Is this really so surprising? Apple creates end products to sell to consumers and buys parts from Samsung. Samsung creates chips (as well as other parts) to sell to companies but also sells competing end products to consumers. TSMC only creates and sells chips to companies, but nothing to end consumers. And now that TSMC's foundries have been updated, it's kind of a no-brainer isn't it?
Is the conclusion really that terrorism can only be committed on airplanes in flight? What if a terrorist decided to blow up a bomb in the middle of a crowded security line? How many thousands of unprotected drinking water supplies are present in the US? How many tunnels and bridges? If I were a terrorist with half a brain, why wouldn't I go after much easier, vulnerable, unprotected targets? The fact that it hasn't happened ought to tell us that there aren't nearly as many suicidal terrorists out there as we think there are. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for good political grandstanding.
We spend billions of dollars on actions that are 99% useless. And ultimately, that was Bin Laden's goal. To bankrupt the US by committing a cheap terrorist act (the cost of a couple of box cutters). Fear is a funny thing. It's completely irrational and yet, the downfall of every nation/empire in history is due to giving into it.
I think the point everyone is trying to make is that they were electronic in the first place. Along the way, the state turned them into paper versions. Legally, the state knows that they have to release them under freedom of information laws and they can no longer delay. That doesn't mean they will make it easy.
To what end? Just to be pains in the ass? Oh wait, this is the Republican Party we're talking about...
"Sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it" = leverage. If you disagree, then I don't know what else to say.
I own a Mac Mini, Macbook Air, and an iPhone 3GS so I don't think anyone could really argue I'm anti-Apple. However, you'd have to be completely blind to argue that many of Apple's actions, especially lately are not in violation of antitrust laws. Also, their iOS apps customer base extends beyond iPhones - iPad and iPod Touch - which many people seem to conveniently forget about. So in terms of the app marketplace which is the real issue here (not smartphone market share), I think it's pretty obvious Apple has a "monopoly".
Whether they allow an app or not is fully at their discretion. Their discretion seems to be based on whether or not it's a feature they can use to promote a future version of their own OS. In my opinion, this is one of the big reasons why Apple is moving the emphasis away from OS X and towards iOS. With iOS, they've somehow managed to find a loophole to the antitrust laws. The DOJ inexplicably has allowed them to get away with the stuff they've been pulling.
Didn't Microsoft lose an anti-trust suit (2002) for using undocumented Windows APIs to their own advantage against independent developers? Why should Apple be different?
Because Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smarphone market.
I don't think you fully understand the definition of a monopoly. It's not simply the market share.
Having 100% of the market is not the definition of a monopoly. If it were, then Microsoft didn't have a monopoly. From Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / (alone or single) + polein / (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
The main issue is leverage. Can anyone argue that Apple *doesn't* have leverage?
Phase change memory tech is not new as most readers here will know. Nearly all the major semiconductor companies have worked on prototype versions of this tech. If companies like Samsung and Intel haven't succeeded in mass producing it yet, as a consumer I'd be more interested in knowing what sets this particular device apart from all the others that will make it more likely to reach the market for the masses. Cheaper to produce? Scales more easily? More energy efficient? More stable?
If you don't watch sports you're fine. If you do then unfortunately ditching cable just isn't a good option yet.
Get an antenna then you can watch local sports in HD for free.
Depends on where you are. In Portland for example, the Blazers struck up a deal with Comcast about 3 years ago so that most of their games during the season are only shown on the Comcast Sports Network which obviously is ONLY available through Comcast cable. This not only screws over non-Comcast subscribers, but also anyone who lives outside the Portland metro area who don't even have the option of Comcast even if they were willing to pay for it. It's been a huge sore spot for Oregonians.
Yeah, but just how toxic is fructose? It's over abundant in every fruit out there, as well as honey. Foods supplementing the human diet for eons, have had tons of fructose. Anything is toxic in high enough quantities.
You have to be able to reframe your thinking about fructose as well as toxicity. Toxicity is not just defined by acute toxicity. For example: lead. You won't keel over from having small amounts of lead in your food. However, no one here would argue that it's not toxic because over the long term, it will cause health problems. Thus, it's a chronic toxin.
The argument presented by Lustig is that fructose is a chronic toxin. Just because it's present in nature doesn't make it non-toxic. After all, ethanol and tobacco are present in nature as well. So are cocaine and morphine/opium/heroin. In a piece of fruit, it's not as high as you think. A whole orange contains less than 4 g of fructose, but it also contains 4 g of fiber. An 8 oz glass of orange juice contains 3-4 oranges (12-16 g of fructose) without the fiber. And fiber is the important thing. And so it goes with it being found everywhere else in nature, except for honey, which is guarded by rather vicious insects. Point is, nature intends for it to be difficult to get in large quantities. Kinda like the other "natural" substances I listed above. We've managed to make it easy to get. Not just easy, but ubiquitous. Next time you reach for an energy bar, take a look at how much sugar is in there.
What if fructose is nature's way of enticing you to eat fiber? Nature makes it in low enough quantity that it doesn't hurt us, but high enough to make us want it. But when we purify it and then but it in everything without the fiber, well...you see what I'm getting at?
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
You know, there are legal limits for exposures (both long and short term) of all substances which are considered to be hazardous. It even has to be taken into account when submitting COSHH forms for a task.
Now arguably, there's no "legal limit" for exposure to sugar - while its LD50 is known, and "recommended dosage" is known as well (~2500 kCal / day of all - sugars, fats etc.).
And no, I didn't listen to TFL. I just think it's pointing out the obvious..
You should watch it. It goes way beyond the obvious - sugar as it relates to weight gain. The effects are wide-ranging, and the public health implications are enormous - perhaps one of the largest in the last 100 years. No, that's not an exaggeration.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
This is the point though. Because sugar is in nearly EVERYTHING that we consume, we are NOT eating it moderation. Juice, soda, muffins, scones, pancakes, ketchup, jelly, barbecue sauce, honey mustard, chili, energy bars. In addition, because of its effects on your satiety hormones (which you would know if you RTFA), it makes it even more difficult to eat in moderation.
Then there's the million dollar question: what amount of daily intake constitutes "moderation"? 50 g? 10 g? 1 g? And if having just a little, makes you crave more, perhaps it is best to not have it at all. Think about it. What you're talking about is the same thing we would say for anything else that we could get addicted to: nicotine, gambling, heroin.
And even if YOU are capable of moderating your intake, the point is that this is a public health disaster because most Americans cannot. Especially, when sugar is viewed as harmless. Which it is when you see that parents not only give their kids ice cream regularly, but make juice a daily part of their diet.
What if? What if sugar is nature's way of getting you to eat fiber? Nature presents it to you in a way and quantity that makes it harmless to you if you consume it her way. But we've circumvented nature and removed the whole point of consuming fructose - getting the fiber.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Toxicity is an exact scientific term. It's only semantics to those who have no clue.
Oh really? Here's the medical ("scientific") definition from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine:
"Toxicity: The degree to which a substance can harm humans or animals.
Toxicity can be acute, subchronic, or chronic:
Acute toxicity involves harmful effects in an organism through a single or short-term exposure.
Subchronic toxicity is the ability of a toxic substance to cause effects for more than one year but less than the lifetime of the exposed organism.
Chronic toxicity is the ability of a substance or mixture of substances to cause harmful effects over an extended period, usually upon repeated or continuous exposure, sometimes lasting for the entire life of the exposed organism."
Lustig's argument is that fructose leads to adverse effects in the human body given the average rate and quantity of consumption by Americans. If he is correct, then yes, sugar (specifically fructose) is toxic by the "scientific" definition.
How about Merriam-Webster's definition?
"1: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation
2: exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis
3: extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful "
Does it not fit this definition either?
LD50 is how we quantitate the degree of toxicity and as pointed out by everyone, everything has an LD50. But LD50 is only a measure of acute toxicity and why I said it's only a matter of semantics. But that is not the only definition. Not even "scientifically".
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Thing about toxicity: it's not necessarily linear. Nicotine example is excellent - in low enough amount, it's not toxic, as body is capable of properly metabolising it without toxicity damage.
Problem is, it's also carcinogenic, as are many other substances in tobacco. Which is where much of the long term damage come from. Not from toxicity.
All this discussion about the definition of "toxicity" is just semantics (which a lot of Slashdot posters seem to get off on) and completely misses the bigger picture. Which is that above a certain level and certain rate of absorption, sugar (more specifically fructose) has negative health consequences that offset any energy benefit they provide. The known biochemical pathways of fructose actually makes this fairly plain to see. Who cares if that fits the definition of "toxin" or not? The real debate is what that "safe" threshold is. Until we know, I think it's safest to consume it only in the way nature intended for us - in a solid piece of fruit.
Seriously, if sugar were toxic, HOW IN THE FUCK COULD ANY OF US HAVE SURVIVED CHILDHOOD?
Every kid I knew ate sugar laden cereal, drank sugar laden soft drinks and had candy bars with cake and ice cream for dessert.
LK
The answer to your question is, because you don't understand the definition of "toxic". There's acute toxicity, and there's chronic toxicity. If you're going to argue that survival is the only criteria by which you judge toxicity, then I assume you're also fine with kids smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and snorting cocaine.
Not every kid who eats sugar will get fat or have health problems at the same rate. Some might never even get fat because their metabolism is just built to handle sugar better. However, most cigarette smokers also don't get lung cancer. Are you going to argue that cigarettes are healthy? Or not a problem?
Gary Taubes' carb hypothesis requires that obese individuals are capable of violating the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of mass so he's just reaching for something, anything that can vaguely support his bullshit claims.
It does no such thing, unless you think that the human body is a closed system and that the human metabolism is static both in its pathways and its rate. Before you claim anything is bullshit, you should be sure that you're an expert on the topic yourself.
Re:This is not the logic you are looking for
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Everything is toxic. It depends on the dose as to when it reaches toxic levels. For sugar, the LD50 is >10,000 mg per kg of body weight. In comparison, caffeine's LD50 is 100 mg/kg and nicotine's is 1 mg/kg.
"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." Paracelsus, the father of toxicology.
I'm quite certain that pediatric endocrinologist from UCSF understands the technical definition of toxin. I believe he was using it to create attention to the problem and to make a point. And it's not entirely inaccurate either. His argument is that #1 the dosage in the average American diet is too high, and #2 toxins don't always cause acute problems. LD50 is a measure of acute toxicity. As you pointed out, nictotine has an LD50 of 1 mg/kg. Does that mean taking it in at a lower dosage over a long period of time is healthy for you? Does that then make it NOT a toxin?
He also made it very clear in his lecture that fructose is a chronic toxin. Did ANYONE criticizing this theory actually listen to the entire lecture??
I'm seeing from these comments that a lot of people don't actually know what sugar is. Part of the problem is the colloquial usage of the term for when we say something like "blood sugar". What's actually being measured is serum glucose levels.
Glucose, in scientific terms is a monosaccharide. The "sugar" being described by Lustig is a disaccharide. That is to say, it is composed of two monosaccharides bound together - glucose and fructose. Glucose is NOT the problem and Lustig states this quite clearly. Thus, starchy foods like potatoes, rice, wheat, etc are NOT the problem because starch is simply made of long chains of glucose strung together. If it's in excess, glucose tends to get stored in your body as glycogen because that is the most efficient way for you body to convert it back to glucose when it is needed. However, fructose is problematic. No cell in your body can use fructose directly. Thus, the liver has to do something with it. And that's where the problems begin because one of the major biochemical pathways of fructose results in fat (among other problems described in the lecture). Since fructose is one-half of sugar (sucrose), sugar is a problem.
The only situation when fructose is not a problem is when it is taken in low quantity and is absorbed slowly. Thus, as presented in nature, it is okay to ingest in the form of fruit because of the natural fiber content that's always associated with fructose. But in modern food processing and juicing, we have greatly increased the amount, and stripped away all the fiber (for storage and cooking efficiency).
Re:Glucose anyone?
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Given that glucose is what our bodies run on, I'd have to say no, sugar is NOT toxic to us. Is having too much sugar bad for you? Certainly. It's about balance. Too much of nearly anything (even water) is going to be bad for you.
You clearly didn't watch the lecture or have never taken biochemistry. Sugar - sucrose - is a disaccharide. Meaning a molecule of it is comprised of a glucose bonded to a fructose. In your digestive tract, it is broken down into its components - glucose and fructose. Glucose IS fine because every cell in your body utilizes glucose. Lustig stated that quite clearly and even showed evidence that people who consume starch filled foods (starch = long chains of glucose) do NOT get fat. The body doesn't tend to want to convert glucose into fat because it then has to convert it back to glucose - very inefficient. The body stores excess glucose in the liver as glycogen. And while you do need glucose to survive, you do NOT need to eat sugar (or even other carbohydrates) to get glucose. Your body is well equipped to make its own glucose.
Fructose is the problem because its biochemical pathway in the liver leads to fat, especially when you are already getting sufficient glucose, as you are when you eat sugar. In addition, there are other metabolic byproducts which result in inflammation, uric acid (possibly leading to gout), and super dense LDL's which are the actual cause of atherosclerosis (in heart disease). It also wrecks havoc on the normal functioning of the hormones in your body that regulate your hunger mechanisms (as well as regulation of body fat storage).
I'm getting the sense from reading many other comments that are similar to this one that most people don't have a good grasp of what "sugar" actually is. People, watch the lecture before you criticize the theory.
Let's say MS somehow manages to come out with a tablet version of Windows that CAN be installed and run on an iPad. In fact, let's say they design it specifically to do so. What's the legal consequence of this? Can Apple actually declare it's illegal to install a different OS on their hardware? And if so, would they actually do so? Perhaps this is part of MS's strategy. If they can't supplant iOS on the iPad, they make Apple look oppressive (see Sony vs Geohot). Win-win for Microsoft.
China also is notorious for science fraud. From my observation, which can be summed up as a 'scientist browsing and delving into various pubs regularly', when there's fraud, it's usually in China.
And so your conclusion is that they don't publish any good research and that U.S. scientists never commit fraud (or publish bullshit research)?
How difficult would it be for Google to put in some code to check the hardware. If it's a tablet, let it install. If not, don't. And if someone wants to remove it from the code and install it anyways, let them. It's not like they can complain about the results.
I find that arguments for increased productivity are usually used to rationalize the purchase of some new expensive hi tech toy. And then subsequently used to raise expectations from the workers without increasing costs to the company (do more work in less time without a raise).
Slashdot Mirror
Is this really so surprising? Apple creates end products to sell to consumers and buys parts from Samsung. Samsung creates chips (as well as other parts) to sell to companies but also sells competing end products to consumers. TSMC only creates and sells chips to companies, but nothing to end consumers. And now that TSMC's foundries have been updated, it's kind of a no-brainer isn't it?
Good post and interesting point. I wish I had mod points, but I hope someone else mods you up.
I have found these reviews to be accurate too. As well as these. And this.
Is the conclusion really that terrorism can only be committed on airplanes in flight? What if a terrorist decided to blow up a bomb in the middle of a crowded security line? How many thousands of unprotected drinking water supplies are present in the US? How many tunnels and bridges? If I were a terrorist with half a brain, why wouldn't I go after much easier, vulnerable, unprotected targets? The fact that it hasn't happened ought to tell us that there aren't nearly as many suicidal terrorists out there as we think there are. Unfortunately, that doesn't make for good political grandstanding. We spend billions of dollars on actions that are 99% useless. And ultimately, that was Bin Laden's goal. To bankrupt the US by committing a cheap terrorist act (the cost of a couple of box cutters). Fear is a funny thing. It's completely irrational and yet, the downfall of every nation/empire in history is due to giving into it.
I think the point everyone is trying to make is that they were electronic in the first place. Along the way, the state turned them into paper versions. Legally, the state knows that they have to release them under freedom of information laws and they can no longer delay. That doesn't mean they will make it easy.
To what end? Just to be pains in the ass? Oh wait, this is the Republican Party we're talking about...
"Sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it" = leverage. If you disagree, then I don't know what else to say.
I own a Mac Mini, Macbook Air, and an iPhone 3GS so I don't think anyone could really argue I'm anti-Apple. However, you'd have to be completely blind to argue that many of Apple's actions, especially lately are not in violation of antitrust laws. Also, their iOS apps customer base extends beyond iPhones - iPad and iPod Touch - which many people seem to conveniently forget about. So in terms of the app marketplace which is the real issue here (not smartphone market share), I think it's pretty obvious Apple has a "monopoly".
Whether they allow an app or not is fully at their discretion. Their discretion seems to be based on whether or not it's a feature they can use to promote a future version of their own OS. In my opinion, this is one of the big reasons why Apple is moving the emphasis away from OS X and towards iOS. With iOS, they've somehow managed to find a loophole to the antitrust laws. The DOJ inexplicably has allowed them to get away with the stuff they've been pulling.
Didn't Microsoft lose an anti-trust suit (2002) for using undocumented Windows APIs to their own advantage against independent developers? Why should Apple be different?
Because Microsoft had a monopoly on the operating system market, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smarphone market.
I don't think you fully understand the definition of a monopoly. It's not simply the market share.
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / (alone or single) + polein / (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
The main issue is leverage. Can anyone argue that Apple *doesn't* have leverage?
Phase change memory tech is not new as most readers here will know. Nearly all the major semiconductor companies have worked on prototype versions of this tech. If companies like Samsung and Intel haven't succeeded in mass producing it yet, as a consumer I'd be more interested in knowing what sets this particular device apart from all the others that will make it more likely to reach the market for the masses. Cheaper to produce? Scales more easily? More energy efficient? More stable?
If you don't watch sports you're fine. If you do then unfortunately ditching cable just isn't a good option yet.
Get an antenna then you can watch local sports in HD for free.
Depends on where you are. In Portland for example, the Blazers struck up a deal with Comcast about 3 years ago so that most of their games during the season are only shown on the Comcast Sports Network which obviously is ONLY available through Comcast cable. This not only screws over non-Comcast subscribers, but also anyone who lives outside the Portland metro area who don't even have the option of Comcast even if they were willing to pay for it. It's been a huge sore spot for Oregonians.
Yeah, but just how toxic is fructose? It's over abundant in every fruit out there, as well as honey. Foods supplementing the human diet for eons, have had tons of fructose. Anything is toxic in high enough quantities.
You have to be able to reframe your thinking about fructose as well as toxicity. Toxicity is not just defined by acute toxicity. For example: lead. You won't keel over from having small amounts of lead in your food. However, no one here would argue that it's not toxic because over the long term, it will cause health problems. Thus, it's a chronic toxin.
The argument presented by Lustig is that fructose is a chronic toxin. Just because it's present in nature doesn't make it non-toxic. After all, ethanol and tobacco are present in nature as well. So are cocaine and morphine/opium/heroin. In a piece of fruit, it's not as high as you think. A whole orange contains less than 4 g of fructose, but it also contains 4 g of fiber. An 8 oz glass of orange juice contains 3-4 oranges (12-16 g of fructose) without the fiber. And fiber is the important thing. And so it goes with it being found everywhere else in nature, except for honey, which is guarded by rather vicious insects. Point is, nature intends for it to be difficult to get in large quantities. Kinda like the other "natural" substances I listed above. We've managed to make it easy to get. Not just easy, but ubiquitous. Next time you reach for an energy bar, take a look at how much sugar is in there.
What if fructose is nature's way of enticing you to eat fiber? Nature makes it in low enough quantity that it doesn't hurt us, but high enough to make us want it. But when we purify it and then but it in everything without the fiber, well...you see what I'm getting at?
You know, there are legal limits for exposures (both long and short term) of all substances which are considered to be hazardous. It even has to be taken into account when submitting COSHH forms for a task.
Now arguably, there's no "legal limit" for exposure to sugar - while its LD50 is known, and "recommended dosage" is known as well (~2500 kCal / day of all - sugars, fats etc.).
And no, I didn't listen to TFL. I just think it's pointing out the obvious..
You should watch it. It goes way beyond the obvious - sugar as it relates to weight gain. The effects are wide-ranging, and the public health implications are enormous - perhaps one of the largest in the last 100 years. No, that's not an exaggeration.
This is the point though. Because sugar is in nearly EVERYTHING that we consume, we are NOT eating it moderation. Juice, soda, muffins, scones, pancakes, ketchup, jelly, barbecue sauce, honey mustard, chili, energy bars. In addition, because of its effects on your satiety hormones (which you would know if you RTFA), it makes it even more difficult to eat in moderation.
Then there's the million dollar question: what amount of daily intake constitutes "moderation"? 50 g? 10 g? 1 g? And if having just a little, makes you crave more, perhaps it is best to not have it at all. Think about it. What you're talking about is the same thing we would say for anything else that we could get addicted to: nicotine, gambling, heroin.
And even if YOU are capable of moderating your intake, the point is that this is a public health disaster because most Americans cannot. Especially, when sugar is viewed as harmless. Which it is when you see that parents not only give their kids ice cream regularly, but make juice a daily part of their diet.
What if? What if sugar is nature's way of getting you to eat fiber? Nature presents it to you in a way and quantity that makes it harmless to you if you consume it her way. But we've circumvented nature and removed the whole point of consuming fructose - getting the fiber.
Toxicity is an exact scientific term. It's only semantics to those who have no clue.
Oh really? Here's the medical ("scientific") definition from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine:
"Toxicity: The degree to which a substance can harm humans or animals.
Toxicity can be acute, subchronic, or chronic:
Acute toxicity involves harmful effects in an organism through a single or short-term exposure.
Subchronic toxicity is the ability of a toxic substance to cause effects for more than one year but less than the lifetime of the exposed organism.
Chronic toxicity is the ability of a substance or mixture of substances to cause harmful effects over an extended period, usually upon repeated or continuous exposure, sometimes lasting for the entire life of the exposed organism."
Lustig's argument is that fructose leads to adverse effects in the human body given the average rate and quantity of consumption by Americans. If he is correct, then yes, sugar (specifically fructose) is toxic by the "scientific" definition.
How about Merriam-Webster's definition?
"1: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation
2: exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis
3: extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful "
Does it not fit this definition either?
LD50 is how we quantitate the degree of toxicity and as pointed out by everyone, everything has an LD50. But LD50 is only a measure of acute toxicity and why I said it's only a matter of semantics. But that is not the only definition. Not even "scientifically".
Thing about toxicity: it's not necessarily linear. Nicotine example is excellent - in low enough amount, it's not toxic, as body is capable of properly metabolising it without toxicity damage.
Problem is, it's also carcinogenic, as are many other substances in tobacco. Which is where much of the long term damage come from. Not from toxicity.
All this discussion about the definition of "toxicity" is just semantics (which a lot of Slashdot posters seem to get off on) and completely misses the bigger picture. Which is that above a certain level and certain rate of absorption, sugar (more specifically fructose) has negative health consequences that offset any energy benefit they provide. The known biochemical pathways of fructose actually makes this fairly plain to see. Who cares if that fits the definition of "toxin" or not? The real debate is what that "safe" threshold is. Until we know, I think it's safest to consume it only in the way nature intended for us - in a solid piece of fruit.
Seriously, if sugar were toxic, HOW IN THE FUCK COULD ANY OF US HAVE SURVIVED CHILDHOOD?
Every kid I knew ate sugar laden cereal, drank sugar laden soft drinks and had candy bars with cake and ice cream for dessert.
LK
The answer to your question is, because you don't understand the definition of "toxic". There's acute toxicity, and there's chronic toxicity. If you're going to argue that survival is the only criteria by which you judge toxicity, then I assume you're also fine with kids smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and snorting cocaine.
Not every kid who eats sugar will get fat or have health problems at the same rate. Some might never even get fat because their metabolism is just built to handle sugar better. However, most cigarette smokers also don't get lung cancer. Are you going to argue that cigarettes are healthy? Or not a problem?
Gary Taubes' carb hypothesis requires that obese individuals are capable of violating the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of mass so he's just reaching for something, anything that can vaguely support his bullshit claims.
It does no such thing, unless you think that the human body is a closed system and that the human metabolism is static both in its pathways and its rate. Before you claim anything is bullshit, you should be sure that you're an expert on the topic yourself.
Everything is toxic. It depends on the dose as to when it reaches toxic levels. For sugar, the LD50 is >10,000 mg per kg of body weight. In comparison, caffeine's LD50 is 100 mg/kg and nicotine's is 1 mg/kg. "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." Paracelsus, the father of toxicology.
I'm quite certain that pediatric endocrinologist from UCSF understands the technical definition of toxin. I believe he was using it to create attention to the problem and to make a point. And it's not entirely inaccurate either. His argument is that #1 the dosage in the average American diet is too high, and #2 toxins don't always cause acute problems. LD50 is a measure of acute toxicity. As you pointed out, nictotine has an LD50 of 1 mg/kg. Does that mean taking it in at a lower dosage over a long period of time is healthy for you? Does that then make it NOT a toxin?
He also made it very clear in his lecture that fructose is a chronic toxin. Did ANYONE criticizing this theory actually listen to the entire lecture??
I'm seeing from these comments that a lot of people don't actually know what sugar is. Part of the problem is the colloquial usage of the term for when we say something like "blood sugar". What's actually being measured is serum glucose levels.
Glucose, in scientific terms is a monosaccharide. The "sugar" being described by Lustig is a disaccharide. That is to say, it is composed of two monosaccharides bound together - glucose and fructose. Glucose is NOT the problem and Lustig states this quite clearly. Thus, starchy foods like potatoes, rice, wheat, etc are NOT the problem because starch is simply made of long chains of glucose strung together. If it's in excess, glucose tends to get stored in your body as glycogen because that is the most efficient way for you body to convert it back to glucose when it is needed. However, fructose is problematic. No cell in your body can use fructose directly. Thus, the liver has to do something with it. And that's where the problems begin because one of the major biochemical pathways of fructose results in fat (among other problems described in the lecture). Since fructose is one-half of sugar (sucrose), sugar is a problem.
The only situation when fructose is not a problem is when it is taken in low quantity and is absorbed slowly. Thus, as presented in nature, it is okay to ingest in the form of fruit because of the natural fiber content that's always associated with fructose. But in modern food processing and juicing, we have greatly increased the amount, and stripped away all the fiber (for storage and cooking efficiency).
Given that glucose is what our bodies run on, I'd have to say no, sugar is NOT toxic to us. Is having too much sugar bad for you? Certainly. It's about balance. Too much of nearly anything (even water) is going to be bad for you.
You clearly didn't watch the lecture or have never taken biochemistry. Sugar - sucrose - is a disaccharide. Meaning a molecule of it is comprised of a glucose bonded to a fructose. In your digestive tract, it is broken down into its components - glucose and fructose. Glucose IS fine because every cell in your body utilizes glucose. Lustig stated that quite clearly and even showed evidence that people who consume starch filled foods (starch = long chains of glucose) do NOT get fat. The body doesn't tend to want to convert glucose into fat because it then has to convert it back to glucose - very inefficient. The body stores excess glucose in the liver as glycogen. And while you do need glucose to survive, you do NOT need to eat sugar (or even other carbohydrates) to get glucose. Your body is well equipped to make its own glucose.
Fructose is the problem because its biochemical pathway in the liver leads to fat, especially when you are already getting sufficient glucose, as you are when you eat sugar. In addition, there are other metabolic byproducts which result in inflammation, uric acid (possibly leading to gout), and super dense LDL's which are the actual cause of atherosclerosis (in heart disease). It also wrecks havoc on the normal functioning of the hormones in your body that regulate your hunger mechanisms (as well as regulation of body fat storage).
I'm getting the sense from reading many other comments that are similar to this one that most people don't have a good grasp of what "sugar" actually is. People, watch the lecture before you criticize the theory.
Let's say MS somehow manages to come out with a tablet version of Windows that CAN be installed and run on an iPad. In fact, let's say they design it specifically to do so. What's the legal consequence of this? Can Apple actually declare it's illegal to install a different OS on their hardware? And if so, would they actually do so? Perhaps this is part of MS's strategy. If they can't supplant iOS on the iPad, they make Apple look oppressive (see Sony vs Geohot). Win-win for Microsoft.
A congressman is not by any mean an everyday citizen. They are right to care more.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
China also is notorious for science fraud. From my observation, which can be summed up as a 'scientist browsing and delving into various pubs regularly', when there's fraud, it's usually in China.
And so your conclusion is that they don't publish any good research and that U.S. scientists never commit fraud (or publish bullshit research)?
How difficult would it be for Google to put in some code to check the hardware. If it's a tablet, let it install. If not, don't. And if someone wants to remove it from the code and install it anyways, let them. It's not like they can complain about the results.
I find that arguments for increased productivity are usually used to rationalize the purchase of some new expensive hi tech toy. And then subsequently used to raise expectations from the workers without increasing costs to the company (do more work in less time without a raise).