetheless, if the chemical scare wasn't the issue, I would be saying require schools to sell soft drinks for a higher price than now. Perhaps $1.50 or more per 12 ounce can would be justified.
For these united States of America at least, maybe it is time to ban soda pop being sold in schools. (This can be by vending machine or served in the lunch line. Students would be free to bring it from home.)
By banning it, I mean for each INDIVIDUAL STATE to take it upon themselves to make it illegal for K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS to sell or serve soft drinks. Let the schools get the money they need another way. Health is more important.
If it turns out that this is a false alarm, the ban can be lifted. Why not simply ban things containing sodium benzoate? Well, there may always be scares involving the chemicals in soft drinks, and more importantly, there may be contract issues if some pops of a given brand are not sold.
Is New Jersey in a budget crisis right now? This has to be a joke. Roads are part of public property, are they not? How can they sue for something like this?
What is the saying? "Give me safety or give me death!" Who needs freedom when you have someone in a position of authority telling you where you can and cannot go, what you can and cannot say, or what you can and cannot do. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Do not assume there is a problem, i.e. safety of students, when there isn't.
Essay-writing services can be used for non-immoral purposes outside what many think their target audience is. But ignoring this, I have the following to say.
Banning the advertisements isn't going to solve the issue of plagiarism. In fact, it could compound the problem by pushing it underground. If someone is motivated to cheat, they're probably going to cheat regardless of whether they see an advertisement on Google, or whether they have to hunt underground for a service. Afterall, is Google banning search results?
You said: Go ahead and skip paying the property taxes (unless you're a church) and see how long it takes the government to take those away.
I say: How fair is it that churches avoid taxes? Why not exampt all non-commercial property from taxation? Then it would be justified. I feel it is immoral for the government to take away someone's house when the family just happens to fall on hard times. But three years is all it takes to ruin a family's life forever, or at least in my state.
That is because people cannot safely text while drive. It's an impossibility. It takes away the attention one needs to focus on the road. Does anyone even bother to read those state driver's manuals anymore?
The New York law is absurd. What do deaf people do when crossing the street?
Texting while driving is dangerous, any way you put it. It is a distraction at the very least. Plus, cell phones have records, do they not? The court can always look up those records, correct?
Conversing with a passenger isn't the same as conversing on a phone studies have shown.
I think most of the other things you mentioned are problems, and I wish people would use more common sense. However, texting while driving has to be more dangerous than those others ones I imagine, because it is much more distracting.
Taking the literal meaning of texting while driving, I guess that isn't considered driving, is it?
Actually, texting while at a red light is a bad idea. It slows down traffic if someone isn't paying attention. Plus, it is best to keeps one's eyes on the road, even if stopped, incase there is an accident heading your way.
Washingtonians should know they shouldn't text and drive. Page 20 in the PDF file (page number on the paper, not the PDF viewer's page number). Notice how "hands" is plural.
You should have clear vision in all directions, all controls should be within reach, and at least one-third of the steering wheel should be between your hands.
I can think of no excuse whatsoever to justify texting while driving. Sure, cell phones are dangerous while driving, but at least there are counter-arguments. In my opinion, people who text while driving should probably have their license suspended. I cannot believe they're doing the $101 fine in my state.
They fine people $101 for not wearing a seatbelt, which is only risking the lives of those in the car, but when it comes to endangering others, they use the same amount for a fine. If they're going to fine texting while driving, they should at least make it $500.
(Talking on cell phones while driving is dangerous. Some times "near-misses" occur, meaning it never gets recorded statistically speaking. It is a distraction.)
A company back in the 90s made a firewall. This company has been taken over by another company. This firewall is no longer available for purchase. This firewall has been completely discontinued.
Is it considered fair use for someone to download it and "crack" it to use?
I mean, is it really considered stealing if a given piece of software is no longer available on the market?
Slashdot Mirror
Do some genetically modified foodstuffs contain human genes?
I think someone is abusing their moderator privledges. How is this even considered off topic? Or does someone simply don't like my opinion on what should be done?
Yes, it is an opinion I stated. It is not a fact. I can contact legislators all I want. I could even get an initiative done. That doesn't mean it will be done, or people will think the way I do.
One, I don't believe there should be anyone running our nation's schools. It is a state issue.
Two, as I said, it wouldn't be infringing on those who have no problem with soft drinks because they would still be free to bring them from home. However, those who do have problems with it, trouble saying no, this would help a lot because they wouldn't have the convenience of buying it at school, and parents can more easily prevent their child from bringing pop to school.
I'm not going to get into this issue in depth. The fact is, sodium benzoate is most likely harmful, according to the article, therefore, I am illogically going to conclude that the chemicals put in pop, whether that specific chemical or not, may pose a risk. We might not know the risk for some time. I feel it is better safe than sorry. I feel the state governments should restrict k-12 public schools from selling or serving soft drinks. Pay attention to the adjestives I used.
Maybe you misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
Conspiracy theories alone aren't sufficient to ban pop sales in k-12 public schools, but perhaps given the recent news article of sodium benzoate being harmful (assuming it is true), maybe some of those theories were justified. Maybe we should play it safe and prohibit k-12 public schools from selling pop.
This does not prevent students from bringing their own pop to school. This does not prohibit stores from selling pop to children. This does not add a tax to pop. This simply prohibits k-12 public schools from selling or serving pop, especially when they have a vested interest in the profits from soda sales. The issue should be trying to get the government to provide more funding to schools so they don't have to worry about trying to get it through other means.
Over the years, there have been conspiracy theories and scares regarding to the chemicals in soft drinks. I feel it is safe to say that each state should take it upon themselves to prohibit k-12 public schools from selling or serving soft drinks solely because of this.
To ban soda drinks (students still free to bring their own from home) based on sugar content alone isn't sufficient. Although I feel it would be a good idea, as a small portion of the population has trouble saying, "No." when it comes to the availability of such products, it would be infringing on those who have no problem. Afterall, a caffeinated beverage before class can be useful, can it not?
Nonetheless, if the chemical scare wasn't the issue, I would be saying require schools to sell soft drinks for a higher price than now. Perhaps $1.50 or more per 12 ounce can would be justified.
For these united States of America at least, maybe it is time to ban soda pop being sold in schools. (This can be by vending machine or served in the lunch line. Students would be free to bring it from home.)
By banning it, I mean for each INDIVIDUAL STATE to take it upon themselves to make it illegal for K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS to sell or serve soft drinks. Let the schools get the money they need another way. Health is more important.
If it turns out that this is a false alarm, the ban can be lifted. Why not simply ban things containing sodium benzoate? Well, there may always be scares involving the chemicals in soft drinks, and more importantly, there may be contract issues if some pops of a given brand are not sold.
Is New Jersey in a budget crisis right now? This has to be a joke. Roads are part of public property, are they not? How can they sue for something like this?
I would love to see them "try" doing this at a law school.
What is the saying? "Give me safety or give me death!" Who needs freedom when you have someone in a position of authority telling you where you can and cannot go, what you can and cannot say, or what you can and cannot do. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Do not assume there is a problem, i.e. safety of students, when there isn't.
Maybe we need to address why students cheat in the first place.
Don't tax e-mail, Internet-type services, and the intangibles.
Tax sales made via the Internet all you want.
I have said what I said, and I am finished with this comment.
Essay-writing services can be used for non-immoral purposes outside what many think their target audience is. But ignoring this, I have the following to say.
Banning the advertisements isn't going to solve the issue of plagiarism. In fact, it could compound the problem by pushing it underground. If someone is motivated to cheat, they're probably going to cheat regardless of whether they see an advertisement on Google, or whether they have to hunt underground for a service. Afterall, is Google banning search results?
You said: Go ahead and skip paying the property taxes (unless you're a church) and see how long it takes the government to take those away.
I say: How fair is it that churches avoid taxes? Why not exampt all non-commercial property from taxation? Then it would be justified. I feel it is immoral for the government to take away someone's house when the family just happens to fall on hard times. But three years is all it takes to ruin a family's life forever, or at least in my state.
I'll take what I said back about the seat belt comment, for now at least.
That is because people cannot safely text while drive. It's an impossibility. It takes away the attention one needs to focus on the road. Does anyone even bother to read those state driver's manuals anymore?
The New York law is absurd. What do deaf people do when crossing the street?
Texting while driving is dangerous, any way you put it. It is a distraction at the very least. Plus, cell phones have records, do they not? The court can always look up those records, correct?
I think 20/20 had something involving how distracting it is to use cell phones.
Texting while driving is still distracting. It uses your hands, when both hands should be on the wheel 99.9% of the time.
I'm not sure if Washington state has any tolls, or if it does, very, very few.
Conversing with a passenger isn't the same as conversing on a phone studies have shown.
I think most of the other things you mentioned are problems, and I wish people would use more common sense. However, texting while driving has to be more dangerous than those others ones I imagine, because it is much more distracting.
Taking the literal meaning of texting while driving, I guess that isn't considered driving, is it?
Actually, texting while at a red light is a bad idea. It slows down traffic if someone isn't paying attention. Plus, it is best to keeps one's eyes on the road, even if stopped, incase there is an accident heading your way.
Washingtonians should know they shouldn't text and drive. Page 20 in the PDF file (page number on the paper, not the PDF viewer's page number). Notice how "hands" is plural.
p df
http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/driverguide.
You should have clear vision in all directions, all controls should be within reach, and at least one-third of the steering wheel should be between your hands.
I can think of no excuse whatsoever to justify texting while driving. Sure, cell phones are dangerous while driving, but at least there are counter-arguments. In my opinion, people who text while driving should probably have their license suspended. I cannot believe they're doing the $101 fine in my state.
They fine people $101 for not wearing a seatbelt, which is only risking the lives of those in the car, but when it comes to endangering others, they use the same amount for a fine. If they're going to fine texting while driving, they should at least make it $500.
(Talking on cell phones while driving is dangerous. Some times "near-misses" occur, meaning it never gets recorded statistically speaking. It is a distraction.)
Whatever happened to common sense?
Remember the good old days when Microsoft didn't own it? Sigh.
if there is a giant copyright letter c on the fake ID. Maybe it would be justified then.
Hypothetically, consider this situation.
A company back in the 90s made a firewall.
This company has been taken over by another company.
This firewall is no longer available for purchase.
This firewall has been completely discontinued.
Is it considered fair use for someone to download it and "crack" it to use?
I mean, is it really considered stealing if a given piece of software is no longer available on the market?
Hypothetically speaking of course.