Where are you getting this? I wasnt able to find an actual source for anything in TFA, much less an actual statement by the hotel. Or is hearsay now sufficient for a slashdot article?
Its possible that this article is rubbish: I wasnt able to get any google results for "Jacques Robitaille lawsuit" or "Jacques Robitaille bedbug" except for TFA-- and it does not name any sources. This part of the story: n the middle of the night, Laurent woke with a startle as he felt bed bugs biting his leg. Also sounds like rubbish, as you dont feel bedbugs biting you: thats why theyre such a nuisance, you wake up in the morning with a rash. They wouldnt be much of a parasite if their host could feel them feeding.
Maybe Im wrong, its just hugely suspicious that theres no source or record to be found of this lawsuit other than a "I heard that..." off of tripadvisor.
Im not a software dev, but I have never agreed with this:
If a change results in user programs breaking, it's a bug in the kernel. We never EVER blame the user programs.
What happens when some program has been using a privilege escalation bug to get around sudo, and it breaks when the kernel is patched to fix the vulnerability? Is that still "a kernel bug", should they not patch it? It seems to me that, yes, you try not to break applications, but this is why you have an official, supported API, and if bad developers want to rely on buggy kernel behavior for their programs, you have to choose between either screwing them, or screwing everyone else.
If anyone can enlighten me as to why thats wrong, Id appreciate it.
Except that they didnt know that these children had thyroid cancer, which is why it was caught in a blanket test of 300,000 children-- so clearly what youre saying is not accurate.
It happens fairly quickly in children. Besides, what other explanation is there?
That maybe children dont regularly get checked for thyroid cancer, but that it is nevertheless present in a given population, and theyre catching the ones that were already there?
I dont believe cancer generally develops that fast, and would highly suspect an agenda from any organization that tries to claim it does-- particularly when the estimates for radiation exposure even for the 3 workers most seriously exposed are just on the fringe of "elevated risk of cancer".
Why are these problems unique to HFCS, rather than sugar in general? Mightent we warn people to simply check "grams of sugar" rather than futzing about whether its HFCS or sucrose or glucose?
Youre right that excess sugar is a huge issue, I just feel like most people want to blame HFCS so that they can continue to enjoy sugary foods and feel good that its sucrose rather than "dangerous" HFCS.
Check wikipedia. Its "High fructose", I presume, because its got more fructose than your average corn syrup. That doesnt mean its "high fructose" relative to anything else.
99.99% of people identify entirely as a gender which accords somehow with the sex organs they were born with
Can you find any pre-20th century literature or records showing a gender identification which was NOT based on sex organs? I dont mean adjectively referring to feminine attributes, or poetic language, and Im not talking about hermaphrodites-- I mean actually calling an individual born with testes a "she" or "female" or whatever.
I would be really surprised if you found any at all.
HFCS and regular sugar are similar, but there's still a difference in how the body responds.
That difference is insignificant. Most studies show no difference, and the one yale (princeton?) study that DOES show a difference, aside from all of its major issues, showed far more that its quantity that makes the hugest difference.
Is is possible that the HFCS still contains enough trace amounts of the amino acids used to break down the starch to create a similar reaction in the food consumed together with the HFCS?
Maybe, but I submit that the people who worry about whether they were getting HFCS or cane sugar would be far better off simply focusing on getting less "sugars" in general.
The reason people see the "organic" fad as snake oil is because, like most snake oil, it lives and breathes vague, ambiguous definitions and claims. WHAT is the benefit? WHAT does organic mean? What is the threat from synthetic? For some reason, this stuff is never quantified, its just left in misty, ambiguous terms that dont mean anything.
Even if pesticide residue doesn't cause cancer, you can't convince me that it's not bad for me
As noted in one of the differences, sometimes "organic" means "more likely to be contaminated with e coli, and less likely to have been sterilized by irradiation".
So while there MAY be some detriment to pesticide residue, Im darn sure that that e coli is worse for you.
"Organic compounds", If i recall from my chemistry days, are those which involve carbon bonds. Water, notably, is not an "organic" substance, nor are bones; so farmers are actually not mostly organic-- though they are indeed mostly water.
Go to a non-hippie grocery store and try to find full-fat yogurt that has not been sweetened.
Its called "plain yogurt". You can find it at Giant foods, and i imagine everyone else. Stonyfield farms brand, as well as storebrand, and probably a million others. Costco also has it in greek, indian, and regular styles.
Obviously, the dropping of fat levels and the rise of HFCS look to be LIKELY causes
Thats not obvious to me, and when I bothered to research the difference between HFCS and cane sugar, it actually became highly doubtful (hint, theyre chemically 90% the same, and its a wash whether the HFCS you consume in a particular product is better or worse for you).
It seems far more likely to me that this tendency to try to find "silver bullets" to fix your diet is the cause-- "eliminate carbs, and you can eat all the sugar you want"; "eliminate gluten and you can eat all the junkfood you want"; "eliminate HFCS and you can eat all the sugar you want". That, and gross quantity consumed, as well as generally not really caring about one's diet.
But there are considerable profits to be made in making the food as cheaply as possible.
And clearly organic farmers are immune to this, right? I guess the difference is that when a non-organic farmer contaminates his produce, he can fall back on irradiation to sterilize his produce, while the organic farmer cannot. Still feeling good about organic?
That's because nobody would ever say anything so ridiculous, since it's false. Processed and manufactured food bears almost no relationship at all to natural organic
Organic is a word that doesnt even have a scientifically defined meaning (unless we're talking organic chemistry, which, guess what, organic farmers are not). Its a stupid buzzword defined arbitrarily by legislation based on some stupid assumption that a naturally derived chemical is different than a synthetically derived one. Sometimes that may be true (the synthetic may have byproducts in it). Sometimes its false and just raises prices (rainwater is probably not healthier than water produced in a lab by burning hydrogen).
A 2012 survey of the scientific literature did not find significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products, and found that results varied from study to study.
Contamination--
while literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products. ... Only three studies reported the prevalence of contamination exceeding maximum allowed limits; all were from the European Union.[6] The American Cancer Society has stated that no evidence exist that pesticide residue will lead to any form of cancer.
Bacteria--
The 2012 meta-analysis determined that prevalence of E. coli contamination was not statistically significant (7% in organic produce and 6% in conventional produce). Four of the five studies found higher risk for contamination among organic produce.
Can it be? Theres actually no real science behind "organic is healthier" other than perception bias? Wow, what a shocker.
Really. So you think it is chemically the same as glucose?
No, but cane sugar isnt glucose; its a disaccharide composed of a glucose linked to a fructose, ie roughly 50% of each.
Guess what the most common forumations of HFCS are? 55 fructose - 42 glucose 42 fructose - 53 glucose
Oh look, one of those has a higher glucose:fructose ratio than "healthy" sucrose.
Its been said a million times: HFCS is a bogeyman. Sometimes, in some situations, it can be less healthy, but the problem is one of quantity consumed, not what particular type of sugar youre eating. I would suggest that one of the causes of obesity is these stupid food fads that promise that X is the miracle cure to weight, and you can do whatever you want as long as you eliminate X. Guess what, cutting off HFCS does you no good if you replace it with cane sugar or lard or tons of carbs or...
You've never been to any boardwalk that has seagulls and lots of children, have you? Kids will always run at the seagulls, but a lot of the time the gulls wont do more than just hop away because they know theres no real danger.
It sounds like you havent really seen many gees, either-- they can become so unafraid of humans that theyll charge bicycles and cars, knowing that the vehicle will inevitably give way before them.
I was referring not just to per-capita, but also gross, and median income. Looking at just one measure like per-capita can skew things in favor of small countries with natural resources (like Qatar).
Slashdot Mirror
Where are you getting this? I wasnt able to find an actual source for anything in TFA, much less an actual statement by the hotel. Or is hearsay now sufficient for a slashdot article?
Its possible that this article is rubbish: I wasnt able to get any google results for "Jacques Robitaille lawsuit" or "Jacques Robitaille bedbug" except for TFA-- and it does not name any sources. This part of the story:
n the middle of the night, Laurent woke with a startle as he felt bed bugs biting his leg.
Also sounds like rubbish, as you dont feel bedbugs biting you: thats why theyre such a nuisance, you wake up in the morning with a rash. They wouldnt be much of a parasite if their host could feel them feeding.
Maybe Im wrong, its just hugely suspicious that theres no source or record to be found of this lawsuit other than a "I heard that..." off of tripadvisor.
Humans grow smarter
This is complete rubbish. Our knowledge grows, our intellect generally does not.
Im not a software dev, but I have never agreed with this:
If a change results in user programs breaking, it's a bug in the kernel. We never EVER blame the user programs.
What happens when some program has been using a privilege escalation bug to get around sudo, and it breaks when the kernel is patched to fix the vulnerability? Is that still "a kernel bug", should they not patch it? It seems to me that, yes, you try not to break applications, but this is why you have an official, supported API, and if bad developers want to rely on buggy kernel behavior for their programs, you have to choose between either screwing them, or screwing everyone else.
If anyone can enlighten me as to why thats wrong, Id appreciate it.
You would know if you had thyroid cancer.
Except that they didnt know that these children had thyroid cancer, which is why it was caught in a blanket test of 300,000 children-- so clearly what youre saying is not accurate.
It happens fairly quickly in children. Besides, what other explanation is there?
That maybe children dont regularly get checked for thyroid cancer, but that it is nevertheless present in a given population, and theyre catching the ones that were already there?
I dont believe cancer generally develops that fast, and would highly suspect an agenda from any organization that tries to claim it does-- particularly when the estimates for radiation exposure even for the 3 workers most seriously exposed are just on the fringe of "elevated risk of cancer".
Why are these problems unique to HFCS, rather than sugar in general? Mightent we warn people to simply check "grams of sugar" rather than futzing about whether its HFCS or sucrose or glucose?
Youre right that excess sugar is a huge issue, I just feel like most people want to blame HFCS so that they can continue to enjoy sugary foods and feel good that its sucrose rather than "dangerous" HFCS.
Check wikipedia. Its "High fructose", I presume, because its got more fructose than your average corn syrup. That doesnt mean its "high fructose" relative to anything else.
99.99% of people identify entirely as a gender which accords somehow with the sex organs they were born with
Can you find any pre-20th century literature or records showing a gender identification which was NOT based on sex organs? I dont mean adjectively referring to feminine attributes, or poetic language, and Im not talking about hermaphrodites-- I mean actually calling an individual born with testes a "she" or "female" or whatever.
I would be really surprised if you found any at all.
Lab animals arent pets, and it is indeed wild speculation to suppose that theyre getting the same chow that you get at the pet store.
HFCS and regular sugar are similar, but there's still a difference in how the body responds.
That difference is insignificant. Most studies show no difference, and the one yale (princeton?) study that DOES show a difference, aside from all of its major issues, showed far more that its quantity that makes the hugest difference.
Is is possible that the HFCS still contains enough trace amounts of the amino acids used to break down the starch to create a similar reaction in the food consumed together with the HFCS?
Maybe, but I submit that the people who worry about whether they were getting HFCS or cane sugar would be far better off simply focusing on getting less "sugars" in general.
Please define "whole foods", and "processed".
The reason people see the "organic" fad as snake oil is because, like most snake oil, it lives and breathes vague, ambiguous definitions and claims. WHAT is the benefit? WHAT does organic mean? What is the threat from synthetic? For some reason, this stuff is never quantified, its just left in misty, ambiguous terms that dont mean anything.
Even if pesticide residue doesn't cause cancer, you can't convince me that it's not bad for me
As noted in one of the differences, sometimes "organic" means "more likely to be contaminated with e coli, and less likely to have been sterilized by irradiation".
So while there MAY be some detriment to pesticide residue, Im darn sure that that e coli is worse for you.
"Organic compounds", If i recall from my chemistry days, are those which involve carbon bonds. Water, notably, is not an "organic" substance, nor are bones; so farmers are actually not mostly organic-- though they are indeed mostly water.
Any pithy "It's this one thing [someone] did [somewhere]" comment is highly ignorant
Well, then it fits right into a discussion on health and wellness with all the other ignorance and speculation.
Go to a non-hippie grocery store and try to find full-fat yogurt that has not been sweetened.
Its called "plain yogurt". You can find it at Giant foods, and i imagine everyone else. Stonyfield farms brand, as well as storebrand, and probably a million others. Costco also has it in greek, indian, and regular styles.
Obviously, the dropping of fat levels and the rise of HFCS look to be LIKELY causes
Thats not obvious to me, and when I bothered to research the difference between HFCS and cane sugar, it actually became highly doubtful (hint, theyre chemically 90% the same, and its a wash whether the HFCS you consume in a particular product is better or worse for you).
It seems far more likely to me that this tendency to try to find "silver bullets" to fix your diet is the cause-- "eliminate carbs, and you can eat all the sugar you want"; "eliminate gluten and you can eat all the junkfood you want"; "eliminate HFCS and you can eat all the sugar you want". That, and gross quantity consumed, as well as generally not really caring about one's diet.
So your response to the challenge "synthetic isnt worse for you" is "speculate, speculate, speculate, FUD".
Why not actually post some sources? Here, Ill do it for you.
But there are considerable profits to be made in making the food as cheaply as possible.
And clearly organic farmers are immune to this, right? I guess the difference is that when a non-organic farmer contaminates his produce, he can fall back on irradiation to sterilize his produce, while the organic farmer cannot. Still feeling good about organic?
That's because nobody would ever say anything so ridiculous, since it's false. Processed and manufactured food bears almost no relationship at all to natural organic
Organic is a word that doesnt even have a scientifically defined meaning (unless we're talking organic chemistry, which, guess what, organic farmers are not). Its a stupid buzzword defined arbitrarily by legislation based on some stupid assumption that a naturally derived chemical is different than a synthetically derived one. Sometimes that may be true (the synthetic may have byproducts in it). Sometimes its false and just raises prices (rainwater is probably not healthier than water produced in a lab by burning hydrogen).
Read up here.
Let me summarize the differences:
Nutrition--
A 2012 survey of the scientific literature did not find significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products, and found that results varied from study to study.
Contamination--
while literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products.
...
Only three studies reported the prevalence of contamination exceeding maximum allowed limits; all were from the European Union.[6] The American Cancer Society has stated that no evidence exist that pesticide residue will lead to any form of cancer.
Bacteria--
The 2012 meta-analysis determined that prevalence of E. coli contamination was not statistically significant (7% in organic produce and 6% in conventional produce). Four of the five studies found higher risk for contamination among organic produce.
Can it be? Theres actually no real science behind "organic is healthier" other than perception bias? Wow, what a shocker.
These are all animals that eat foods made in large scale commercial operations and poured out of a tin or cardboard box.
Do you work in a lab or otherwise have access to data on what these lab animals are fed?
Because otherwise perhaps you shouldnt speculate wildly and then pretend its fact.
Really. So you think it is chemically the same as glucose?
No, but cane sugar isnt glucose; its a disaccharide composed of a glucose linked to a fructose, ie roughly 50% of each.
Guess what the most common forumations of HFCS are?
55 fructose - 42 glucose
42 fructose - 53 glucose
Oh look, one of those has a higher glucose:fructose ratio than "healthy" sucrose.
Its been said a million times: HFCS is a bogeyman. Sometimes, in some situations, it can be less healthy, but the problem is one of quantity consumed, not what particular type of sugar youre eating. I would suggest that one of the causes of obesity is these stupid food fads that promise that X is the miracle cure to weight, and you can do whatever you want as long as you eliminate X. Guess what, cutting off HFCS does you no good if you replace it with cane sugar or lard or tons of carbs or...
You've never been to any boardwalk that has seagulls and lots of children, have you? Kids will always run at the seagulls, but a lot of the time the gulls wont do more than just hop away because they know theres no real danger.
It sounds like you havent really seen many gees, either-- they can become so unafraid of humans that theyll charge bicycles and cars, knowing that the vehicle will inevitably give way before them.
Amazon and a number of other online stores are getting really good at prompting impulse buys based on their profile of you.
Theres fewer and fewer reasons to do actual stores every day.
I was referring not just to per-capita, but also gross, and median income. Looking at just one measure like per-capita can skew things in favor of small countries with natural resources (like Qatar).