Let’s face it, the average college student doesn’t have the best diet.

Convenient, cheap, tasty food that silences a rumbling stomach is all that matters after a long day of class, or a late night cram session. Once hunger strikes the average student will either reach for a packet of Ramen noodles, or may splurge and order a sub.

But one important factor is often neglected when students are deciding upon their next meal: sodium content.

2,300 milligrams of sodium (equivalent to one teaspoon of table salt) is the maximum amount of sodium the average adult should consume in any given day, but according to webmd.com, 90 percent of Americans are getting far too much.

It’s easy to see why students are consuming too much sodium. One packet of Ramen contains 1660 milligrams of sodium — that’s 70% of the recommended daily value! Jimmy Johns isn’t any better; one of the healthier items on Jimmy John’s menu, a number 6 Vegetarian, has 873.07 milligrams of sodium.

So if a student eats one Jimmy John’s Vegetarian Sub, and has a packet of Ramen noodles in the same day, he or she has already consumed too much sodium, and that’s providing no additional table salt was added to any of his or her food throughout the day.

Consistently eating high-sodium foods can have serious health consequences, according to webmd.com, such as high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and kidney disease.

An article in Science Daily, a science research website, cites a recent study that estimates that, “reducing salt in the American diet by as little as one-half teaspoon per day could prevent nearly 100,000 heart attacks and 92,000 deaths each year.”

Now most students are not going to die anytime soon from getting too much salt, but the fact is what we do with our health now can have serious consequences later in life.

Cutting back on sodium is one of the easiest things students can do to improve their health.

Unfortunately, limiting salt is no easy feat; salt is in virtually everything — particularly those quick, convenient, go-to foods college students eat every day. However, it is possible for students to maintain a low-sodium lifestyle and eat quick-and-easy food that won’t break their budget.

Planning and patience is key to reduce sodium consumption. Many common foods have ridiculously high sodium content, so it’s important to read nutrition labels. When eating out — especially at fast food restaurants — check online for the nutrition facts before ordering. Even food that seems like a healthy choice can have high levels of sodium.

Students should make lifestyle changes now, rather than waiting until their doctor diagnoses them with a disease related to their unsuspected cravings for sodium-laden foods.

Over 98 brands of bottled water are sold in the U.S., a country that has some of the most reliable, sanitary, and clean tap water in the world. Do we really need to be purchasing these bottles? A growing movement on college campuses nationwide claims we do not, arguing against the bottled water industry and calling on universities across the country to ban the product’s sale on campuses.  By replacing bottled water with public reusable-water-bottle filling stations, colleges are making it easier for students to quit their habit. We believe that Harvard should join the movement.

Those promoting the ban are correct to label disposable bottles as detrimental to the environment. They produce large quantities of unnecessary waste, and reports suggest that over 68 percent of recyclable bottles are not recycled properly. Despite appearances, bottled water is often merely normal tap water that has been filtered through a process called reverse osmosis, which can require almost 10 gallons of water to purify one gallon. Such waste is simply unnecessary.

Additionally, packaging and transportation produce carbon emissions that could easily be avoided. Considering that the tap water available in our faucets is already filtered and of high quality, buying a bottle provides negligible benefits while contributing to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By banning the sale of bottled water on campus, Harvard could do its part to decrease these harmful emissions.

That is not to suggest, however, that merely installing water-bottle filling stations is the perfect answer. Nalgenes and other reusable water bottles cost more than disposable bottles, and universities like Harvard should provide discounted reusable water bottles to make sure all students have access to them.

Beyond the ban, colleges should continue to seek opportunities to be environmentally responsible, and, of equal importance, engage and educate students about the steps they are taking so as to change student behavior. While ideally measures like the ban would yield life-long habits, even reducing students’ waste for their four years on campus would be beneficial. We commend Harvard for its open dialogue about environmental initiatives and hope that the University continues to inform its students about the ways on campus that they can already make responsible choices. Moving forward, adopting the ban would serve as further evidence that green truly is the new crimson.

From the master of horror, father of the “Nightmare on Elm Street” and “Scream” franchises and king of the teen-slasher film subgenre, comes the worst career move ever.

Wes Craven is an iconic writer and director in the horror film genre, but viewers wouldn’t know it with his latest release, “My Soul To Take,” which hit theaters on Friday, Oct 8.

The movie at least had an interesting, if not slightly conventional, premise. Seven children are born on the same night a serial killer dies, and the killer vows to one day return and kill them. The, 16 years later, people start disappearing once again, and Adam “Bug”  Heller (played by Max Thieriot “The family Tree”) and the other six kids struggle to find out who the killer is and stop him or her before they all end up dead. The problem? The original killer may have been reborn in one of them, and since Bug is his son, he’s the likely candidate.

First and foremost, don’t see this movie in 3D. This is one of those movies where 3D was added almost as an afterthought, and is barely noticeable if at all. The effect is a waste of good money when it comes to this release.

The acting in this movie is so-so. Thieriot is, thankfully, probably the best actor of the cast. Unfortunately, he didn’t have much to work with, and Bug is the most developed character on screen. The most important character to the movie isn’t fleshed out in the script nearly enough; the most viewers learn is that he’s had terrible nightmares ever since he was a young child, and that he is socially awkward. He’s the outcast of the group.

Mean-girl Fang (Emily Meade “Burning Palms”) had the most character depth aside from Bug, and this ruins every other character for the audience. There is nothing in these characters that makes the viewer want them to live. After the first five minutes of screen time, the viewer is more likely to be counting down the minutes until each one dies, starting a betting pool for which one goes first.

To be fair, the movie’s premise is, as stated earlier, actually pretty intriguing as far as horror plots go.  It has the potential to be either as terrifying and eye-catching as any “Nightmare on Elm Street” movie, or as mindless and relatively humorous as any “Scream” flick. Unfortunately, “My Soul To Take” doesn’t commit to either. In fact, it seems to try and combine them to a degree.

The first fifteen minutes or so of the movie seem to lean more towards the “Nightmare” style, and that is more than likely the route that Craven should have taken the rest of the flick. The beginning was engaging, suspenseful, eye popping, jaw dropping (to a certain extent) and leaves most viewers eager for more.

The staple of any teen slasher is the, well, teen slashing. Every killer has a signature way of killing and a crowd to kill. Freddy had a glove of knives, killed in dreams and went after the teens who had a connection to Elm Street. His killings were artful, terrifying and full of flare. The “Scream” killers had a black cloak, a freaky white mask and killed according to the conventions and rules of stereotypical horror flicks. These killings were sometimes humorous, always bloody and were meant to make the viewers shake their heads and say, “You stupid kid; you shouldn’t have done that.”

The killer in Craven’s newest flick has a small curved knife and kills kids born the same night he supposedly died. His killings are lackluster. Nothing about them strikes the viewer as especially frightening or disturbing like in “Nightmare,” and while viewers will likely shake their heads as they do for “Scream” killings, they won’t have invested enough attachment to the characters to care if they make a stupid choice and die for it.

In short, if you want to see a good Wes Craven horror flick, see the original “Nightmare” movies,  or even the revamped remake. One can only hope after this terrible box office submission, Wes Craven’s “Scream 4” (set to release in April 2011) will redeem and re-throne the  master of horror.

Norton AntiVirus released a study in January saying cyber crimes currently generate five times more money than global drug trafficking.

The former “No. 1 Hacker in the World,” Gregory Evans, told a group of U. Alabama students and faculty on Tuesday that he knows what it’s like to be a millionaire.

“In 1993, I had my first 12-passenger jet,” Evans said. “I had the Rolls-Royces and Bentleys, and I didn’t even have to kill anyone.”

Computer hacking and identity theft are the new wild, wild, West according to Evans, because he said it is so difficult to get caught.

“In old cowboy movies, guys with bandanas over their faces would go in and rob a bank and then jump onto a horse and ride off into the sunset,” Evans said. “They just didn’t get caught unless they built up a big posse or reputation.”

Only one out of 10,000 cyber crimes actually leads to an arrest, he said. Evans attributes this to lack of hacking expertise in the United States.

“The reason why we are getting our butts kicked by China every day in the cyber war is because they are training their high school students to hack into Google while we are relying on Information Technology managers,” Evans said.

He explained that three men were able to steal 40 million credit cards from T.J. Maxx/Marshall’s and charge $200 million and remain undetected for a year and a half by the company’s IT staff.

“IT managers are not trained to think like hackers,” Evans said. “They are good for helping you set up your e-mail and running anti-virus software.”

Wesley Buchanan, a junior majoring in criminal justice who wants to become a state trooper, said he didn’t know aboutall the complications that occurred.

“I didn’t know a lot of these problems existed,” Buchanan said. “The industry is so open, and I’m almost tempted to go into it myself.”

Evans began his personal hacking career in the seventh grade when he was paid to sneak into his middle school at night to change other students’ report card grades.

When one of his classmates’ fathers found out that Evans had altered his son’s grades, the Washington D.C. lobbyist hired Evans to hack into the computer system of a rival law firm.

“I went dumpster diving that night and went through the trash looking for user names and passwords,” Evans said. “I gave him exactly what he was looking for, two weeks later, and he hired me for more and more jobs.”

Before he graduated from high school, Evans had become a key player for many major corporations and was bringing in more money a week than many athletes and entertainers see in a year.

He was eventually apprehended, sent to prison for 24 months and forced to pay back $10 million. Now, he is CEO of National Cyber Security and CEO of LIGATT Security International and speaks to audiences all over the country on how to protect themselves against cyber crimes.

“It’s astounding to me, from a criminal justice perspective, how computer crime fighting is still in its infancy,” said Mark M. Lanier, professor and chair of the department of criminal justice. “What better resource could you have to help combat this crime than someone who has spent most of his life on the other side of the law?”

Evans said he currently has requests for help from thousands of people all over the world.

“The biggest percentage we see is when some guy with a little bit of game convinces a girl to send a picture or video of herself to him over text message,” Evans said.

He said that the word “textortion” was coined to describe what happens when the person who originally received the picture or video begins extorting the sender, via blackmail.

“Law enforcement isn’t going to do anything for you,” Evans said. “We are the only ones who are doing it.”

10 Ways to Protect Yourself from Computer Hacking/Identity Theft

1. Change your passwords frequently and do not use the same user name and password for multiple websites
2. Changing some of the letters to numbers in a password makes it virtually impossible for someone to get into, and it remains easy to remember. ex: Doggie becomes D066ie
3. Before you put your username and password into a website go to AMIHACKERPROOF.com
4. Never open up a PDF file in an e-mail unless you are expecting to receive it and know where it came from
5. Do not use the CC line of an e-mail to send a message to multiple recipients. Instead, use the BC line.
6. Do not forward e-mails that say “If you love God, please forward to 10 people and send it back to the person who sent it to you.” God does not communicate via e-mail.
7. Don’t put all of your personal information on Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter. Statuses that say you are leaving town for vacation can be a bad idea too
8. Password-protect your voicemail on your cell phone. There are ways for people to listen to all of your messages through Evans’ caller-ID website spoofem.com
9. Install some true anti-spyware on your machine, and do not rely on anti-virus software alone.
10. Be observant. Your mouse will not begin squeaking like a real mouse if you are being hacked and your keyboard will not begin typing by itself. If pictures appear on the Internet that you know nobody else had access to or things begin showing up on your credit report you should investigate.

We’ve all heard the old adage, “There are only two constants in life: death and taxes.” The only problem with that adage is one has the ability to increase significantly. For college students, the increase will soon become reality if Congress doesn’t act soon.

Most of the media coverage of the Bush-era tax cuts has focused on the top-tier rate for those making more than $250,000. If that rate were to revert to the Clinton rate of 39.6 percent, then it would only be an increase of 13 percent. Ending the lower-tier tax cuts, however, would be cataclysmic for UA students.

Bear with me through this example, as it deals with a lot of numbers. Assume for a moment that you are holding a small, part-time job making $7.50 an hour—just a quarter over the minimum wage—and that you work 20 hours a week. This comes out to $7,200 a year. Under the current system, there are six tiers, with the highest at 35 percent and the lowest at 10 percent, the one in which you would belong, translating to a tax bill of $720.

The tax cuts also allowed for significant deductions for marriage and a child tax credit. But under the Clinton-era structure, the 10 percent bracket disappears, raising your taxes to 15 percent, causing your tax payments to rise to $1,080, and those deductions also disappear. Keep in mind that this only deals with the income tax increases, never mind other taxes that will also rise.

Realizing this, there has been great interest in Congress to extend the tax reductions for those making less than $250,000. But this plan has hit major snags as Republicans and some Democrats have insisted on keeping all of the tax cuts, including the top tier.

While many on the Hill have adopted supply-side economics as a religion, stopping the prevention of tax increases for over 90 percent of Americans because one bracket is getting left out is complete stupidity in action. This is like opening five gifts for Christmas, and rejecting them all because you didn’t get a Benz for the sixth gift.

Unfortunately, common sense in this debate has completely gone out the window due to ideological purity along with a “my way or the highway” attitude. Obstructionism by both the Democratic and Republican parties will lead to all the tax cuts expiring, creating a nightmare for UA students trying to pay for tuition, housing and food. My message to all members of Congress: take the deal being offered by the Obama Administration and run.

Of course, this will not satisfy the rabid supply-side economists insistent on keeping all the cuts, come hell or high water, saying that they boosts production and increase investment. While this is partially true, it’s important to remember that a temporary glut of inventories means nothing if there’s no one left to buy it up due to higher taxes.

In fact, an overwhelming number of economic textbooks show that cutting taxes for the middle class and low-wage earners like college students is a much better stimulus than upper-level tax cuts. So from this standpoint, it looks like they should go back to reading the textbooks instead of going on television shows.

I encourage every student voter to get in touch with their Congressman or woman and demand an extension of the tax cuts associated with college students and recent college graduates. After all, we don’t stay in school forever. Inform them that if they continue this maddening obstruction, then you will promptly vote for their opponent, whether they be a Republican or Democrat. Sanity and beneficial compromise must be restored in this tax debate, and that means at a minimum the postponement of a terrible tax increase on the poor and middle class in times of recession and desperation.

Now the only challenge is to find a few good public servants who will actually find their spines and deliver on their promises to vote for the people.

When I got back to my dorm room around midnight last Wednesday, I did what I usually do to relax and unwind. I turned on C-SPAN.

As the pixels rendered, I was greeted by the youthful, energetic face of David Cameron, prime minister and leader of Britain’s Conservative Party. Earlier that day, he had given a speech at his party’s annual conference, and it was airing again.

Britain’s Conservative & Liberal Democrat coalition government came into power this May and immediately undertook bold measures to reduce Britain’s national debt, reducing the size of central government and devolving power to localities. In his speech, Cameron defended the spending cuts: “I wish there was another … easier way, but … there is no other responsible way.” This might sound like the Tea Party Express, but unlike America’s Republicans, Cameron recognizes the need for a progressive tax code: “It is fair that those with broader shoulders should bear a greater load.”  And unlike conservatives who view all government action as bad, Cameron recognizes that government can work with, not against, its citizens: “It takes two. … Let’s work together in the national interest.”

Comparing Cameron’s speech to the recent party convention speeches of Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Ed Miliband, recently elected Labour leader, I find that — although their political philosophies differ — all three leaders emphasize responsibility and a direct commitment to the people they serve, something sorely lacking in the actions of America’s most powerful politicians. I would sooner vote for Cameron or Clegg than any nationally prominent Republican, and I’d take Ed Milliband over any Democrat I could name.

Why do Britain’s politicians seem more credible? Perhaps Britain’s Parliamentary culture can explain. Britain’s MPs debate in a packed room, gaining cheers for good points and getting hounded for faulty arguments. Parliamentary debates are riveting, more accessible to average citizens and force serious engagement with the other side. By contrast, whenever C-SPAN airs a congressional speech, the chamber is virtually empty, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Botox-infused perma-smile gives the impression that she lives in a world where Republicans simply do not exist.

Unlike Britain’s election, our last election changed nothing. As a candidate, Obama won the independent voters by promising to change the way Washington does business, committing to bipartisanship and reforming the lobbyist culture. But as president, Obama has let his Democratic Congress set the agenda. So, with control of both houses, what has this congress accomplished? Little of substance, save for a massive, incomprehensible health care bill which does nothing to control costs. Even after massive stimulus, the economy is still stuck on neutral, and all the while the national debt is ballooning. If Republicans take over Congress in this year’s elections, a divided government will ensue, and unless Obama turns into Clinton we can expect our government to accomplish even less. Which brings me to this week’s modest proposal.

It’s time to move back into our parents’ basement. Let’s repeal the Declaration of Independence.

Handing things over to a fiscally austere Britain certainly beats mortgaging our future to China and oil-saturated autocracies. It will rip up our gigantic national credit card and maybe even teach us how to wear a “stiff upper lip.”

But if Ole Britannia gets fed up and turns us back onto the street, then we’ll just have to watch through the window, put aside our egos and reach across the aisle to solve the pressing issues of our time.

Maybe it’s just me, but the idea of flying in a “saddle-like” airplane seat with only 23 inches of leg room seems a bit ridiculous. Unfortunately, some airlines disagree. Aviointeriors, an Italian design firm, recently introduced the SkyRider, the latest in airline trends and concepts designed to increase revenue for airlines at the expense and comfort of already-disgruntled passengers.

It is easy to see why the SkyRider, a seat that compresses passengers by angling them downward, appeals to airline companies. Airlines would be able to fit more of these seats on an airplane and create new class of seating that would be cheaper than coach fares. Although some in the industry are skeptical about the SkyRider’s market potential, many are confident that the low prices would appeal to certain customers who are presently priced out of flying. Ideally, the seats would only be used for short flights, though manufacturers claim that they would also work for flights up to four hours. According to Avioninteriors, several airlines, including a few in the U.S. have expressed interest in the new seat designs. Ryanair, the notoriously low-budget Irish airline that was the first to charge for in-flight meals and considered charging for restroom use, has also expressed an interest in SkyRider seats.

On one hand, “saddle” seats would provide passengers with cheaper alternatives to flying. Some passengers would willingly forsake the comfort of 31 to 35 inches of leg-room for reduced fares, and the rest would still have the option of first-class or coach seats.

On the other hand, there are still various safety concerns that need to be dealt with before such a seat can be approved. Seating passengers together in such a crammed way would be disastrous if an evacuation were necessary.

But perhaps just as saliently, this new class of seats would increase stress and tension in-flight, thus making the overall state of flying even more difficult. Current airplane seats aren’t the epitome of comfort unless one chooses to pay more for first-class or extra leg room. At only 31 to 35 inches of leg-room, these seats are nonetheless decent. After rushing through long and hectic lines at the airport, I would prefer to sit down somewhere relatively decent than cram myself into a tiny, claustrophobic-looking seat that’s somehow supposed to resemble a saddle-seat. Anyone who says otherwise is deceiving themselves; SkyRider passengers will very likely be extremely uncomfortable throughout their flight.

Airline travel has increasingly become more stressful with numerous fees for checked luggage (in some cases, even carry-on luggage), in-flight food, and entertainment and some airlines have even gotten rid of their complementary beverages. Airport lines to check-in and pass through security tend to be long and only aggravate the stressful experience. What airlines need to understand is that combined, these minor annoyances become more than just an issue of comfort. Flying is a hazardous procedure that requires teamwork on the part of the crew and passengers, and overly agitated passengers make a flight less safe.

I acknowledge that the industry is struggling, but that is not an excuse to disregard the safety and comfort of passengers—which are perhaps linked. Passengers are already paying excessive amounts for these extra fees; they should at least be able to pay decent prices for decent seats.

The airline industry is desperate. It is pushing its customers’ patience and will likely continue to do so with outrageous fees and ridiculous ideas. Even if the SkyRider is not adopted by most airlines, its mere creation only indicates that things in the airline industry can only get worse.

As political pundits continue to fill the airwaves with predictions on how this year’s midterm elections will shake out, NYU politics professor Sanford Gordon has claimed to have devised a way to accurately predict the results of this year’s House elections.

According to Gordon, the model was developed by aggregating survey data from the Cook Report and the Rothenberg Report, two well-known organizations that predict the outcomes of individual political races, and compiling those findings into two larger forecasts.

“The idea behind my method is simply to take those rankings and see how they did in the past at predicting the outcome of the election,” he said. “We treat each election like a little coin flip and the coin is weighted by whatever the historical performance of those ratings [was] in the past … You can flip 435 coins, each corresponding to a house race depending on what rank they got, and that would give you a hypothetical election outcome.”

Using a computer program, Gordon was able to act out 10,000 of these simulations. According to his findings, using the data from the Cook Report, Republicans have a 37 percent chance of a House takeover. Using data from the Rothenberg Report, Gordon predicted that Republicans have a 14 percent chance of retaking the House.

Politics professor Patrick Egan said Gordon’s method was creative.

“By basing its predictions on the accuracy of past results, professor Gordon’s forecast is just as viable as the others that are out there,” Egan said. “The fact that it reaches a vastly different conclusion than most other forecasts should give the pundits some pause about the certainty of their predictions.”

But statistics professor Aaron Tenenbein cautioned against using model-based election forecasting.

“Model-based forecasts, which may have worked well in the past, may not work well in the future if the model assumptions are violated,” Tenenbein said. “I would be very interested to see how well his forecasts work after November 2.”