Boston Public

Here is my Prezi for the Boston Public assignment!

http://prezi.com/n_fjtu6oaqma/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

Sugar is killing us - slowly

Sugar is killing us slowly – study

In the article “Sugar is killing us slowly – study” written by Fiona Macrae introduces the points that sugar is bad for your health and can cause various problems. Sugar is in almost all things, it’s uncountable. The sugar that is in fruits and such is known as the “good sugar”, which is healthy for you. The “bad sugar” is in candies, donuts, etc. include no health benefits whatsoever. Sugar is something we eat in almost all foods and drinks; it’s the main thing that brings the taste and we don’t really look if it’s good or bad. If you know a little about diet and such, you will come to know that sugar is now the fatty food and that’s what people try to stay away from who are on a diet, not fat.

The article says that sugar is like poison and should be dealt as seriously as cigarettes and alcohol. Scientists are also claiming that sugary foods and drinks are the cause of heart diseases, cancer, and liver problems. Furthermore, the report says that the “bad sugar” causes 35 million deaths around the world and it should be dealt with through the legislation. The scientists argue that sugary foods and drinks should be doubled their price, which will avoid their sales, dropping the percentage of illnesses. Recent studies have proven that obesity is a bigger problem than malnourishment, which is a very big issue today. The sugar consumption has tripled and it continues to grow, leading more and more cases of obesity.

The other side of this argument is when other scientists argue that sugar is only lethal or effective in a bad way is when it’s consumed in high amounts. They say that it’s fine to consume “bad sugar” from time to time; however it must be a balanced diet, which should include physical activity. Another person by the name of Barbara Gallani is on the other side of things. She says that it’s wrong for us to focus on sugar, while we should be focusing on fighting diseases and such.

Sugar can be good; however it’s bad in most cases. Sugar should be dealt with seriously and there should be more awareness around the world to showcase this issue, whether there are campaigns raising awareness or it’s being talked about in classrooms. The point of Barbara Gallani is somewhat weak. That’s because if sugar is causing so many problems and diseases, we should attempt to stop the creator of the problems, so that there are minimal cases. If we continue to keep treating the diseases without identifying the main cause, we’re going nowhere. Sugar is something very serious and the issue needs to be addressed. Sugar is fine to have once in a while, but it should be minimal to avoid further complications.

Is that crime a crime?

   People commit acts of crime all the time. A crime by definition is an act of negligence that's considered hurtful to the general public. But sometimes a crime is detrimental to the criminal rather than the public welfare. This is usually shown in crime involving vagrancy, alcohol, and drugs. The question for this topic would be whether or not someone should be charged for causing themselves harm, setting them further back. Or to provide treatment for them instead.

   We'll start with drug and alcohol users. Drug users to be treated differently depending on the type of drug they use. Marijuana for example is a socially acceptable drug by most and is usually taken more lightly by the law. However someone drunk in public, snorting rows of cocaine or injecting heroine into themselves are bound to meet some bigger consequences. People however disagree with the law laying down these big consequences on drug users saying that they're used for their addictions rather than recreational purposes and thus let them be treated rather than punished.

   Then there are pan handlers and beggars. They don't do anyone any true harm, and they certainly don't mean any harm. After all they're simply just asking for money in their time of need. It's still vagrancy though, and that's against the law. It's not an enforced law however, as you don't see any cops around streets with their batons chasing beggars. Surely these beggars are as innocent as we are, right? But then you'd have to account for what they aren't doing, and that is contributing to society. You can reasonably assume that the money you'd give them could go to a drug dealer or some other money sink which won't do any good for either party in the end.

   I believe that the best possible solution would be to punish and treat the these crime-doers. If we were to give the criminal treatment with no punishment, then they'd feel there'd be no consequence for them to repeat their actions again.If we were to give a criminal vice versa, then that'd only be another problem in a mountain of problems the criminal would already have. The only problem with this solution would be the cost, as now we'd have the three, jail, fine and treatment to give them rather than a fine/with a sentence to jail or treatment. But I believe this would prevent repitition of the crimes from an individual leading to much more progress than the current system we have.

Computers and Classrooms

 The question that comes to mind in today's technology engulfed society is whether or not computers are a benefit to classrooms or a huge detriment to the students. The capabilities of a computer is endless and it's knowledge is just as deep. So why keep them away from students if that's the case? Shouldn't computers, and the internet be accessible in a classroom?

   While it is true that computers can be a great benefit for classrooms and their students, studies show that people with laptops not only get lower marks, the people around the people with their laptops grades also decrease. This shouldn't normally be the case though, because they're able to take notes in such a rapid pace. Your average words per minute on a student handwriting would likely be 31 WPM as opposed to the whopping 50-80 WPM for people typing. The underlying problem with computers in classrooms is the distractions that come alongside it. A computer can carry a large arsenal of programs. Though some of them are useful for a classroom, others are for outside of school activities such as games, music and the giant which is the internet.The computer doesn't just stop at distracting the user, however. The click-clackity of a mechanical keyboard can be a huge annoyance to the students around the user, making verbal lessons harder to focus on for these students as well.

   Laptops can still be useful in a school environment though. They grant the ability to connect a student and teacher greater interactions. They've also shown to increase the rate of student participation and motivation. But this doesn't even out with the cons the laptop can bring.

   I believe that constant laptop use is a poor habit in a classroom and should not be promoted for education purposes. It still is possible to balance out the use of computers in a classroom for different sorts of activities. The use of a laptop is shown to take quicker notes than someone handwriting when a teacher is doing a lecture. However the student does not absorb the information as well as the student is when handwriting. By knowing this we can determine in which situation a computer is appropriate in classroom. For doing activities, a laptop can do wonders for a teacher and student. For note-taking and lectures, you can grab a pencil and paper and keep writing for now.

High-Tech Classrooms

Living in the information age, it is difficult to go amongst day-to-day activity without encountering a technologic dependency in one form or another. Electronics have been so complexly woven into our lives that it’s often hard to imagine living without them. This notion is not solely applicable to the tech-savvy adults of our world. The use of technology in classrooms is becoming increasingly more common with the belief that the benefits of high-tech learning are plentiful. But is this really the case? Is it possible that too much computer access for students may interfere with their education?

Many researches hypothesize that this may be so. Studies have found students that have lesser access to computers have higher marks in math, science, and reading than students who do. Manitoba high school teacher Michael Zwaagstra says “[students’] time would be better spent getting a solid grasp of the basics” rather than learning to use computers and software. Technology in the classroom is not only often distracting to students, but is also highly expensive. Manitoba alone spends more than $26 million each year on information technology in its schools.

Surely, this is not all put into impractical use. Technology has revolutionized the way students are taught. Information has never been easier to access and display in a stimulating and effective manner. Computers are a practical teaching-aid that can help students’ learning be more audio-visual and interesting. In a time where perpetual use of technology will be ever-present in young people’s lives, it would be of great benefit to get children familiar with the basic skills they’ll be using consistently.

I have no strong feelings towards either side of this argument. On one hand, I know that access to computers, iPads, and other devices of the like has helped me to be more productive, and the surplus of new information has expanded my world view tremendously. On the other hand, I’m grateful I spent many of my younger years as a student (kindergarten to Grade 4) with minimal use of technology. At such a young age, development of basic skills is critical and computers can be a major distraction from that. All in all, I believe it’s of upmost importance to find a balance between the two.

When is crime not a crime? Google Drive (JJ)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9g35VXIEjfATlFoSFN2RkVZc2c/view?usp=sharing

When is a Crime not a Crime? (Patrick)

When is a Crime Not a Crime?

                Is it just to believe that committing an act which only harms yourself a crime? Or does harming one’s self have outside repercussions? Can we make the assumption in today’s society that acts that only harm the offender are criminal offences, or can these acts not be justified if they don’t directly harm a third party? If analyzed carefully, one might see that crimes without victims have two sides to which they can be seen from a moral point of view.

                When looking at a crime, it should be safe to assume that there shall always be a victim. But when the one who committed the crime is the only victim, is it still a crime? For example, if someone were a heavy user of illegal substances such as methamphetamine, the only person to be harmed would be the user. They themselves chose to abuse the substance, and they are physically harming only their body. Why punish someone who is hurting only themselves? Self-harm through victimless crimes should be seen as punishment enough.

                Contradictory to that, there is always another side to the same token. Using the methamphetamine abuser example, we can see that this might not be a victimless act. Methamphetamine is known to cause anger and rage, which in turn could physically harm a third party. On top of that, the same substance can cause death, which can mentally harm the user’s family and friends. The fact that crimes without a victim are crimes is because there is a chance that there might just be a victim.

                Acts that which only harm the offender can be seen in two ways; either criminal or frowned upon. I believe that victimless crimes are still crimes for one simple reason. Victimless crimes should never be seen as victimless. The offender will always hurt their family, friends, or another party either mentally or physically no matter what crime the offender imposed upon themselves. For this reason, I believe no crime is without victim and all crime should be punished to prevent other parties falling victim to the offender. A victimless crime can always be called such, but that doesn’t mean outside victims have not been created.