answer:Als u een controle afspraak maakt, moet u bij de dokter langsgaan.

answer:Title: Sen. Saxby Chambliss Faces Backlash Over Hormones Remark on Military Sexual Assault Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican, has been attracting severe criticism for suggesting that hormones might be the cause of sexual assault in the military during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. According to CNN, Chambliss stated, "The young folks that are coming into each of your services are anywhere from 17 to 22-23. Gee whiz—the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur." Katty Kay of the BBC has attributed such remarks to the influence of "elderly white men" in charge of addressing the issue. Similarly, Amanda Marcotte of Slate has argued that it demonstrates why the military hierarchy, which contains commanding officers who may agree with Chambliss, should not be the ones prosecuting sexual assault cases. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, expressed her disapproval on MSNBC, saying, "For a United States senator or anyone to write off sexual assault and the personal violation of a woman or man to raging hormones of youth shows just how dramatically out of touch the Republican Party is." Criticism has also come from within Chambliss's own party. Ohio Rep. Mike Turner, co-chairman of the military sexual assault prevention caucus, emphasized the need for a more direct approach, stating, "Perpetuating this line of thinking does nothing to help change the culture of our military. We must be focused on combating this issue directly." Adding a satirical twist to the controversy, the New Yorker has published a piece in which Chambliss blames his comments on "declining levels of brain function created by nature." This incident highlights the continued need for a genuine discussion and more effective solutions to address the problem of sexual assault in the military, rather than attempting to explain it away as an unavoidable consequence of human biology.

answer:The answer "cup" aligns with human common sense because it directly addresses the practical need and context associated with drinking coffee. To understand this better, let's analyze each of the provided possible answers and their relationship to the question. The question asks, "Where would you put some coffee if you are thirsty?" This implies that the person is looking for a location or receptacle to pour and consume the coffee. When people are thirsty, they typically consume beverages like coffee by drinking it from an appropriate container. In the case of coffee, the most common and practical container is a cup. Now, let's evaluate the other possible answers: 1. Container: While a "container" could technically hold coffee, it's a vague and overly broad term. People usually prefer a cup as it is specifically designed for drinking liquids such as coffee at a comfortable temperature. 2. Internet cafe: An internet cafe is a place where people use computers and access the internet, often while drinking coffee and other beverages. But it is not a suitable receptacle for holding coffee when someone is thirsty. It is a location, but not the specific answer to where you would put the coffee. 3. Starbucks: Starbucks is a well-known coffee shop, and while you can purchase coffee and other drinks there, it does not directly answer where you would put the coffee if you are thirsty. Similar to the "internet cafe," it is a location but does not serve as a suitable place to hold the coffee. 4. Supermarket: A supermarket is a place where you can buy packaged coffee beans or grounds, but not somewhere you would put coffee to drink if you are thirsty. It is neither a suitable receptacle nor location for consuming the coffee. In conclusion, "cup" is the answer that aligns with human common sense because it is the most relevant and practical option for the context of the question. A cup is specifically designed to hold and drink beverages such as coffee, addressing the person's thirst and need in the most efficient and suitable manner.

answer:The sentiment of this review is predominantly positive and appreciative. The reviewer expresses admiration for Harvey Keitel's performance, the cinematography, the storyline, and the overall professionalism of the film. They appreciate the humor in the script and the crisp direction that aligns with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The review emphasizes the film as a heartfelt and evocative journey to another world. However, there is a minor criticism regarding the decision to shoot the film in sync-sound English instead of Spanish, which, according to the reviewer, makes the film slightly less convincing. Despite this, the reviewer still recommends the film, acknowledging its merits and encouraging others to look beyond this minor drawback. Overall, the sentiment of the review can be described as positive with a hint of constructive criticism.