You can't take heroin during a work break, mainly because you wouldn't be able to return. Smoking relieves stress for various circumstances, while also stimulating you, so it not only provides temporarily relief, it also provides motivation to do a specific task.

Wouldn't that give people a false sense of security? Salmonella contamination can happen at any stage of meat processing. It is probably most frequent at the site of meat packaging, like a butcher shop or something.

When I worked at Wal-Mart in the photolab as well as camera sales, I used to steer people away from Sony cameras due to the memory card alone. You can get an equivalent Canon or Nikon for the same price or cheaper, and then pay a cheaper price for the memory card. On top of all of that, you weren't locked into a specific brand if, after a few years, you naturally wanted a newer camera yet still use the same card.

I really don't understand any of you. There is so much arguing coming from the resident Libertarians, and I really cannot make sense of it. The definition for a natural right is weak, it's just a thing we all want because the vast majority of us aren't wealthy enough to purchase those rights, rights like free speech. Free speech isn't essential to life, and therefore having it as a right serves no purpose other than convincing others that someone has screwed you. Property? That is even more arbitrary, because at least speech is something that emanates from within you at no cost to anyone else, but property wasn't a thing that was dealt out to the first humans on the earth, and then bought and sold. There is no objective way to discover something and claim it's yours. Do you have a right to something if you discovered it, and anything visible to your eyes are immediately yours if not viewed by any other humans? Why?

Natural rights don't really exist. The truest natural right would be might makes right. If you're gifted at war and collaboration to the point where you control an empire, then you earned your rights. What we call natural rights benefit most people, so we generally agree they're a good thing that needs protection. Yeah, you're taking my money so police can help you protect your property, but I need that, too, so that's fine. If I was wealthy enough, I could fund my own protection, like well trained security guards, so my dollar would go to help poor people protect themselves. Isn't this what Libertarians call theft? If the redistribution of wealth is okay to protect other people's lives and property, then why isn't it okay to educate the masses, give them good healthcare, and give them information via internet? I'm sure there is, at least, one person in this entire world who doesn't care about law enforcement, and you're taking that person's right away by stealing money from him so that your property is protected.

Natural rights is supposed to protect us from the corruption of two major powers: the government and large corporations. They both play such a large role in our lives, and giving either too much power can mean too many restrictions. Some people are aware that too much authority given to the government can be abused, and some are aware that too little regulation on corporations results in much of the same. What is absolutely shocking is that these same people who make some great arguments for their beliefs fail to see how those same arguments apply to that other major power! We should fear both the government and corporations, and we should actually make sure that we regulate both: we the people regulate the government, and the government, regulated by we the people, should then regulate the corporations. In the end, I never want anyone to ever hinder me from getting an education. The internet makes educating oneself largely free, and everyone should have some sort of access to it.

Congress has the power to write the checks, however, the president has the power to void them.

If this can be generalized to adults, then I am going to break a world texting record!

Life is going to be a lot harder for those poor vegetarians

Yes, it's clear that special cases require special treatment.

Irony... I don't think it means what you think it means.

Science grad schools don't take a dime from you. You're either have a generous RA stipend or TA stipend.

With the flood of PhDs in the market, nobody is going to want you to do any actual research without a PhD. With a Master's you can be a glorified lab tech, database manager, programmer, whatever, but even if you're way more than qualified, they won't let you do any significant research without a PhD.

Your best bet is to join a PhD program, deal with the significant decrease in income for five years, then get into the career you want. The more you wait and older you get, the harder it will be to take such action.

USF >>>>>> UCF

;)