# data[].attributes.body
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Litecoin should replace standard money for most transactions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Free Book Preview Entrepreneur Kids: All About Money

Submit your email to get a sneak peek of some of the fun, educational worksheets included in our NEW book for the little entrepreneur in your life.

3 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.

The latest buzz word, in the world of digital currency, is Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is nothing but a virtual currency or a medium of conducting digital transactions, just like any other digital currency. So what make it better than our conventional currency?

Lately, the global interest in bitcoins has grown. So, it becomes extremely important to understand the base of this and all other forms of virtual currencies. Bitcoin, and its alternatives are all based on cryptographic algorithms which are encrypted. This makes the currency decentralized giving ownership to the user.These can be purchased through an online exchange or a Bitcoin ATM. Landmark feature of a bitcoin is that it can curb the chances of fraud and identity thefts, and hence is considered a safe mode of holding money.Bitcoins allow buying of goods and services online, as well as transferring money.

Below are a few benefits of using bitcoins which make it better than any conventional currency:

Bitcoin is digital and decentralized - With Bitcoin people get the liberty to exchange value without intermediaries which translate to greater control of funds and lower fees. It's faster, cheaper, more secure and immutable. Cash is controlled by banks while bitcoin has owners.

Ease of online shopping: As we already know, Bitcoin can help us do online shopping. It's like an e-wallet which can be created blockchain technology to store, track and spend digital money.

Less volatile than cash: Bitcoin has a global acceptance and is less volatile than cash / local currency. Due to this feature, it becomes easier to conduct transactions across boundaries and online.

No real way of keeping a track of conventional currency- The underlying technology behind bitcoin, which is, blockchain is what makes or breaks it. Thousands of computers in a distributed network use cryptographic techniques to create a permanent, public record of every single Bitcoin transaction that has ever occurred. This record will be very valuable for various things besides tracking payment. While there is no real way of tracking cash.

Great tool for investment- Bitcoin can be used all over the world without going through a conversion process. It is considered at par with Gold and combines the best of cash and gold while providing an open market and no restrictions imposed by banks or governments.

Bitcoin is peer-to-peer and open, yet secure and nearly frictionless - Bitcoin allows exchanging value over the internet without any intermediary and gives its users access to their balance through a password known as a private key. So it's private, secure and at the same time,open.

Duplication impossible - There is no way of duplicating a bitcoin, unlike cash.

Great way of maintaining records for tax purposes: Once transferred, a bitcoins' ownership also gets transferred. This means that two people cannot be transacting on the same value and this will help keep records healthy and simpler, especially for tax purposes.

Transnational digital currency - There are no boundaries to Bitcoin or cryptocurrency. No exchange values and no third party interventions. Bitcoin allows seamless transactions across nations with a ledger getting maintained at the backend.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#8 Reasons Why Bitcoin is Better than Conventional Currency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Submit your email to get a sneak peek of some of the fun, educational worksheets included in our NEW book for the little entrepreneur in your life. 3 min read Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.

# data[].attributes.body
The ATP Tennis Tour should adopt a ‘bubble’ model for its 2021 tournaments not only for public health, but also player safety.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The chairman of the ATP Tour said Wednesday the organization will work with players, event organizers and local governments to "keep the Tour operating" and ensure "health and safety remains a priority" amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Andrea Gaudenzi told ESPN the tour will look at all options as, like many other sports leagues, it continues to evaluate the logistical hurdles that have come with COVID-19 since play resumed this past August after an initial shutdown.

"The players have made unprecedented sacrifices in order to compete in Melbourne and they deserve huge credit for that," Gaudenzi told ESPN via an emailed statement. "As we look ahead, we are working in close collaboration with tournament organizers and local governments to secure travel exemptions for our athletes so they can continue to compete.

"Our sport has looked at many different solutions in its response to the global pandemic over the past 12 months. The nature of our Tour is truly global -- a move away from that structure would present significant challenges compared to many other sports or leagues."

The comments come less than a day after world No. 1 Novak Djokovic questioned whether there might be a correlation between injuries and quarantine -- which players were forced to do after arriving in Australia.

"I don't want to sit here, complain about what we have been through, but we have to be honest and realistic that it has an effect on the physical well-being of players," he said. "Of course also mental, emotional, but physically, I mean, this is not normal."

Australia has some of the lowest COVID-19 numbers in the world yet still banned fans from the Australian Open for five days last week after a small outbreak. Fans will be allowed back in Thursday in a limited capacity, but Djokovic wondered how countries with higher COVID-19 rates would handle tournaments.

"We have to find a way, you know, whether it's something like an NBA bubble, because I heard some players talk about that, and I don't mind to discuss about that kind of idea," he said. "Select one place and we play all the tournaments on that surface and that place. You know, three, four weeks in, three, four, two, three weeks' rest, then back again. Something like that. I don't know. On the top level.

"But we just have to discuss options, because I don't know honestly if this is going to work."

The ATP, WTA and International Tennis Federation (ITF) were all forced to cancel over 40 events through July of last year due to the ongoing pandemic. Wimbledon was canceled for the first time since World War II, while the French Open was pushed back to a late-September start, just two weeks after the conclusion of the US Open. The New York event, usually the final Grand Slam of the calendar year, was held in a bubble with no spectators. The French Tennis Federation allowed a small number of fans at Roland Garros, as players competed through much colder temperatures compared to the event's usual June window.

When asked about Djokovic's comments, No. 2 Rafael Nadal said Wednesday that while it is difficult for players to compete in a bubble and be separated from their families, they would not be the only ones affected by a shutdown of the tour -- jobs and events could be lost. But his choice would be to find a way to play, safely.

"[Djokovic is] completely right that, for our sport, things are difficult because governments are changing the rules constantly, so it's difficult to make predictions about how the things are going to happen," Nadal said after losing a tough five-set match against Stefanos Tsitsipas in Wednesday's quarterfinals at the Australian Open.

"If we stop our sport again, a lot of people are going to suffer, no? ... Of course we need to protect players, find a way to protect [their ranking], to not force them to keep playing, because the situation is very tough for a lot of players depending on the countries. ... We need to find solutions and we need to adapt to these very tough times we are facing -- not only us, but the world. We need to be grateful to life that we can keep doing what we are doing."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ATP eyeing all options to play during pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The chairman of the ATP Tour said Wednesday the organization will work with players, event organizers and local governments to "keep the Tour operating" and ensure "health and safety remains a priority" amid the coronavirus pandemic.

# data[].attributes.body
Plant-based synthetic meat (like the ‘Impossible Burger’) should replace genuine meat as the dominant protein in the American diet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Impossible Burger is made from simple, plant-based ingredients. For the health of people and the planet.

# data[].attributes.body
Although deforestation has always been a  controversial topic, the specific example of the amazon has spiraled out of control in the last few years. The government of Brazil should order deforestation to stop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brazil's Amazon: Deforestation 'surges to 12-year high'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Destruction of the rainforest increased by 9.5% compared to the previous 12 months, new data shows.

# data[].attributes.body
Social media companies should have laws preventing the unauthorized use consumer's information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Using an opt-in approach will help curb the excesses of Big Tech.

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

Credit... The New York Times

Americans have become inured to the relentless collection of their personal information online. Imagine, for example, if getting your suit pressed at the dry cleaner's automatically and permanently signed you up to have scores of inferences about you - measurements, gender, race, language, fabric preferences, credit card type - shared with retailers, cleaning product advertisers and hundreds of other dry cleaners, who themselves had arrangements to share that data with others. It might give you pause.

But that's the daily reality on the internet. Every minute a person spends online helps countless companies build a thicker dossier about that person.

Despite what corporations profess, much of this personal data is used not to improve products themselves, but to make those products more attractive to advertisers.

One straightforward solution is to let people opt in to data collection on apps and websites. Today, with few exceptions, loads of personal data are collected automatically by default unless consumers take action to opt out of the practice - which, in most cases, requires dropping the service entirely.

Virginia recently had the opportunity to extend firmer data protection rights to its residents. But the state's Consumer Data Protection Act, signed into law this month, is a business-friendly package, supported by Amazon and Microsoft, that puts the onus on consumers to opt out of most data collection, except for the most sensitive personal details. Washington State lawmakers are advancing similar legislation.

Corporations say opt-out provisions put control into the hands of consumers. But users are no more likely to switch off data collection than they are to read through the onerous and lengthy terms and conditions policies that litter the web. Many companies bury their data collection controls deep within their websites. Even if consumers can find them, their choices most likely don't apply to a company's subsidiaries or affiliates.

Because of how personal data is shared, "there could be thousands or hundreds of thousands of companies that have data on you," said Stacey Gray, senior counsel at the nonprofit Future of Privacy Forum. "Users, however, typically do not change their default settings even when it means their data is being collected."

It's understandable, then, why companies want to preserve the status quo. Culling and distributing personally identifiable data is how web users are served up the lucrative ads that can seem distressingly relevant. However, consumers' data is now so widely dispersed that security breaches can sweep up information about people who've never even visited certain websites.

It should not be the role of consumers to make marketers' jobs easier. Furthermore, there is evidence that such highly targeted advertising isn't really necessary to support the free web, as technology companies that are against opt-in provisions often argue.

Congress has not shown a willingness to curtail the power of the largest technology companies, which amassed record profits amid the pandemic, even as unemployment rates soared and cities placed limits on local commerce for months at a stretch.

Without comprehensive federal privacy legislation, regulating the web has been left to states and companies. That's led to a confusing jumble of laws and policies, which can be difficult for companies to comply with and for consumers to understand, and which privacy advocates say end up being far too business-friendly.

Nor is simple consent alone enough. In fact, it can create more problems. Bombard someone long enough with consent requests and users will click "yes" to anything to make it stop. Opt-in rules need to be backed with strong enforcement, particularly around misleading or purposefully disruptive consent pop-ups that can dupe users into signing away their data.

The recently approved California Privacy Rights Act bolstered existing law, but it, too, relies on an opt-out system for data collection. In Virginia, companies will need to get consent to track the most sensitive data, like location, religion and sexual orientation, but it is an opt-out system for everything else, including the sale of consumer data.

The Washington State Senate just passed and sent to the State House a bill that lacks sufficient opt-in defaults. A 2019 Maine law requires internet service providers to get consumers' consent before collecting, using or selling their data, while Nevada law provides only for users to halt its sale. Among the more stringent such laws is Illinois's, but it applies only to biometric data, such as fingerprinting and facial recognition.

Lawmakers in at least a dozen other states have proposed legislation addressing user privacy, almost entirely with rights provisions only to opt out of data collection.

All of this is why federal legislation is so urgently needed. That should include provisions making personal data collection available only with consumers' prior consent. (Some data is needed to ensure products are working properly.) The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, for instance, may provide some guidance over how to empower users to halt the dissemination of their data. If American consumers want more targeted advertising, or wish to freely share other personal data, they can choose to do so, rather than trust that companies have their best interests in mind.

Lawmakers also ought to consider other consumer-focused measures, such as the right for people to easily request their data from companies and ask that personal information be deleted or not sold - similar to provisions in the California law. Allowing consumers to halt data collection from all companies at a point of entry to the internet, such as the browser, would limit annoying pop-ups and consent forms. Laws preventing websites from broadly disseminating personal consumer data to other websites also seem prudent.

Later this year, Apple will begin requiring app makers to ask for permission to track users across other apps and websites, a welcome change. The revision has prompted a desperate ad campaign by Facebook, among the most exhaustive data gatherers, which has unconvincingly called it a threat to small businesses.

With more people spending time at home, tied to devices that relentlessly track their every keystroke, click and streaming show selection, granting users some semblance of control over their own data is more urgent than ever.

Congress has dithered for years without advancing legislation that will address Big Tech's profound power disparity. If lawmakers wait until the next major data breach, it will be too late.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | America, Your Privacy Settings Are All Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using an opt-in approach will help curb the excesses of Big Tech. The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom. Americans have become inured to the relentless collection of their personal information online.

# data[].attributes.body
In all states, it must be mandatory to wear masks in all public spaces.

# data[].attributes.body
The COVID-19 Vaccine should be a mandated vaccine unless serious health issues apply.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2020 Trump nearly banned Tiktok due to privacy concerns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On August 6, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order to restrict the app TikTok from US app stores (Lerman, 2020). Since then, TikTok has been a hot topic in the media, with constant debates concerning whether the app should be banned. The discourse surrounding these discussions are typically US-centric and politicized, but there is no need for them to be. The fact of the matter is this: TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, is based in Beijing and, as such, vulnerable to the many problems caused by the censorship and surveillance system of the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP is a threat to the entire international community and their access to TikTok proliferates the violation of human rights around the world.

The app should be banned because, yes, it is a threat to our national security, it accesses users' private data, and, more importantly, it is used by the CCP to promote fascist ideology and to censor any content that speaks out against it.

Background

TikTok, a short-video app that allows its users to share clips lasting 3-60 seconds, is popular amongst teenagers around the world. The app has over one billion users globally and an estimated valuation of 75 billion dollars. It is ByteDance's most successful foreign export and enabled the company to become the world's most valuable startup in 2018 (Ryan, Cave, and Xu, 2019).

National Security Concerns

Trump cited national security concerns as the reason for enacting the executive order to ban TikTok after, according to Forbes (2020), "inquiry into the app uncovered several threats to the private data of US citizens." In late 2019, almost nine months before the executive order, the US Navy instructed members to refrain from downloading the app on any government-issued phones and tablets, and to delete it if they had already installed the software; the app was then banned by the US Army as well (Tali, 2020).

According to the Journal of Network Security (2020), the Department of Justice released a memo to important military personnel stating, "Be wary of applications you download, monitor your phones for unusual and unsolicited texts, etc., and delete them immediately and uninstall TikTok to circumvent any exposure of personal information."

Violations of Human Rights

Though Trump's attempt to ban TikTok has elicited an increase in the conversation surrounding it, the controversy concerning the app was present long before the executive order. Apart from the national security implications and the use of citizens' data in the United States, there is contention about the practice of censorship utilized by the app, and rightfully so.

The surveillance technologies and techniques developed by ByteDance (TikTok's creator) and other China-based tech companies are continuously exploited by the CCP and callously used on Chinese citizens. This includes the Uyghur and other minority populations in Xinjiang, where an estimated 1.5 million people are systematically held in detention centers (Ryan, Cave, and Xu 2019).

The rapid growth of TikTok provides the CCP with an outlet to expand their censorship and control, not only within China but on a global scale:

* In September 2019, the Guardian obtained documents which demonstrated that ByteDance had been advancing Chinese propaganda abroad through TikTok via censorship: TikTok moderators were instructed to censor videos that mention Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and certain religious groups that were banned within the country.

* That same month, the Washington Post provided evidence of TikTok's censorship on reports of the Hong Kong protests.

* On October 23, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that Islamic State had been using the app to share propaganda videos and had uploaded clips of beheading prisoners.

* In late 2019, Motherboard uncovered violent white supremacy and Nazism on the app.

* In Turkey, the app has banned criticism of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, depictions of 'non-Islamic gods,' images of alcohol, and displays of same-sex relationships (Ryan, 2019).

Similar examples of censorship on the app are endless-the list goes on and on, and then some.
Responding to the executive order, TikTok has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. In a statement to The Verge (2020), TikTok Spokesman Josh Gartner said,
"Even though we strongly disagree with the administration's concerns, for nearly a year we have sought to engage in good faith to provide a constructive solution. What we encountered instead was a lack of due process as the administration paid no attention to facts. To ensure that the rule of law is not discarded and that our company and users are treated fairly, we have no choice but to challenge the executive order through the judicial system."

The banning of the app was originally intended to take effect on September 27, 2020, but TikTok received a reprieve of its ban after U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols granted a preliminary injunction blocking the executive order. As quoted by The Washington Post (2020), the judge stated: "It seemed that this was largely a unilateral decision with very little opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard."

The judge's decision to postpone the ban was not unsubstantiated. On August 7, 2020, in an article by the New York Times, the CIA confirmed that, while it is possible for Chinese intelligence authorities to intercept data and use TikTok to hack into smartphones, there is no evidence they have done so-yet. By delaying the ban, Judge Nichols is giving the company the chance to counter the claims made by the initial executive order.

Though there may not be evidence that the CCP has actively retrieved the private data of US citizens from TikTok, the mere fact that they could access the data if they wanted to, is a threat to national security. Also, the Trump Administration, the executive order, the courts, and even TikTok's representatives, are all fixated on the app's possible threat to national security. What they need to turn their attention towards, are the Uyghurs and other religious minority groups, who are being forced into literal concentration camps at the hands of the CCP.

Those who are against the executive order argue that banning the app is an infringement on their civil liberties and that national security concerns have been exaggerated. Banning TikTok is not a breach of free speech; rather it is the app itself, under the control of the CCP, that has consistently infringed upon universal human rights, and will continue to do so unless it is banned.

As previously mentioned, the CCP has already acted in ways that violate humans rights via TikTok including, but not limited to, the censorship of anything that goes against Chinese propaganda, monitoring user content to uncover and persecute minority religions, filtering and blocking content that displays same-sex relationships, and much more. Content shared on the app is consistently racist, homophobic, ableist, and xenophobic. In the US, TikTok users who come out as LGBTQ, express their religious affiliation, or criticize the government, might receive a few hateful comments from internet trolls under their videos. In China, users who upload such videos get sent to detention camps-or worse.

The CCP's unchecked power and their unrelenting violations of human liberty are disturbing and disheartening. For the first time in my life, I agree with President Trump and hope to see the executive order to ban TikTok effectively enacted come November 12.

This article was crafted using primary and secondary sources. For more information regarding the decision around to ban Tik Tok and security concerns, please visit the following:

Lerman, R. (2020, September 28). Judge blocks TikTok ban in second ruling against Trump's efforts to curb popular Chinese services. Retrieved September 28, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/27/tiktok-ban-injunction/

Makridis, C. (2020, September 21). Time's Up For TikTok: How The Deal Affects You And National Security. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/christosmakridis/2020/09/21/times-up-for-tiktok-how-the-deal-affects-you-and-national-security/

Ryan, F., Cave, D., & Xu, V. (2019). Mapping More of China's Technology Giants (2019 ed., Vol. 24, AI and Surveillance, pp. 1-13) (Australia, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, International Cyber Policy Centre). The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited.

Tali Arbel, T. (2020, March 01). Banned on Navy phones, video app TikTok is beloved by
teens. Do they love it too much? Retrieved September 29, 2020, from
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/03/01/banned-on-navy-phones-videoapp-tiktok-is-beloved-by-teens-do-they-love-it-too-much/

"TikTok dangers." (2020). Network Security, 2020(1), 3-19. doi:10.1016/s1353-4858(20)30004-0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yes, TikTok Should be Banned-No, It's Not a Right-Versus-Left Issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On August 6, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order to restrict the app TikTok from US app stores (Lerman, 2020). Since then, TikTok has been a hot topic in the media, with constant debates concerning whether the app should be banned.

# data[].attributes.body
More people going vegetarian is better for health and for the environment. -Sophia Rumpf

# data[].attributes.body
Supreme Court Judges should be elected directly by the people rather than selected by the in office president.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is what we've come to: On Monday afternoon, as those who enthuse about such things awaited news of President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, a cable television network cut to cameras outside the home of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to show us that she was busily collecting towels from the porch and carrying them inside - and therefore wasn't in Washington and couldn't be the nominee. Breaking news!

That's who we've become, a nation for whom even selecting Supreme Court justices is part of our political game show. We listen eagerly for the call of "come on down" that identifies the next Running Man so that we can follow every minute as he (sometimes she) races through the gantlet of fearsome interest groups across the spectrum, finally arriving on the set, the hearing room of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the questioning is half "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" ("Now, the next round is harder ") and half "Family Feud" ("Sorry, judge, but the survey said ...").

The Constitution's rules for selecting a justice contemplate a calm and somber debate. But nowadays that's fantasy. Nothing in contemporary politics is accomplished calmly or somberly; that was true even before this president carried his wild road show into the Oval Office.

Matters were once otherwise. An 1888 magazine article about the Supreme Court lauded the sobriety of the justices: "The robe adds to their dignity, and one feels impressed with the notion that beneath its folds can lurk nothing not in harmony with justice and law." Not so long ago, most Americans barely knew the names of the justices, never mind their faces. (Or their houses.) Half a century ago, when the journalist Anthony Lewis described the court's public image as "an extraordinarily powerful demigod sitting on a remote throne and letting loose constitutional thunderbolts whenever it sees a wrong crying for correction," he had in mind not only the court's mystery but also its majesty.

Alas, when it comes to the Supreme Court and its dignity, we're way past the point of lese-majeste. Once reporters stake out the homes of potential nominees, we've leaped all the way to farce.

Want to blame Trump? That's fine. I've blamed him, too, warning at the time of his nomination of Neil Gorsuch that the president was turning the process into a sort of "Celebrity Apprentice." And, certainly, there was more of that this time around, as Trump seemed to revel in the news media's moment-by-moment reporting on his very public winnowing of candidates.

But Trump isn't uniquely at fault here. If he were, those cameras wouldn't have been staking out Barrett's house. News reports over the last week would not have been full of speculation about who's up, who's down, who's lobbying for whom. We've gone court-crazy. Put aside the unseemly deathwatch as the justices age. We plan campaigns before there's a nominee. Within minutes of the announcement of Brett Kavanaugh as Trump's choice, my email inbox overflowed with fundraising missives setting forth the horrors to come, but the most cursory reading made clear that the text was finished before there was a nominee, awaiting only a name to be filled in. (By the way, what is it with that sky, the way it's constantly falling?)

Let's not pretend that matters have ever been such. My mentor Thurgood Marshall, one of the great justices in history, was by a good margin the most controversial nominee of the 1960s, but when President Lyndon Johnson announced Marshall's name, the Southern press essentially shrugged. A Greenville, S.C., paper fretted about the court's "ideological orientation," as well as Marshall's "ability to fairly construe the law as it affects civil rights cases," but did not call for the Senate to reject him, and even lauded "his brilliance of mind."

For those of us who love the orderly processes of constitutional government, the new way represents a painful ordeal. Not once, not twice, but three times during my time as a law professor, I've had colleagues ask whether I knew of any dirt on a Supreme Court nominee. And now we've got cameras staking out the homes of the papabili.

All of which leads to a fairly obvious question: If the Supreme Court is so important that we insist upon following minute by minute the drama of the appointment process, and if the identity of the justices is of such vital national interest that the parties build entire fundraising campaigns around them, and if elections for senator and president often hinge on what sort of court voters want, then why in the name of James Madison do we continue with this arcane system of executive nomination followed by senatorial advice and consent? Why don't we simply elect the justices instead?

Remember, at the time the Constitution was written, neither members of the Senate nor the electors who chose the president were popularly elected. In other words, nobody involved in selecting the justices answered directly to the people. We've changed all that, democratizing the process for selecting presidents and senators alike. If we really believe that the court is so important, we should democratize that too.

This isn't by any means a new idea. It's been proposed before, and often. There's a thoughtful 2005 book on the subject by political scientist Richard Davis. (Also one by me, a quarter-century ago.) Let those who would hurl those constitutional thunderbolts face the American people on behalf of whom interest groups for and against claim to speak. Electing the justices would fit the tenor of our times. Consider the demand that nominees promise to vote the way we like. Doesn't that sound an awful lot like asking for campaign promises?

Unlike most law professors, I don't get terribly excited over the question of who's going to serve on the Supreme Court. The institution occupies far too much political space. I'd rather see a more sober and modest court, rarely in the news. But that's not where we are. If we're going to cover the nomination process the way we cover an election, let's quit messing around and buy the whole hog.

Stephen L. Carter is a law professor at Yale University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court justices should be elected

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is what we've come to: On Monday afternoon, as those who enthuse about such things awaited news of President Donald Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, a cable television network cut to cameras outside the home of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to show us that she was busily collecting towels from the porch and carrying them inside - and therefore wasn't in Washington and couldn't be the nominee.

# data[].attributes.headline
Companies should be required to use more environmentally friendly packaging. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Companies should be required to use more environmentally friendly packaging. 

# data[].attributes.body
Plastic packaging and other things such as single-serve chip bags should be abandoned and replaced by reusable options to conserve the environment, even though it is more expensive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Businesses that are looking for proof of a return on investment for sustainable packaging and sustainable operations should look at some encouraging financial evidence from recent years.

Consumers are willing to pay more for goods and services from sustainable companies, according to the World Economic Forum .

The 100 most sustainable companies in the United States, as named by investment magazine Barron's , enjoyed share price growth of 29% in 2017, compared to 22% for the S&P 500 Index.

The 2018 Global Sustainability Index Institute Report looked at the number of sustainable development goal statements in the annual reports of 400 of the world's largest businesses and found that sustainability goals had more than doubled. The reasons for the increase? Company performance benefitted, and stakeholders were interested in sustainability.

Brands turn to sustainable packaging for many reasons, including corporate social responsibility, reducing their carbon footprints, reducing waste, increasing sales - and because retailers require it.

If you would like more information on sustainable packaging for your own business, request it here.

Subscribe

1. Sustainable packaging shows corporate social responsibility

Walmart has a chief sustainability officer, a role that has been gaining in popularity since 2010, with more than 120,000 new CSO jobs added , according to Recruiter.com. Walmart's CSO Kathleen McLaughlin says Walmart's goal is to take an assertive approach in transforming the retail sector for sustainability. By 2025, Walmart aims to have 100% recyclable , reusable or compostable packaging.

Source: Walmart Sustainability Hub

When big-box retailers like Walmart make bold statements like that, brands that do business with Walmart (or aspire to) must take notice. Sustainable packaging could make or break a deal with one of the world's largest retailers, which brings us to our next reason why brands are shifting to sustainable packaging - because they have to.

2. Retailers expect sustainability from brands they carry

Source: Target

Companies that hope to sell products at Target, which is also one of the largest retailers in the United States, will be responsible for meeting Target's promises to improve sustainability in packaging.

3. Decrease carbon footprint, lower shipping costs

Many of today's brands are concerned with the amount of greenhouse gas emissions they are producing, which are contributing to global warming and natural disasters. One such brand is HP.

As a producer of nearly 40 million notebooks in China every year, HP wanted to come up with a sustainable packaging solution, because most notebooks are shipped to the United States and European markets. HP wanted environmentally friendly packaging that minimises the impact of their business operations on the environment, while also being strong enough to protect its products from their long journeys from factory to end-users, especially in humid conditions.

By partnering with BillerudKorsnäs , HP started using fluting and liner made with virgin fibre sourced from responsibly managed forests. The fibre is incredibly strong and decreased packaging materials by 29%, reducing materials and maintaining protection. Another benefit for HP is that the box weighs less, which lowered shipping costs and reduced transportation emissions.

Over just one year, the lighter weight decreased total fibre usage by nearly 2,500 metric tons. It also decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 5,000 metric tons, drastically reducing HP's carbon footprint each year.

4. Optimise packaging, save millions

When HP partnered with BillerudKorsnäs to decrease their carbon footprint it also decreased shipping costs and saved substantial amounts of money. While the higher-quality packaging material HP transitioned to costs roughly the same as the previous boxes, reducing the boxes' weight by 35% results in airfreight cost savings of $3 million to $5 million annually.

When you work with a sustainable packaging partner like BillerudKorsnäs, you will get custom packaging that is optimised both to lessen environmental impact and increase your efficiency. That means:

Less waste in packaging materials

Less waste in packaging design to increase sustainability in manufacturing, operations and the supply chain

The result is increased savings for a business.

5. Meet growing consumer demand

Source: GlobalWebIndex

Eco-conscious consumers care about sustainable packaging because they are concerned about the environment, and they're willing to support companies that share this concern. In the U.S., 61% of consumers want to support companies that protect the environment. In the UK, 56% of consumers want to support eco-friendly companies. This, coupled with their awareness of their role in the supply chain, means they are willing to switch to support their values.

Source: GlobalWebIndex

Companies that want to win over eco-conscious consumers are striving to meet the demand for sustainable packaging.

Partner with Other Sustainable Brands

As your business continues to make progress in sustainable efforts, packaging is one of the biggest ways to make an impact. When you partner with BillerudKorsnäs for sustainable packaging, you can:

Be a leader in your industry in corporate social responsibility by adopting sustainable packaging materials

Reduce your carbon footprint and use of resources through customisable package optimisation

Better serve your customers who are increasingly aware of giving their business to sustainable brands they support

To learn how to develop a sustainable packaging program for your business, download our ebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons More Brands Are Shifting to Sustainable Packaging

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Businesses that are looking for proof of a return on investment for sustainable packaging and sustainable operations should look at some encouraging financial evidence from recent years. Consumers are willing to pay more for goods and services from sustainable companies, according to the World Economic Forum .

# data[].attributes.body
LGBTQ+ rights are human rights and should be constitutionally protected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People around the world face violence and inequality-and sometimes torture, even execution-because of who they love, how they look, or who they are. Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral aspects of our selves and should never lead to discrimination or abuse.

# data[].attributes.body
Electronic books should replace paper books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
E-Books vs. Print Books: An Overview

In the last several years, e-books have become a mainstay of the publishing industry. However, the demise of printed books as a result of the introduction of e-books has not materialized as predicted.

According to the Association of American Publishers, e-book sales in the U.S. declined slightly to $983 million in 2019 from a year earlier. The lower growth rate followed several years of double-digit declines in e-book sales. Both hardcover and paperback books still rule the market, with approximately $3 billion and 2.5 billion in sales in 2019, respectively.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

While e-books are helping the publishing industry, they can be a bit daunting for readers. If you are used to going to a local bookstore, browsing the aisles, and perhaps reading the first chapter before purchasing, you still can with e-books, albeit with a little adjustment.

Print Books

Print books have the feel of a book that many readers love. You can hold it, turn the pages, and feel the paper.

People who love to read spend a lifetime acquiring books. They may find it wrenching to abandon their shelves of books for a single slab of plastic.

Readers may also compare the quality of illustrations between the two formats and find the print versions superior. The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes can be bought in either hardcover or Kindle versions but readers may find the Kindle version lacking due to the shrunken size of the illustrations and the relative clumsiness of toggling between story text and annotations.

Some readers also experience some eye strain using an electronic device instead of a printed book.

Print books are still a little more expensive than e-books, but not all that much. President Barack Obama's memoir, A Promised Land, is currently $17.99 for the Kindle edition, and $23.96 for the hardcover. John Grisham's past bestseller, The Guardians, is $9.99 for the Kindle edition, $9.64 for the paperback version, and $14 for the hardcover.

Classics are the real bargain in any format. You can get Charles Dickens: The Complete Works for Kindle for $2.99, while Bleak House alone is $5.95 in paperback. Both prices are bargains, of course, because the publishers don't have to pay anyone for the rights.

Books on paper are difficult to carry around, especially hardcovers. If you're an avid reader and you're going on a trip, or if you're just stepping out to a coffee shop, an e-reader or iPad is a far lighter burden than a book, or a stack of them.

There's also the satisfaction of having an entire library at your fingertips, not to mention an infinite supply just a click away, ready to download instantly.

In addition, e-book buyers have the advantage that the internet gives consumers of any products: No space constraints. Just about everything ever published is available, all the time.

There are some drawbacks. You must recharge an e-reader or any other electronic device. Some screens are not easily readable in sunlight. And, if you are one of the millions who spend the entire workday in front of a computer, reading your favorite author on a computer screen in the evening may not appeal.

The Shrinking Price Difference

E-books aren't much less expensive than their paper counterparts, at least when it comes to new books from major publishers. Amazon, the dominant online bookseller, was forced by the major book publishers to increase their e-book prices, raising prices by an average of $5 per e-book over time.

Publishers have to price in a significant amount of overhead, including office space, utilities, benefits, and salaries for employees. Other costs include the printing, editing, marketing, and distribution process. Only some of the costs, particularly those related to printing and distribution, disappear with e-book editions.

The trouble is, many readers assume that e-books should be free, or at least much cheaper than their print counterparts. Some publishers respond that printing a book accounts for only about 10% of its cost.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ By eliminating this step, the cost of a book would only drop about $2.70, bringing the average price of a book down from about $27 to $24.30.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Beyond Amazon

Avid e-book readers can stray beyond Amazon or Barnes and Noble and read for free.

The nonprofit Project Gutenberg offers 60,000 free downloadable books, most of them classics well beyond their copyright protection expiration dates. The site Free Classic Books offers just that, in an alphabetized list from Alcott, Louisa M., to Wodehouse, P.G.

Google Books brags that it has more than 10 million books available to download for free, including textbooks and government documents as well as literary classics.

The Initial Cost of E-Books

You don't have to buy an e-reader to read e-books. You can just use your laptop, an Apple iPad or other tablet device, or even a phone app.

That said, Amazon's e-readers are currently priced at around $89.99 to $279.99, with the upper end containing the full features of a tablet. The Barnes & Noble Nook comes in a couple of versions starting at $119.99.

Kobo readers, currently priced at about $133 to $168, are particularly designed for readers who borrow e-books from libraries. The Onyx Boox Note, at under $500, is a full tablet built for students who need to wade through textbooks and documents.

Special Considerations: The Publishing Business

E-books may omit some of the traditional costs of publishing, but it imposes other costs. Added technology costs involve formatting the e-book so that various electronic devices and browsers can properly download and store the book.

Whether it's printed or downloaded, a percentage of the e-book price must be paid to the online seller such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble. This can be anywhere from 30% to 50% of the sale price.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Smaller publishers and independent authors have more leeway with pricing, but they still have many of the same costs. They must give a percentage of their e-book sales to the online distributor, and unless they are graphic designers, they must hire an illustrator to create their cover art.

Most independent authors have to hire someone to convert their books into e-book format. Plus, they still have the marketing and promotional costs that are required to get their books noticed. However, e-books are overall lower in cost to produce, and that is typically reflected in their lower price than print editions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
E-Books vs. Print Books: Which Should You Choose?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the last several years, e-books have become a mainstay of the publishing industry. However, the demise of printed books as a result of the introduction of e-books has not materialized as predicted. According to the Association of American Publishers, e-book sales in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Global warming continues to be a massive problem in the world. Governments have tried to take steps to go eco-friendly and help stop climate change while they still can.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I drive a diesel car, eat meat and just a few months ago had a gas boiler installed in my house, that's quite an admission for an environment correspondent who reports on climate change.

The problem is that greener options are financially out of reach for me and - it seems - most Scots.

That is something I have been investigating for BBC Scotland's Disclosure.

We commissioned a survey of 1,009 Scots, conducted by Savanta ComRes, which suggests price is putting many people off making greener lifestyle choices.

Of the people who indicated that they had considered buying an electric vehicle in the past year, 71% said they had not bought one because of the cost.

Price was a factor too when it came to switching from gas and oil home heating to greener alternatives such as heat pumps. In that question, 64% of those who had considered the switch said the cost had put them off.

Both these changes and many others will be necessary over the next 25 years if Scotland is to meet its targets for reducing emissions.

But Dr Sarah Ivory from the University of Edinburgh, who has studied climate-related behaviour change, believes it will difficult to bring them about.

She says: "We're all a little bit sick of hearing about how bad it is, hearing that something needs to happen and really not knowing how to act.

"We have people say, 'why should we change now?'. I think the answer to that is, if we don't change now, we really are on a pathway to some catastrophic changes in our climate."

Wildfire and droughts

Those catastrophic changes are not just being felt in faraway countries.

Experts told Disclosure that Scotland would see more wildfires, droughts and impacts from rising sea levels.

But our survey suggests most people are unaware of the changes that are coming.

Only 16% expected more wildfires, despite Scotland already seeing a dramatic rise in these.

Even fewer, just 13%, thought increasing droughts would be a problem, despite more than 100,000 private water supplies being at risk.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service says it has seen a 30% rise in wildfires since 2010 and believes a similar rise is likely in the next decade.

In May 2019 fire spread across 22 square miles of peatland in the Flow Country in Sutherland.

Area Commander Bruce Farquharson said: "If things don't change in relation to where the climate is differing and to human behaviour then the fires we will see in the UK will be similar to those that are being seen in Portugal right now.

"If we look at the fire behaviour that we see in Portugal, unfortunately that will lead to loss of life."

In 2017, dozens were killed in their cars while trying to flee a wildfire in Portugal.

It often takes hundreds of firefighters to bring them under control.

Barriers preventing change

Our investigation suggests there are clear barriers preventing people making environmentally-beneficial lifestyle changes.

About 29% of respondents had considered buying an electric vehicle (EV) in the past year but most had been put off by the price which is still more than for a similar petrol or diesel car.

EV driver Elinor Chalmers has had her vehicle since 2015 and is a passionate advocate of them.

She says: "It's something completely new and it does require quite a habit change.

"We are used to driving up to the petrol station, standing there fuelling up. But most of our cars are sitting doing nothing the majority of the time so your car can be fuelling while it's stationary."

Giving up meat

Arguably the individual action with the greatest short-term benefit is reducing the amount of meat we eat.

That's because the greenhouse gas generated by livestock rearing, methane, is up to 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

But unlike CO2, which hangs around for centuries, methane is relatively short-lived, lasting just decades.

Government advisers have suggested we should cut our meat consumption by a quarter over the next 10 years.

But our survey suggests a reluctance, with 30% saying they would not follow the advice.

Most (79%) said it was because they liked eating meat while 39% said they did not believe eating meat was bad for the environment.

In Scotland, researchers also forecast that half of the country's private water supplies are at risk of regularly running dry because of drought.

That would affect more than 100,000 people in places such as the north east and Dumfries and Galloway.

New boreholes are now being drilled in areas which have never run dry before.

Dr Mike Rivington, from the James Hutton Institute, says: "It's not unusual to have localised areas suffering drought. What is increasing is the probability of that happening more often.

"We look at years like 2018, which was a fairly exceptional year, where (drought) was much more widespread across the country.

"We're going to see a lot more of years like 2018. In fact that's going to become the norm rather than the exception."

Before the pandemic, school strikes were being staged right across Scotland with young people protesting that governments were not doing enough to tackle climate change.

The idea came from the Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg who held a weekly vigil outside the country's parliament.

But our poll suggests only 32% of people have been influenced by the protests to make lifestyle changes for the benefit of the planet.

And 29% believe the actions of individuals have only a minor impact, or no impact at all, on tackling the issue.

More on this story

Related Internet Links

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why are people not doing more about climate change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I drive a diesel car, eat meat and just a few months ago had a gas boiler installed in my house, that's quite an admission for an environment correspondent who reports on climate change. The problem is that greener options are financially out of reach for me and - it seems - most Scots.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ethical morals relating to the Covid vaccination

# data[].attributes.subject
Ethical morals relating to the Covid vaccination

# data[].attributes.body
There are issues that some people may have with the use of embryonic stem cells in the Johnson and Johnson one shot vaccine. Due to the practicality and functionality of the vaccine, it is in the publics best interest to take it.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. should not leave the World Health Organization (WHO).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US president Donald Trump and the Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Tedros ... [+]
TASS via Getty Images

Even as the coronavirus pandemic rages on, last week, on 29th May, President Trump announced: "We will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO) and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs."

In response, on 1st June, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO Director General responded with this statement: "The US government and people's contribution and generosity towards global health over many decades has been immense, and it has made a great difference in public health all around the world. It is WHO's wish for this collaboration to continue."

Over the past 15 years, I have had several opportunities to engage with WHO and see how it operates. I will admit - I have had my highs and lows. At times, I have been frustrated with WHO's bureaucracy, internal politics, and slow pace. I know it is not a perfect agency. And yet, I have volunteered hundreds of hours of my time and expertise to the agency, by serving on expert groups, helping produce guidelines, and by co-authoring scientific papers with WHO staff. I currently direct a tuberculosis center that is a WHO Collaborating Center.

What motivates me to contribute my time and expertise? Because WHO is a global good resource that we simply cannot do without. The world needs an honest broker agency that can provide objective, science-informed advice on all health-related matters. This agency must be accountable to all countries, and must be free of industry or commercial conflicts. At this time, the only agency that can play this role is WHO, warts and all. We should make WHO stronger, not kill it.
WHO: an easy target
'Trump needs to find an easy target to deflect blame from the abysmal US response to the pandemic and the George Floyd outrage," said Devi Sridhar, a global health professor at the University of Edinburgh. "WHO is an easy target. But WHO did indeed raise the highest level of alarm for the world (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) on January 30th. Countries then had to do the hard work of preparing, or not," she added. Clearly, many countries failed to act on WHO advice in a timely manner.

Sophie Harman, a professor of international politics at the University of London, concurs. "We must defend the WHO but not play to Trump's tactic to distract from the high cases and deaths from Covid-19 in the US or the murder of George Floyd. The two issues - responding to Covid-19 and racial injustice - are not and cannot be seen in isolation of one another; you just need to look at who is dying from the virus to see this," she argued.

"The backlash from conservatives in the US against WHO, and those in the USA who use global health funding in imperial ways, is nothing new for feminists," said Asha George, a professor at the University of Western Cape in South Africa. "The problematic conditionalities and curtailments date back to the Mexico City conference on population when the global gag rule started." Trump's global gag rule has had a devastating impact on women's sexual and reproductive health.
Can the US withdraw from WHO?
There is considerable uncertainty and debate about this issue. The US government is yet to clarify what 'terminating' its relationship with WHO actually means.

"The President does not have the legal authority to withdraw the United States from WHO, with US law requiring one-year notice and the full payment of assessed contributions prior to withdrawal," said Benjamin Mason Meier, an expert in international law and global health at UNC Chappel Hill. "This announcement appears to be little more than an election promise masquerading as a health policy, and it is likely that WHO will diplomatically ignore it - considering the US an "inactive member" and leaving open the door for US re-engagement under the next administration," he speculated.

"It's preposterous," said Harman. "When Trump talks about withdrawal, I assume he's talking about money. This could potentially have long reaching consequences for not just WHO budgets, but how global health research and innovation works and is shared around the world. However the US contribution is more than just the government, much of global health financing comes from US private philanthropy and the private sector. What's Trump going to do, try and sanction the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from supporting WHO? Stop research created in the US being read and used around the world?"
Withdraw during a crisis?
WHO has been at the forefront of the global pandemic response. While its performance must be reviewed by member states, nobody expected the US to freeze funding in the middle of a global crisis. "It's a disaster for public health and to do it at this time is simply unimaginable," said David Gold, a global health advocate and CEO of Global Health Strategies. "It is unconscionable for Trump to take this step amid the pandemic when the WHO is coordinating the international response," said Thomas Bollyky, author of the book Plagues and the Paradox of Progress.

"Pulling out financial support in the midst of the response to pandemic of the century is suicidal," said Joanne Liu, a former president of Médecins Sans Frontières, who now works as an ER doctor. "It is as if, in a middle of a patient crashing in my ER, someone from the hospital board of directors would come and cut off the oxygen flow. You may not agree about the way I manage the case but the time for accountability is not when I am trying to saves lives." she added.

"In times of crisis, real leadership is characterized by constructive engagement not destructive disengagement," said Tim Evans, Director of the School of Population and Global Health at McGill University, and former Director of Health, Nutrition and Population at the World Bank. "During the Ebola crisis in 2014-2015, the US and other countries were rightly concerned about WHO's performance. But rather than withdraw membership and funds, the US, under the excellent leadership of Ambassador Jimmy Kolker, helped WHO reform on the fly and land in a much better place," he added.
Putting America in danger
Many experts are clear that Trump's move will put America in grave danger.

"President Trump's threatened move is the height of folly, shortsightedness, and stupidity and will cause irreparable damage to the WHO and worldwide efforts to cope with Covid-19," said Theodore Brown, a historian who co-authored the book The World Health Organization: A History. "If his actions match his rhetoric (they don't always), his reckless decision will also cause immense damage to the United States. Not only will the US leave WHO and its global health partners less able to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic which if left unchecked will threaten the US for years to come, but the US withdrawal will disconnect the country from vital sources of information and collective action which will add an enormous additional threat to the country's survival," he added.

"The USA will not be safe from Covid-19 until it is eradicated everywhere. A US withdrawal from the WHO will weaken global health and weaken the global response to the pandemic. That will be bad for the health of people everywhere and bad for health and economy in America," said Roopa Dhatt, Director of Women in Global Health.

Loyce Pace, Director of the Global Health Council, agrees. "Leaving WHO or pulling critical resources in the middle of a pandemic is incredibly dangerous for the US to do. WHO plays a central role in the global response to Covid-19, from country guidance to vaccine trials, and we are by no means out of the woods with regards to the pandemic. But even beyond the current crisis, withholding essential funds or technical support could jeopardize polio eradication and other immunization campaigns not to mention work preventing or controlling infectious diseases that - left unchecked - put us at risk for yet another wave of economic and humanitarian fallout," she added.

Clare Wenham, a professor of global health policy at the London School of Economics, echoes these concerns. "If USA withdraws from WHO - they will no longer have access to disease pertinent information, and the US will be left to fight against a disease without intelligence," she said.

David Gold points out that the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), headquartered in Washington DC, will be hit hard by the US exit from WHO. "PAHO is especially dependent on US funding. PAHO prevents outbreaks from spreading across Latin America and to the US. To stop its funding is insane and a threat to all Americans" he said.
Time for other countries to step up?
For decades, America has dominated the global health landscape with its financial might, research and technological prowess. Trump's move might bring about a seismic shift. If the US could indeed withdraw from WHO, can other countries step up and play a bigger role in global health?

Ilona Kickbusch, a global health professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva thinks so. "No matter how this plays out in the end - the US move provides the opportunity for other alliances of countries to reform the WHO, make it stronger and less dependent on one large contributor - multilateralism should be just that. Think India, European Union, South Africa and the alliances of smaller states," she said.

Wenham is optimistic that funding and leadership gaps can be plugged. "Since the talk of US halting funds to WHO in April, we have seen moves by other governments and donors to fill the gap. Simultaneously, the normative leadership gap can also be plugged. What legitimacy does the US have to contribute to leadership in global health security anyway, given its abysmal response to Covid-19? New leaders are emerging; both from other Western Governments, such as Germany, and LMICs, such as Nigeria, Uganda - who have all manged to keep a handle on this outbreak where the US has failed," she said.
Global solidarity needs a stronger WHO
"If ever there was a need for global solidarity, this is it," said Pascale Allotey, Director, UN University -International Institute for Global Health. And solidarity requires all countries to cooperate during this crisis, and back the WHO to do its job.

This includes the United States, which simply cannot afford to abdicate its global health responsibilities. "The US needs to decide if they are in or out to ensure that serious debates can be had about global health futures, and actions taken without being disruptive with the constant prevarication and equivocation," said Allotey.

Mario Raviglione, the former director of the Global TB Programme at WHO laments that the US has "missed the chance of exploiting the Covid-19 crisis to strengthen an organization that is vital to the world. Instead they are pursuing the disastrous consequence of returning to a pre-WWII chaotic, anarchic health situation." He hopes that the US will rapidly revert the decision and resume support to the WHO. "This is also a tremendous opportunity for other countries to build further leadership by helping finance the orphaned WHO programmes," he added.

For years, WHO has struggled to get adequate funding from countries. The resultant lack of capacity was exposed during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. During this Covid-19 pandemic, WHO was forced to raise money by creating a COVID-Solidarity Response Fund. WHO has also been forced to accept funds from philanthropic foundations, which often have over-sized influence on WHO's agenda. It is well known that WHO has limited flexibility with budgets, and that makes the agency less able to deal with sudden crises which demand new resources.

In addition to the chronic lack of discretionary funds, WHO suffers from the problem of reporting to many masters. The agency is accountable to all member countries and is often unable to publicly criticize countries that misbehave (e.g. by delaying release of vital information, or violating International Health Regulations).

Given these structural problems, why do countries expect so much out of WHO, when they are unwilling to fully fund it? In fact, over the past decades, many new agencies and partnerships have been launched in global health, progressively weakening WHO.

The world has a critical choice to make: to either make WHO stronger and more capable, or to undercut the agency and withdraw from it.

"You want a strong WHO? Then pay for it to deliver common goods," said Kickbusch. I agree and have made the same argument. We simply cannot expect an under-resourced agency to deliver consistent, quality performance.

Also, even if countries chose to shut down WHO, what agency could take it's place and coordinate the health agenda? If a new international health agency were to be created, what would we call it? Wait, I can think of a good name: the World Health Organization.

Disclosure: I have served on several WHO expert groups, including STAG-TB and SAGE-IVD. I have contributed to many WHO policies and guidelines. I direct the McGill International TB Centre, a WHO/PAHO Collaborating Center. I have no commercial or industry relations to disclose.
Full coverage and live updates on the Coronavirus
... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Withdrawal From WHO Is Sad For Global Health And Bad For America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even as the coronavirus pandemic rages on, last week, on 29th May, President Trump announced: "We will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO) and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs."

# data[].attributes.body
They should be dependent on how much money each team brings in.

# data[].attributes.headline
Governments should invest more in space exploration

# data[].attributes.subject
Governments should invest more in space exploration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Exploring Space And Investing In Research Is Non-Negotiable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Around the country and around the world, there is no shortage of human suffering. Poverty, disease, violence, hurricanes, wildfire and more are constantly plaguing humanity, and even our best efforts thus far can't address all of everybody's needs.

# data[].attributes.body
How should social media handle banning accounts without violating free speech and other rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The violence at the U.S. Capitol - and the ensuing actions taken by social media platforms - suggest that we may be at a turning point as far as how business leaders and government bodies approach social media regulation. But what exactly will this look like, and how will platforms balance supporting free speech with getting a handle on the rampant misinformation, conspiracy theories, and promotion of fringe, extremist content that contributed so significantly to last week's riots? The author argues that the key is to understand that there are fundamental structural differences between traditional media and social media, and to adapt approaches to regulation accordingly. The author goes on to suggest several areas of both self-regulation and legislative reform that we're likely to see in the coming months in response to both recent events and ongoing concerns with how social media companies operate.

After years of controversy over President Trump's use of social media to share misleading content and inflame his millions of followers, social media giants Facebook and Twitter finally took a clear stand last week, banning Trump from their platforms - Facebook indefinitely, and Twitter permanently. Could this indicate a turning point in how social media companies handle potentially harmful content shared on their platforms? And could it herald a new era of social media reforms, through both government policies and self-regulation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are We Entering a New Era of Social Media Regulation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The violence at the U.S. Capitol - and the ensuing actions taken by social media platforms - suggest that we may be at a turning point as far as how business leaders and government bodies approach social media regulation.

# data[].attributes.headline
capitalism and its effects on the food industry

# data[].attributes.subject
capitalism and its effects on the food industry

# data[].attributes.body
the entry of capitalism into the food production industry has had serious consequences on the health of people in our country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Maggie Witham.

Written as part of the First-Year Seminar "The Raw, the Cooked, the Processed"

The average American has been coerced into an extremely unhealthy diet by the dominating companies in the food industry. Bombarded with advertisements for fried, sugary, and processed foods, people tend to gravitate to these unnatural products and ignore the healthy, whole foods that should be consumed. Processed food is being sold at low costs and is easily accessible, making these products a staple of the Standard American Diet. Companies that sell these products contribute to America's capitalistic economy. Capitalism is when a country's industry is run by private companies for profit, rather than being controlled by the state. Big-name brands are not making products to satisfy people's nutritional needs; they are doing it entirely for the money they are earning. The distribution of these food products is controlled by the small group of people representing each company. They decide what is being put into food, how it is being made, and the prices for all of the products. This lowers the quality of products and they become extremely over processed. The food being made by large companies has little to no nutritional value and is increasing the amount of unnecessary sugars and fats into the American diet. I believe that capitalism, specifically the dominance of companies in the food industry, is the main contributor to the rising rates of health problems such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes in America. Capitalism causes the growth of diet-related complications because of its advertising ploys, cheap prices, and easy accessibility of products.

Initially, capitalism is the culprit of causing these health-related problems because of its sly advertising and marketing ploys. Businesses spend billions on marketing their products to the public. America is overwhelmed with TV commercials, computer ads, the high population of fast food chains, etc. Marion Nestle, a professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University, claims that food companies compete fiercely for our food dollars and do everything they can to induce us to eat their products and to eat more food, regardless of the effects on waistlines and health (Specter, 2015). They make advertisements exciting and interesting, truly trying to engage their audience and persuade them into buying their product, as any good advertisement should do. However, these ads are deceiving; they mask the deadliness of their merchandise. Pictures of happy, thin and presumably healthy people enjoying highly processed cereals and snacks in advertisements are not the reality in this country. But, they are seen by the average person many times through multiple outlets during a typical day. "On TV alone, the average child sees about 5,500 food commercials a year (or about 15 per day) that advertise high-sugar breakfast cereals, fast food, soft drinks, candy, and snacks, according to the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. Compare that to the fewer than 100 TV ads per year kids see for healthy foods like fruits, veggies, and bottled water" (Voiland, et al. 2012). This fact is especially alarming because children are rarely exposed to healthy food to eat; all they will ever know is what they see on the screen. If they are exposed to a highly processed diet early on, it will most likely carry throughout the rest of their lives. Changing what is advertised to children can change the health of Americans in the future. This type of diet is normalized because it is so commonly seen in our everyday lives, but it does not have to be.

Adding on to the effects of advertising, labels on the products themselves can be illusory as well. A company may market that their product is "100% whole wheat" to distract from the added sugars and fats hidden on the nutrition label. The large fonts on the front of packages imply that the food is healthy, but it is meant to divert the public away from the actual harms in the product. These labels narrow the view of customers and convince them that the food is healthy because of that one factor, when in reality they are still highly processed and contain excessive sugars, fats, sodium, etc. A nutrition label does contain the amount of sugar per serving, but there is no label for added sugars. The FDA wanted to pass a law that all companies must start acknowledging added sugars on their nutrition labels, but were faced with harsh feedback and criticism. Brands worried that their products would not sell as well if the public was informed on what was actually inside them. Many companies go as far as to hire or sponsor people to fight off their critics. "[The Center for Consumer Freedom] has lobbied aggressively against obesity-related public health campaigns - such as the one directed at removing junk food from schools - and is funded, according to the Center for Media and Democracy, primarily through donations from big food companies such as Coca-Cola, Cargill, Tyson Foods and Wendy's" (Voiland, et al. 2012). Again, major food companies try to mask the unhealthiness of their foods or drinks through multiple ways. Taking advantage of their wealth and power to diminish the claims of critics results in the public not being fully aware of the health risks that stem from consuming their products.

Furthermore, the cheap prices of processed food make it more desirable to the average American. This especially relates to fast food stores, where a few dollars can immediately satisfy a meal. This results in both the gratification of companies and consumers. Because processed food costs less for a company to make, they can sell it at a lower price. The most money comes from turning government-subsidized commodity crops of mainly corn, wheat, and soybeans into fast foods, snack foods and beverages (Voiland, et al. 2012). It happens that these crops that are turned into processed foods are low in nutritional value. For example, soybean oil has become the most commonly consumed vegetable oil in the United States. It is found in processed foods because it is cheap to manufacture. Soybean oil greatly impacts blood pressure and cholesterol levels, ultimately having a direct effect on obesity. Consumers see a price tag over a nutrition label. Products that are low cost are generally bought more often than products that cost more but are healthier.

As a matter of fact, processed foods are found to be physically addicting. The more fast food and junk food that someone eats, the more that they crave it. "Foods that are dense in fat and sugar prompt the striatum to make endorphins, 'feel good' chemicals, that can trigger binge eating" (Kenny 2015). Processed food is more calorie dense than it is nutrient dense. Overeating this food will result in an increase of calories but provide little to no nutrients for the body. They contain mostly added sugars and fats. If these foods are constantly eaten, a person will begin to crave them more and it creates a vicious cycle that leads to many possible health problems like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Americans are eating more processed foods than ever before. In the 1950s, people were eating the majority of their food at home, around 75%. In 2009, only about 50% of food was eaten at home, and that still includes many processed foods (Dr. Stephan Guyenet). More and more people are falling susceptible to the obsession of processed foods. By even selling their products, companies are contributing to the food-related diseases in America. They are the starting point of an addiction to fast and processed foods.

Additionally, the companies' products are easily available, making them even more tempting to consumers. They are packaged and found in all types of food stores, gas stations, fast food restaurants, etc. Poorer areas may not have great access to an education about healthy living, so they turn to what they see all the time: the processed foods. The fact that these products are affordable and immediate makes them even more appealing as well. It is more tempting to eat something that is already made in front of you rather than making the food yourself. Also, many of the processed foods are not able to be replicated at home. One can grow their own vegetables or spices, but cannot easily make their own cereals, chips or Cheetos. Processed foods cannot truly be recreated as they are advertised, so the only option for consumers is to buy them how they are.

Overall, capitalism and the power of companies in the food industry are the main contributors to the growing health problems in the American people. Companies are ultimately after profit; they will provide whatever is cheapest to the public in order to earn money. Processed foods are high in fat and added sugar which can become addictive if eaten excessively, as many Americans do. The Standard American Diet has evolved greatly over time. According to "Eating Made Simple," obesity rates in the United States (of people aged 20-74) have risen from 15% in 1980 to 35.3% in 2012 (Nestle, 2007). These changes in the average health of the American public over the past few decades are alarming. Heart disease is now the leading cause of death for both men and women. Both health problems are related to and can be reversed by altering food choices to be healthier and more well-balanced. The epidemics related to diet choices are most likely caused by capitalism and the supremacy of large companies in the food industry by exerting control through advertising, cheap prices, and easy accessibility of their products.
References
Kenny, P. J. (2015, June). The Food Addiction. The Scientific American, 46-51.

Nestle, M. (2007, September). Eating Made Simple. The Scientific American, 39-45.

Specter, M. (2015, November 2). Freedom from Fries. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/02/freedom-from-fries

Voiland, A., Haupt, A. (2012, March 30). 10 Things the Food Industry Doesn't Want You to Know.Retrieved from https://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2012/03/30/things-the-food-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of Capitalism on American Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By: Maggie Witham. Written as part of the First-Year Seminar "The Raw, the Cooked, the Processed" The average American has been coerced into an extremely unhealthy diet by the dominating companies in the food industry. Bombarded with advertisements for fried, sugary, and processed foods, people tend to gravitate to these unnatural products and ignore the...

# data[].attributes.body
Trans rights should be protected

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump administration is urging key US federal agencies to stop protecting the rights of transgender people, according to a New York Times article. The Department of Health and Human Services is leading an effort to adopt a narrow interpretation of sex discrimination under US civil rights law that does not include "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." This could roll back protections for transgender people at work, at school, and at the doctor's office.

The federal government's protection of transgender rights under major legislation such as Title VII (employment rights), Title IX (education rights) and the Affordable Care Act is largely rooted in interpretations adopted by the Obama administration. An inclusive interpretation of sex discrimination has been upheld by an increasing number of federal courts weighing in on the question.

The Trump administration's proposal will likely be challenged in court. In the meantime, however, it threatens to do serious harm to transgender people who face discrimination that threatens their access to employment, housing, education, and healthcare. Its proposal that any definition of "sex" be restricted to "male" or "female" as indicated on birth certificates could also have a severe impact on intersex people whose sex characteristics may not neatly align as "male" or "female," and whose sex assigned at birth may not match their gender identity.

From attempts to exclude transgender soldiers from the military, to expanding permission for health care providers to deny care on religious or moral grounds, the administration has relentlessly undermined the protections from discrimination transgender people depend on under federal law. But there is a way forward.

Without delay, Congress should pass the Equality Act, which would amend federal legislation including the Civil Rights Act, Title VII, Title IX, and the Affordable Care Act to explicitly provide protection against discrimination on the basis of "sex" to explicitly include "sexual orientation and gender identity." This would clarify for the courts and for all federal agencies that all Americans - including transgender people - have equal access to employment, education, health care, and other essential services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US Congress Should Protect Transgender Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration is urging key US federal agencies to stop protecting the rights of transgender people, according to a New York Times article. The Department of Health and Human Services is leading an effort to adopt a narrow interpretation of sex discrimination under US civil rights law that does not include "sexual orientation" or "gender identity."

# data[].attributes.body
DMCA should be less regulated and the artists should have more say and control over when they decide to remove their music from videos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Section 1201 prohibits two types of activities. First, it prohibits circumventing technological protection measures (or TPMs) used by copyright owners to control access to their works. For example, the statute makes it unlawful to bypass a password system used to prevent unauthorized access to a streaming service. Second, it prohibits manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in certain circumvention technologies, products, services, devices, or components.

Section 1201 establishes a triennial rulemaking process to allow for consideration of temporary exemptions to the prohibition on circumvention. In this process, the Librarian of Congress, following a public proceeding conducted by the Register of Copyrights in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce, may adopt exemptions permitting circumvention for certain noninfringing uses of copyrighted works.

For more resources on section 1201, including a tutorial and the Register's past recommendations, see our Section 1201 page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Section 1201 prohibits two types of activities. First, it prohibits circumventing technological protection measures (or TPMs) used by copyright owners to control access to their works. For example, the statute makes it unlawful to bypass a password system used to prevent unauthorized access to a streaming service.

# data[].attributes.body
The school curriculum needs to be changed since it has not been changed in a very long time and things have been changing. -Sophia R

# data[].attributes.body
The Government should let the Stock Market run independently and not interfere with the economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The stock market is a major financial entity with players both large and small. The market facilitates public ownership of corporations while also providing a trading industry with many different types of careers. The federal government regulates much of the stock market's activity to protect investors and ensure the fair exchange of corporate ownership on the open markets.

Day trading is the practice of buying and selling stock shares on the same day. While nearly anyone can buy stock to sell at a later time, day trading carries strict stock market restrictions. This protects novice traders from themselves in a highly risky form of stock market participation, where ignorant traders can quickly lose extraordinary sums of money.

Additionally, this stock trading law reduces use of the stock market as a form of gambling for the common man. Day traders are required to use only margin accounts, a type of brokerage account that gives clients access to cash on loan from the broker. Additionally, day traders must maintain a minimum daily balance of ​$25,000​ in their brokerage accounts, which may be a combination of cash and stocks. If this is not met, the account is suspended until new funds are added or a period of 90 days passes, according to FINRA.

The stock market's primary purpose is to facilitate public ownership of a corporation. When a company chooses to "go public," it has access to large investment capital from the investing public. But to ensure that the public has accurate knowledge of a company's health, stock market regulations require public businesses to disclose much more information than private companies. The company must file regular financial statements that provide a comprehensive look at the company's debt, earnings, salaries of its principal officers and other information.

Brokers are the middle men who provide the investing public with access to activity on a stock market exchange. Without a broker, most investors are unable to buy and sell shares. The government regulates the actions of brokers to ensure fairness in this large part of the stock market's industry. The most important regulation determines who in fact may operate as a broker.

Registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission is a fundamental requirement for any company that engages in stock market transactions on behalf of a client. The regulations further distinguish between brokers and "dealers," who execute stock transactions for the own corporate accounts. Many companies operate as both brokers and dealers, which requires the corporation to file under both roles.

Some people earn their living mostly or entirely through stock market trading. For these individuals, the government regulates how their capital gains are taxed. The Internal Revenue Service provides a special "trader status" to individuals who meet certain criteria, according to Forbes. Once granted trader status, these individuals are not restricted to many of the limitations associated with capital gains taxes.

Instead, their trading activity is treated as regular income. To qualify, a trader must demonstrate that she earns the majority of her income from trading and that her profits are significantly affected by daily fluctuations in market activity. Her trading records must indicate a year-round daily participation in the markets to demonstrate full-time work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Government Regulations on the Stock Market

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Government Regulations on the Stock Market. The stock market is a major financial entity with players both large and small. The market facilitates public ownership of corporations while also providing a trading industry with many different types of careers. The federal government regulates much of the stock ...

# data[].attributes.body
After the discovery of the Cas-9 Crispr protein, the potential for genetically modified humans is possible. Genetic engineering should be a socially acceptable science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The CRISPR-baby scandal: what’s next for human gene-editing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As concerns surge after a bombshell revelation, here are four questions about this fast-moving field.

# data[].attributes.headline
Renewable Energy Should Replace Fossil Fuels

# data[].attributes.subject
Renewable Energy Should Replace Fossil Fuels

# data[].attributes.body
A change to renewable energy would greatly improve the worlds environment. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy doesn't release many air pollutants that are harmful the environment and public health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Renewable energy-wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass-provides substantial benefits for our climate, our health, and our economy.

# data[].attributes.body
School might easier to access online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most students can't wait to get back into the classroom, even as more schools extend remote learning indefinitely.

The University of Alabama system said it intends to return to on-campus instruction, while the California State University System announced that all students, enrolled on 23 campuses, will take fall classes online. Other schools have proposed a blended approach.

On thing is clear: Even after it is deemed safe to return to school, it won't be a return to what was considered normal.

"We can never unlearn the things we've learned the last few months during Covid-19," said Robert Franek, editor in chief of The Princeton Review and author of "The Best 385 Colleges."
More from Personal Finance:
Colleges consider a tuition freeze amid pandemic
Demand for refunds intensifies among college students
College enrollment could drop if schools stay closed
The coronavirus crisis laid bare how ill-prepared most schools had been when it came to remote learning capabilities. From grade school through graduate school, many institutions struggled to get up to speed as classes moved online nearly overnight.

Going forward, many educators have said they will incorporate aspects of virtual learning in their approach to teaching.

Some schools have already committed to adopting a "hybrid" model to education in and outside the classroom in the years ahead.

For starters, students will likely see smaller classes and staggered scheduling, which could include alternating days of the week or times of the day, to help limit the number of people physically present in a building at any time, according to guidelines set by the American Federation of Teachers.

As a result, kids will spend much less time in brick-and-mortar classrooms. "We know that those virtual opportunities are going to be valuable," Franek said.

Still, students overwhelmingly prefer in-person instruction over online learning.

Roughly two-thirds of all college and graduate students said online classes aren't as effective as in-person instruction, according to a survey of 14,000 students in April by Niche.com.

Research by the Collaborative for Student Growth at NWEA, a national nonprofit that assesses learning, found that current school closures due to Covid-19 could result in substantially lower achievement levels.

"It's a hard sell; people like live teaching," said Mayssoun Bydon, founder and managing partner of The Institute for High Learning, or IHL Prep, an educational consulting firm.

But now that they've set up the infrastructure, the onus is on schools and faculty to make this experience better, Bydon said.

"Professors are going to have to step up," she said. "Despite the clamor and the complaints about it, remote learning is going to be here to stay."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Post-pandemic, remote learning could be here to stay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most students can't wait to get back into the classroom, even as more schools extend remote learning indefinitely. The University of Alabama system said it intends to return to on-campus instruction, while the California State University System announced that all students, enrolled on 23 campuses, will take fall classes online.

# data[].attributes.body
More effort should be placed in the removing of harmfully space junk in orbit around the earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A demonstration mission to test an idea to clean up space debris launched Monday morning local time from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Known as ELSA-d, the mission will exhibit technology that could help capture space junk, the millions of pieces of orbital debris that float above Earth.

The more than 8,000 metric tons of debris threaten the loss of services we rely on for Earth-bound life, including weather forecasting, telecommunications and GPS systems.

The spacecraft works by attempting to attach itself to dead satellites and pushing them toward Earth to burn up in the atmosphere.

ELSA-d, which stands for End-of-Life Services by Astroscale, will be carried out by a "servicer satellite" and a "client satellite" that launched together, according to Astroscale, the Japan-based company behind the mission. Using a magnetic docking technology, the servicer will release and try to "rendezvous" with the client, which will act as a mock piece of space junk.

The mission, which will be run from the U.K., will carry out this catch and release process repeatedly over the course of six months. The goal is to prove the servicer satellite's ability to track down and dock with its target in varying levels of complexity.

The spacecraft is not designed to capture dead satellites already in orbit, but rather future satellites that would be launched with compatible docking plates on them.

Space junk has been a growing problem for years as human-made objects such as old satellites and spacecraft parts build up in low Earth orbit until they decay, deorbit, explode or collide with other objects, fragmenting into smaller pieces of waste.

In 2019, for example, India blew apart one of its satellites orbiting Earth, creating hundreds of pieces of debris that threatened to collide with the International Space Station.

According to a recent report by NASA, at least 26,000 of the millions of pieces of space junk are the size of a softball. Orbiting along at 17,500 mph, they could "destroy a satellite on impact." More than 500,000 pieces are a "mission-ending threat" because of their ability to impact protective systems, fuel tanks and spacecraft cabins.

And the most common debris, more than 100 million pieces, is the size of a grain of salt and could puncture a spacesuit, "amplifying the risk of catastrophic collisions to spacecraft and crew," the report said.

According to NASA, cleaning up space - and addressing the risks associated with debris - depend on preventing the accumulation of more waste and actively removing it.

The development of other cleanup technologies has been underway for years. In 2016, Japan's space agency sent a 700-meter tether into space to try to slow down and redirect space junk. In 2018, a device called RemoveDebris successfully cast a net around a dummy satellite.

The European Space Agency also plans to send a self-destructing robot into orbit in 2025, which the organization's former director general has referred to as a space "vacuum cleaner."

These efforts could prove increasingly important as private space ventures like SpaceX continue to clutter low Earth orbit with a "mega-constellation" of satellites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Effort To Clean Up Space Junk Reaches Orbit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A demonstration mission to test an idea to clean up space debris launched Monday morning local time from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Known as ELSA-d, the mission will exhibit technology that could help capture space junk, the millions of pieces of orbital debris that float above Earth.

# data[].attributes.body
Testing products on animals should be banned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Testing News, Articles | The Scientist Magazine®

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The latest news and opinions in animal testing from The Scientist, the life science researcher's most trusted source of information.

# data[].attributes.headline
Robotic Technology can be beneficial and harmful

# data[].attributes.subject
Robotic Technology can be beneficial and harmful

# data[].attributes.body
The technological field helps people and makes their lives easier however it is also making people lazier.

# data[].attributes.body
Should a het speech be protected by the first amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
There has been a significant pay gap between how much women make versus how much men make.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Women hold more leadership roles than ever but there's still a gender pay gap. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is the wage gap real? We have Kamala as our vice president and more female CEOs than ever before, but women of all races are making less than men.

# data[].attributes.body
in order to preserve the democracy of our country, we need to abolish the system of the electoral college

# data[].attributes.body
Laugange is a big issue espeically with businesses and needs to be taught more and worked with more. -Sophia r

# data[].attributes.body
The US education system is severely flawed and needs to be changed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
18 Reasons the U.S. Education System is Failing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spread the loveOnce upon a time, enthusiasts designed a formal education system to meet the economic demands of the industrial revolution. Fast forward to today and, with the current global economic climate, it seems apparent that the now established education system is unable to meet the needs of our hyper-connected society - a society that is in a constant state of evolution.

# data[].attributes.body
College tuition has drastically increased over the past couple of years and it is too much for students to go to the schools they want.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coins and banknote in a glass jar placed on the textbook. Concept money saving for education.
getty

Over the past two decades, published college tuition has increased in price more than any other good or service besides hospital care. Tuition inflation has risen at a faster rate than the cost of medical services, child care, and housing. While generous financial aid means that students usually pay far less than the "sticker price" of tuition, the net price of public four-year colleges has still more than doubled since the turn of the century. Moreover, underlying costs at American colleges are the highest of any large country in the developed world.

Source: College Board
Preston Cooper/Forbes

A new paper by economist Beth Akers of the Manhattan Institute (my former employer) asks why college tuition is so high and still rising. The proximate causes of tuition inflation are familiar: administrative bloat, overbuilding of campus amenities, a model dependent on high-wage labor, and the easy availability of subsidized student loans.

However, the deeper question is why the market has allowed these cost inefficiencies to persist. In most industries, competition brings down the cost of products over time. The first laptop computer cost over $5,000 in today's dollars, but now laptops with far more computing power can be bought for $200. Why hasn't the same phenomenon occurred in higher education?

Akers explores four potential explanations: students overestimate the return to a degree; colleges are not transparent about their true prices; too few institutions operate in each regional market; and there are significant barriers to entry for new educational providers.

Many students treat a college degree as a "golden ticket" to the middle class, Akers argues. The decision to go to college is fundamentally a cost-benefit calculation. If the financial return to college is high enough, then students should theoretically be willing to pay high amounts for tuition, because they still come out ahead in the long run.

But few students are sitting down with Excel spreadsheets to calculate the return to college; instead, they rely on impressions of how much a college degree will earn them in the long run. Yet only some degrees are worth paying top dollar. The general impression that every degree is valuable-a "golden ticket" or so to speak-pushes up students' willingness to pay for college, and consequently inflates college tuition.

Even if that is the case, a sufficiently competitive market for higher education should still bring down the price of college. Akers therefore identifies another problem: the true price of a college education is usually hidden. While most students get at least some financial aid, prospective students usually don't know how much aid they will get until after they are accepted to college.

This makes comparison-shopping across a wide swath of institutions impossible. Application fees and time constrain the number of colleges each student can apply to, so the number of colleges among which a student can compare prices may be as little as one. Knowing that students will have few alternatives by the time they actually see what they will pay, colleges have every incentive to be stingy with financial aid.

Another factor constraining choice is that most students have limited options for higher education. While there are thousands of accredited colleges nationwide, the typical student has far fewer options. Most students attend a college in their home state, thanks to a combination of steep discounts for state residents, familiarity with local schools, and a desire to save money by living at home. With few competitors, colleges face less competitive pressure to provide price discounts or improve the quality of education.

High prices and few institutions should provide ample opportunity for alternative providers of education to enter the market and lower prices through competition. However, most of these alternative providers will find it difficult to access federal financial aid, which means that the playing field is not level between traditional schools and new ones.

All colleges must be accredited to access federal aid, but the accreditation system is typically hostile to new players. Accreditors often judge schools based on factors such as curriculum and faculty rather than whether they achieve better student outcomes for a lower price. This system disadvantages schools with newer and cheaper but potentially more effective educational models.

These problems are deeply ingrained in America's higher education system, and reversing them will take work. Akers has several proposals to address them, which fall into two main groups. The first prong of her strategy is transparency. Better data on financial aid and net prices should be made available and accessible, along with data on typical earnings after graduation. This will help inform students whether a particular college degree is worth the cost.

The second prong involves opening the higher-education marketplace to competition by removing accreditors from their role as gatekeepers of federal financial aid, and instead allocating funds based on student outcomes. Not only will this encourage new entrants, but it will force existing universities to search for cost efficiencies and lower their prices to compete.

Industries like higher education have seen enormous cost growth over the past decades, even as the cost of other goods and services has fallen. Price transparency and robust competition have gone a long way towards reducing prices in other industries. The higher education system should follow their lead.

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A New Study Investigates Why College Tuition Is So Expensive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past two decades, published college tuition has increased in price more than any other good or service besides hospital care. Tuition inflation has risen at a faster rate than the cost of medical services, child care, and housing.

# data[].attributes.body
The Andrew Yang proposal about Wealth and Taxes would not benefit others, and would cause a disaster.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the top contenders in the Democratic presidential primary have called for a wealth tax on America's biggest earners. But entrepreneur Andrew Yang, whose profile in the primary race has risen in recent months, told CNBC's John Harwood that the policy could be a "disaster in practice."

Yang's campaign is built around a starkly different, though no less bold, plan to overhaul the economy: a so-called universal basic income in which all U.S. citizens receive $1,000 a month with "no strings attached."

Yang says the plan, which he calls a "freedom dividend," would protect the jobs and well-being of Americans whose livelihoods are threatened by automation and technological innovation.

Progressive candidates in the top tier of the primary have called to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for a bevy of social programs, such as "Medicare for All" and tuition-free college.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is threatening the front-runner status of former Vice President Joe Biden, proposes a 2% annual tax on wealth of more than $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth over $1 billion. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a self-described democratic socialist, announced an even bigger tax on the rich in September.

"I understand the spirit of it and the intent of" the wealth tax idea, Yang told Harwood. "But I agree that it would be somewhere between problematic and a disaster in practice."

Read the exchange from Harwood's Speakeasy with Yang below:

Harwood: The Republican economists I talked to who praise the efficiency of what you proposed contrasted it with the wealth tax that Sanders and Warren have talked about. They say it just won't work, won't raise the money, will trigger a lot of evasion. There are measurement problems. Do you think the wealth tax is a bad idea?

Yang: I think the wealth tax is an idea, in spirit, that makes sense, given the wealth distribution. But in practice it would have massive implementation problems. There would be capital flight, wealthy people would renounce their citizenship. And the bigger problem isn't even the money. It's the annual inventorying of their assets. The truly wealthy in this country have zero interest in submitting to an annual audit of all of their assets. They barely know what all their assets are. And the last thing they're going to do is report them every year and then pay a toll. So you would have massive compliance problems. And to me there are better ways to make this economy fair, though I understand the spirit of it and the intent of it. But I agree that it would be somewhere between problematic and a disaster in practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Andrew Yang says the wealth tax proposals from Sanders and Warren could be a 'disaster in practice'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of the top contenders in the Democratic presidential primary have called for a wealth tax on America's biggest earners. But entrepreneur Andrew Yang, whose profile in the primary race has risen in recent months, told CNBC's John Harwood that the policy could be a "disaster in practice."

# data[].attributes.body
There is an excessive amount of surveillance in some areas and is harming citizens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
CJFE | Canadian Journalists for Free Expression

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Nathan Munn

For those of us who grew up in Canada, the idea that government security agents would one day be monitoring our movements, phone calls, text messages and internet activity seemed impossible.

Today, however, we know that security agencies including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and Communications Security Establishment (CSE), as well as local law enforcement agencies, are conducting unprecedented levels or surveillance on Canadians for a variety of purposes. We only know this is happening because of document leaks and government whistleblowers.

While many people immediately recognize the problems that arise from this kind of mass surveillance, others have no issues with the practice. A common argument that skeptics use to brush off concerns about mass surveillance is that "only people who have something to hide" need to worry about it.

This is a dangerous position to take for anyone who cares about democratic values, such as free expression, freedom of political affiliation and the right to privacy. Evidence shows that mass surveillance erodes intellectual freedom and damages the social fabric of affected societies; it also opens the door to flawed and illegal profiling of individuals. Mass surveillance has also been shown to not prevent terrorist attacks.

Evidence shows that even the possibility of being under surveillance changes the way people think and act, causing them to avoid writing or talking about sensitive or controversial subjects-discussions that are necessary for the functioning of a free society. Beyond this 'self-censorship', the mass monitoring of citizens' communications and movements achieves only one thing: the development of mutual mistrust between the individual and the state.

Altered Behaviour

So, how does mass surveillance affect the way we act? A 2016 study showed that people alter their behavior when they are reminded that the government is watching their activities. To test the effects of surveillance, participants in the study were first shown a fictional news headline about the United States targeting the Islamic State in an airstrike. They were then asked how they felt about the event while being regularly reminded that their responses were being monitored. As a result, most people in the study began to suppress opinions about the fictional event that they felt to be controversial or that they believed may lead to the government to scrutinize them.

Interestingly, the study also showed that participants who support the idea of mass surveillance were the most likely to suppress their own non-conformist opinions.

When it comes to creativity and the free expression of ideas, a survey conducted by PEN America in 2013 found that one in every six writers "has avoided writing or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillance."

Some analysts have pointed out that while journalists, activists and others who have already accepted the possibility of surveillance tend to continue their activities as before, people who are less politically engaged-oftentimes the average citizen-are more likely to self-censor and curb their involvement in any sort of activism as a result of ongoing surveillance. This chilling effect on participation in social causes and activities is an obvious threat to a functioning democracy.

According to Glenn Greenwald, governments, corporations and other institutions of authority " crave surveillance ...precisely because the possibility of being monitored radically changes individual and collective behavior," leading to "fear and collective conformity." Available evidence supports this claim.

VISIT CJFE'S CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS TO LEARN MORE ABOUT SURVEILLANCE IN CANADA AND GET INVOLVED TODAY.

Data Collection and Aggregation

Beyond its corrosive effects on intellectual curiosity and free speech, two extremely dangerous products of mass surveillance include the gathering and assembling of surveillance data to create individual profiles and to fuel predictive analysis.

Security and law enforcement agencies aggregate surveillance data to create profiles of people and then attempt to predict their future behavior based on what they've done in the past. The problem with this practice is that it's easy to make flawed presumptions and predictions based on data assembled in this 'Frankenstein' manner. These types of presumptions and biases are on display in so-called Crime Predicting software, which have been shown to disproportionately target poor and minority communities.

While some of our security agencies have said they only collect " metadata" and not the contents of our communications, using metadata in an attempt to glean insights from people's behavior has a high potential for abuse, especially as ever-increasing amounts of data are gathered and stored in ways beyond our control. The recent revelation that CSIS has been illegally storing meta data about Canadians only reinforces the seriousness of the current situation.

How to Stop Mass Surveillance in Canada

We know that mass surveillance is occurring, and the institutions that operate surveillance regimes are aware that we know. The administrators of these programs have no intention of curbing surveillance on their own. So what can the average citizen do to put an end to surveillance practices that do an end-run around the hard-won protections enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Christopher Parsons, post-Doctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab in the Munk School of Global Affairs, told CJFE that getting involved in the political process is key.

"When we're talking about government mass surveillance, it is a technology-enabled problem but it is also a politically-driven problem," says Parsons.

"Our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies, when they're involved in indiscriminate mass surveillance, they really are operating-or are meant to be operating-within the scope of existing legislation."

According to Parsons, this is why it is up to us as Canadians to change the surveillance systems that now surround us. By regularly contacting our elected officials to express our concerns about surveillance programs, we can make it clear that, as citizens, we won't be satisfied until these programs are curtailed.

Unfortunately, Parsons also notes that some of the legal mechanisms to which mass surveillance regimes are supposed to be subject are kept out of sight-and effectively out of reach-of the public.

"One of the difficulties we have with mass surveillance as it operates today, especially in the Five Eyes countries, is that there is the law you and I can read-but then there's the secret law authorizing and empowering the kinds of activities that raise so many concerns," he says.

"An area where activism is [effective] is to push government to release those legal documents, those legal opinions, that redefine the law."

When laws that are fundamental to Canadians' rights and freedoms are being redefined behind closed doors, it's time to act. If our institutions won't take the necessary steps to rein in their own excesses, then it is up to us-average citizens-to do the job for them.
Nathan Munn is an editor and investigative journalist based in Montreal, Quebec.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Mass Surveillance Harms Societies and Individuals - and What You Can Do About It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Nathan Munn For those of us who grew up in Canada, the idea that government security agents would one day be monitoring our movements, phone calls, text messages and internet activity seemed impossible.

# data[].attributes.body
Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete in athletic events?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Attorneys for three female high school athletes in Connecticut have filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop transgender athletes from running track events against their clients.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:

Should transgender students be allowed to compete in women's high school athletics? That's the question at the center of a lawsuit in Connecticut. In some states, inclusion means that if someone identifies as a girl, she can compete as a girl. Not everyone, though, thinks that's fair play. Connecticut Public Radio's Frankie Graziano reports.

FRANKIE GRAZIANO, BYLINE: Terry Miller is fast, so fast that some girls don't want to race against her. Last year, she clocked the best time a girl has ever run in the 55-meter dash at the Connecticut open indoor track and field championships. But this year - well, it's complicated.

UNIDENTIFIED ANNOUNCER: On your marks.

(SOUNDBITE OF GUNSHOT)

GRAZIANO: Miller, who is transgender, finished third.

TERRY MILLER: My whole season wasn't close to any of my personal bests, but I was still trying to work my way to how I was because stuff happened, and I'm not in my groove like I was last year. So I just kept pushing.

GRAZIANO: She was running right next to someone that's suing state athletic officials so that Miller can't race against girls anymore. Her name is Chelsea Mitchell, and she won the race even though her lawsuit claims the playing field is uneven.

CHELSEA MITCHELL: I was just trying to focus on getting a good start, getting a clean start, work on my acceleration, finish.

GRAZIANO: In Connecticut, the state governing association of high school sports allows athletes to compete according to the gender they identify with. Mitchell's attorneys say that policy is unfair. Denise Harle says Miller has an edge because she's, quote, "biologically male."

DENISE HARLE: The whole reason we have girls sports is because biological males have larger muscles, greater bone density, bigger hearts and lungs. Their size and strength gives them a significant advantage over girls.

GRAZIANO: Back at the state open, the debate falls somewhere along the intersection of fairness and transgender participation in athletics. Phil Hutchens doesn't have a child running in the 55. He's here to watch his son compete in a different event. But he calls the lawsuit appropriate.

PHIL HUTCHENS: Girls are girls; boys are boys. If you want to run, that's fine, but you have to have an asterisk by your name that you're declaring definitely.

GRAZIANO: Omar Brown coaches track kids from a school not associated with the lawsuit.

OMAR BROWN: What I tell my athletes all the time is just, like, you know, focus on your race. Focus on you. At the end of the day, be respectful of other people.

GRAZIANO: The attorneys who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the athlete say Title IX forms the basis of their case. That's the landmark federal law that initially gave female athletes the same opportunity to compete that males already had. Ann Skeet works with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. She says Title IX can actually be applied to both sides of this issue.

ANN SKEET: I think Title IX was originally about fair and equal treatment, and so the transgender students have a claim to fair and equal treatment as well.

GRAZIANO: Skeet says as people develop a better understanding of the experience of the transgender student, society will catch up. The Connecticut entity being sued says its policy on transgender athletes is appropriate under federal Title IX regulations. Two percent of American high-schoolers identify as transgender, including Terry Miller. While she says the lawsuit has affected her performance on the track, she's grateful she lives in a state that lets her run with other girls. In Idaho, for example, the state Legislature is considering a bill that would bar transgender females, athletes like Miller, from competing in girls sports.

MILLER: There are people who may not agree with me, but there are people who do, and they're very supportive from other teams. So it helps.

GRAZIANO: For now, as the legal case continues, these sprinters will likely meet again. The next state competition is a few months away.

For NPR News, I'm Frankie Graziano in Hartford, Conn.

(SOUNDBITE OF PENSEES' "LAGUNA")

Copyright © 2020 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Transgender Students Be Allowed To Compete In Women's Athletics?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Attorneys for three female high school athletes in Connecticut have filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop transgender athletes from running track events against their clients. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: Should transgender students be allowed to compete in women's high school athletics? That's the question at the center of a lawsuit in Connecticut.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cancel culture is a bad thing as it sheds a bad light onto people getting cancelled. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Cancel culture is a bad thing as it sheds a bad light onto people getting cancelled. 

# data[].attributes.body
People have been "cancelled" on social media for several reasons. While some say it is deserved for the person being cancelled, it sheds a bad light on someone who otherwise might be a good person.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Cancel culture," or the idea that people too often pile onto others for bad behavior, emerged only in the past few years but has become a ubiquitous phrase among English speakers.

President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump have both criticized a culture of relentlessly calling people out for alleged wrongdoing. In an address at Mount Rushmore last month, Trump said it was "the very definition of totalitarianism."

As social-media users decry cancel culture and poke fun at the criticism itself, the phrase has come to describe a wide variety of behaviors and their consequences.

Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.

In a congressional antitrust hearing on July 29, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio had a specific question for Apple CEO Tim Cook.

"Mr. Cook," Jordan said, "is the 'cancel culture' mob dangerous?"

"Cancel culture," which President Donald Trump last month called "the very definition of totalitarianism," describes the phenomenon of frequent public pile-ons criticizing a person, business, movement, or idea.

The phrase - a surprisingly recent creation - has become ubiquitous in pop culture and reached the highest halls of power, used to describe "cancellations" large and small.

On one end of the spectrum are people like Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and R. Kelly who were canceled by the public before their sex-crimes trials. On the other end are everyday people like David Shor, who faced criticism on Twitter after he tweeted a study from an academic journal questioning the political consequences of violent and peaceful protests. Shor, who tweeted the link during the George Floyd protests, was fired, though the company has said it wasn't over the tweet.

Despite the seemingly positive intentions of many cancellations - to "demand greater accountability from public figures," as Merriam-Webster's evaluation of the phrase notes - people tend to call out cancel culture itself as a negative movement, suggesting that the consequences of cancellation are too harsh in minor instances or represent rushed judgment in complicated situations.

Others have criticized that criticism, saying cancel culture doesn't exist.

With the varied usage and wide debate around the term, it's reasonable to ask where it came from and how it became a part of everyday speech.

The phrase was popularized only in the past few years. Now it's everywhere.

"Cancel culture" came into the collective consciousness around 2017, after the idea of "canceling" celebrities for problematic actions or statements became popular.

Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies digital media's connections to race, gender, and sexuality, told The New York Times in 2018 that cancellation was a "cultural boycott" of a certain celebrity, brand, company, or concept.

Merriam-Webster, the American publisher of dictionaries and thesauruses, connected cancel culture with the #MeToo movement, which coincided with the rise of the term's popularity online. New allegations seemed to come out daily, and attitudes quickly shifted against the accused.

The trend of calling someone out laid the groundwork for full-on cancellations. It has roots in early-2010s Tumblr blogs, notably Your Fave Is Problematic, where fandoms would discuss why their favorite stars were imperfect, Aja Romano reported for Vox in 2019.

While "canceling" has been used colloquially for the better part of a decade, "cancel culture" is much more recent.

For example, one of the earliest uses of the phrase on Twitter came from Myles McNutt, a TV critic and assistant professor at Old Dominion University, who used it in a tweet in February 2014 to refer to the cancellations of TV series.

"It's unfortunate how renew/cancel culture has made 'not renewed early' read as canceled - 'wait and see until pilots come in' is normal," McNutt tweeted.

McNutt's tweet got only four retweets and four likes. McNutt told Insider in an email that he was referring to "renew/cancel" culture and that he didn't consider "cancel culture" a "legible phrase" at the time.

-Myles McNutt (@Memles) February 13, 2014

Before then, the term had been used a handful of times on Twitter, and nearly all had different meanings.

The phrase "cancel culture" experienced notable growth in 2016 and 2017, particularly on Black Twitter, according to research by Insider and reporting by Merriam-Webster and Vox. Insider identified fewer than 100 tweets or threads with the phrase "cancel culture" before 2018.

The writer Shanita Hubbard used the phrase in a tweet about the controversy surrounding Gabby Douglas in November 2017. The Olympic gymnast was ostensibly canceled after she appeared to blame survivors of sexual assault; in response to her teammate Aly Raisman's tweet about sexual assault, Douglas said that "it is our responsibility as women to dress modestly and be classy."

Responding to the backlash against Douglas, Hubbard tweeted: "Let's talk 'cancel culture.' Personally, I am willing to give a lot of grace to young Black girls simply because the world doesn't." The tweet got more than 6,000 likes.

-Shanita Hubbard (@msshanitarenee) November 18, 2017

The phrase continued to gain popularity on Twitter in late 2017, with several people writing "cancel culture" in quotation marks to describe the trend. Insider found that most of those tweets referred to cancel culture negatively.

In addition to Hubbard, other Twitter users made similar arguments that year. "Cancel culture is SO toxic, you can't even learn from your mistakes anymore because you're not even allowed to make any," another tweet in November 2017 said.

The concept gained steam among celebrities and influencers in 2018

Google Trends data indicates that there was almost no search interest in the phrase "cancel culture" until the second half of 2018 and early 2019. The most search interest came in July of this year.

The top definition of "cancelled" (the British spelling) on Urban Dictionary was posted in March 2018. The top definition of " canceled" on the website was posted the next year and has less engagement.

A series of fleeting cancellations of celebrities including Taylor Swift and Kanye West brought about more discourse. "Almost everyone worth knowing has been canceled by someone," Jonah Engel Bromwich wrote for The Times in June 2018 in one of the first news stories to analyze the trend. In a Vice Canada story the next month about the resurgence of the YouTuber and mega-influencer Logan Paul after inappropriate behavior, Connor Garel called cancel culture a "myth."

The comedian Kevin Hart faced intense online backlash in the fall of 2018 when his homophobic tweets resurfaced after he was chosen to host the 2019 Oscars. Ellen DeGeneres and others defended Hart, who said he shouldn't be judged based on a statement he made years ago. In the end, Hart stepped down from the hosting gig and refused to issue another apology. He later blamed cancel culture. Though much of the media attention was critical of Hart, he has since found wide-ranging career success.

Still, anti-cancel-culture rhetoric continued on social media. Zolita, a German American singer, said in a December 2018 tweet that "cancel culture needs to be canceled."

Indya Moore, who stars on FX's TV show "Pose," wrote that month that "nobody deserves to be defined by the worse mistakes they ever made."

"Especially when they aren't consistently stubborn in complicity," Moore continued. "We really need to cut down on this cancel culture, it's drowing everyone and it is unnecessary."

-#BreonnaTaylor (@IndyaMoore) December 22, 2018

By 2019, more news articles had analyzed the trend, and "cancel culture" became a piece of mainstream vernacular. A November op-ed article in Time was titled "Cancel Culture Is Not Real-At Least Not in the Way People Think." Chi Luu, JSTOR Daily's resident linguist, wrote about the trend in December. Vox's Romano wrote about it the same month.

Eventually, the term became politicized

The idea of cancel culture eventually found its way into mainstream politics.

Former President Barack Obama criticized the trend in an interview about youth activism at an Obama Foundation summit in October, though he didn't use the phrase. "That's not activism. That's not bringing about change," he said. "If all you're doing is casting stones, you're probably not going to get that far. That's easy to do."

Many of the politicians and pundits who have recently come out against cancel culture are conservative. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, whose controversial June op-ed article in The Times led to the resignation of the paper's opinion editor, said that the critical response to his column showed that cancel culture had gone too far.

"Cancel culture, whether in its Maoist or its Jacobin forms, ultimately is animated by a single idea-that America at its core is fundamentally irredeemable and wicked," Cotton wrote on his website.

The White House adviser Stephen Miller recently made a similar claim. "Cancel culture is a very grave threat to American freedom," he said on Larry O'Connor's radio show.

Trump condemned cancel culture in his Independence Day address at Mount Rushmore, saying it was being used as a "political weapon" by protesters fighting for the destruction of statues of American slaveholders. "It is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America," he said.

Common conservative depictions of cancel culture compare the idea to mob rule and authoritarianism. In a column last year, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan compared it to China's Cultural Revolution.

"Social media is full of swarming political and ideological mobs," she wrote. "In an interesting departure from democratic tradition, they don't try to win the other side over. They only condemn and attempt to silence."

Last month, the columnist Bari Weiss wrote in a resignation letter announcing her departure from The Times that "Twitter has become its ultimate editor." She later described cancel culture as "social murder."

In her 2019 JSTOR Daily article, Luu said the anti-cancel-culture sentiment was rooted in the negative discourse about groups or movements - and it's the same notion that has led to criticism of Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, and other social-justice movements.

"The kind of language that's used to talk about groups of people assembled together-or their collective actions seeking to change the status quo-often maligns communities as irrational, 'mobs' or 'rioters' with uncontrolled, invalid emotions, a kind of faceless contagion that presents a threat to civilized, law-abiding society and the ruling establishment," Luu wrote.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic and heightened activism, cancellations have increased - but they've been less controversial

As the COVID-19 pandemic has forced many people into social isolation, and as activism has spiked around the Black Lives Matter movement, cancellations appear to have reached a high point.

The YouTubers Shane Dawson and Jeffree Star, celebrities like Doja Cat and Lana Del Rey, and figures in traditional media have recently faced waves of criticism of controversial content or bad behavior. Many of these cancellations have had intense consequences, such as firing or brand separation.

But many people online have framed the criticism around accountability rather than cancellation, saying that people in power are finally being asked to address problematic pasts.

Private people have experienced an uptick in public criticism too. Videos of white women - sometimes referred to as "Karens" - going on racist or generally inappropriate public tirades have been massively popular. Many of these women, including Amy Cooper, who called the police on a Black birdwatcher in Central Park in May, faced real-life consequences: She lost her job and temporarily lost her dog after the video went viral. Their defenders have blamed cancel culture, with one op-ed article proclaiming that "Karens" were the victims in these situations.

Hubbard, the chair of a National Association of Black Journalists task force, said cancel culture was the wrong phrase to use for these instances where sleuths on social media identify a person caught on camera acting racist or being offensive.

"I think it's unfair for anybody to say what happened to Amy was cancel culture," she said. "What happened to Amy was public accountability, because her actions were harmful."

@jaimetoons/Twitter; Melody Cooper/Twitter; @savsoares/TikTok

It's important to recognize that cancellations exist to hold people accountable, said Krishauna Hines-Gaither, the associate vice president for diversity, equity, and inclusion at Guilford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, and a cofounder of African American Linguists.

Hines-Gaither told Insider that someone's cancellation is almost always in direct response to "largely unchecked" actions that are problematic or questionable.

Now, Hubbard said, "the term 'cancel culture' is being used as a shield" as people try to evade responsibility for their actions and decry any kind of public accountability.

Hines-Gaither said in an email that while "'cancel culture' is not the antecedent," finding ways to engage with one another on these issues despite the temptations of cancellation "continues to be a work in progress."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How 'cancel culture' quickly became one of the buzziest and most controversial ideas on the internet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Cancel culture," or the idea that people too often pile onto others for bad behavior, emerged only in the past few years but has become a ubiquitous phrase among English speakers. President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump have both criticized a culture of relentlessly calling people out for alleged wrongdoing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why social justice acts shouldn't become just a trend. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why social justice acts shouldn't become just a trend. 

# data[].attributes.body
Many solutions to important social issues of our time have just become trends or only something popular to follow for a short amount of time rather than idea that should be planted in our heads forever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Racial justice is not achieved overnight, we must resist seeing issues as trends and commit to long term work and self-education to build movements if we want to succeed, says Jash Shah
Race isn't a cause of racism, ignorance is. Trends don't dismantle ignorance, movements do.

The reason racial injustice is still prevalent in societies today is because the roots of racism run deep. They run as far back as the slave trade and colonisation. And many are ignorant to this fact.

Deep roots have led to ignorance being systemically embedded. This is the reason why many of our institutions that exist to serve and to protect us tend towards racist actions. An example of this is the police brutality seen in America.

Fighting for racial justice

That being said, this ignorance can be fought. It is fought with education, starting in schools, so that young people grow up to challenge systems. It is fought by raising awareness, campaigning and advocating for change. It is fought by movements of committed people.

Why does the problem of injustice persist?

The sad truth is problems like racism persist because of the way we deal with injustice in today's society.

Let me take a moment to remind you of injustices that are still going on; lack of political freedom in Hong-Kong, the occupation and subjugation of Palestine, the violent impacts of Climate change, the refugee crisis, extreme poverty, humanitarian disaster in Syria and many more. However, injustices that are not #trending tend to lose our focus.

When will we realise moving from one injustice to another will not give us any justice? Instead we need to keep the conversation and action going and only stop when the problem has been solved.

Talking about the injustices of racism cannot afford to become just another trend.

Why are Trends are bad for us?

Trends only offer a short-term solution, without making any structural change. If you don't agree look at some of the problems I listed above. These problems still exist. Where are the Instagram posts, conversations, donations, petitions? The trend goes, but the problem stays.

Instead when the media coverage goes, we must continue the fight. The trend may die out, but the problem will persist.

When an issue is trending, it diverts vital resources from other equally pressing global issues, and causes imbalances. For example right now donations are flooding into America, which is fantastic. But Minnesota freedom fund had to stop accepting donations. Whilst millions of refugees that don't have access to food, water or sanitation struggle for resources? Just because the refugee problem stopped trending, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

My point is we must not forget about the long-term fight and all the other problems in the world. We need to stop bandwagoning from injustice to injustice, instead focus on long-term holistic strategies that focus on the systemic changes that are needed for a better world. If history has anything to teach us real justice comes from movements not trends.

How to build racial justice

1. Keep educating yourself and others. Continue raising awareness about injustices, especially those that are no longer in the main-stream media.

2. Campaign in any way possible to hold leaders accountable to ensure change happens, and don't let up the pressure.

3. Commit to long-term action.

Many people will be wondering, how can we possibly fight all the injustice. The answer is simple; there are over 7 billion of us. Even if a fraction of us dedicate ourselves to one cause, the power of those voices will not be muted.

I welcome the current fight against racism but in the light of this we must not forget about all the other problems in the world and we must give each the attention it deserves. Additionally, we cannot let this fight or any other fight against injustice become a trend. Instead, we must turn each into a movement.

And remember movements are powered by mankind's greatest weapon against injustice; education.

Read more about fighting racial injustice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Racial justice comes from movements not trends. | We Are Restless

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Racial justice is not achieved overnight, we must resist seeing issues as trends and commit to long term work and self-education to build movements if we want to succeed, says Jash Shah Race isn't a cause of racism, ignorance is. Trends don't dismantle ignorance, movements do.

# data[].attributes.body
Many recent studies have shown strong links between use of social media and an increased risk for depression, anxiety, and self-harm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The role social media plays in mental health

Human beings are social creatures. We need the companionship of others to thrive in life, and the strength of our connections has a huge impact on our mental health and happiness. Being socially connected to others can ease stress, anxiety, and depression, boost self-worth, provide comfort and joy, prevent loneliness, and even add years to your life. On the flip side, lacking strong social connections can pose a serious risk to your mental and emotional health.

In today's world, many of us rely on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, and Instagram to find and connect with each other. While each has its benefits, it's important to remember that social media can never be a replacement for real-world human connection. It requires in-person contact with others to trigger the hormones that alleviate stress and make you feel happier, healthier, and more positive. Ironically for a technology that's designed to bring people closer together, spending too much time engaging with social media can actually make you feel more lonely and isolated-and exacerbate mental health problems such as anxiety and depression.

If you're spending an excessive amount of time on social media and feelings of sadness, dissatisfaction, frustration, or loneliness are impacting your life, it may be time to re-examine your online habits and find a healthier balance.

The positive aspects of social media

While virtual interaction on social media doesn't have the same psychological benefits as face-to-face contact, there are still many positive ways in which it can help you stay connected and support your wellbeing.

Social media enables you to:

Communicate and stay up to date with family and friends around the world.

Find new friends and communities; network with other people who share similar interests or ambitions.

Join or promote worthwhile causes; raise awareness on important issues.

Seek or offer emotional support during tough times.

Find vital social connection if you live in a remote area, for example, or have limited independence, social anxiety, or are part of a marginalized group.

Find an outlet for your creativity and self-expression.

Discover (with care) sources of valuable information and learning.

The negative aspects of social media

Since it's a relatively new technology, there's little research to establish the long-term consequences, good or bad, of social media use. However, multiple studies have found a strong link between heavy social media and an increased risk for depression, anxiety, loneliness, self-harm, and even suicidal thoughts.

Social media may promote negative experiences such as:

Inadequacy about your life or appearance. Even if you know that images you're viewing on social media are manipulated, they can still make you feel insecure about how you look or what's going on in your own life. Similarly, we're all aware that other people tend to share just the highlights of their lives, rarely the low points that everyone experiences. But that doesn't lessen those feelings of envy and dissatisfaction when you're scrolling through a friend's airbrushed photos of their tropical beach holiday or reading about their exciting new promotion at work.

Fear of missing out (FOMO) and social media addiction. While FOMO has been around far longer than social media, sites such as Facebook and Instagram seem to exacerbate feelings that others are having more fun or living better lives than you are. The idea that you're missing out on certain things can impact your self-esteem, trigger anxiety, and fuel even greater social media use, much like an addiction. FOMO can compel you to pick up your phone every few minutes to check for updates, or compulsively respond to each and every alert-even if that means taking risks while you're driving, missing out on sleep at night, or prioritizing social media interaction over real world relationships.

Isolation. A study at the University of Pennsylvania found that high usage of Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram increases rather decreases feelings of loneliness. Conversely, the study found that reducing social media usage can actually make you feel less lonely and isolated and improve your overall wellbeing.

Depression and anxiety. Human beings need face-to-face contact to be mentally healthy. Nothing reduces stress and boosts your mood faster or more effectively than eye-to-eye contact with someone who cares about you. The more you prioritize social media interaction over in-person relationships, the more you're at risk for developing or exacerbating mood disorders such as anxiety and depression.

Cyberbullying. About 10 percent of teens report being bullied on social media and many other users are subjected to offensive comments. Social media platforms such as Twitter can be hotspots for spreading hurtful rumors, lies, and abuse that can leave lasting emotional scars.

Self-absorption. Sharing endless selfies and all your innermost thoughts on social media can create an unhealthy self-centeredness and distance you from real-life connections.

What's driving your social media use?

These days, most of us access social media via our smartphones or tablets. While this makes it very convenient to keep in touch, it also means that social media is always accessible. This round-the-clock, hyper connectivity can trigger impulse control problems, the constant alerts and notifications affecting your concentration and focus, disturbing your sleep, and making you a slave to your phone.

Social media platforms are designed to snare your attention, keep you online, and have you repeatedly checking your screen for updates. It's how the companies make money. But, much like a gambling compulsion or an addiction to nicotine, alcohol, or drugs, social media use can create psychological cravings. When you receive a like, a share, or a favorable reaction to a post, it can trigger the release of dopamine in the brain, the same "reward" chemical that follows winning on a slot machine, taking a bite of chocolate, or lighting up a cigarette, for example. The more you're rewarded, the more time you want to spend on social media, even if it becomes detrimental to other aspects of your life.

Other causes of unhealthy social media use

A fear of missing out (FOMO) can keep you returning to social media over and over again. Even though there are very few things that can't wait or need an immediate response, FOMO will have you believing otherwise. Perhaps you're worried that you'll be left out of the conversation at school or work if you miss the latest news or gossip on social media? Or maybe you feel that your relationships will suffer if you don't immediately like, share, or respond to other people's posts? Or you could be worried you'll miss out on an invitation or that other people are having a better time than you.

Many of us use social media as a "security blanket". Whenever we're in a social situation and feel anxious, awkward, or lonely, we turn to our phones and log on to social media. Of course, interacting with social media only denies you the face-to-face interaction that can help to ease anxiety.

Your heavy social media use could be masking other underlying problems, such as stress, depression, or boredom. If you spend more time on social media when you're feeling down, lonely, or bored, you may be using it as a way to distract yourself from unpleasant feelings or self-soothe your moods. While it can be difficult at first, allowing yourself to feel can open you up to finding healthier ways to manage your moods.

The vicious cycle of unhealthy social media use

Excessive social media use can create a negative, self-perpetuating cycle:

1. When you feel lonely, depressed, anxious, or stressed, you use social media more often-as a way to relieve boredom or feel connected to others.

2. Using social media more often, though, increases FOMO and feelings of inadequacy, dissatisfaction, and isolation.

3. In turn, these feelings negatively affect your mood and worsen symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress.

4. These worsening symptoms cause you to use social media even more, and so the downward spiral continues.

Signs that social media is impacting your mental health

Everyone is different and there is no specific amount of time spent on social media, or the frequency you check for updates, or the number of posts you make that indicates your use is becoming unhealthy. Rather, it has to do with the impact time spent on social media has on your mood and other aspects of your life, along with your motivations for using it.

For example, your social media use may be problematic if it causes you to neglect face-to-face relationships, distracts you from work or school, or leaves you feeling envious, angry, or depressed. Similarly, if you're motivated to use social media just because you're bored or lonely, or want to post something to make others jealous or upset, it may be time to reassess your social media habits.

Indicators that social media may be adversely affecting your mental health include:

Spending more time on social media than with real world friends. Using social media has become a substitute for a lot of your offline social interaction. Even if you're out with friends, you still feel the need to constantly check social media, often driven by feelings that others may be having more fun than you.

Comparing yourself unfavorably with others on social media. You have low self-esteem or negative body image. You may even have patterns of disordered eating.

Experiencing cyberbullying. Or you worry that you have no control over the things people post about you.

Being distracted at school or work. You feel pressure to post regular content about yourself, get comments or likes on your posts, or respond quickly and enthusiastically to friends' posts.

Having no time for self-reflection. Every spare moment is filled by engaging with social media, leaving you little or no time for reflecting on who you are, what you think, or why you act the way that you do-the things that allow you to grow as a person.

Engaging in risky behavior in order to gain likes, shares, or positive reactions on social media. You play dangerous pranks, post embarrassing material, cyberbully others, or access your phone while driving or in other unsafe situations.
[Read: Dealing with Revenge Porn and "Sextortion"]
Suffering from sleep problems. Do you check social media last thing at night, first thing in the morning, or even when you wake up in the night? The light from phones and other devices can disrupt your sleep, which in turn can have a serious impact on your mental health.

Worsening symptoms of anxiety or depression. Rather than helping to alleviate negative feelings and boost your mood, you feel more anxious, depressed, or lonely after using social media.

Modifying social media use to improve mental health step 1: Reduce time online

A 2018 University of Pennsylvania study found that reducing social media use to 30 minutes a day resulted in a significant reduction in levels of anxiety, depression, loneliness, sleep problems, and FOMO. But you don't need to cut back on your social media use that drastically to improve your mental health. The same study concluded that just being more mindful of your social media use can have beneficial results on your mood and focus.

While 30 minutes a day may not be a realistic target for many of us-let alone a full "social media detox"- we can still benefit from reducing the amount of time we spend on social media. For most of us, that means reducing how much we use our smartphones. The following tips can help:

1. Use an app to track how much time you spend on social media each day. Then set a goal for how much you want to reduce it by.

2. Turn off your phone at certain times of the day, such as when you're driving, in a meeting, at the gym, having dinner, spending time with offline friends, or playing with your kids. Don't take your phone with you to the bathroom.

3. Don't bring your phone or tablet to bed. Turn devices off and leave them in another room overnight to charge.

4. Disable social media notifications. It's hard to resist the constant buzzing, beeping, and dinging of your phone alerting you to new messages. Turning off notifications can help you regain control of your time and focus.

5. Limit checks. If you compulsively check your phone every few minutes, wean yourself off by limiting your checks to once every 15 minutes. Then once every 30 minutes, then once an hour. There are apps that can automatically limit when you're able to access your phone.

6. Try removing social media apps from your phone so you can only check Facebook, Twitter and the like from your tablet or computer. If this sounds like too drastic a step, try removing one social media app at a time to see how much you really miss it.

For more tips on reducing your overall phone use, read Smartphone Addiction.

Step 2: Change your focus

Many of us access social media purely out of habit or to mindlessly kill moments of downtime. But by focusing on your motivation for logging on, you can not only reduce the time you spend on social media, you can also improve your experience and avoid many of the negative aspects.

If you're accessing social media to find specific information, check on a friend who's been ill, or share new photos of your kids with family, for example, your experience is likely to be very different than if you're logging on simply because you're bored, you want to see how many likes you got from a previous post, or to check if you're missing out on something.

Next time you go to access social media, pause for a moment and clarify your motivation for doing so.

Are you using social media as a substitute for real life? Is there a healthier substitute for your social media use? If you're lonely, for example, invite a friend out for coffee instead. Feeling depressed? Take a walk or go to the gym. Bored? Take up a new hobby. Social media may be quick and convenient, but there are often healthier, more effective ways to satisfy a craving.

Are you an active or a passive user on social media? Passively scrolling through posts or anonymously following the interaction of others on social media doesn't provide any meaningful sense of connection. It may even increase feelings of isolation. Being an active participant, though, will offer you more engagement with others.

Does social media leave you feeling inadequate or disappointed about your life? You can counter symptoms of FOMO by focusing on what you have, rather than what you lack. Make a list of all the positive aspects of your life and read it back when you feel you're missing out on something better. And remember: no one's life is ever as perfect as it seems on social media. We all deal with heartache, self-doubt, and disappointment, even if we choose not to share it online.

Step 3: Spend more time with offline friends

We all need the face-to-face company of others to be happy and healthy. At its best, social media is a great tool for facilitating real-life connections. But if you've allowed virtual connections to replace real-life friendships in your life, there are plenty of ways to build meaningful connections without relying on social media.

Set aside time each week to interact offline with friends and family. Try to make it a regular get-together where you always keep your phones off.

If you've neglected face-to-face friendships, reach out to an old friend (or an online friend) and arrange to meet up. If you both lead busy lives, offer to run errands or exercise together.

Join a club. Find a hobby, creative endeavor, or fitness activity you enjoy and join a group of like-minded individuals that meet on a regular basis.

Don't let social awkwardness stand in the way. Even if you're shy, there are proven techniques to overcome insecurity and build friendships.

If you don't feel that you have anyone to spend time with, reach out to acquaintances. Lots of other people feel just as uncomfortable about making new friends as you do-so be the one to break the ice. Invite a coworker out for lunch or ask a neighbor or classmate to join you for coffee.

Interact with strangers. Look up from your screen and connect with people you cross paths with on public transport, at the coffee shop, or in the grocery store. Simply smiling or saying hello will improve how you feel-and you never know where it may lead.

Step 4: Express gratitude
[Read: Gratitude: The Benefits and How to Practice It]
Feeling and expressing gratitude about the important things in your life can be a welcome relief to the resentment, animosity, and discontent sometimes generated by social media.

Take time for reflection. Try keeping a gratitude journal or using a gratitude app. Keep track of all the great memories and positives in your life-as well as those things and people you'd miss if they were suddenly absent from your life. If you're more prone to venting or negative posts, you can even express your gratitude on social media-although you may benefit more from private reflection that isn't subject to the scrutiny of others.

Practice mindfulness. Experiencing FOMO and comparing yourself unfavorably to others keeps you dwelling on life's disappointments and frustrations. Instead of being fully engaged in the present, you're focused on the "what ifs" and the "if onlys" that prevent you from having a life that matches those you see on social media. By practicing mindfulness, you can learn to live more in the present moment, lessen the impact of FOMO, and improve your overall mental wellbeing.

Volunteer. Just as human beings are hard-wired to seek social connection, we're also hard-wired to give to others. Helping other people or animals not only enriches your community and benefits a cause that's important to you, but it also makes you feel happier and more grateful.

Helping a child or teen with unhealthy social media use

Childhood and the teenage years can be filled with developmental challenges and social pressures. For some kids, social media has a way of exacerbating those problems and fueling anxiety, bullying, depression, and issues with self-esteem. If you're worried about your child's social media use, it can be tempting to simply confiscate their phone or other device. But that can create further problems, separating your child from their friends and the positive aspects of social media. Instead, there are other ways to help your child use Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms in a more responsible way.

Monitor and limit your child's social media use. The more you know about how your child is interacting on social media, the better you'll be able to address any problems. Parental control apps can help limit your child's data usage or restrict their phone use to certain times of the day. You can also adjust privacy settings on the different platforms to limit their potential exposure to bullies or predators.

Talk to your child about underlying issues. Problems with social media use can often mask deeper issues. Is your child having problems fitting in at school? Are they suffering from shyness or social anxiety? Are problems at home causing them stress?

Enforce "social media" breaks. For example, you could ban social media until your child has completed their homework in the evening, not allow phones at the dinner table or in their bedroom, and plan family activities that preclude the use of phones or other devices. To prevent sleep problems, always insist phones are turned off at least one hour before bed.

Teach your child how social media is not an accurate reflection of people's lives. They shouldn't compare themselves or their lives negatively to others on social media. People only post what they want others to see. Images are manipulated or carefully posed and selected. And having fewer friends on social media doesn't make your child less popular or less worthy.

Encourage exercise and offline interests. Get your child away from social media by encouraging them to pursue physical activities and hobbies that involve real-world interaction. Exercise is great for relieving anxiety and stress, boosting self-esteem, and improving mood-and is something you can do as a family. The more engaged your child is offline, the less their mood and sense of self-worth will be dependent on how many friends, likes, or shares they have on social media.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Media and Mental Health - HelpGuide.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Excessive use of social media can fuel anxiety, depression, FOMO and other mental health issues. Here's how to change your habits for the better.

# data[].attributes.body
Fast food is too unhealthy and leads to teenage obesity.

# data[].attributes.body
Fully developed AI should be considered equal to humans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A scene from Ex Machina, where a man becomes close to a robot who displays emotion. Universal Pictures

Imagine a world where humans co-existed with beings who, like us, had minds, thoughts, feelings, self-conscious awareness and the capacity to perform purposeful actions - but, unlike us, these beings had artificial mechanical bodies that could be switched on and off.

That brave new world would throw up many issues as we came to terms with our robot counterparts as part and parcel of everyday life. How should we behave towards them? What moral duties would we have? What moral rights would such non-human persons have? Would it be morally permissible to try to thwart their emergence? Or would we have a duty to promote and foster their existence?

Intriguing ethical questions such as these are raised in Ian McEwan's recent novel, Machines Like Me, in which Alan Turing lives a long successful life and explosively propels the development of artificial intelligence (AI) that leads to the creation of "a manufactured human with plausible intelligence and looks, believable motion and shifts of expression".

As intellectual speculation, to consider the ethics of the treatment of rational, sentient machines is interesting. But two common arguments might suggest that the matter has no practical relevance and any ethical questions need not be taken seriously.

The first is that such artificial people could not possibly exist. The second, often raised in the abortion debate, is that only persons who have living and independently viable human bodies are due moral respect and are worthy of moral consideration. As we shall see, these arguments are debatable.

Mind, matter and emergent properties

We might suppose that mental phenomena - consciousness, thoughts, feelings and so on, are somehow different from the stuff that constitutes computers and other machines manufactured by humans. And we might suppose that material brains and material machines are fundamentally different from conscious minds. But whether or not such suppositions are true - and I think that they are - it does not follow that sentient, consciously aware, artificially produced people are not possible.

Read more: Artificial intelligence can now emulate human behaviors - soon it will be dangerously good

The French sociologist Emile Durkheim has argued very convincingly that we should beware of simplistic arguments in social science. Social phenomena, such as language, could not exist without the interaction of individual human beings with their particular psychological and biological features. But it does not follow that the resultant social phenomena - or "emergent properties" - can be completely and correctly explained solely in terms of these features.

The same point about the possibility of emergent properties applies to all sciences. There could not be, for instance, computers of the sort I am now working at without the pieces of plastic, wires, silicon chips and so forth that make up the machine. Still, the operations of a computer cannot be explained solely in terms of the features of these individual components. Once these components are combined and interact in particular ways with electricity, a phenomenon of a new sort emerges: a computer. Similarly, once computers are combined and interact in particular ways, the internet is created. But clearly, the internet is a different sort of phenomenon from a tangible, physical computer.

Wiipedia

In a similar way, we need not suppose that minds are reducible to brains, molecules, atoms or any other physical elements that are required for them to function. They might be entities of a different sort that emerge from particular interactions and combinations of them.

There's no obvious logical reason why conscious awareness of the sort that human beings possess - the capacity to think and make decisions - could not appear in a human machine some day. Whether it is physically possible and, therefore likely to actually happen, is open to debate.

Do machines deserve our consideration?

It doesn't seem controversial to say that we shouldn't slander dead people or wantonly destroy the planet so that future generations of unborn people are unable to enjoy it as we have. Both groups are due moral respect and consideration. They should be regarded as potential objects of our moral duties and potential recipients of our benevolence.

But the dead and the yet to be born do not have viable bodies of any sort - whether natural or artificial. To deny conscious persons moral respect and consideration on the grounds that they had artificial rather than natural bodies would seem to be arbitrary and whimsical. It would require a justification, and it is not obvious what that might be.

One day, maybe sooner than we think, a consideration of the ethics of the treatment of rational, sentient machines might turn out to be more than an abstract academic exercise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethics of AI: how should we treat rational, sentient robots - if they existed?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine a world where humans co-existed with beings who, like us, had minds, thoughts, feelings, self-conscious awareness and the capacity to perform purposeful actions - but, unlike us, these beings had artificial mechanical bodies that could be switched on and off.

# data[].attributes.body
Zoom has been one of the most beneficial sites to talk to others online however there are many security risks that lead people to believe it's not safe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the past month, the teleconference software Zoom has seen explosive growth because of, you know, the thing. But that growth has also come with increased scrutiny and a slew of uncovered security screwups. Taken individually, many of the problems seem more sloppy than malicious or sneaky, but taken in aggregate, they make a billion-dollar publicly traded company seem like it's held together with duct tape and string.

A Sketchy Installer

There was the problem with Zoom's installer, which took over admin privileges to gain root access to a user's computer. That access could be abused to surreptitiously install programs without the user's knowledge, including the ability to access a user's webcam and microphone. (Last summer, a security researcher found a Zoom feature that opened up vulnerabilities by turning any user's computer into a local server. In an unprecedented move, Apple silently pushed out an operating-system update to disable it.)

If the App is already installed but the current user is not admin, they ￼use a helper tool called "zoomAutenticationTool" and the AuthorizationExecuteWithPrivileges API to spawn a password prompt identifying as "System" (!!) to gain root (including a typo). pic.twitter.com/gp9DVCoVCm
- Felix (@c1truz_) March 30, 2020

Questionable Routing

There are questions about where Zoom is sending the data it collects from your computer. Zoom was found to be sending data to Facebook, even if you weren't logged in to a Facebook account. Zoom also apologized this month for mistakenly routing traffic through China, where the internet is heavily monitored by the government. Most tech companies operating in China have strict separations between domestic and international online traffic.

Dubious encryption

That monitoring would be less of a concern if Zoom were encrypted end-to-end, as the company claimed in marketing materials. But it admitted to The Intercept that Zoom did not use E2EE for video calls. Zoom uses some encryption (known as transport encryption) but not the more secure end-to-end type. Some of the confusion stems from defining what an "end" is. Zoom seems to think that its servers, acting as middlemen between users, count as such.

Zoombombing

There's also the rash of "Zoombombing" that has gone on. People are guessing or finding Zoom meeting ID numbers online and entering uninvited to leave disruptive comments or share disruptive media using Zoom's screen-share feature. Finding open meetings, which have IDs from nine to 11 digits, is relatively simple and has already been automated. Until a patch issued this week, the meeting ID would often be highly visible in screenshots.

Zoom says it has patched out many of the security flaws. The company has also turned on common-sense features, such as password-protecting meetings by default, to prevent Zoombombing. CEO Eric Yuan also published an apologetic blog post at the beginning of April, announcing a 90-day feature freeze, shifting all development resources toward bolstering security.

"[W]e did not design the product with the foresight that, in a matter of weeks, every person in the world would suddenly be working, studying, and socializing from home," Yuan wrote. "We now have a much broader set of users who are utilizing our product in a myriad of unexpected ways, presenting us with challenges we did not anticipate when the platform was conceived."

Those fixes haven't stopped clients from growing wary and looking for other options. The New York Department of Education has recommended that its schools find a new teleconference software to conduct classes with. Taiwan has banned the software from use in government over fears of Chinese spying. Google has also prohibited the software from its employees' work-issued devices, stating that the app "does not meet our security standards."

The question for you, a normal person with normal problems, is: "Should I care about any of this?" Personally, I think you should care about it, but I'm less sure you need to worry. The documented security flaws of Zoom would require a high level of targeting and precision to fully exploit. This isn't the sort of lax security that could lead to catastrophic widespread data leakage; it's the sort of lax security that leaves high-value individual targets vulnerable.

Amid the fallout from Zoom's many security stumbles, Yuan contacted Facebook's former head of information security Alex Stamos for advice. In a blog post announcing that he was consulting with Zoom, Stamos reiterated a core idea to keep in mind when thinking about security issues: "Coding flaws and cryptographic issues are important, but the vast majority of real technological harm to individuals comes from people using products in a technically correct but harmful manner." Zoombombing, for instance, is not a result of hacking and subterfuge; it's a result of sloppiness enabled by Zoom and by users through poor software design.

The question for you surrounding Zoom then becomes, "Am I really that important?" If you work for a government entity or a multinational corporation, or you handle sensitive information like medical or financial data, maybe take a look at some of Zoom's competitors. Google and Microsoft would certainly not mind more enterprise customers. But if you're using Zoom's most recently updated software and you have basic privacy features enabled, such as password-protecting your meetings, you can probably rest easy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past month, the teleconference software Zoom has seen explosive growth because of, you know, the thing. But that growth has also come with increased scrutiny and a slew of uncovered security screwups.

# data[].attributes.body
People should be taught more about Autism, and how to interact with autistic people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is a lot of controversy surrounding autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Because the spectrum encompasses such a wide range of symptoms and abilities, and because clear answers about the causes and best treatments are still lacking, disagreements among people in the autism community sometimes run deep.

Here are five of the major areas of debate.

Disorder or Difference?

The diagnostic criteria for autism have changed radically over time, making it hard to define who actually qualifies (or once qualified) for an autism diagnosis.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

In the early 20th century, autism was considered to be a rare and severe form of schizophrenia marked by a nearly complete separation from reality.﻿﻿﻿﻿ It wasn't until 1980 that autism was described as a separate disorder not related to schizophrenia; at that point, it was considered a developmental disorder rather than a mental illness.

In 1994, Asperger's syndrome was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The diagnosis was typically given to those with high IQs and strong verbal skills who had difficulties with social skills as well as narrow interests and repetitive behaviors.

Hence, ASD now includes a large range of people, some of whom are severely intellectually challenged, and others who are brilliant and accomplished. The evolution of the criteria has led to disagreements among parents, self-advocates, and practitioners about what autism really means.

Some people believe autism should be celebrated as a normal neurological variation (sometimes called " neurodiversity") that can lead to extraordinary insights, and often claim that people such as Einstein and Mozart would have been diagnosable with autism today. Others think autism should be considered a disorder that should be treated, or even cured.

Causes of Autism

Rates of autism have been increasing dramatically in recent decades, but it is not clear whether this is due to more people being diagnosed, environmental factors, or some combination of both. This increase has led to an increase in research on autism. Scientists believe that both genetics and environmental factors likely play a role, and some researchers have found differences in the brains of those with autism.﻿﻿

The fact that there is no known cause of ASD has given rise to fringe theories, none of which have solid research to support them. Among these are the belief that vaccines (and trace amounts of mercury in one particular vaccine) cause the onset of autism in children. This is untrue. In fact, one study found that higher rates of autism occurred in children who were un- or under-vaccinated.﻿﻿﻿

Others believe that autism is caused by airplane contrails, anti-flea powders, or cell phones. All of these theories have been debunked, yet some persist.

Best Autism Treatments

There is no treatment that reliably treats or alleviates core symptoms in everyone with autism. Some therapies are carefully researched, others are fly-by-night, and still others are somewhere in-between. There are tremendous disagreements about which treatments are most effective, most appropriate, most humane, most respectful, and safest.

One of the most significant splits in treatment theory occurred during the 1990s with the belief that vaccines caused autism. This myth resulted in the emergence of treatments intended to "chelate" or remove heavy metals from the body. These treatments, usually used for lead poisoning, are typically provided in a clinical setting-but parents did and do provide chelation at home, with some risk of injury.

In addition to these more extreme approaches, there are legitimate differences of opinion as to whether applied behavioral therapy (ABA) is more appropriate than developmental therapies such as Floortime or Play Therapy. While behavioral therapy has been extensively researched, some self-advocates and parents feel that it is at worst cruel and at best inappropriate. In fact, the two camps have come much closer over the years: Some forms of behavioral therapy are now very similar to developmental approaches.

There is also significant controversy over dietary therapies. Some research suggests that children with autism are, indeed, more susceptible to gastrointestinal issues, which can lead to pain and discomfort.﻿﻿﻿ Putting autistic children on special diets, however, is controversial.

Education and Autism

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees a public education to eligible children with disabilities, along with special education and related services. Parents and educators sometimes disagree, however, as to whether it's a good idea to include a child with autism in a typical educational setting if they are academically capable but exhibit behavioral challenges-or vice versa. Often, the controversy about inclusion escalates into mediation and even lawsuits as parents and school district officials battle it out.

Other disagreements relate to what autistic children should be taught. If a child is capable of learning academically, should their primary educational focus be on academics or on the social/communication skills they will need to navigate the community?

Similarly, some parents and schools believe that autism-only educational settings are ideal. These settings are physically set up to lessen sensory challenges and are staffed by autism experts who can provide autism-specific programs. On the other hand, such settings deny autistic children the opportunity to participate in their own communities and engage with neurotypical peers.

Support as Adults

Even well-educated adults on the autism spectrum have challenges that can make full-time employment, household management, and daily interactions extremely difficult. Those on the low-functioning end are rarely capable of living completely on their own without any form of financial or personal support.

Since ASD encompasses such a wide range of abilities, it is not always clear which autistic adults should live in the general community, and which in group settings, as well as who should pay for their sometimes-extensive needs. It's hard to make the case outside the autism community that a college graduate can't cope with the demands of daily life, even though in many cases it's simply a statement of fact.

All of these issues are addressed on an individual and state-by-state basis. While some states provide liberal resources for autistic adults, offering funds for a variety of housing options and supports, others provide almost nothing. Political disagreements over funding for adults leads to inequities in what's available at what quality for which individuals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a lot of controversy surrounding autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Because the spectrum encompasses such a wide range of symptoms and abilities, and because clear answers about the causes and best treatments are still lacking, disagreements among people in the autism community sometimes run deep.

# data[].attributes.body
Athletes should be able to talk about political ideas on their platform, but without favoring a side, and instead notifying people that it is happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A majority of Americans say it is acceptable for professional athletes to speak out publicly about political issues, and relatively few say it's important that the athletes they support share their political views, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

The survey was conducted among members of the Center's American Trends Panel in September - just before a controversy surrounding a pro-Hong Kong tweet posted by the general manager of the Houston Rockets and a response from NBA superstar LeBron James. It comes against a larger backdrop of prominent American athletes weighing in on political issues, from some NFL players refusing to stand for the national anthem because of concerns about the treatment of minorities in the United States to members of championship-winning teams declining to visit the White House because of differences with President Donald Trump.

Overall, about six-in-ten U.S. adults (62%) say it's very or somewhat acceptable for professional athletes to speak out publicly about political issues, while 35% say this is not too or not at all acceptable. But these views differ by age, race and ethnicity - and especially political affiliation.

About three-quarters (74%) of adults ages 18 to 29 say it is very or somewhat acceptable for professional athletes to speak out publicly about politics. By comparison, 67% of adults ages 30 to 49, 55% of those ages 50 to 64 and half of those 65 and older say this.

Racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than white Americans to say it's acceptable for professional athletes to address political issues in public. Roughly eight-in-ten black Americans (79%) say this is at least somewhat acceptable, including about half (52%) who say it is very acceptable. Among Hispanics, 69% say it's very or somewhat acceptable for athletes to talk about politics, while a narrower majority of white adults (56%) say the same.

There are sharp partisan differences in these views. While eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say it is very or somewhat acceptable for professional athletes to speak out about politics, a majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (58%) say this is not too or not at all acceptable. Many Democrats and Republicans feel strongly about the issue: About half of Democrats (52%) say it is very acceptable for professional athletes to speak out in this way, while about a third of Republicans (31%) say this is not at all acceptable.

Few say it's important to them that the athletes they support share their views

While Americans generally voice support for professional athletes speaking out publicly about politics, they do not believe it is important for the pro athletes they support to share their political views. Only 22% of U.S. adults say this is very or somewhat important, while 52% say it is not too or not at all important. (A quarter of respondents say they do not follow professional sports.)

There are again some differences in attitudes by demographic characteristics and political affiliation. For example, roughly four-in-ten black adults (43%) and about a third of Hispanic adults (31%) say it is very or somewhat important that the professional athletes they support share their political views, but just 15% of white adults hold this view. In contrast, a majority of white Americans (58%) say it's not too or not at all important that professional athletes share their political views.

Six-in-ten Republicans say it's not too or not at all important that the professional athletes they support share their political views. Democrats are more divided: About half (48%) say it's not too or not at all important, while roughly a quarter (27%) say it's very or somewhat important.

Many see negative effect on society from pro sports

The survey also asked about the broader effect that professional sports are having on U.S. society. Overall, 52% of Americans say pro sports are having a very or somewhat positive effect on society, while a slightly smaller share (43%) say sports are having a somewhat or very negative effect.

On this question, too, there are notable differences by political affiliation, race and ethnicity, and age. Six-in-ten Democrats say pro sports are having a positive effect on society; 53% of Republicans see a negative effect.

While roughly two-thirds of black and Hispanic adults (66% in each group) say professional sports are affecting U.S. society in a positive way, white adults are divided (46% say pro sports are having a positive effect and 49% say they are having a negative effect).

Age also plays a role. About six-in-ten adults (63%) ages 18 to 29 say pro sports are having a positive effect on society, but smaller shares say this among older age groups: 56% of those ages 30 to 49, 48% of those 50 to 64 and 42% of those ages 65 and up.

The new survey is not the first time Pew Research Center has asked about the intersection of professional sports and politics in the United States. In a survey about a year ago, the Center asked Americans about the issue of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem as a protest. Overall, the public was divided: 47% approved of players kneeling during the anthem and 50% disapproved.

Like the new survey, the earlier poll found significant differences between younger and older Americans. About two-thirds (66%) of those ages 18 to 29 said they approved of athletes kneeling as a form of protest, compared with about half (51%) of those ages 30 to 49. Among those 50 and older, the balance of opinion was decidedly negative: 61% disapproved, while 36% approved.
Note: See full topline results and methodology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Most Americans say it's OK for professional athletes to speak out publicly about politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A majority of Americans say it is acceptable for professional athletes to speak out publicly about political issues, and relatively few say it's important that the athletes they support share their political views, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

# data[].attributes.body
OTC drugs do not require a prescription for someone to obtain them, leading to abuse of some of the drugs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cloning of animals should be allowed in some cases

# data[].attributes.subject
Cloning of animals should be allowed in some cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The controversial topic of animal cloning is back on the table after scientists in the US successfully cloned the first endangered species last December.

A black-footed ferret was produced from the genes of an animal that died over 30 years ago. The slinky predator, named Elizabeth Ann, was born in a Colorado facility on the 10th of December 2020. By cloning her, the scientists hope to inject some much needed genetic diversity into the ferret population.

The species was thought to be extinct in the 80s but a successful breeding program resulted in six thousand new individuals. The problem is that they all have the same limited ancestry.

Elizabeth Ann is expected to bring back a genetic copy of a ferret named Willa that died in 1988. Her remains were frozen in the early days of DNA technology. Scientists intend to breed the newly cloned ferret, created with the help of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and wildlife conservation organisation Revive and Restore, to improve the population's genetic diversity.

"Advanced reproductive technologies, including cloning, can save species by allowing us to restore genetic diversity that would have otherwise been lost to time," says Ryan Phelan, executive director of Revive & Restore.

The controversial plan has left conservationists divided over whether cloning can really be used to save endangered species. Critics say that the process is very expensive and complicated.

"The only benefit is to produce one or possibly two individuals from a large amount of effort," says Professor William Holt from the University of Sheffield.

"And very often those individuals have got some kind of clinical problem. That isn't really making a big contribution towards conservation and saving the whole species."

What about already extinct species?

At Harvard University a team of scientists are working on resurrecting the woolly mammoth.

In theory, to get a healthy population of mammoth or any other already extinct animal, scientists need to find well-preserved remains from a number of individuals. This would allow them to create a small population with the diverse genetics needed to keep their offspring healthy.

But this is almost impossible in the case of the mammoth.

In reality, the project aims to create a cross-species between the mammoth and its closes relative, the Asian elephant. It is thought that de-extinction could help to improve some ecosystems.

In this case, the new species would have the characteristics of the mammoth. This would allow it to inhabit northern regions, changing the ecosystem back into what is known as the "mammoth steppe," a grassland in the place of the current tundra and taiga.

The large animals could compact and scrape away thick insulating layers of snow, helping the extreme winter cold to penetrate the soil. This would help to slow down the melting of the Arctic permafrost thus halting global warming, states the website of Revive and Restore.

"I think it's a bit questionable as to whether it's possible to resurrect a species and expect it to be able to live happily and restore the environment back to what it was millions of years ago," says Professor Holt.

"Cloning, especially something like a mammoth, would have a lot of deleterious genes in them, and so that would promote sort of lack of fitness and the sort of problem that you'd get in an inbred population."

Some other questions also remain unanswered, Professor Holt adds.

"What would you do with that one cloned animal? Where would you keep it? How would it know it was a mammoth? How would it interact with a family of other mammals, which is what it should be doing?"

International conservationist organisation, IUCN also has strict rules to what is considered a species. Any new animal with mixed DNA would face difficulty with classification and could essentially create a whole new endangered species of its own.
Every weekday at 15.30 CET, Euronews Living brings you a cutting edge, environmental story from somewhere around the world. Download the Euronews app to get an alert for this and other breaking news. It's available on Apple and Android devices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How can cloning help conservationists save extinct species? | Living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The controversial topic of animal cloning is back on the table after scientists in the US successfully cloned the first endangered species last December. A black-footed ferret was produced from the genes of an animal that died over 30 years ago. The slinky predator, named Elizabeth Ann, was born in a Colorado facility on the 10th of December 2020.

# data[].attributes.body
With all of the new technology that comes out everyday it is easy to stay on devices for hours. However, with all of the online use, adults and kids alike are spending way too much time on screens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In This Article:

Too much screen time can lead to obesity, sleep problems, chronic neck and back problems, depression, anxiety and lower test scores in children.

Children should limit screen time to 1 to 2 hours per day. Adults should also try to limit screen time outside of work hours.

To help limit your family's screen time, you can promote healthy electronic use, encourage other activities and keep bedrooms screen-free.

Electronics are a part of everyone's life - but what are the negative effects of screen time for adults and children?

Screens are a part of everyone's life these days. While there is growing evidence showing the negative effects of screen time on adults and children, your family can improve their health by cutting back on the amount of time spent in front of the screen. Learn the negative effects of prolonged screen time and tips to help limit electronics use.

The effects of screen time on your health

Whether the whole family sits around staring at their smartphones or you keep the TV on in the background, too much screen time can be harmful. Here are a few ways your health may be negatively affected by spending too much time in front of a screen.

Obesity. Too much time engaging in a sedentary activity, such as playing video games or watching TV, can be a risk factor for obesity. Heart health is also impacted and can lead to a higher risk of diabetes, increased blood pressure or cholesterol.

Sleep problems. The light emitted from electronic devices interferes with the brain's sleep cycle and can prevent getting a good night's sleep. To sleep more soundly, keep screens out of the bedroom and avoid them for at least an hour before you climb into bed.

Chronic neck and back pain. Too much screen time can lead to poor posture, causing chronic neck, shoulder and back pain. Instead, take breaks from sitting to walk around, stand or stretch. Make sure your chair provides ample back support and try to keep the device at eye level.

Depression and anxiety. All the time spent in front of screens can negatively affect your mental and emotional wellbeing. Experts suggest that higher screen time and depression could be connected along with an increase in suicidal behaviors and lower one's ability to read emotions in general.

Additionally, a National Institutes of Health study found that children who spent more than two hours a day on electronic devices scored lower on thinking and language tests. Those with more than seven hours of screen time experienced thinning of the brain's cortex, which is related to critical thinking and reasoning.

Tips to reduce screen time

Limiting screen time to just a few hours a day may not be realistic, but these tips can help slim you and your family's screen time.

Model healthy electronic use. Parents are role models for their kids. The next time you binge-watch your favorite Netflix series, remember that you are setting an example for your children. Keeping the TV on in the background or scrolling through your phone when you have a spare minute may not be modeling the behavior you hope to see in your kids.

Set aside time to unplug. Choose a time for your whole family to unplug from the phone, TV and computer. When you all agree to put down your devices, it gives your family the chance to spend quality time together.

Use parental controls. There are tools you can use to filter or block unwanted content. You can even set daily screen time limits that can lock your children out of apps after they have reached a set amount of time.

Encourage other activities. These days it's easy for kids to become reliant on electronics for entertainment. Instead, encourage them to get involved in activities that don't require a screen like playing outside, reading a book or playing a board game.

Keep bedrooms screen-free. You may want to consider making it a rule that electronic devices are not allowed in the bedroom. This also includes tablets and other handheld devices that your kids may be tempted to use at night, which could interfere with their sleep.

So, what is the ideal amount of screen time? While it sounds like a simple question, the "just right" amount often depends on what type of screen a person is looking at and why they are looking at it. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends avoiding screens for children younger than 18 to 24 months. Children over age 2 should be limited to 1 to 2 hours of screen time per day. Adults should also try to limit their screen time outside of work hours.

If you have questions about the negative effects of screen time for adults and children, find a nearby Valleywise Community Health Center or call 1 (833) VLLYWSE to schedule an appointment.

Sources:

1. https://www.verywellfamily.com/the-negative-effects-of-too-much-screen-time-1094877

2. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000355.htm

3. https://healthmatters.nyp.org/what-does-too-much-screen-time-do-to-childrens-brains/

4. https://academic.oup.com/pch/article/22/8/461/4392451

5. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/13/why-you-should-be-reducing-screen-time-and-3-simple-tips-to-do-it.html

6. https://abcdstudy.org/

Check out our amazing community resources throughout the Valley! We offer a variety of family-friendly fitness, art and nutrition classes that parents and children both will enjoy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Negative Effects of Screen Time for Adults and Children - Blog - Valleywise Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Too much screen time can lead to obesity, sleep problems, chronic neck and back problems, depression, anxiety and lower test scores in children. Children should limit screen time to 1 to 2 hours per day. Adults should also try to limit screen time outside of work hours.

# data[].attributes.body
Amy Coney Barrett should not have been appointed in Ruth Bader Ginsburg's place -- she serves to erase all that RBG fought for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The nomination, which was widely expected, was confirmed by the US president at the White House.

He said the 48-year-old was "a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the constitution".

Mr Trump's nomination comes after liberal icon Justice Ginsburg died due to complications from pancreatic cancer.

Before announcing his choice, the president paid tribute to the "legal giant and pioneer for women", who had "inspired Americans for generations to come".

Also known as RBG, the 87-year-old had championed gender equality and social justice before and after she was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993.

Her dying wish was reportedly that she would not be replaced until after November's US election, but Mr Trump asked Senate Republicans to confirm his nominee before then.

Accepting Mr Trump's nomination, Ms Barrett said that - if her seat was confirmed - she would use it to serve all Americans and not just those in her "own circles".

"I will do my very best to ensure I am worthy of your support," she said.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate will vote "in the weeks ahead" on Ms Barrett's confirmation, saying that the president "could not have made a better decision" in nominating her.

His statement suggests he plans to ignore pleas from Democrats, including presidential nominee Joe Biden, not to appoint anyone until after November's election.

Mr Biden said: "The Senate should not act on this vacancy until after the American people select their next president and the next Congress."

His running mate Kamala Harris added: "This selection would move the court further right for a generation and harm millions of Americans."
Who is Amy Coney Barrett?
She was appointed by Mr Trump to the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, before being nominated to the lifetime post of the Supreme Court.

She is a staunch conservative and her appointment two years ago came amid allegations that Democrats were attacking her Catholic faith.

Abortion rights advocates have worried that Ms Barrett, who was born in New Orleans and gained her law degree in Indiana, could support the de-legalisation of abortion nationwide.
:: Subscribe to Divided States on Apple podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and Spreaker
On the 7th Circuit, she voted in favour of one of Mr Trump's strong immigration policies and supported expansive gun rights. She also authored a ruling making it easier for university students accused of campus sexual assaults to sue the institutions.

A devout Roman Catholic, she and her lawyer husband have seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti.

A confirmed seat would make her the fifth woman to serve on the high court, and expands its conservative majority to six to three. All six of the conservatives are also Roman Catholics, despite the religion accounting for slightly more than 20% of the US population.

She would be the youngest Supreme Court nominee since conservative Clarence Thomas, who was 43 when he began service in 1991.

Like Mr Trump's two other appointees, Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Ms Barrett's age means she could serve for decades.
What happens now?
The Senate Judiciary Committee will vet the nominee and hold confirmation hearings. The FBI also does a background check. Once the committee approves the nomination, it goes to the Senate floor for a final vote.

The nominee traditionally meets with individual senators before the confirmation hearings begin. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said he will move quickly on Mr Trump's pick - though he has not released a timetable.

But if Republicans complete the paperwork quickly and the nominee meets senators as fast, three or four days of hearings could start in early October.

However, Mr McConnell has not guaranteed that a final vote would be held before the election.

Supreme Court nomination hearings have taken around 70 days, though Mr Kavanaugh's took longer, and others less time. The election is less than 40 days away.
Does the Senate have enough votes to confirm?
Mr McConnell, who said he would move quickly on Mr Trump's pick, appears to have the votes for now. Republicans control the Senate by 53-47, meaning he could lose up to three Republican votes and still confirm a justice if Vice President Mike Pence were to break a 50-50 tie.

At this point, Mr McConnell seems to have lost the support of two Republicans - Maine Senator Susan Collins and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Both said they do not think the Senate should take up the nomination before the election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amy Coney Barrett announced by Donald Trump to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The nomination, which was widely expected , was confirmed by the US president at the White House. He said the 48-year-old was "a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the constitution".

# data[].attributes.body
College athletes should be payed just like pro athletes are because of the amount of time they put into their sport.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Be Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Be Paid

# data[].attributes.body
Some believe that marijuana as an awful thing that no one should ever partake in. However, research has shown that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, drugs already legalized.

# data[].attributes.body
The Grammys has had a long history of systemic racism and discrimination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Lehigh professor analyzed 60 years of the awards and U.S. history. He sheds light on the music milestones and misses.

It was another Grammy moment that lit up Twitter. Taylor Swift had just become the first female solo artist to win album of the year twice, this time for her chart-busting album 1989. On her way to the stage in 2016, she hugged Kendrick Lamar, who also had been nominated in the category.

"Don't get me wrong. I love Taylor Swift and respect her a lot," said Vilanova, who was watching the Grammys that night. Black Lives Matter had been mobilizing around the country, and stories of U.S. police violence had captured international attention. For Vilanova, Lamar's album To Pimp a Butterfly and song of the year-nominated single "Alright" were like soundtracks. "It really, really struck me. Just because it felt so not representative of the year that we had. And so disrespectful to the people that we had lost."

To explore how this happened, Vilanova looked at racial attitudes in the United States and the music industry over time. Following Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 Supreme Court decision that found public school segregation unconstitutional, there was widespread disapproval of treating a specific group poorly. However, Vilanova argues, there was a rise of another kind of racism: treating white American culture, history, values and systems as inherently superior.

National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences founded

Picture 1950s America. It was a time when the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust provoked conversations about race, and provided a lens through which to evaluate U.S. society as the civil rights movement began to pick up steam. Integration wouldn't be easy. And those who opposed it didn't ignore what was happening in music and on the dance floor.

Artists such as Chuck Berry and Etta James were attracting audiences that knew no racial bounds. In the 1950s, critics considered rock unintelligent and popular, thanks to the unrefined tastes of youth. "Implied within that, there's also a racial valence because rock-and-roll is black music, at least in its early foundation," Lehigh University professor John Vilanova said. "People at the time were saying, 'OK, can we stop this? What does stopping this look like?'"

The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) was established in 1957. According to its website, the academy calls the Grammy Awards "a celebration of excellence."

The first Grammy Awards ceremony was held at the Beverly Hilton in May 1959, with an additional East Coast ceremony in New York City. Grammy historian Henry Schipper wrote in 1992, "NARAS created the Grammys at least in part to clean up and gentrify pop."

The Grammy's top awards were in just three categories and all went to two white men. Composer Henry Mancini picked up album of the year for The Music From 'Peter Gunn, ' and Domenico Modugno won both record and song of the year for " Nel Blu Dipinto di Blu (Volare) "

The only black artists who won were Ella Fitzgerald, who won for best female vocal performance and best individual jazz performance, and Count Basie, who won for best performance by a dance band as well as best group jazz performance. The awards included an R&B category, best rhythm and blues performance, that went to the Champs for their mostly instrumental hit, "Tequila," written by Champs saxophonist and Latino rock pioneer Daniel Flores.

Women break music's glass ceiling

Women were among the first Grammy winners in 1959, but when it came to women winning in the top four categories, there was a lag. Judy Garland was the first woman to break through, when she won album of the year for 1961's Judy at Carnegie Hall, a live double album. Barbra Streisand would follow, winning the top award in 1964 for The Barbra Streisand Album. That same year, the coed Parisian vocal ensemble the Swingle Singers won best new artist, its female vocalists being the first women to receive that honor, which was added to the Grammy Awards in its second annual ceremony. No woman would win song of the year until the 1970s.

First top-four wins for people of color

The first Grammy winners of color in the general field were bossa nova pioneer João Gilberto and legendary singer Astrud Gilberto, his then-spouse. Astrud Gilberto, who would later settle in Philadelphia, won for record of the year for the English-language version of "The Girl From Ipanema," a bossa nova standard. That single came from Getz/Gilberto, which earned João Gilberto album of the year. A Louis Armstrong song ("Hello, Dolly") won song of the year, but Armstrong didn't take home this award because he wasn't the composer.

During this period, the big winners were the megastar vocalists who crooned in front of big bands and the composers who penned lush themes for movies. Many of the early winners had touches of jazz. The early to mid-1960s were important years for popular music, not just in the United States but arguably in the Anglosphere, with the success of Motown and the British invasion.

When the Beatles won album of the year for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1968, it was a milestone, because no rock album had claimed this prize.

"Disappointingly by that time," Vilanova wrote in his dissertation, "much of rock's black roots had been obscured by the genre's racial remaking in the nation's imagination."

Take Jimi Hendrix. The acid-blues rocker was frequently cast as an unusual talent with a band from the United Kingdom, as an exception among his (mostly white) peers. Hendrix went from being the guitarist for Little Richard and the Isley Brothers, who had played his way through the Chitlin' Circuit, to the psychedelic star who somehow wasn't making black music anymore.

At the same time, the civil rights movement pushed forward and the Vietnam War continued. As activists pushed for freedom and equality, the marketing of music remained segregated, with white rockers and black soul singers.

Hendrix was only nominated once for a Grammy for his rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner." He lost.

The Fifth Dimension scored rare wins for a black group, winning record of the year in 1968 for "Up, Up and Away" and again in 1970 for "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine in (The Flesh Failures)."

Why Stevie became an exception

Stevie Wonder won album of the year three times in the mid-1970s, known as his "classic period." Wonder was treated as a child prodigy and described as a "sightless genius." His albums Innervisions, Fulfillingness' First Finale, and Songs in the Key of Life were praised not only as examples of excellence, but as a valiant stand against Motown's preference for singles rather than albums. Wonder was making black music that white critics saw as artistic.

"Stevie Wonder pushes against all of these long-standing narratives about black music practice in America," according to Vilanova. "In doing so, he does it in a way that makes his quote-unquote artistry very legible to the Grammys."

Christopher Cross runs the table

Soft-rock singer-songwriter Christopher Cross pulled off a general field sweep and claimed all four awards. Cross was the first artist to accomplish this, and for 19 years, he was the only artist who had. His style, sometimes called "yacht rock," drew clear influences from soul music. This subgenre, Vilanova said, spoke to a level of cultural interaction, but also skewed toward men.

"The Grammys in the '80s might also be in response to disco and punk and LGBTQ organizing that's happening in the late '70s, where you have all of these people who are trying to make space for different ways of being, different voices, different spaces," Vilanova said. "Then you have this reassertion of white men and white masculinity."

In 1982, Yoko Ono won album of the year, becoming one of the few Asian musicians who've won in the general field. She shared the award with her late husband, John Lennon, for Double Fantasy, released shortly before his murder. This was the only time a woman won album of the year in the entire decade.

Michael Jackson wins big with "Thriller" and a rules change

MTV launched in 1981, and for its first three years didn't often play black artists. How Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" broke through is an oft-told story: Walter Yetnikoff, president of CBS Records at the time, reportedly threatened to pull all of his artists' videos from MTV unless it aired Jackson's videos.

Jackson's music videos helped propel him to superstardom. He won album of the year for Thriller and record of the year for "Beat It" in 1984. The '80s, cultural critic Joseph Vogel notes, brought to prominence Oprah Winfrey, Arsenio Hall, Spike Lee, and hip-hop, not to mention the skyscraping success of Prince, Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston, and Janet Jackson, among others. Richie won album of the year for Can't Slow Down in 1985, to the chagrin of Bruce Springsteen fans, as the Boss also had been nominated. After this, the academy added special review committees, Vilanova said, that determine in private sessions the nominees in all categories.

West Philly hip-hop duo DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince won best rap performance, taking the first Grammy for hip-hop. They weren't there to accept it, however. In solidarity with Def Jam executives Russell Simmons and Lyor Cohen, as well as fellow nominees LL Cool J and Salt-N-Pepa, they boycotted the Grammys in response to the awards show's not televising this new rap category. A Def Jam representative accused NARAS of treating rap music as a "ghetto."

"We couldn't win it in the grand fashion we wanted to," "Jazzy Jeff" Townes told The Inquirer in 1989.

Diverse wins and dominant divas

Bonnie Raitt, Quincy Jones, and Natalie Cole won the album of the year category in 1990, 1991, and 1992, respectively. The decade overall would bring numerous wins for women and people of color. And divas, Vilanova pointed out, rose to pop prominence: Houston, Mariah Carey, and Celine Dion took home Grammys in top categories.

Hip-hop takes the top prize

The diva appeal may partly explain Lauryn Hill's winning big for The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill in 1999, Vilanova explained. When she won album of the year, one of her five Grammys that night, presenter Whitney Houston celebrated instantly.

"This is crazy, because this is hip-hop music," Hill said during her acceptance speech, perhaps a nod to the fact that Miseducation was the first rap album to win in that category.

In 2000, Carlos Santana dominated the top Grammy awards. His Supernatural took album of the year, and "Smooth" won record of the year. Featured on the song was Matchbox Twenty frontman Rob Thomas, who won for song of the year for cowriting "Smooth."

This period also brought the surge of illegal downloading, which impacted industry sales.

Artists of color continue to nab big wins

Alicia Keys and Norah Jones both cleaned up. Keys took five Grammys home in 2002, including song of the year for "Fallin'" and best new artist. Jones also won five trophies in 2003, including record of the year for "Don't Know Why," album of the year for Come Away With Me, and best new artist. Then in 2004, Outkast won album of the year for its instant classic, Speakerboxxx/The Love Below.

Promise and... a drought?

In 2008, jazz artist Herbie Hancock won album of the year for River: The Joni Letters, a tender collection of Joni Mitchell covers.

The Obama era came soon after. The arrival of the first black president caused some to attest to a post-racial America. Skeptics maintained that wasn't the case.

"In reality, race and its impact would surge back into the popular American consciousness, drawing battle lines," wrote Vilanova, who later added, "It might not be unreasonable to call this past decade of the Grammys a recording academy whitelash."

After Hancock's win, no other person of color would win album of the year again until 2018. According to a report from the USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, between 2013 and 2018, just 9.3% of Grammy nominees were women.

Beyoncé wins song of the year for "Single Ladies." This stands as the only top award of her career - Destiny's Child included.

New conversations on representation

When Adele beat Beyoncé for album of the year, in tears she called Beyoncé the "artist of my life". It was yet another high-profile moment where fans, and in this case even the winner, questioned whether the right person won. Adele's speech followed debate around Kendrick Lamar's losing album of the year to Taylor Swift.

In 2018, NARAS launched a diversity and inclusion task force.

Following diversity efforts, in 2019 Childish Gambino won both song and record of the year. Memorably, Drake called the Grammys out during the televised event.

"I want to let you know that we're playing in an opinion-based sport. Not a factual-based sport," Drake said, later going on to say, "You don't need this right here, I promise you. You already won."

All four top categories include a diverse field of nominees. For example, performers such as Lil Nas X, Lizzo, Billie Eilish, Yola, and Rosalía are competing for best new artist.

Billie Eilish lands historic sweep

The 62nd annual Grammy Awards were emotionally intense. The Recording Academy was dealing with its current imbroglio, following its decision to place CEO Deborah Dugan on administrative leave and Dugan's bombshell allegations, that include claims the academy's board of trustees "manipulates the nominations process" and excluded her after she brought forth recommendations from the diversity and inclusion task force.

The night before Sunday's Grammy Awards, Diddy accepted the Clive Davis Icon Award at Davis' own pre-awards gala. Diddy slammed the academy and urged musicians to "take back control."

"Truth be told, hip-hop has never been respected by the Grammys. Black music has never been respected by the Grammys to the point that it should be," Diddy said in his acceptance speech. "So right now, this current situation, it's not a revelation. This thing been going on."

Alicia Keys, the host for Sunday night's televised event, referenced the scandal while addressing the audience early on: "We want to be respected and safe in our diversity. We want to be shifting to realness and inclusivity." Keys, who repeatedly offered words of encouragement following the news of the death of basketball legend Kobe Bryant, aimed to lift the mood during the more than three-hour show. Later, she did that more literally, playing piano and singing from a floating stage.

Billie Eilish swept all four big awards, only the second time this has happened in Grammy history. After winning her third major award, Eilish seemed to be in disbelief as she claimed her trophy for album of the year, sharing the stage with her primary collaborator and producer, her brother Finneas O'Connell. "Can I just say that I think Ariana deserves this?" she said. When the 18-year-old returned minutes later, winning record of the year, she said merely "thank you," and "bye" before rushing away from the microphone.

"Billie Eilish is a deserving winner whose music speaks profoundly about what life in 2020 is. But this suggests last year's Gambino wins were an aberration rather than evidence of massive change," Vilanova reacted in a text message. "And given everything Deborah Dugan is alleging, the GRAMMYs have a lot of work to do before they represent music culture accurately. They might not be salvageable."

Last 5 Years: 3 of 20 Album/Song/Record/Best New Artist winners were Black
Last 10 Years: 4 out of 40 winners were Black
This Century: 13 of 80 winners were Black

This is a distortion -- an active industrial memory-making process that misrepresents the impact of Black music.
- Dr. John Vilanova (@JohnVilanova) January 27, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do the Grammys have a diversity problem? How gender, race played out over 60 years of award history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Lehigh professor analyzed 60 years of the awards and U.S. history. He sheds light on the music milestones and misses. It was another Grammy moment that lit up Twitter. Taylor Swift had just become the first female solo artist to win album of the year twice, this time for her chart-busting album 1989.

# data[].attributes.body
Is graffiti considered art or vandalism.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a ton of pressure on students to attend college. Some people can't even afford it. Everyone should be able to afford college. It is too expensive now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College costs are more than double what they were in the 1970s, according to a GoBankingRates report.

Boomers paid $39,780 in today's dollars for a four-year public university. Gen Z is paying $90,875.

It's a bad sign for Gen Z, as college costs are expected to continue to climb.

See more stories on Insider's business page.

While US politicians continue to debate student-loan forgiveness, college tuition continues to soar.

Overall college costs are twice what they were in the 1970s, according to a recent GoBankingRates report that assessed generational differences among college expenses. It signals a rough road ahead for Gen Z, the first of whom just began to graduate college in 2019.

The report looked at the College Board's estimates for average annual costs of tuition, fees, and room and board. It assumed that students attended a four-year institution between ages 18 and 22 for baby boomers, Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z, adjusting estimates for inflation.

The chart below shows just how much college costs have climbed.

From fall 1973 to spring 1977, boomers paid around $39,780 in today's dollars for four years of public college. That's a little more than half the cost for millennials attending public college from fall 2006 to spring 2010: $70,000. And what Gen Z is paying today is more than double that: $90,875.

The numbers are even starker for private tuition, which cost around $80,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars for boomers, compared to $165,000 for millennials and a whopping $210,000 for Gen Z.

Gen X experienced the beginning of this uphill battle, as tuition costs rose at a compounded annual growth rate of more than 7% a year from fall 1973 through the fall 1990 in real dollars. From fall 1990 to spring 1994, they would have paid $43,857 at a four-year public university and $115,000 for a private college, adjusted for inflation.

College has become so expensive, some question its value

College is expensive for many reasons, including an increase in financial aid, a lack of state funding, a need for more faculty members and money to pay them, and ballooning student services.

A surge in demand is also driving the price hike, Richard Vedder, an author and distinguished professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University, previously told Insider: "The rewards for college have expanded and grown from 1985 to a little after 2000 and sort of leveled off in the past decade."

The "advantage of a degree today is less than it was 10 years ago, because of the rising cost," he added. "The return on investment has fallen."

Just ask the 49% of indebted millennials still paying off their student loans who said in an Insider and Morning Consult survey that college wasn't worth the cost.

The pandemic scrambled this equation somewhat, with remote learning leading some to question the value proposition. Insider's Bradley Saacks and Shana Lebowitz reported in summer 2020 that at least some colleges faced the prospect of students not returning for the upcoming school year, with potentially huge hits to revenue.

Harvard projected last spring that it would lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars during the current school year due to fewer students and no room-and-board revenue. NYU professor Scott Galloway said at a December Insider event that academia is ripe for disruption and likened Harvard to a "$50,000 streaming platform." But even Galloway said tuition costs haven't started coming down yet, and don't seem likely to.

The overall increase in students attending college now compared with previous years indicates that the advantages college offers still outweigh its increasing costs for many, which will fuel costs further. And getting a degree has become increasingly important, according to Joel Anderson, author of the report.

As he wrote of Gen Z, "Not only will they need more money - comparably - than any previous generation, but the shift toward a service economy also means that a career without that pricey education is harder than ever."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gen Z is paying double what boomers paid for college - and the gap will only widen in the future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College costs are more than double what they were in the 1970s, according to a GoBankingRates report. Boomers paid $39,780 in today's dollars for a four-year public university. Gen Z is paying $90,875. It's a bad sign for Gen Z, as college costs are expected to continue to climb.

# data[].attributes.body
Deep Fakes should be legal in the entertainment industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cover image via

Let's take a look at how Deepfake and CGI are shaping a bold new future for filmmakers. Here are some vivid examples of what Deepfake and CGI can produce.

There was a time when Adobe Photoshop seemed like actual magic. Upon its release, the software shook the news, entertainment, and advertising communities to their core, and crafty users from all walks of life turned to it to alter images for journalistic, humorous, and sometimes nefarious ends. Truly, it was a technological game changer.

Fast forward to what feels like several centuries later, and we see digital image manipulation edging toward yet another new frontier, thanks to yet another seemingly magical new technology: Deepfake.

This new trend, which focuses specifically on manipulating faces, is something that both indie filmmakers and commercial video professionals need to keep their eyes on.

What Is Deepfake Technology?

According to its Wikipedia entry, Deepfake technology (usually styled "Deepfake" instead of "Deep Fake") is synthetic media that uses "powerful techniques from machine learning and artificial intelligence to manipulate or generate visual and audio content, with a high potential to deceive," and some of its earliest iterations date back to the 1990s. The majority of the Deepfake videos we've seen so far use the tech to replace the likeness of one person (usually a celebrity) with a different person's face (also usually a celebrity).

Wikipedia goes on to list many of the main machine learning methods to include "training generative neural network architectures, such as autoencoders or generative adversarial networks (GANs)." And, while many of these processes have been highly technical and take a good deal of expertise, Vice news reports that there are newer versions on the horizon that require zero training.

De-Aging and CGI Doubles

Some of these concepts and techniques have actually been in recent practice for some big motion pictures - albeit in a perhaps different, if not more sophisticated, manner. The most notable example might be Martin Scorsese's The Irishman (2019), which digitally de-aged Robert De Niro to appear thirty years younger.

As you can see in the video above, much of the technology used was "Flux" 3D modeling, and it's quite impressive when you start to break down the amount of detail and digital artistry that went into the project.

Shortly after The Irishman's debut, the internet jumped on a video uploaded by a YouTube account called iFake, which ran footage from the film through a free Deepfake technology to produce arguably better results.

New Movies with Old Stars

While all of this might be a fascinating online spectacle right now, for filmmakers, it leads to some interesting ideas. What if you could give any famous actor who's ever lived a role in one of your own indie films?

It was reported at the end of 2019 that James Dean's likeness had been cast in an upcoming war-action film by turning archival footage into new CGI cinematography. So, what if you could do the same for your own script idea for Rebel Without a Cause 2?

In less copyright-infringing scenarios, though, you could also theoretically work much faster, and remotely, by using only one or two actors for the filming of an entire feature before bringing in the rest of the cast digitally. You could even film yourself in every scene and add the roles in later.

My favorite theory so far - inspired by some Deepfake mashups of action movie stars from the 1990s - is that entire reissues of some of your favorite film classics could be digitally redone with a different star in the lead role, like Sylvester Stallone superimposed over Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2.

A Future in Commercial?

The final push for Deepfake technology to advance into the everyday mainstream (as Photoshop became a major part of our photography and digital imaging) would be for film and video professionals to find ways to incorporate digital face imagery into their regular corporate and commercial video workflows.

Many of the upsides are in reducing production needs and resources in favor of quick-pass digital edits. Again, if Deepfake voice technology were to keep up with video, a video professional could shoot a great number of talking head videos for clients beforehand, then simply add in actors or executives to perfectly deliver pre-written lines. You could also shoot commercials with a fill-in and then focus-test which famous actor audiences would like to see promote a product.

The possibilities start to become endless, so feel free to ruminate on your own as to how Deepfake could increase your production capabilities. It might still be a long way from everyday use, but for interested film and video professionals, it's certainly one technological trend that's worth tracking for the future.

For more industry insights and cool future technologies, check out some of these articles below.
Cover image via svtdesign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Deepfake Technology the Future of the Film Industry?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cover image via There was a time when Adobe Photoshop seemed like actual magic. Upon its release, the software shook the news, entertainment, and advertising communities to their core, and crafty users from all walks of life turned to it to alter images for journalistic, humorous, and sometimes nefarious ends.

# data[].attributes.body
Police reforms are needed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(New York, NY) - Local, state, and federal governments in the United States should move beyond superficial changes and fundamentally rethink public safety by reducing the scope of policing, investing in community services, and ensuring abusive officers are held accountable, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. A detailed description of the pervasive problems with policing is included in the report, along with "14 Recommendations for Police Reform."

The 29-page report, " A Roadmap for Reimagining Public Safety in the United States: 14 Recommendations on Policing, Community Investment, and Accountability," proposes shifting investments from policing to social services, affordable housing, schools, community-based healthcare systems - especially mental health and voluntary drug treatment - and local economic development. Redirecting resources from policing to services that effectively address underlying societal problems, along with establishing effective, independent oversight of police, would limit harms by police and improve public safety.

"Police, whose primary tools are authority and force, are tasked with responding to societal problems that they are not equipped to handle, from homelessness to mental health to poverty," said John Raphling, senior US criminal legal system researcher at Human Rights Watch. "This inevitably leads to unnecessary violent encounters and harms overall safety, particularly in Black and brown communities."

Police killings, like those of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, are only the most dramatic examples of pervasive police violence across the US, Human Rights Watch said. While police kill about 1,100 people each year, a large disproportion of them Black, they also engage in massive applications of lower-level violence, ranging from dog bites and the use of "less lethal" weapons like tasers to aggressive, harassing, and unnecessary stops and searches, also directed disproportionately at Black people. Local, state, and federal laws and policies allow police departments to investigate their own misconduct and remove or restrict accountability mechanisms that might provide some check on this violence.

Police reform efforts should address racial and economic inequities and other societal problems, some caused by policing itself, to be effective. Poverty in the US - stratified along racial lines - and profound disinvestment in social services and community development have contributed to homelessness, untreated mental health conditions, unemployment, lack of quality schooling, and other issues. They have also contributed to higher crime rates in Black and poor neighborhoods.

Particularly since the "tough on crime" approaches and "war on drugs" of the 1970s, governments at all levels have for decades invested in policing, prosecutions, and prisons as their primary tools, rather than investing in addressing these root problems to improve public safety and quality of life. These approaches have left underlying societal problems unresolved, while creating a system of mass incarceration and heavy policing that have had a devastating and disproportionate impact on Black people.

"Police violence, especially toward Black people, ranging from killings to abusive stops and searches, is a major way that structural racism manifests itself in the US," Raphling said. "Until governments invest in supporting communities rather than criminalizing and controlling them, that violence will not stop."

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 Recommendations for Fundamental Police Reform in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(New York, NY) - Local, state, and federal governments in the United States should move beyond superficial changes and fundamentally rethink public safety by reducing the scope of policing, investing in community services, and ensuring abusive officers are held accountable, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

# data[].attributes.body
Mental Health issues are a social problem and are impossible to understand from a different standpoint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Mental Health Be Viewed as a Public Social Problem?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can define the concept of mental health not just as a health phenomenon, but also as a social and psychological one. Defining mental health separately from mental illness places it into the concept of public health, which exceeds the medical definition of the determination of a "mental illness."

# data[].attributes.body
Should dogs that bite be put down

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
>>

If there is anything harder than euthanizing a beloved dog for serious behavioral problems, I don't know what it is. And yet, sometimes, that is an option that dog owners have to consider. These were some of the hardest cases I worked with when I was seeing clients full time. I would drive home, sick at heart, and wonder why the hell I hadn't found an easier way to make a living. Often I'd run into people who would say "Oh! What a wonderful job you have!", no doubt envisioning me spending my days running through fields of daisies with Golden Retriever puppies.

As hard as it is to talk to clients about whether to put down an aggressive dog, it is nothing compared to what the owners are going through. Euthanizing a physically healthy dog, one who is joyful and loving part of the time, is surely the hardest thing a dog lover has to face. My intention here is to help people considering the option of whether to put down a dog who is seriously aggressive, in hopes that I can provide some guidance. I'll get the conversation started, but I greatly value the input of you as a reader, if you have any to share. Let me start by asking that we agree on a definition of "canine aggression." For the sake of our discussion, let's define aggression as an action in which a person is either injured or at clear risk of being injured by a dog. We all know that a great deal of what is labeled as "aggression" is defensive behavior, but for the sake of our discussion, let's focus on consequences, and not what we think is the dog's intent.

First and Foremost: It is No One's Decision But Your Own: This is both a blessing and a curse. Clients often asked me "What would you do if it was your dog?" I can never answer that question, because I'm not the one who will have to lie in bed at night thinking about what has happened. What I can do is start by sympathizing, and saying that I am so, so sorry that anyone is in the position of having to consider putting down a physically healthy dog because of a serious behavioral problem. It is exhausting, heartbreaking and terrifying. When I talk to people in this situation I emphasize how important it is to be kind and compassionate toward themselves, as if they were facing a serious illness. Their brain thinks they are. I ask them to surround themselves with good friends who are truly supportive, and to shake off any harsh judgements or unhelpful advice as best they can.

Usually conversations about serious behavioral problems include three primary options for dealing with all serious behavioral problems: 1) Keep the dog and work with a trainer or behaviorist to mitigate or manage the problem, 2) re-home the dog if it can be done safely and responsibly, and 3) euthanize the dog. Needless to say, option three should only be considered if options one and two are not viable. But how do you consider if they are or are not? Here are criteria that I suggest everyone consider:

1. Risk Assessment: No one begins a conversation about whether their dog should be put down for aggressive behavior if there haven't been several incidents (or one horrifically serious one). And every dog owner has to know that if "it," the aggression, happened once, it might happen again. That is true even if the dog is carefully managed and the owners work hard on a treatment plan. The question is, what is "it"? What are the consequences if "it" happens again? I was once called by a public health employee about a case in which a dog had damaged someone's face so badly it required 400+ stitches to repair. The dog had then been given away to someone else, and ended up mutilating a child's face, arm and shoulder. Would it be possible, I was asked, to work with the dog and make it safe? Yes, perhaps... anything is possible. But there is always a risk that it might happen again, and in this case, "it" was a horrific injury to an innocent person. Who would be willing to risk that kind of damage to another person. Of course, a seriously dangerous dog could live in a cage with extremely limited social contact, but that brings up the issue of quality of life (which I'll discuss later on in this piece).

On the other hand, if "it" happening again means that your dog has growled at someone, then you might be in a very different conversation. Growls and snaps to people aren't acceptable either, but just because a dog growls at the delivery man when she's ten months old doesn't mean she is going to be a dangerous dog. There are lots of dogs who can be turned around, or at least managed, as long as the owners acknowledge that the behavior needs addressing, and can find good advice about how to do so.

Thus, anyone in a conversation about euthanizing an "aggressive" dog has got to ask themselves two risk-related questions: First, if the injury was to another person, what risk does your dog pose to others? How would you feel if your dog put someone in the hospital? Second, what are the consequences to you? What is your legal risk if there is another incident? Are you willing to lose your home owner's insurance? Defend yourself in a lawsuit? If the bite was to you, can you spend a year healing your hand from a bad bite that keeps you from writing, or playing the violin as a musician? In addition, and essentially, everyone has a different tolerance for risk. Can you live in health knowing that your dog might badly injure someone if you forget to lock a door? Some people are fine with a background level of risk, and in addition have little trouble following a rigid routine to keep things safe. Others aren't. Owners have to ask themselves which category they fall into.

2. Do you have the resources required to a) manage the dog so that everyone stays safe, and b) work on a treatment plan? Loving a dog is not the same as having the knowledge or logistical ability to treat a serious behavioral problem. Love, I'm afraid, is not always "all you need." I have seen innumerable clients who loved their dog, but who simply didn't have the emotional or logistical ability to manage and treat a serious aggression problem. As much as I want to help save as many dogs as I can (my training business was named "Dog's Best Friend" after all), I feel tremendous empathy for people who, through no fault of their own, simply can't cope anymore. Perhaps they have been living in fear of their dog for years and are emotionally exhausted. I saw hundreds of people in that category: women who were terrified that their dog would turn on them with no warning, as it had in the past; men who lived in fear that their dog would bite another neighbor and the lawsuit would destroy a lifetime of hard work. It is easy for some to dismiss such people, and argue that they themselves would never give up on a dog, no matter what the dog had done. But be careful of making judgments here: I have seen people whose lives were almost destroyed because of an aggressive dog. People who hadn't had company for over a decade and whose marriages were on the rocks (or over) because of it. A woman whose dog stalked her through the house and held her hostage in the upstairs bedroom at midnight while I and a colleague drove up outside to capture the dog and save her. One of my clients stitched up a long, serious bite wound in fear that getting medical care would force her to consider not keeping her dog.

3. Can the dog be re-homed? Aggression is often context specific, and if it is triggered by predictable, and manageable stimuli, then the dog might indeed be able to be re-homed. Perhaps the dog is only dangerous around children, and the current owner has three young ones. A home might be found that doesn't include children. BUT... and this is crucial: Just because the new owners don't have young children doesn't mean the dog won't be exposed to them. What about neighborhood walks? What about visiting grandchildren? This scenario can work, I've seen it work many a time, but the new owners absolutely have to be clear that no, just because the dog seems so sweet to them doesn't mean it will be equally sweet to children. The new owners must understand that the dog has to learn to go into a crate, in a closed room, if kids come to visit. Perhaps the dog only goes outside into the backyard instead of being leash-walked in a neighborhood with children. All these details depend on the facts of the case, but what never varies is that responsible re-homing is dependent upon the risk assessment discussed above, and an objective, clear-eyed evaluation of what is required to keep people safe around the dog.

Free to a good home in the country? Oh, how often I have heard that. Yes, it is true that some dogs do much better outside of a neighborhood or city environment. I have had numerous cases of dogs who thrived in a different setting than the one in which the aggression occurred. However, you must keep this in mind: People who live in the country are not hermits. We have visitors of all age, shapes and sizes. We have delivery men who pull up in noisy trucks and leave as soon as the dog barks, often more than city dwellers. We have hay delivered, the LP tank filled, and the meter read. We have feral cats and wanderings dogs who show up when you least expect them and have no time to cope. Thus, yes, there are some cases in which dogs can be safe and happy in a rural setting instead of an urban or suburban one. But it is not a panacea, and the details of the case are crucial to making it work, or not.

Is there another home out there? This can be the heart breaker. Just because it is possible for a dog to be rehabilitated in a specific type of environment doesn't mean that it is available. How many people can cope with a dog who has a history of serious aggression to people? How many prospective owners have the skills and a life that makes it possible for them to do so? Finances must also be considered. Any aggressive dog should have extensive veterinary work to ensure that illness or pain isn't causing the behavior. In addition, working with a trainer or behaviorist can be expensive. There are indeed people who are able and qualified to take on a dangerous dog-some of whom read this blog, bless them. I have taken on a few dogs in my own home myself. But there simply aren't enough people out there who are willing and able to take on an aggressive dog, and the number of dogs who need a new home far, far out number the homes available to them.

4. Quality of life for the dog. What about the dog? I've worked with dogs so fearful of ___ (fill in the blanks) that they were clearly suffering for much of their life. What of the dog whose only joy in life is going to the dog park, but is dangerous around any and all strangers? What of the dogs who have unpredictable aggressive episodes that may or may not be reflective of some kind of untreatable electrical storm in their brain? The question about quality of life for dogs with serious behavioral problems is just as important as it is for dogs with physical problems. (See here for a great blog about when to put down a sick or old dog.) This is another question that only the owners can answer, but in this case it is important to get an objective opinion. I'd advise someone who comes into your home and observes the dog there. Behavior at home isn't always obvious when a dog is outside of the house, so try to have your friends or a behaviorist, veterinarian or trainer help you here.

I want to circle back to where I started: Yes, of course, there are people who have dogs euthanized with less thought and consideration than we would like. But there are many loving, responsible dog owners who have had to face this soul-scorching decision who have agonized over it. They deserve our sympathy. No one makes this more clear than my friend and colleague Phyllis D, who wrote about the difficult decision to put her dog down because of its aggressive behavior. She still gets comments about it, as do I in a post I wrote titled Love, Guilt and Putting a Dog Down. If you have anything to add that you think might help someone in this position, I'd be grateful if you added in your comment. If you are or have had to face this decision, I am so sorry. Know that no matter how smart and hard-working and dedicated and dog-loving and responsible we humans are, we can't always fix everything. A tough thing for us all to accept. While you try to do so, take care of yourself.

MEANWHILE, back on the farm: A much happier place than the conversation above! We are beyond sick of winter here, but take our joys when we can. This weekend Willie and Maggie got to play with Max, a new friend to Maggie and an old one to Willie, although we lost touch for a few years with the owners. Max is a six-year old Border Collie who is equally squishy and sweet to people and dogs alike. He loves to play "race horse," Willie and Maggie's favorite game, and we got to watch the three dogs run and run and run in huge, yard-gulping circles around the fields.

Willie and Max also love to play in a way that Maggie doesn't: Both of the boys think it is great fun to lunge toward the other to stop their forward progress. "Ha! Smashed you in the face! Isn't that fun?" I consider it a highly inappropriate play behavior from Willie, and was interested when Max did it back to him.

Hmmm, I thought, how will Willie feel about being on the receiving end? I watched it happen with a bit of concern, but Willie appeared to be thrilled that yet another dog knew how to play the best game ever! Maggie response was along the lines of: "Well, if you're going to play like that I'll just stay over here." Thus, all three dogs run and run and run, but you can see from the photos that Willie and Max are the primary play partners, and Maggie is the third dog out. Exactly as she wants it!

I had hoped to get some photos of the wild turkeys that have been all over the fields lately, no doubt coming out of the woods in search of new food sources. But of course, when I had my camera the turkeys were no where to be seen, but when I went in search of them I ran across a huge group of Canada Geese settled on a field. Lovely animals (although pests in some contexts).

Can you see from these photos how very black, white and brown our world is right now? And why we are all so starved for color? Will we see tiny green shoots in a month or so? Oh, how beautiful that will be. It's hard to imagine how sweet a quarter inch of green can be until you've lived through five months of black and white.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Is It Time to Put Down a Dog Who is Aggressive to People? - The Other End of the Leash

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If there is anything harder than euthanizing a beloved dog for serious behavioral problems, I don't know what it is. And yet, sometimes, that is an option that dog owners have to consider. These were some of the hardest cases I worked with when I was seeing clients full time.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animators deserve better working conditions 

# data[].attributes.subject
Animators deserve better working conditions 

# data[].attributes.body
Animators deserve to be paid more and have better working conditions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I love anime.

The vibrant worlds that they bring to life and pull me into, the balance of comedy and drama that rejuvenates my soul when my own emotions have been drained, are only some of the few wonderful things anime is able to do.Whether they bring me thought-provoking ideas and themes or simple entertainment, anime holds a special place in both mine and the hearts of thousands of viewers across the globe.

This is why it absolutely broke my heart when I learned about the anime industry in Japan and the atrocious treatment of the animators there.

The anime industry has itself a crunch crisis. Essentially, animators in Japan are being overworked and underpaid. However, this is a gross oversimplification of the issues the industry is facing.

Starting with salaries, most animators are only paid by commission. An "In-Between" Animator, which is an entry-level position, is only paid around 200 yen per drawing. 200 yen equates to around $1.84 in US Dollars. A single drawing can take up to, or usually over, an hour to make. If you were working a 9-to-5 job as an animator, you could produce, on a good day, probably eight drawings.

So all of your hard work will only earn you about a meager $14.72. Most reports say that higher-up positions don't earn much more.

For the few studios that do offer salaries, it doesn't get much better. A 2017 job listing for animators offered 770 yen an hour. Today, that would be around $7.10. So, under a normal 8-hour day shift, you'd earn $56.80. That is better than the commission rate, but still nowhere near a livable wage.

In fact, both of these pay rates are below Japan's minimum wage. Japan's minimum wage is 874 yen, or $8.06. You could earn more money working as a convenience store clerk who makes about 920 yen which equates to $8.48, or at a McDonald's where you would make 980 yen which equates to $9.04, then you could while working as an animator in Japan.

If you started animating right after schooling in Japan, it would take you over 20 years, well into your 40s, to earn a salary that is above Japan's poverty line.

Above, I stated how much an animator would earn if they worked 8-hour shifts, but the thing is they don't work those shifts usually. The average hours for animators in Japan are around 12-18 hours a day. These artists are being severely overworked just so they can make ends meet. To put this in perspective, the average American works around 200 hours a month. There are reports in Japan of animators working from around 400 to even 600 hours a month. There is a good chance that these artists, who work twice or three times as long as you, are earning three times less than you.

Exhaustion, being burnt out, passing out at desks, being hospitalized due to working conditions and mental breakdowns are all too common for workers in the industry. This has been the unfortunate standard for years.

This began with the initial production of the anime "Astro Boy." The creator, Osamu Tezuka, undersold his show to get in on TV and took a huge loss in profit. To make up for that deficit, merchandise was sold and astoundingly it worked for profit. While this was wonderful news for Tezuka, it unfortunately, set an industry standard of maximizing profit by minimizing production cost. This comes at the expense of the livelihood of the animators who create the properties that make these companies so profitable. Shockingly, it become difficult to find new animators in Japan, so the remaining animators are worked to the bone.

Why would any person willingly subject themselves to what is essentially slave labor? The answer is simply the passion that animators have for their craft.

These wonderful artists care a lot about what they create. They love bringing life to pencil drawings and movement to sketches. They love sharing this work with their audiences within Japan and even overseas. They wholeheartedly love their art and it shouldn't cost them their lives.

This type of treatment is horrid and disgusting. It's unacceptable and purely exploitation in the most basic and obvious terms possible.

As fans of anime and as the people these artists are trying to please and entertain, we need to help them by spreading awareness and advocating for better working conditions for them. Animators are skilled artists who deserve a livable wage, less restricting schedules and deadlines and better working conditions even if it means less anime gets produced per season or longer gaps between releases.

I would say that is a very fair trade-off so that the people who make what I love the most can sleep for more than six hours a day.
Featured Illustration: Jae-Eun Suh

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animators in Japan deserve better working conditions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I love anime.The vibrant worlds that they bring to life and pull me into, the balance of comedy and drama that rejuvenates my soul when my own emotions have been drained, are only some of the few wonderful things anime is able to do.Whether they bring me thought-provoking ideas and themes or sim

# data[].attributes.body
Students working on classes online will inturn not learns anything due to the fact that all the information they need is online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Online education is a trend that has been increasing in popularity over the past decade. According to studies by re:fuel, the number of college students taking online classes has doubled over the past five years. High school students enrolled in online courses has been on a steady increase as well, and recently, middle school students have jumped on the e-learning bandwagon.

The question that lingers in the minds of parents and educators is whether or not online courses can give students the same discussion-rich, well-rounded learning experience as traditional "brick and mortar" classrooms can.

Advantages

Online courses, especially college online courses, can be quite beneficial for a busy student. The courses are flexible as far as time management because students don't have to commute and sit in a class at a given time during a week. Online classes can often be more cost-effective than traditional classes and can be done at a pace the student is comfortable with.

For middle and high school students, the logistics of online courses can also be beneficial. Adding online classes to their regular classload can help struggling or at-risk students make up failed or missed credits attributable to truancy or being transient. By being able to play "catch up" online, students can graduate on time with their classmates.

Drawbacks

While logistically sound, taking too many online courses or having poor online instruction can be harmful to a student's future.

One of the most glaring issues with online education is the lack of interpersonal communication. If an online course has any sort of discussion element, it is usually written discussion in the form of an online post. For students looking to become successful outside the classroom in any career that requires verbal communication skills, this could be considered a significant drawback.

A big disadvantage to middle and high school students is the lack of one-on-one support. Many at-risk students are behind in reading and math. If they are using online courses to "catch up," they may find themselves faltering for further explanation or intervention when they don't grasp a concept.

While having a schedule of online courses can be good for practicing time management for the highly motivated and focused student, it can also be the downfall for students who lack these basic skills. If a student struggles with putting away the video games, signing off Facebook and ignoring the cell phone, finding time to do the online classes and all the coursework on his or her own time could be a major challenge.

Ethical Issues

One of the most concerning ethical questions facing the credibility of online education is that of rigor and grade-level expectations.

Some online courses consist of pre-programmed software that has the student read or listen to a lecture and then take a test or quiz. The computer (or software) scores the assessments and either passes the student on or not. If these courses are not closely managed, what keeps students from cheating or having someone who can read and understand the content better take the assessments for them?

Other online classes involve an actual teacher running the class with deadlines for assignments and discussion questions that need to be posted. Because the online classroom is not made up of a room of "real" bodies, it is less likely for students to have outside discussion surrounding the behavior or content of the teacher's "lectures." This opens up the possibility of online instructors using the virtual classroom to push political, religious or other views on students.

In certain circumstances, online classes can be highly beneficial. However, like anything, too much can have a negative impact. Earning an entire degree or diploma using online education may have an unintended outcome on the student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Good, the Bad and the Ethical Issues of Online Education | WordPress Web Design Cairns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Online education is a trend that has been increasing in popularity over the past decade. According to studies by re:fuel, the number of college students taking online classes has doubled over the past five years. High school students enrolled in online courses has been on a steady increase as well, and recently, middle school students have jumped on the e-learning bandwagon.

# data[].attributes.body
Elon Musk's Neuralink project is a chip that is implanted into the skull. This device can cure conditions like Parkinson's disease, but the Neuralink could possibly compromise the human immune system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With Tesla and Space X, Elon Musk made electric cars and private spaceflight ubiquitous. Now, with Neuralink, he hopes he can do the same for mind-machine interfaces.

What is Neuralink?

Elon Musk wants to control machines with just the power of thought. To that end, in July 2019 Musk and his team revealed that they had developed ultrafine 'threads' that can be woven into your brain to listen in on your neurons. The company has also built a robot that can perform the delicate surgery, under the supervision of a neurosurgeon.

When the company was first launched in 2016, Musk said he wanted to help humans compete in a world where artificial intelligence had surpassed them - to give us more 'bandwidth'. But with this new announcement the researchers have turned their attention to helping those with brain-related disorders.

How does Neuralink work?

The N1, a 4mm-square chip, is implanted into the skull. Attached to the chip are wires thinner than a human hair, which reach out into the brain. These threads are placed close to important parts of the brain and are able to detect messages as they are relayed between neurons, recording each impulse and stimulating their own. Neuralink says the N1 is able to connect with 1,000 different brain cells, and that a patient might have as many as 10 N1 chips implanted.

The chips connect wirelessly to a wearable device that hooks over the user's ear, much like a hearing aid, and contains a Bluetooth radio and a battery.

Neuralink says the first devices will be implanted via traditional neurosurgery, but eventually the chips will be inserted safely and virtually painlessly through small incisions by a robot surgeon.

What kind of conditions could be treated using Neuralink technology?

The technology could help with neurological disorders, which are rooted in the inability of the brain to connect with nerves around the body. These include epilepsy and Parkinson's disease, but also paraplegia and quadriplegia following injuries to spinal nerves.
Read more about Elon Musk's projects:
Does Neuralink have to be stuck inside my brain?

Unfortunately, the technology needs to be close to each nerve in order to pick up signals - anything further than 60 microns wouldn't be able to detect individual impulses (1 micron = 0.001mm).

What are the risks of Neuralink?

Neuralink will need to learn from the successes (and failures) of existing brain-computer interface technologies. The threads connecting electrodes to the chip need to be flexible, to minimise the damage to surrounding brain tissue. And if this technology is to be given to patients with pre-existing conditions, there are also risks associated with operating on those whose immune systems may be compromised.

Musk reassured the audience that implanting the device would be as safe as having laser eye surgery, but the company is yet to seek FDA approval, which it will need to market the device.

There aren't just health risks, either: society will need to consider what to do with the data recorded by the N1. What are the ethics behind monitoring someone's every thought, deed and emotion?

So when could Neuralink become a reality?

Musk hopes for human studies to begin as early as 2020, a date some say is wildly optimistic. At the launch, Neuralink's CEO Max Hodak stated that the first patients would be those with quadriplegia due to spinal cord injuries. These patients will have four chips implanted, connecting with up to 4,000 different neurons.

The benefits extend beyond the disabled. Musk hopes that the technology will become commonplace, turning the humans into cyborg beings that can achieve a symbiosis with artificial intelligence - something he believes will be essential to the survival of our species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything you need to know about Neuralink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Tesla and Space X, Elon Musk made electric cars and private spaceflight ubiquitous. Now, with Neuralink, he hopes he can do the same for mind-machine interfaces. Elon Musk wants to control machines with just the power of thought.

# data[].attributes.body
When Covid came, developers had to shift to working at home. The new work environment is convenient is in some developers opinion and for others, it is not because of the lack of communication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new report from the organizers of the Game Developers Conference (GDC) reveals that nearly 50 percent of game developers feel that their productivity has gone done to some degree while working at home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The data comes from GDC's State of the Industry: Work from Home Edition Survey, which polled nearly 2,500 developers about how their work has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the survey found that 70 percent of developers had to shift to working from home, while 27 percent said they were already working remotely.

With respect to developer productivity due to the changing work environment, the survey found that 32 percent of devs reported that their productivity has "somewhat" decreased, while nine percent feel it has "greatly" gone down.

In the study, developers had the option to give detailed responses, and some have attributed the reduced productivity to their "home environment, their lack of access to outside stimuli, and lack of in-office communications," according to GDC.

Some specific hurdles include multiple children at home and the increased reliance on communication over various digital platforms. "There is more 'busy time' due to the increased need for good and more communication," said one developer of the latter issue, noting that "good: emails need to be very well-written; more: more calls and longer introductions even for small tasks."

Others said factors like family healthcare, finances and morale over other employees being furloughed or laid off are also weighing heavily on them. (For context, 10 percent of devs said they've laid off or furloughed due to COVID-19).

Comparatively, 24 percent of respondents said they've somewhat increased their productivity, while eight percent noted their productivity has greatly increased while working from home.

In addition to reduced productivity, more than one-third of developers said their creativity has gone down. In particular, 28 percent of developers said their creativity has "somewhat" decreased, with seven percent saying it has "greatly" dropped.

On the other hand, 19 percent of respondents said their creativity had increased while working from home, and six percent even said it had greatly increased.

It's worth noting, however, that regardless of how devs perceive the quality of their work, almost half of them reported working longer hours at home than in the studio. According to the survey, 28 percent of devs said they're working "somewhat" more hours, while 11 percent said they were working "much more" than before.

By comparison, 14 percent of respondents said they were working "somewhat" less due to the pandemic and six percent said they were working "much less."

For those saying they're working longer, a big part of this is the inability to separate work from home."It's a little harder to leave work at work, since I have to use the same machine for work and home use," wrote one survey-taker. "I get sucked into a [Microsoft] Teams conversation at night sometimes."

It's unfortunate to hear that many devs are working longer than usual, especially given the ongoing concerns surrounding widespread crunch - or prolonged overtime work - across the industry.

Finally, only 11 percent of developers say they feel safe going back to an office now. That's compared to 39 percent who said they wouldn't feel comfortable returning until a proven COVID-19 vaccine is released. Meanwhile, 24 percent said they'd be ready when COVID-19 cases started to decline in their areas, with 12 percent saying they simply wouldn't feel safe going back in the foreseeable future. Interestingly, 66 percent of devs say their company has a plan to reopen, while 34 percent say their workplace does not have a plan.

What does all of this mean for gamers?

At this point, it's difficult to say, as it will likely vary by game and company. For example, PlayStation developers Naughty Dog and Sucker Punch were able to finish and release The Last of Us Part II and Ghost of Tsushima, respectively, because their games were nearly finished prior to the pandemic. Therefore, remote work could be dedicated mostly to adding a final level of polish and removing any bugs.

Similarly, 2020's later games like Xbox's Halo Infinite, CD Projekt Red's Cyberpunk 2077 and Ubisoft Montreal's Assassin's Creed Valhalla are expected to arrive on schedule, as they are also far along in development. Likewise, Sony and Microsoft have said the pandemic will not cause their next-gen consoles, the PS5 and Xbox Series X, respectively, to be delayed out of this holiday.

However, as Xbox chief Phil Spencer has said, 2021 games and beyond will likely be affected, especially those that are big-budget affairs that require motion-capture. While many companies have been sending equipment to voice actors to record lines at home, motion-capture would require in-studio work, and it's unclear how that will proceed amid the pandemic. He specifically cited franchises like FIFA and Madden, which operate under quicker development cycles so they can release every year. On the other hand, smaller indie games might still be able to progress relatively unfazed.

In any case, as the responses suggest, work will also need to be taken to help improve morale so developers can feel more productive and creative. It remains to be seen what - if any - changes will be made to achieve this.

For now, though, it's worth noting that GDC is planning a digital August event with developers, following the cancellation of its physical March conference. More information on that can be found here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nearly half of game developers say remote work has lowered their productivity: survey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report from the organizers of the Game Developers Conference (GDC) reveals that nearly 50 percent of game developers feel that their productivity has gone done to some degree while working at home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

# data[].attributes.body
Due to the rise in streaming services, many people are deciding to cut the cord to switch to the convenience of streaming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The cable box is an expensive way to get TV. Yes it's familiar, but it's also something you don't need anymore to enjoy your favorite TV shows and movies. The apps built into your or running on an inexpensive streamer such as Roku or Amazon Fire TV can provide more great shows than any cable box for less money.

More Americans than ever are cutting the cable TV cord in favor of , a trend accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic. Staying at home, facing financial hardship and bereft of options for live sports and other big events, people are turning to streaming in record numbers.

Services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney Plus, and have thousands of TV shows and movies to stream on-demand, but that's just the beginning. Live TV streaming services, available from the likes of and , can stream most of the live channels available on your cable box with no contracts to sign, so you can cancel anytime. And if you don't want to pay at all, numerous other services stream free TV shows, free movies and even free live news.

Whether your favorite shows are on Netflix or TNT, Disney Plus or ESPN, Amazon Prime or your local ABC, NBC or PBS station, you can probably stream them without ever needing to use a cable or satellite TV box.

Here's how to get started.

(Note that CNET is owned by ViacomCBS, which is a compensated programming provider on all cable, satellite and online TV services that offer CBS and Viacom channels including CBS, Showtime, Nickelodeon, Pop, CBS Sports and The CW, among others. ViacomCBS also owns and operates its own online service, CBS All Access, which is mentioned below.)

Determine how much money you'll save

Even if you cut cable TV you'll still need a home internet connection for streaming. Many people get internet as part of a cable TV bundle, maybe with phone service too. Often your cable company is the same one providing your internet connection, but sometimes you can shop around to multiple internet providers.

You'll need to find out how much home broadband by itself, with no TV bundle, costs. If your bundle is $130 a month, maybe you'll have to pay $60 for just internet. That leaves $70 of potential savings by cutting cable TV. That's a lot of money every month to pocket or spend on new streaming services.

Other things to consider as you shop for internet-only plans:

Are you under contract? If so, you'll have to either wait it out, renegotiate a new internet-only deal with your cable company or eat the early termination fee.

How fast of a connection do you need? Start by pricing out the same speed you have already but keep in mind that with everyone in your home streaming more, you might need faster broadband.

You should get a plan with unlimited data, if available, which can cost more than data-limited plans. Streaming video can really add up.

Figure out what shows and channels you can't live without

Now it's time to figure out your TV must-haves. Cancelling cable means you'll need to stream the stuff you normally watch on your cable box.

Make a list of the channels and shows you and your family watch regularly. In some cases you'll be able to replace the shows on those channels with a streaming service such as Netflix or Hulu, but be aware that many current-season episodes won't be available immediately.

The best option to replace your cable box directly is with a live TV streaming service. Each offers a package of live channels you can watch on a streaming app that, with a little learning curve, works just as well as (or better than) a cable box. They include program guides, cloud DVRs and extras your box can't deliver including user profiles and mobile streaming. Prices start at $20 a month but to get live local channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, For or PBS) you'll need to pay at least $50 per month. For premium shows, HBO ($15 a month), Showtime ($11) and Starz ($9) all have standalone services, too.

The best part about any of the services above? Unlike cable, you can cancel and restart service anytime without contracts or penalties. You can subscribe to follow a particular show, for example, and then cancel after the finale.

Read more: Best live TV streaming services for cord cutters

Read more: Top 100 channels you can stream on each live TV service

Want to save even more? Consider using an antenna

One way to get around the high cost of local networks on streaming is to use an antenna. Just about every TV has an over-the-air tuner built-in, so you can plug in an antenna and watch broadcast networks like ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS. Reception varies widely depending on where you live, however, and unless you buy an antenna DVR like the Fire TV Recast, or TiVo Bolt OTA, you're restricted to live-only viewing.

Read more: Cut the cord for $10: Best indoor TV antenna in 2020

Get the right devices to replace your cable box

You won't need that cable box anymore, but you will need some kind of steaming device to watch any of the services mentioned above. Maybe the app is built into your smart TV, maybe into your game console, or maybe you have to buy a new streaming device like a Roku or Apple TV. In any case you'll also need to connect such a device to each TV that's currently connected to a cable box.

At least they're relatively cheap ($30 and up), and you don't have to pay the cable company every month to rent one. And with most services you can also watch on your phone, tablet or computer.

Read more: Best streaming devices of 2020: Roku, Apple TV, Fire Stick and more compared

Try to replace your DVR'd shows with streaming options

Do you use your cable box's DVR a lot? Live TV streaming services offer a "cloud DVR," but often it's not as capable as a TiVo or the DVR from your cable company. They often have smaller storage limits, shows that expire after a certain time, limitations on which channels can be recorded, and even force you to watch commercials. YouTube TV has the best cloud DVR we've tested, but in some ways it's still not as good as TiVo.

Thanks to on-demand, however, you might not miss your DVR much at all. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and others let you watch shows on-demand -- often the same shows you're using your DVR to record. And live TV services such as YouTube TV and Sling TV offer a lot of on-demand shows, and you can often pause or even skip commercials. On the other hand every episode of every show might not be available.

Do you care about watching sports?

The onset of coronavirus cancelled most live sports but some are coming back and soon sports fans will have plenty of options they'll want to follow live. Unfortunately, sports fans will have the toughest time cutting the cord.

Some channels devoted to pro baseball, basketball, basketball teams, known as RSNs (regional sports networks), are only available to cable subscribers. Live TV streaming TV services, particularly the more expensive ones like Hulu with Live TV and YouTube TV, numerous RSNs, but coverage varies widely by sport, team and city. To find out if a live TV service carries your team's games you'll need to visit the service's web site.

NFL pro football games are usually carried on local networks, but you'll typically need an antenna, a live TV streaming service, or CBS All Access (for CBS games only) to watch them. One exception? Amazon will carry 2020 NFL games for free, including to compatible TV-connected devices.

Do a trial run first

Cutting the cable cord can save you a lot of money but you'll need to do some planning to make the transition as painless as possible. It pays to get all your streaming ducks in a row before you make that final fateful call to your cable provider.

Go through the checklist above and figure out which services you need to subscribe to and which devices you'll need to get. Install everything on your main TV, unplug your cable box and get used to using streaming instead. Educate yourself first then move on to helping other members of your household.

Chances are you'll experience some bumps along the way. The menu systems on some streaming services are different, the remote controls on devices are different, even the lack of channel numbers and need to use search can be tough to grok. Give it time and patience, however, and it will be fine.

Ready? Call up your cable company and cancel

After you've lived with streaming for awhile and have grown comfortable with the process of clicking on an app rather that firing up your cable box, it's time to make the fateful call. Your cable provider might offer you incentives to stick around and you'll have to weigh those against the benefits of cutting the cord, but do so carefully. Especially if the offer is contingent on signing a 2-year contract. A lot can change in two years and with the freedom of streaming, it's simply a lot easier to save money than with cable w.

In the end, cutting cable TV isn't for everyone. No single device or service has as many channels as a premium cable package. Juggling different services to find the shows you want to watch can more effort than some users are willing to put in.

On the other hand, cutting cable is getting easier and cheaper with every new option that hits the market. Beyond the savings, you get the freedom of being able to pick and choose the service you want -- and drop it like a hot potato if you don't like it anymore, your show ends, or something new comes along. Cutting cable is all about choice and if you do it right, you'll never miss that old cable box.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The cable box is an expensive way to get TV. Yes it's familiar, but it's also something you don't need anymore to enjoy your favorite TV shows and movies. The apps built into your or running on an inexpensive streamer such as Roku or Amazon Fire TV can provide more great shows than any cable box for less money.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fighting against climate change should be a high global priority

# data[].attributes.subject
Fighting against climate change should be a high global priority

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new study suggests that large swaths of the tropics will experience dangerous living and working conditions if global warming isn't limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

A farmer in Peukan Biluy village in Aceh, Indonesia, part of the region that could become uninhabitable if global temperatures rise too much. Credit... Hotli Simanjuntak/EPA, via Shutterstock

Here's one more reason the world should aim to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a goal of the international Paris Agreement: It will help keep the tropics from becoming a deadly hothouse.

A study published Monday suggests that sharply cutting emissions of greenhouse gases to stay below that limit, which is equivalent to about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of warming since 1900, will help the tropics avoid episodes of high heat and high humidity - known as extreme wet-bulb temperature, or TW - that go beyond the limits of human survival.

"An important problem of climate research is what a global warming target means for local extreme weather events," said Yi Zhang, a graduate student in geosciences at Princeton University and the study's lead author. "This work addresses such a problem for extreme TW."

The study is in line with other recent research showing that high heat and humidity are potentially one of the deadliest consequences of global warming.

"We know that climate change is making extreme heat and humidity more common," said Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who was not involved in the study. "And both of those things reduce our ability to live in a given climate."

Dr. Kopp, who was an author of a study published last year that found that exposure to heat and humidity extremes was increasing worldwide, said a key contribution of the new work was in showing that, for the tropics, "it is easier to predict the combined effects of heat and humidity than just how hot it is."

Ms. Zhang, along with two other Princeton researchers, Isaac Held and Stephan Fueglistaler, looked at how the combination of high heat and high humidity is controlled by dynamic processes in the atmosphere. They found that if global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees, the wet-bulb temperature at the surface can approach but not exceed 35 degrees Celsius, or 95 degrees Fahrenheit, in the tropics.

That region, a band roughly 3,000 miles from north to south that encircles Earth at the Equator, includes much of South and East Asia, Central America, Central Africa. It is home to more than 3 billion people.

Above a wet-bulb temperature of 35 Celsius, the body cannot cool down, as sweat on the skin can no longer evaporate. Prolonged exposure to such conditions can be fatal, even for healthy people. Lower but still high wet-bulb temperatures can affect health and productivity in other ways.

Ms. Zhang cautioned that the effect on health from her study was uncertain, since she and her colleagues looked only at how high wet-bulb temperatures would get, not how often the extremes would be reached or how long they would last. "Thorough knowledge on the health impact of intensity, frequency, and duration of high wet-bulb temperatures is needed," she said.

The study was published in the journal Nature Geosciences.

The target of 1.5 degrees of warming was the lower of two established by the 2015 Paris Agreement among nations to fight climate change. But the world has already warmed by about 1 degree since 1900, and the ability to stay beneath the target is slowly slipping away as nations' emissions reductions, both achieved and pledged, have fallen far short of what is needed.

A growing body of research has found that global warming so far is taking an increasing toll on human health indirectly through drought and crop failures, extreme storms and flooding, increased spread of certain insect-borne diseases and other effects.

But heat also has direct effects on the human body. Even relatively dry heat can be enough to kill people, as evidenced by the toll from heat waves in recent years. And the combination of heat and high humidity has already reached dangerous levels in parts of the world.

A study last year that looked at weather data found two sites in the tropics that have already had numerous occurrences of wet-bulb temperatures above 35 degrees, and many sites, including some along the southeastern coast of the United States, that have had TW readings from 31 to 33 degrees. But in most of the occurrences, the extreme conditions lasted only for an hour or two.

The effects of heat and humidity are worse for women, older people and those with chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, said Glen Kenny, a professor of physiology at the University of Ottawa who studies how the body copes with heat stress.

Work or exercise generates heat, and the body has to dissipate it. If the air temperature is higher than body temperature, the main source of cooling is through evaporation of sweat. But if the humidity reaches a point where sweat cannot evaporate, "essentially the body will gain heat," said Dr. Kenny, who was not involved in the new study.

That stresses the cardiovascular system. "The strain that the heart is facing becomes progressively greater, especially if there's successive days of heat exposure," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Warming's Deadly Combination: Heat and Humidity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study suggests that large swaths of the tropics will experience dangerous living and working conditions if global warming isn't limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Here's one more reason the world should aim to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, a goal of the international Paris Agreement: It will help keep the tropics from becoming a deadly hothouse.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite it being costly, all plastics should start becoming plant-based. We should put our planets safety first, not our money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Following what has been called the ' Attenborough effect ', consumers are abandoning plastic due to a growing awareness of its impact on the environment.

Consumers are making easy swaps to plastic-free products - so businesses are responding by changing the materials they use.

So-called 'eco-friendly plastics' are popping up everywhere - from compostable, to plant-based, to biodegradable - But what are they; how are we supposed to dispose of them; and are they too good to be true?

Plastic - miracle material or dangerous litter?

When plastic was first invented in the late 19 th century, it was celebrated as a miracle material. It has helped us preserve and transport food; it has reduced the spread of disease; and it has brought us light-weight, more fuel efficient transport.

But the problem isn't the material itself. It's the way we use it. We waste finite fossil fuels to produce items that are used just once, sometimes for a few minutes - or just seconds.

When these items end up in the environment - whether in oceans or in landfill - they leach harmful chemicals and cause further damage to our ecosystem.

It's no surprise that plastic is at the top of the sustainability agenda. With mounting pressure from consumers, conscious competitors and environmental groups, companies are scrambling for alternatives.

"Environmentally-friendly" plastic?

Have you heard of ' bioplastics' before? While it may sound eco-friendly, the meaning is quite ambiguous. If a material is a bioplastic, it means that it's either:

Plant-based (made in part or completely from organic matter, e.g. sugar cane or corn starch). These plastics are not necessarily biodegradable.

Is biodegradable (biodegradable plastic can sometimes be made entirely from fossil fuels)

Is both plant-based and biodegradable

It's important that as we move into using alternatives, we are aware of what we are consuming and how we should be discarding it. To find out more about bioplastics, check out City to Sea's blog.

So, what exactly are plant-based plastics?

Plant-based plastic is a type of bioplastic that is created from agricultural scraps, often from corn, sugarcane, wheat or food waste. The term 'plant-based' refers to the source of the material itself, not how the resulting plastic will behave after it's been thrown away.

But, there's a catch! Only 20% of the ingredients need to be from renewable, organic materials in order for a plastic to be labelled 'plant-based'. This means the resulting plastic could still be non-biodegradable and be made from up to 80% fossil fuels!
Not so green after all...
Disposing of plant-based plastic

Plant-based plastic, like all other types of plastic, can be designed to behave in one of three different ways in the environment:

To last forever

Non-biodegradable plastic is extremely durable and will last for years. So long, in fact, that it takes 500 years to degrade. And even then, it doesn't fully disappear; it just breaks down into smaller and smaller particles that remain in the environment. Many types of non-biodegradable plastic are recyclable, like plastic milk cartons which are made from HDPE, or fruit punnets which are made from PET.

To biodegrade

'Biodegradable' plastic can be broken down completely by bacteria or other living organisms.

If a plastic is described as biodegradable, it doesn't mean that you can throw it away anywhere. If it's left in the wrong environment, it won't have a chance to biodegrade and will behave in the same way as non-biodegradable plastic.

It's a good idea to read the back of the pack to check how you can dispose of biodegradable plastics - as there are many different types and they require different conditions to biodegrade.

If in doubt, leave it out and find an alternative if you can.

Compostable plastic will decompose in either a home composting environment or in industrial composting conditions. The only plastics that can be composted are those that have met an industrial standard (EN13432) or to a home composting standard like OK Compost.

Something important to note; compostable plastic that is certified to an industrial standard will not break down properly in a home composting environment.

You can't add compostable or biodegradable plastic to the regular recycling streams. It will disrupt the recycling process, and the whole lot becomes destined for landfill.

What does Natracare use?

All our panty liners and pads have a bioplastic backing sheet to ensure that they hold back leaks. We use the same material to wrap our individually-wrapped panty liners and pads.

The bioplastic that we use is derived from agricultural waste from corn production. The corn is non-GMO and has had all of its allergens removed. Our products have composability certificates from OK Compost for home, soil and industrial composting.

The only time we will ever use plastic is when there is no other option available. For example, our non-applicator tampons are wrapped in a recyclable plastic. This is because tampons are considered a medical device and they need protecting from moisture and bacteria, which only conventional plastic achieves.

The future of plastic

Plant-based plastics seem attractive at first glance - but in order to not dig ourselves further into the hole of global plastic-pollution, it's important that we examine all of the options carefully. As demand grows, we hope that businesses, local councils and individuals support the options that are best for people and for the planet.

What do you think about this topic? Let us know in the comments below, or on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plant-Based Plastics - Perfect Solution Or Problem? | Natracare

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following what has been called the ' Attenborough effect ', consumers are abandoning plastic due to a growing awareness of its impact on the environment. Consumers are making easy swaps to plastic-free products - so businesses are responding by changing the materials they use.

# data[].attributes.body
Old movies were original and were put together so fast that the movie ends up being bad. New movies are not always good, especially when they have multiple people writing the script to get it done. Old movies are better than new ones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anytime your friend or a loved one argues that old movies are the best, share with him or her this article. We all have grandparents, friends or colleagues who complain that modern movies cannot be compared to older movies.

The movies of today, they say, do not hold a handle to the classics. And the numbers prove them right. Up to date, the average movie rating has been dropping continuously since the year 2000 on the popular review aggregate sites such as IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to name a few.

But there is more to this trend than a decrease in quality. A lot of movies are produced and released every year. Most of them manage to compete for the Oscars and other global awards. Some of them perform better than others due to their interesting story or special effects that are simply out of the mind.

Since the year 2000, technological advancements have transformed the movie world. Directors and producers have changed how they made movies. They have adopted new styles that go hand in hand with the technological devices that they currently have.

What makes a modern movie great? Investing in the latest piece of technology, a cast of talented and experienced actors and a bigger budget can transform an ordinary movie into a great movie. Not to forget to include the special effects.

When it comes to movie reviews, everyone has his or her opinion. Some people struggle to watch modern movies while others can't finish watching an old movie without dozing off. Some people consider old movies to be outdated due to the mannerisms of the actors or the graphics. And this is quite true.

However, old movies have valuable lessons that you can't easily find in modern ones. And these lessons can be used in our modern world. Let's discuss why old movies are better than modern ones.

1. The Acting Style

According to best essays review, acting in modern movies cannot be compared to old movies. Old movies used the Acting System which was developed by Constantin. This system is based on the fact that human beings cannot emotions. Therefore, he came up with a system that summons emotional inspiration.

He encouraged the use of the Emotional Memory concept which meant that actors had to use emotional memories from the past to create the character's emotions. They acted more naturally because there were no special effects.

Acting in older movies was supernatural because of the social and cultural norms of the time. Times change and so do social and cultural norms. This does not mean that there are no great actors in the modern movie industry. However, the acting style that was embraced in the past pushed actors to exceed their mental and emotional limitations.

2. No Rush

One reason why people who love modern movies sleep while watching old movies is nothing is rushed. Some scenes might be boring compared to the rest. Conversations used to last for at least three minutes. Plus, the films used to be taken from only one angle. This is one of the things that bore millennials.

If you've ever watched a modern movie with an elderly, you probably repeated some scenes more than twice or explained what was happening for him or her to understand. Modern movies are rushed from the beginning to the end.

If you are used to old movies, you'll hardly understand a thing. Modern movies are not focused on deep conversations. Moviemakers focus on the action and special effects to please the viewers' brains and eyes.

According to top resume writing services, older movies focused on the conversation and the character. The moviemakers filmed with the assumption that people had a couple of hours to spend watching black and white movies.

Today, modern movies are focused on the actions that adapt to our everyday life. Times are changing rapidly and so is the moving making process. Editing techniques have been embraced and everyone is overusing them. And this leads to low-quality movies.

Since people have developed attention atrophy, modern movies are full of actions with shorter scenes to make it easier for the younger generation to focus. Also, movie makers are creating movies with the assumption that people don't have enough time to sit down and watch a good movie for a few hours. That's another major reason why modern movies are fast-paced.

Old movies presented their theme or topics slowly. However, this does not make an old movie too boring to watch.

3. Different Topics/Subjects

There are major differences between old movies and modern movies especially when it comes to the topics or main themes. Today, everyone wants to watch fast-paced movies because they are thrilling and relieve stress.

Yes, you can find old movies with the same topic or theme that modern movies have. However, most old movies were about love and war. And they always presented a new refreshing perspective using the talented characters. You could easily identify yourself with the plot of the story. They presented the habits and norms that were common during those days. And this is why we prefer old movies to modern movies.

Ivory research shows that old movies introduced the viewers to a different better world. After watching the movie, you could reason and discover what you've been doing right or wrong in your life. The plot was original and exciting compared to the modern ones. Modern movie makers are in the business of recreating older movies with a few changes thanks to the rapid advancement of technology.

Old movies present a theme or topic that inspires and motivates viewers to take action. It could be pouring out your heart to the person you secretly love or having the courage to follow your dreams. Unlike the past, you can easily find whatever you want with a simple Google search. You can identify the opportunities and problems around you without having to sit down for a few hours to watch a movie.

Watching movies was one of the best ways to open your eyes and mind in the past. Old movies showed people what they could manage to do with art, beauty, and sexuality. Today, people are focused on finding the treasure that will save the world and heroic feats with lots of actions and editing.

4. Different Effects

One of the main goals of old movies was to create a story that you could strongly identify with. A story that inspired you to become a better version of yourself; to know and fight for the dreams of your country.

Every effect was made to create a clear perfect scene together with a good screenplay. These moviemakers took their time to choose characters who complimented the plot of the story because the special effects had not evolved as they have today.

For instance, horror movies were really scary. Most children and teenagers couldn't sleep after watching those movies. And even if they did, they would narrate the nightmares they had. Today, no one feels scared after watching modern horror movies.

The difference is not in the plot but the effects. Modern horror movies look like Science Fiction. Ghosts have features that you can't imagine. And since modern movies are being produced constantly, it is extremely difficult to find a great one.

Although technology had not developed back then, old movies had something special. All the special effects like war scenes and death were more realistic than what we see in modern movies today. Some great modern producers create extraordinary movies. However, with the possibility of improving visuals using effects, it's difficult to figure out when to stop.

5. Old movies are the real success

Let's face it. There could be no modern movies without old movies. Most of the respected producers of our times were mentored by old movie producers. Old movies paved the way for the growth and success of the movie industry. Even though most of us can't stand them, they've stood the test of time. If you grew up watching these movies, you know what I mean.

Modern directors are not creating anything new. They are simply recreating and rebranding old movies using the latest pieces of technology. Even though old movies are a bit longer, they addressed exciting topics that opened the eyes and minds of people.

Conclusion

Old movies are not boring. You just need to sit down and focus on the characters. Remember, how you look at things determines your experience. By changing your perspective, you'll realize why the elderly have never stopped watching these movies. They are useful, entertaining and impressive. And most importantly, you can identify yourself with the story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GUEST EDITORIAL: Why Old Movies are More Useful than Modern Ones? - Every Movie Has a Lesson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Susan Saurel When it comes to movie reviews, everyone has his or her opinion. Some people struggle to watch modern movies while others can't finish watching an old movie without dozing off. Some people consider old movies to be outdated due to the mannerisms of the actors or the graphics.

# data[].attributes.body
Cancel Culture is has gotten so bad that people have lost the freedom of speech and if people do not like their opinion, they cancel them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Twenty-seven percent of voters said cancel culture had a somewhat positive or very positive impact on society, but almost half (49%) said it had a somewhat negative or very negative impact.

While online shaming may seem like a major preoccupation for the public if you spend a lot of time on Twitter, only 40% of voters say they have participated in cancel culture and only one in 10 say they participate "often." It appears to be more of a liberal pursuit: Half of Democrats have shared their dislike of a public figure on social media after they did something objectionable, while only a third of Republicans say they have.

Age is one of the most reliable predictors of one's views. Members of Generation Z are the most sympathetic to punishing people or institutions over offensive views, followed closely by Millennials, while GenXers and Baby Boomers have the strongest antipathy towards it. Cancel culture is driven by younger voters. A majority (55%) of voters 18-34 say they have taken part in cancel culture, while only about a third (32%) of voters over 65 say they have joined a social media pile-on. The age gap may partially explain why Ernest Owens, a millennial journalist, responded to Obama's criticism with a New York Times op-ed that amounted to a column-length retort of "OK, boomer."

The poll also suggests that the public at large is more forgiving than the gladiators on social media. When asked about controversial or offensive statements from public figures, the longer ago the comment was made the less likely it mattered. Fifty-four percent said that a problematic statement made a year ago was likely to "completely" or "somewhat" change their opinion of the person, versus 29% who said it would "change a little bit" or "not change at all."

For statements as far back as 15 years ago the results were almost reversed: 26% said there would be a change versus 53% who said there would be little or no change.

The debate over cancel culture has recently intersected with discussions about race and diversity that are taking place inside many American institutions, including major newsrooms.

Last month, The New York Times pushed out James Bennet, its editorial page editor, after an outcry among staff over an op-ed the paper solicited from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) calling for the use of the military to quell violent protests. One of Bennet's right-leaning (but anti-Trump) writers, Bari Weiss, left this month after what she described in a fiery resignation letter as "forays into Wrongthink" that "have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views." She decried how the Times has allowed Twitter to "become its ultimate editor."

Last week the right-leaning (but anti-Trump) journalist Andrew Sullivan parted ways with Vox Media's New York Magazine after years of friction between him and the publication's younger and more left-leaning staffers. "A critical mass of the staff and management at New York Magazine and Vox Media no longer want to associate with me," he wrote.

The Bennet resignation was a catalyst for a group of academics, journalists, and artists to sign an open letter published in Harper's Magazine that condemned a "censoriousness" marked by "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty." (Full disclosure: my girlfriend, Olivia Nuzzi of New York Magazine, signed the letter.)

Naturally, there was an open letter in response to the open letter.

Not surprisingly, the POLITICO poll reveals that many Americans aren't paying attention to many of these controversies. We asked about the Weiss resignation and the Harper's letter. Forty-seven percent of those surveyed didn't know about or had no opinion of the Weiss controversy and 42 percent didn't know about or had no opinion of what, in the insular world of Acela corridor media, has become known as The Letter.

But in both of those cases for those Americans who did offer an opinion, the anti-cancel culture warriors had the majority view: 56% approved of The Letter and 70% approved of Weiss's decision to quit "because of perceived harassment and her perception of self-censorship within the New York Times due to Twitter."

There have been some signs of a correction, including at the Times. Recently Steven Pinker, the Harvard linguist, was the target of a campaign to have him removed as a distinguished fellow of the Linguistic Society of America. After looking into the criticism, which involved allegations of racial insensitivity, and finding them lacking merit, the Times's Michael Powell reported the controversy not with bloodless bothsidesism but rather as a debunking of the meritless charges against Pinker.

There was widespread outcry over the treatment of David Shor, a young data analyst at the progressive group Civis Analytics who was apparently fired for tweeting an academic study about how violent and nonviolent protests shaped public opinion in the sixties.

Cancel culture has seized the attention of many journalists, and I shared the results with two writers who have been prominent in the recent debate but on opposite sides of it. Matt Taibbi, a longtime Rolling Stone writer who also has an independent platform on Substack, said he wasn't surprised that the poll suggests there's a backlash against cancel culture. His concern as a writer who often bucks liberal conventional wisdom - he was highly skeptical of the Russia-Trump connection - is that institutions need an intellectual environment with a wide enough spectrum of views to sometimes allow for bad, even terrible, arguments.

"One of the reasons I took up the subject," he said in an interview, "is that I have a lot of discussions with people who work in the media who in the last few months have said they are afraid to pitch a certain kind of story because they don't want it to get around that they're interested in a certain topic because they might end up on the radar of people in the union or those who are very politically engaged in the newsroom."

He gave the example of a colleague who wanted to do a story about a pharmacy in a small town that was damaged during protests in the wake of the killing of George Floyd and resulted in the sick and elderly unable to fill prescriptions.

"It's not about James Bennet or Bari Weiss or Andrew Sullivan specifically," he said. "But it only takes a couple of high-profile examples to dramatically impact how people think and behave, especially in this job climate. A lot of people thought I was defending the Tom Cotton editorial. I wasn't. What I was saying is that the editor watching that is going to see wherever the line is and say, 'I should stay far away from it.' And as soon as that mindset takes hold what you get is a whole lot of people who are afraid to say anything that everyone else isn't already saying and that's dangerous for our business."

Taibbi added, "You have to be able to screw up occasionally."

The CDC is deploying teams across the country to address racial disparities during the pandemic. But the effort is running into a familiar problem: a lack of coordination from the highest levels of government.

Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer at The New Republic, has been making the case that the backlash against cancel culture is overblown. He viewed the survey results as similar to other polls that show the public is often against somewhat scary-sounding things like political correctness and cancel culture in the abstract, but in favor of the underlying ideas in many specific cases.

"You often see pluralities or majorities saying this stuff goes too far," he said in an interview. "But then if you ask whether we ought to be more concerned about sexual harassment or racism or whether certain specific kinds of speech ought to be sanctioned, then you start to see the that fundamental ideas behind these freighted terms are more popular than the terms themselves."

He's correct. In the POLITICO poll, 53% agreed with the statement that "even though free speech is protected, people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people," while only 31% said their view was closer to the following: "There should not be social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people because free speech is protected."

The debate over cancel culture, in Nwanevu's view, is more about power. One person's online mob is another person's vehicle to hold someone accountable.

"What we're seeing described as cancel culture isn't so much a new kind of behavior but a new set of actors in our political discourse who get to say what isn't ok - young people, African Americans, transgender people," he said. "They now have the power to have their voices heard. Everyone thinks there are lines. The question is where are those lines and who gets to draw them."

Morning Consult is a global data intelligence company, delivering insights on what people think in real time by surveying tens of thousands across the globe every single day.

More details on the poll and its methodology can be found in these two documents: Toplines |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans tune in to 'cancel culture' - and don't like what they see

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twenty-seven percent of voters said cancel culture had a somewhat positive or very positive impact on society, but almost half (49%) said it had a somewhat negative or very negative impact.

# data[].attributes.body
Exercising during pregnancy reduces the chances of the child having diabetes or another metabolic disease and doctors should urge pregnant women to do it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exercise during pregnancy may let mothers significantly reduce their children's chances of developing diabetes and other metabolic diseases later in life, new research suggests.

A study in lab mice has found that maternal exercise during pregnancy prevented the transmission of metabolic diseases from an obese parent -- either mother or father -- to child. If the finding holds true in humans, it will have "huge implications" for helping pregnant women ensure their children live the healthiest lives possible, the researchers report in a new scientific paper.

This means that one day soon, a woman's first trip to the doctor after conceiving might include a prescription for an exercise program.

"Most of the chronic diseases that we talk about today are known to have a fetal origin. This is to say that the parents' poor health conditions prior to and during pregnancy have negative consequences to the child, potentially through chemical modification of the genes," said researcher Zhen Yan, PhD, a top exercise expert at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. "We were inspired by our previous mouse research implicating that regular aerobic exercise for an obese mother before and during pregnancy can protect the child from early onset of diabetes. In this study, we asked the questions, what if an obese mother exercises only during pregnancy, and what if the father is obese?"
Exercise and Pregnancy
Scientists have known that exercise during pregnancy helps lead to healthy babies, reducing the risk of pregnancy complications and premature delivery. But Yan, the director of the Center for Skeletal Muscle Research at UVA's Robert M. Berne Cardiovascular Research Center, wanted to see if the benefits continued throughout the children's lives. And his work, both previous and new, suggests it does.

To determine that, Yan and his collaborators studied lab mice and their offspring. Some of the adult mice were fed typical mouse chow before and during pregnancy, while other were fed a high-fat, high-calorie diet to simulate obesity. Some receiving the high-fat diet before mating had access to a voluntary running wheel only during pregnancy, where they could run all they liked, while others did not, meaning they remained sedentary.

The results were striking: Both mothers and fathers in the high-fat group could predispose their offspring to metabolic disorders. In particular, male offspring of the sedentary mothers on high-fat diets were much more likely to develop high blood sugar and other metabolic problems in adulthood.

To better understand what was happening, the researchers looked at the adult offspring's metabolism and chemical (epigenetic) modification of DNA. They found there were significant differences in metabolic health and how active certain genes were among the different groups of offspring, suggesting that the negative effects of parental obesity, although different between the father and the mother, last throughout the life of the offspring.

The good news is that maternal exercise only during pregnancy prevented a host of "epigenetic" changes that affect the workings of the offspring's genes, the researchers found. Maternal exercise, they determined, completely blocked the negative effects of either mother's or father's obesity on the offspring.

The results, they say, provide the first evidence that maternal exercise only during pregnancy can prevent the transmission of metabolic diseases from parent to child.

"The take-home message is that it is not too late to start to exercise if a mother finds herself pregnant. Regular exercise will not only benefit the pregnancy and labor but also the health of the baby for the long run," Yan said. "This is more exciting evidence that regular exercise is probably the most promising intervention that will help us deter the pandemic of chronic diseases in the aging world, as it can disrupt the vicious cycle of parents-to-child transmission of diseases."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
fitness; pregnancy and childbirth; obesity; diet and weight loss; diseases and conditions; teen health; staying healthy; children's health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exercise during pregnancy may save kids from health problems as adults: Parental obesity predisposes children to develop diabetes, metabolic issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Exercise during pregnancy may let mothers significantly reduce their children's chances of developing diabetes and other metabolic diseases later in life, new research suggests. A study in lab mice has found that maternal exercise during pregnancy prevented the transmission of metabolic diseases from an obese parent -- either mother or father -- to child.

# data[].attributes.body
Students working on classes online will inturn not learns anything due to the fact that all the information they need is online. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Why a nuclear weapon-free world is achievable

# data[].attributes.subject
Why a nuclear weapon-free world is achievable

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear weapons are dangerous weapons that are created to kill mass amounts. They were banned, but it a completely nuclear free weapon world should be achievable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About the author

Miguel Marín-Bosch

Miguel Marín-Bosch has served as the Deputy Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations in New York, Permanent Representative in Geneva, Deputy Foreign Minister and Director of Mexico's Foreign Service academy. In 1994 he chaired the first year of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations in Geneva.

After the worst of times, we are perhaps entering the best of times for proponents of nuclear disarmament. At long last, advocates of the elimination of nuclear weapons have reason for some guarded optimism. The road to a nuclear-weapons-free world will be long and bumpy, but those expected to take the initiative seem to have finally decided to lead. That is encouraging.

Sixty-four years ago the world was free of nuclear weapons, but after the production of some 140,000 of these artifacts of mass destruction, there seems to be a significant shift in the role some Governments have assigned to them. They are no longer generally considered to be the best means to ensure national security. Deterrence and mutually-assured destruction have become outdated concepts in a world now more concerned with other questions and challenges, including widespread poverty, climate change, a worldwide economic and financial meltdown, and other threats such as the recent alarm over the pandemic outbreak of a new kind of influenza virus.

Above all, the motivation for seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons now seems to be a fear of the further proliferation of these weapons to other States and possibly to the so-called non-State actors, including terrorist groups. There is the rub.

Nuclear weapons are intrinsically dangerous and pose an unparalleled threat to the very existence of humankind. They do not enhance a country's security but, rather, imperil the survival of all nations, which should be the point of departure of nuclear disarmament efforts.

To dwell on the potential danger that they may fall into the wrong hands is to misconstrue the argument for their elimination. They should be banned because they are immoral -- and probably illegal -- tools of destruction. Since their use would likely be fatal for all, they cannot even be considered instruments of war.

The twin questions of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy have been on the agenda of the United Nations since its beginning: the dawn of the atomic age coincided with its birth. The UN Charter, however, makes no mention of nuclear weapons for the simple reason that it was adopted at the San Francisco conference three weeks before the first test and six weeks before their use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The transcendental nature of the discovery of atomic energy prompted the delegates to the UN General Assembly's first session to address the issue immediately. In its very first resolution -- 1 (I) of 24 January 1946 -- the Assembly established the Atomic Energy Commission, composed of the Security Council members and Canada, and requested that it submit specific proposals for ensuring the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only, for the elimination of atomic and other weapons of mass destruction and for the establishment of a system of safeguards, including inspections, to prevent violations and evasions.

A number of specific proposals followed, including one by the United States in June 1946. As the only nuclear-weapon State (NWS), it was natural that the United States put forward its own ideas on the matter. These were contained in what became known as the Baruch Plan, which was based largely on the United States government publication A Report on the International Control of Atomic Energy, issued in March of that year.

The US, which still held an unchallenged nuclear monopoly, called for an open exchange among all nations of basic scientific information for peaceful ends; control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; the elimination of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction from national arsenals; and the establishment of effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means to protect complying States against the hazards of violations and evasions.

Though forward-thinking in many aspects, the Baruch Plan had several drawbacks. The most controversial one was probably its insistence that the United States retain its nuclear stockpile (which then consisted of nine weapons) until it was satisfied with the effectiveness of the international control system. ¹ This proved unacceptable to the USSR, which wanted to reverse the order: all should first surrender their nuclear weapons and then implement an international verification system. One will never know if the world might have returned in 1946 to its nuclear-weapons-free status. What we do know is that there followed four decades of an unbridled nuclear arms race between the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the acquisition of those weapons and their delivery systems by other nations.

After the USSR's first nuclear test in 1949, the United Kingdom followed in 1952, France in 1960, China in 1964, India in 1974 and Pakistan in 1998. Israel also acquired nuclear weapons as did South Africa, which later surrendered its stockpile. After the USSR's collapse, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine became for a time de facto NWS. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has also tested a nuclear device. In addition, there are many countries that possess the scientific know-how, technology and fissile material that would allow them to play the nuclear card in a relatively short time.

In 1952 the US achieved a qualitative leap in the nuclear-arms race when it detonated its first thermonuclear device. A year later the USSR followed suit.

The development of nuclear-weapons delivery systems -- bombers, missiles and submarines -- is another chapter of the arms race. However, the testing of nuclear weapons and the rockets to transport them would eventually rally public opinion (at least momentarily) in favour of nuclear disarmament measures.

Despite repeated and sometimes intense efforts to put disarmament efforts on track, the United Nations was unable to devise negotiating schemes that would bring the different parties together. Deep-rooted suspicion of the rival's motives and the absence of political will ensured a negotiating stalemate for almost two decades.

In the early 1960s the US and the USSR finally agreed to lead disarmament talks at the Geneva Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee (endc) meeting. Calls for an end to nuclear tests, especially in the atmosphere, and a stop to further horizontal proliferation were instrumental in getting the endc going in 1962. Not surprisingly, the first order of business was a treaty to ban nuclear-weapons tests in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space.The 1963 Partial Test-Ban Treaty was agreed upon rather quickly. It did not contain verification measures and it prohibited activities which the endc's three participating nuclear-weapon States -- the UK, the US and the USSR (France refused to take its seat at the table) -- were ready to forego. Underground testing would continue for over 30 years.

The next item on the endc's agenda was a multilateral legal agreement to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons to other nations (horizontal proliferation). The 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has become the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament efforts since its entry into force in 1970.

By the late 1950s, the possible spread of nuclear weapons to more countries (horizontal proliferation) had become a source of increasing concern. So had the continued improvement of existing arsenals (vertical proliferation) and the testing of those weapons was seen as the key element of the qualitative nuclear arms race. Both horizontal proliferation and nuclear testing had found their way onto the United Nations agenda.

By the mid-1960s a number of countries had decided to forego the nuclear option and agreed to a trade-off from the nuclear-weapon States in return for a legally-binding commitment to remain non-nuclear-weapon States (nNWS). It was time to sit down and negotiate a treaty. Countries in Latin America had already begun the pioneering efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in their region, which they saw as a way to begin to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world.

The NPT's approach was different. It rests on three pillars: horizontal non-proliferation; vertical non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament; and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It is a contract between NWS and nNWS. The latter would enjoy the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. The former would pursue nuclear disarmament, beginning with the cessation of all nuclear tests.

By then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was in place, providing all parties with an international verification system, including inspections. The IAEA would do the same for the nuclear-weapon-free zones that have been established.

The NPT was done in good faith, but the non-nuclear-weapon States insisted that the situation regarding its implementation be reviewed periodically; thus the five-year conferences. In addition, the NPT was a temporary agreement whose extension would have to be examined after 25 years. In 1995 it was extended indefinitely.

After 1970, despite some very limited bilateral agreements between the US and the USSR, the nuclear arms race continued. The 1963 Partial Test-Ban Treaty had been a hoax, since underground tests multiplied. It appeared that since nuclear tests were out of sight, they were also out of mind. Calls for a comprehensive nuclear-weapon-test prohibition fell on deaf ears.

The non-nuclear-weapon States tried to raise visibility of the nuclear disarmament issues. Some pursued an amendment conference of the Partial Test-Ban Treaty to convert it into a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as a means of promoting public awareness of the dangers of a continued nuclear arms race. Others refused to endorse the conclusions of the NPT's five-year review unless a CTBT was specifically mentioned. Still others requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Some continued to insist on the conclusion of a treaty prohibiting those weapons of mass destruction. After all, the international community had already banned biological and chemical weapons through multilateral treaties, why not nuclear weapons as well?

In 1996 the CTBT was finally concluded. Unfortunately, it contains a provision for its entry into force that is reminiscent of the conditions set forth by the Baruch Plan fifty years earlier in order to proceed to a nuclear-weapons-free world. The CTBT must be ratified by the world's 44 nations that have nuclear-related activities. That is the bad news. The good news is that the five nuclear-weapon States that have signed the NPT are abiding by the CTBT's provisions.

In 2009, the international community has come full circle. United Nations General Assembly resolution 1946 contained the basic elements of a nuclear-weapons-free world: a general commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons and an internationally-acceptable and verifiable system to promote the peaceful uses of atomic energy. After more than six decades of nuclear proliferation -- both horizontal as well as vertical -- the world seems poised to implement those same basic elements. As in 1946, the US is expected to take the lead.

Public officials in some countries have begun to consider what a world without nuclear weapons would look like. The UN Secretary-General has detailed a five-point proposal. ² The UK has put forward its ideas in this regard. ³ A number of former political leaders in and out of the US have enlivened the debate with calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The new administration in Washington has begun to bring about some important changes in international relations. During last year's presidential campaign, then Senator Barack Obama called for a world in which there are no nuclear weapons, adding that to get there would not entail unilateral disarmament but a continuing commitment under the NPT on the long road towards eliminating them. ⁵ Once in office, President Obama reiterated his general commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons. That was one of the basic tenets of the 1946 General Assembly resolution. In his speech in Prague, on 5 April 2009, President Obama described the path to a nuclear-weapons-free world. ⁶ He began by stating what many believe: "The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the cold war." He then added:

"Today, the cold war has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centred on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the centre cannot hold."

Admitting that the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world would not be easy to achieve, he then described the steps the United States was ready to take:

* reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy
* negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia this year to reduce warheads and stockpiles
* ratify the CTBT
* conclude a treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons
* strengthen the NPT as a basis for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
* ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon
* promote a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.

President Obama has made a bold proposal for the elimination of nuclear weapons. If nothing else, he has put nuclear disarmament on the international agenda. A long debate and complicated negotiations will follow, but the US has shown a willingness to lead and, even more important, to set an example. The START proposal is a case in point.

Fortunately, the Russian Federation seems to be a willing partner in this first stage. Moscow and Washington must reduce their own arsenals before asking others to do the same. Yet, there is bound to be much foot dragging among some of the other nuclear-weapon States. In that regard, the US will also have to point the way in its nuclear posture review. Significant changes in its official nuclear policy could translate into a new nuclear posture for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The nuclear-weapon States and their allies must abandon the way they now relate to nuclear weapons.

Another question which President Obama did not mention is the degree to which his proposals will encounter resistance within his own country, especially among groups most interested in the maintenance of the nuclear status quo, beginning with the nuclear laboratories themselves. In the US, as elsewhere in the nuclear-weapon States, these have grown accustomed to receiving funding from the national defense budget. The development, effectiveness and safety of nuclear weapons are their livelihood, which they have resisted to surrender in the past.

Six decades ago it might have been easier to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world, but now it will take an enlightened leadership to do so.

In memory of William Epstein, a relentless advocate of nuclear disarmament.

Notes
1. Bernard Baruch, the US representative to the UN Atomic Energy Commission, submitted the proposal on 14 June 1946 and stated in part:

"The United States proposes the creation of an International Atomic Development Authority, to which should be entrusted all phases of the development and use of atomic energy..

"We of this nation, desirous of helping to bring peace to the world and realizing the heavy obligations upon us arising from our possession of the means of producing the bomb and from the fact that it is part of our armament, are prepared to make our full contribution toward effective control of atomic energy.

"When an adequate system for control of atomic energy, including the renunciation of the bomb as a weapon, has been agreed upon and put into effective operation and condign punishments set up for violations of the rules of control which are to be stigmatized as international crimes, we propose that:

- Manufacture of atomic bombs shall stop;

- Existing bombs shall be disposed of pursuant to the terms of the treaty; and

- The Authority shall be in possession of full information as to the know-how for the production of atomic energy."

2. "The United Nations and security in a nuclear-weapon-free world," 24 October 2008.

3. "Lifting the Nuclear Shadow: Creating the Conditions for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons", a Policy information Paper by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 4 February 2009.

4. For example, George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," and "Toward a Nuclear-Free World," Wall Street Journal, 4 January 2007 and 15 January 2008.

5. His proposals were the most sweeping put forward by a presidential candidate except for Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich's call for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

6. The White House, www.whitehouse.gov.

7. On 1 April 2009 Presidents Obama and Medvedev agreed in London to pursue such an agreement.

Miguel Marín-Bosch has served as the Deputy Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations in New York, Permanent Representative in Geneva, Deputy Foreign Minister and Director of Mexico's Foreign Service academy. In 1994 he chaired the first year of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations in Geneva.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Nuclear-Weapons-Free World: Is It Achievable? | United Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the worst of times, we are perhaps entering the best of times for proponents of nuclear disarmament. At long last, advocates of the elimination of nuclear weapons have reason for some guarded optimism. The road to a nuclear-weapons-free world will be long and bumpy, but those expected to take the initiative seem to have finally decided to lead.

# data[].attributes.body
There are so many immigrants that are trying to find safety in the U.S but it's getting more and more difficult.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Diana Roy and Claire Klobucista and Amelia Cheatham

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The U.S. Immigration Debate | Council on Foreign Relations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comprehensive immigration reform has eluded Congress for decades. Presidents have increasingly turned to executive action to reshape asylum and border policy.