Cane sugar is sucrose, which is basically a glucose molecule connected to a fructose molecule.
High fructose corn syrup is a 54-42 mix of fructose and, you guessed it, glucose.
They are basically the same, except that the two molecules are not connected in a gigantic sucrose molecule and the ratios are slightly different. Sucrose when metabolized becomes sucrose and fructose, so youre getting the same chemicals in the end regardless. To quote wikipedia,
Sucrose is broken down during digestion into a mixture of 50% fructose and 50% glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase.
Its telling that when you look at the wikipedia article on HFCS health effects, all of the anti-HFCS studies focus on "does HFCS cause more obesity than no increased sugar intake at all", while all refuting studies investigate "is HFCS significantly different than sucrose regarding health". There was one study that showed that pure fructose IS a greater problem (because fructose doesnt cap insulin response the same way glucose does), but then the discussion was never ON pure fructose-- it has always been on HFCS which is most commonly 55/42 mix.
The amount of fearmongering, FUD, and hysteria around HFCS is hilarious (or alternately sad, if you are pining for more rational discussion). People dont want to accept that you cant drink 3 cans of soda a day (roughly 1/3 lbs of sugar!) and not become obese; they want to make a scapegoat out of HFCS, never mind that the same amount of sucrose would do just as much damage and taste pretty much the same (though they DO taste very slightly different, I believe).
Oxygen isnt on the Prop 65 list (google "prop 65 oxygen" and look at the first 10 results). The issue is probably that its not medical-grade oxygen, but fuel oxygen (for welding or whatever), and contains oil etc particulates that CAN be a problem if you used it for, say, a medical procedure.
Just a tip, you wouldnt want to fill up a canister with a shop air compressor and breathe that air while scuba for that (and other) reasons. Ditto with non-food-grade nitrous oxide, or the water used at construction sites-- you really dont want to consume that stuff.
I had always understood that caramel coloring (what is supposedly being discussed here) was basically one of a very few additives that does not need to appear in ingredient lists (by FDA standards) because it is completely harmless.
Whats happening is that Coke and Pepsi dont want "cancer" associated with their product; it has nothing to do with increased safety, and everything to do with a ridiculous law increasing operating costs for no good reason.
My 2003 honda does not have automatic anything. Running lights must be switched on manually (which Im not sure Ive ever done-- if its raining its full headlights for me), as must the headlights.
There are still Jews alive who had to live through the holocaust. I dont think its fair for them to blame the current German administration for their suffering, however, nor would it be remotely relevant to a discussion of German law today.
When we try to detain someone taking up arms against the US who happens to be a citizen, its a major headline. When we try to hold enemy combatants-- non-citizens-- in a military compound, the president pushes for them to get full citizen rights to a trial-by-jury (despite the military nature of their offense).
Contrast with China. You can complain all you want, you arent getting rights of Habeas Corpus or even a trial if the government doesnt want it. Youre going straight to re-education-by-labor until such time as they decide to release you for a day (only to pick you up again-- this is to comply with their own laws, you see).
That's more than 30 years ago. I wasnt aware we were discussing what countries were like in the past-- is it also fair game to go after Japanese and Germans for the state of their countries 70 years ago? What about the French 200 years ago?
Surely there is a line which separates the "current policy" from the "historical policy".
Maybe the problem is that touch screens are absolutely terrible in situations where you cant devote your whole attention to them. I can adjust basically everything in my '03 car without taking my eyes off of the road because of this fancy feature called "tactile feedback" which comes standard with all the knobs in my var.
Try doing that with your fancy touch screen. Bonus points if its anywhere near as responsive as the knobs.
Um, we dont have a forced sterilization program here. We also dont have the government declaring that you may not have more than 1 child, lest you be fined (or worse).
and for numerous actions that are against the Geneva convention such as the torture of political prisoners and secret courts where people are indefinately detained or even executed.
And obviously China does none of this. Are you aware how many human rights issues there are in China?
Lets give you some perspective. If you were a chinese citizen and became a Christian, you could be arrested if you talked to anyone about it outside of a state church. If your friends tweeted about your arrest, they would likely be detained. If any of their friends protested.... well, I think those are the times China starts making headlines.
As for secret courts, well, perhaps you should do some research on amnesty international's page on China. For bonus points compare it to the US's page.
So don't give me that shit about how I need more training, you condescending jerk.
Certainly you do when you assert that courts dole out justice more regularly in China than the US. I think youd find that copyright etc laws are used far more as a political weapon there than here.
Corporations have put up as many CCTV cameras in US urban centres as London and there is no oversight on them what so ever.
Baloney. Being the paranoid security guy I am, I watch for cameras, and there basically arent any except the token traffic camera on public property. Once you enter a bank or office building, yea, thats called private property and you will find cameras all over the place. But thats way different than being in a public thoroughfare.
So basically I can call you a paedophile, terrorist-loving, gay Nazi and you cant do jack about it (because you're a paedophile, terrorist-loving, gay Nazi).
I am not a lawyer, but I think it would depend on whether it was intended as opinion or fact. There are libel laws to consider, but its nowhere near as onerous as in the UK for example.
Your example above makes specific factual accusations (primarily paedophile) which MIGHT cause you problems-- but I dont believe anyone could press charges unless you wrote a NY times article honestly asserting that i was a homosexual paedophile Nazi, with sources etc. THAT would probably be actionable, since it would be hard to claim that it was "opinion".
Don't mistake lack of rules for freedom. Freedom is more about responsibility for yourself, less about being able to do whatever the fuck you want (that's anarchy).
We do have rules, we just have a concept called the "chilling effect" that we try to consider.
Have you tried just typing the program's name (its actual name)? Start menu indexes Program Files as well as several other places, so its pretty good about finding what you want.
Only snag is if you have indexed.cmd files, and want to open the command prompt-- youll then need to type "command".
Ditto here in the US. I could in about 5 minutes give you a list of at least 10 shelters within a few miles of the US capitol.
The problem is that homelessness isnt a simple problem of "spend X dollars to end Y instances of homelessness". Its a log curve, with vastly diminishing returns.
The US could do it too, and the problem isn't money. The problem is that such a move by the government would be politcally unacceptable. Charities helping is fine for some reason, but not making it an actual right that the government must uphold.
Several points: A) There is no shortage of shelters (at least in the DC area, where I live). It is unfortunate, but there are people on the streets who either choose to be there (rather than in a shelter), or are unable to choose otherwise (mental illness, drugs, etc). Its not an issue you can just throw money at and fix
B) When the government gets involved and gives grants and budgets to do things, accountability can become a huge problem. SInce the money is basically free (provided the right hoops are jumped through), it tends to be much less efficient and have higher administrative costs than a non-profit operating on charity.
C) Quite frankly, it IS unacceptable, because its not the government's job, and it can be terribly counterproductive to have guarenteed safety nets. If you know you can take stupid risks and the government will have your back with a rent check, what incentive is there to live responsibly? You think handing out food stamps by and large encourages people to be responsible with their money?
Im not saying that some government programs cant be good. But part of "freedom" means the freedom to make your own decisions (stupid or not), and to deal with the consequences. Take away the consequences, and you take away any reason NOT to make stupid decisions; mandate that people cant make those decisions and youve mandated the removal of freedom.
This hyperbole is obnoxious. You may be able to find a few rare examples of tiny countries with higher marks in all of those areas, but most of Europe isnt going to fit in, nor is Africa, nor most of South America, nor most of Asia, nor Australia.
For all the issues the US has, we dont have: Global, enforced, government run internet filters (vs Australia) CCTV all throughout NYC, DC, or LA (vs London) A lack of non-government controlled media (Africa, Italy, im sure many others)
And free press? We are in a country where you can write basically anything about basically anyone, label it an opinion piece, and noone can do jack about it.
It occurs to me that perhaps the people thinking we live in 1984 in this country should spend a year in countries where there really ARE those endemic issues, and then get back to us. Go spend a year in China, do some protesting, then tell us we dont live in a remarkably free country.
Not bombing Iraq and Afghanistan would save the US a lot of money (effectively lowering your immense deficits)
I (and apparently, 519 of the 535 members of the 2001 congress) think the US was perfectly justified in going after Afghanistan; when one is attacked within their own borders a retaliation is generally recognized as being legitimate.
Not having military operations all over the world would possibly even have prevented many terrorist attacks to happen in the first place, due to less bad blood about US activities.
So 9/11 was OUR fault? Is this like that whole "blame the rape victim" thing, where its OUR fault for being such a tempting target?
Leave that meddling to the UN, it's what that organisation was set up for to begin with.
Wasnt the UN having problems actually doing inspections in Iraq? Isnt that how we ended up over there to begin with?
And IIRC the UN wanted us in Libya (although ironically it did NOT get explicit approval from congress, which Obama supposedly thought was required for any military activity).
Im going to assume you're a Ron Paul supporter; and to some degree I sympathize with his views. But Im not convinced that the world is so simple that we can just say "we're going back to pre-WW2 isolationism, yall figure it out for yourselves." Imagine if Japan hadnt attacked us, and we had stuck to our isolationism; you dont think there might have been hard feelings about the US standing by and watching Europe go to pot? Sometimes it is necessary to intervene, though of course not always.
Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold,
There are several assumptions (mostly incorrect) in your post: A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold" B) that there are a large number of people in this country dying of exposure (the number is astonishingly low) C) That those who DO die of exposure could have been saved with more money D) that if the government doesnt become a charity, then it is responsible for their deaths
You may want to reexamine these assumptions. B especially you may want to research.
But.,.... it would be the man who was unable to tell the difference.... Maybe its that GP cant understand the difference between a joke and a hole in the ground?
Because I am suspicious enough of everything that ends up on slashdot that I wouldnt have been surprised if they werent actually cops, or it werent actually teargas, or anything else.
The number of blatantly false statements, headlines, summaries, etc have all made me deeply skeptical about ANYTHING i see on this site.
Slashdot Mirror
Cane sugar is sucrose, which is basically a glucose molecule connected to a fructose molecule.
High fructose corn syrup is a 54-42 mix of fructose and, you guessed it, glucose.
They are basically the same, except that the two molecules are not connected in a gigantic sucrose molecule and the ratios are slightly different. Sucrose when metabolized becomes sucrose and fructose, so youre getting the same chemicals in the end regardless. To quote wikipedia,
Sucrose is broken down during digestion into a mixture of 50% fructose and 50% glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase.
Its telling that when you look at the wikipedia article on HFCS health effects, all of the anti-HFCS studies focus on "does HFCS cause more obesity than no increased sugar intake at all", while all refuting studies investigate "is HFCS significantly different than sucrose regarding health". There was one study that showed that pure fructose IS a greater problem (because fructose doesnt cap insulin response the same way glucose does), but then the discussion was never ON pure fructose-- it has always been on HFCS which is most commonly 55/42 mix.
The amount of fearmongering, FUD, and hysteria around HFCS is hilarious (or alternately sad, if you are pining for more rational discussion). People dont want to accept that you cant drink 3 cans of soda a day (roughly 1/3 lbs of sugar!) and not become obese; they want to make a scapegoat out of HFCS, never mind that the same amount of sucrose would do just as much damage and taste pretty much the same (though they DO taste very slightly different, I believe).
Oxygen isnt on the Prop 65 list (google "prop 65 oxygen" and look at the first 10 results). The issue is probably that its not medical-grade oxygen, but fuel oxygen (for welding or whatever), and contains oil etc particulates that CAN be a problem if you used it for, say, a medical procedure.
Just a tip, you wouldnt want to fill up a canister with a shop air compressor and breathe that air while scuba for that (and other) reasons. Ditto with non-food-grade nitrous oxide, or the water used at construction sites-- you really dont want to consume that stuff.
I had always understood that caramel coloring (what is supposedly being discussed here) was basically one of a very few additives that does not need to appear in ingredient lists (by FDA standards) because it is completely harmless.
Whats happening is that Coke and Pepsi dont want "cancer" associated with their product; it has nothing to do with increased safety, and everything to do with a ridiculous law increasing operating costs for no good reason.
My 2003 honda does not have automatic anything. Running lights must be switched on manually (which Im not sure Ive ever done-- if its raining its full headlights for me), as must the headlights.
There are still Jews alive who had to live through the holocaust. I dont think its fair for them to blame the current German administration for their suffering, however, nor would it be remotely relevant to a discussion of German law today.
When we try to detain someone taking up arms against the US who happens to be a citizen, its a major headline. When we try to hold enemy combatants-- non-citizens-- in a military compound, the president pushes for them to get full citizen rights to a trial-by-jury (despite the military nature of their offense).
Contrast with China. You can complain all you want, you arent getting rights of Habeas Corpus or even a trial if the government doesnt want it. Youre going straight to re-education-by-labor until such time as they decide to release you for a day (only to pick you up again-- this is to comply with their own laws, you see).
That's more than 30 years ago. I wasnt aware we were discussing what countries were like in the past-- is it also fair game to go after Japanese and Germans for the state of their countries 70 years ago? What about the French 200 years ago?
Surely there is a line which separates the "current policy" from the "historical policy".
they deliberately created the situation in which a tsunami would cause a meltdown, and did so with government oversight.
Is this like a plot from James bond or something? Youre saying businesses WANTED a meltdown and the issues that come with it?
Maybe the problem is that touch screens are absolutely terrible in situations where you cant devote your whole attention to them. I can adjust basically everything in my '03 car without taking my eyes off of the road because of this fancy feature called "tactile feedback" which comes standard with all the knobs in my var.
Try doing that with your fancy touch screen. Bonus points if its anywhere near as responsive as the knobs.
Um, we dont have a forced sterilization program here. We also dont have the government declaring that you may not have more than 1 child, lest you be fined (or worse).
and for numerous actions that are against the Geneva convention such as the torture of political prisoners and secret courts where people are indefinately detained or even executed.
And obviously China does none of this. Are you aware how many human rights issues there are in China?
Lets give you some perspective. If you were a chinese citizen and became a Christian, you could be arrested if you talked to anyone about it outside of a state church. If your friends tweeted about your arrest, they would likely be detained. If any of their friends protested.... well, I think those are the times China starts making headlines.
As for secret courts, well, perhaps you should do some research on amnesty international's page on China. For bonus points compare it to the US's page.
So don't give me that shit about how I need more training, you condescending jerk.
Certainly you do when you assert that courts dole out justice more regularly in China than the US. I think youd find that copyright etc laws are used far more as a political weapon there than here.
Would that be the advanced society where Nobel Laureat Liu Xiaobo is still detained without charges, and his wife remains under house arrest?
Or where you can be held for 2 years, legally, with no charges filed?
Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
Corporations have put up as many CCTV cameras in US urban centres as London and there is no oversight on them what so ever.
Baloney. Being the paranoid security guy I am, I watch for cameras, and there basically arent any except the token traffic camera on public property. Once you enter a bank or office building, yea, thats called private property and you will find cameras all over the place. But thats way different than being in a public thoroughfare.
So basically I can call you a paedophile, terrorist-loving, gay Nazi and you cant do jack about it (because you're a paedophile, terrorist-loving, gay Nazi).
I am not a lawyer, but I think it would depend on whether it was intended as opinion or fact. There are libel laws to consider, but its nowhere near as onerous as in the UK for example.
Your example above makes specific factual accusations (primarily paedophile) which MIGHT cause you problems-- but I dont believe anyone could press charges unless you wrote a NY times article honestly asserting that i was a homosexual paedophile Nazi, with sources etc. THAT would probably be actionable, since it would be hard to claim that it was "opinion".
Don't mistake lack of rules for freedom. Freedom is more about responsibility for yourself, less about being able to do whatever the fuck you want (that's anarchy).
We do have rules, we just have a concept called the "chilling effect" that we try to consider.
Have you tried just typing the program's name (its actual name)? Start menu indexes Program Files as well as several other places, so its pretty good about finding what you want.
Only snag is if you have indexed .cmd files, and want to open the command prompt-- youll then need to type "command".
The stupid part is, there is a place for them all to go in Germany.
Why do people assume this isnt so in the US? Has anyone bothered looking up whether there are shelters in a given area?
Ditto here in the US. I could in about 5 minutes give you a list of at least 10 shelters within a few miles of the US capitol.
The problem is that homelessness isnt a simple problem of "spend X dollars to end Y instances of homelessness". Its a log curve, with vastly diminishing returns.
The US could do it too, and the problem isn't money. The problem is that such a move by the government would be politcally unacceptable. Charities helping is fine for some reason, but not making it an actual right that the government must uphold.
Several points:
A) There is no shortage of shelters (at least in the DC area, where I live). It is unfortunate, but there are people on the streets who either choose to be there (rather than in a shelter), or are unable to choose otherwise (mental illness, drugs, etc). Its not an issue you can just throw money at and fix
B) When the government gets involved and gives grants and budgets to do things, accountability can become a huge problem. SInce the money is basically free (provided the right hoops are jumped through), it tends to be much less efficient and have higher administrative costs than a non-profit operating on charity.
C) Quite frankly, it IS unacceptable, because its not the government's job, and it can be terribly counterproductive to have guarenteed safety nets. If you know you can take stupid risks and the government will have your back with a rent check, what incentive is there to live responsibly? You think handing out food stamps by and large encourages people to be responsible with their money?
Im not saying that some government programs cant be good. But part of "freedom" means the freedom to make your own decisions (stupid or not), and to deal with the consequences. Take away the consequences, and you take away any reason NOT to make stupid decisions; mandate that people cant make those decisions and youve mandated the removal of freedom.
Who would qualify, do tell? South America? Africa? Asia?
This hyperbole is obnoxious. You may be able to find a few rare examples of tiny countries with higher marks in all of those areas, but most of Europe isnt going to fit in, nor is Africa, nor most of South America, nor most of Asia, nor Australia.
For all the issues the US has, we dont have:
Global, enforced, government run internet filters (vs Australia)
CCTV all throughout NYC, DC, or LA (vs London)
A lack of non-government controlled media (Africa, Italy, im sure many others)
And free press? We are in a country where you can write basically anything about basically anyone, label it an opinion piece, and noone can do jack about it.
It occurs to me that perhaps the people thinking we live in 1984 in this country should spend a year in countries where there really ARE those endemic issues, and then get back to us. Go spend a year in China, do some protesting, then tell us we dont live in a remarkably free country.
Not bombing Iraq and Afghanistan would save the US a lot of money (effectively lowering your immense deficits)
I (and apparently, 519 of the 535 members of the 2001 congress) think the US was perfectly justified in going after Afghanistan; when one is attacked within their own borders a retaliation is generally recognized as being legitimate.
Not having military operations all over the world would possibly even have prevented many terrorist attacks to happen in the first place, due to less bad blood about US activities.
So 9/11 was OUR fault? Is this like that whole "blame the rape victim" thing, where its OUR fault for being such a tempting target?
Leave that meddling to the UN, it's what that organisation was set up for to begin with.
Wasnt the UN having problems actually doing inspections in Iraq? Isnt that how we ended up over there to begin with?
And IIRC the UN wanted us in Libya (although ironically it did NOT get explicit approval from congress, which Obama supposedly thought was required for any military activity).
Im going to assume you're a Ron Paul supporter; and to some degree I sympathize with his views. But Im not convinced that the world is so simple that we can just say "we're going back to pre-WW2 isolationism, yall figure it out for yourselves." Imagine if Japan hadnt attacked us, and we had stuck to our isolationism; you dont think there might have been hard feelings about the US standing by and watching Europe go to pot? Sometimes it is necessary to intervene, though of course not always.
Meanwhile, funneling mountains of money into BS like this, not to mention all the military hardware, ends up leaving more people out in the cold,
There are several assumptions (mostly incorrect) in your post:
A) that money that is spent on airport bs would otherwise be allocated to "the people out in the cold"
B) that there are a large number of people in this country dying of exposure (the number is astonishingly low)
C) That those who DO die of exposure could have been saved with more money
D) that if the government doesnt become a charity, then it is responsible for their deaths
You may want to reexamine these assumptions. B especially you may want to research.
But.,.... it would be the man who was unable to tell the difference....
Maybe its that GP cant understand the difference between a joke and a hole in the ground?
The fact that WD is acquiring Hitachi and not the reverse is surely an indicator that youre exaggerating?
Last time I checked, you cant get a PC virus to run on a potato either.
....or that it was considered revolutionary when it came out, because its method of indexing was unique...
Because I am suspicious enough of everything that ends up on slashdot that I wouldnt have been surprised if they werent actually cops, or it werent actually teargas, or anything else.
The number of blatantly false statements, headlines, summaries, etc have all made me deeply skeptical about ANYTHING i see on this site.