Sure, humans seek out sweet stuff, but in nature refined sweet stuff is/used to be pretty hard to come by. Sure, fruit has always been around, but it has been selectively bred to be much sweeter than it was in nature.
You're right, our bodies are designed to process them effectively. Very effectively, into energy. This is the problem when you have a lot of it in refined forms, whether it's chips, sugar or white rice; even high carbohydrate forms of naturally occurring vegetables, such as potatoes. Your body processes it so quickly that - if you have more than you can use, which in our society is most of the time - it doesn't know what to do with all the energy, since we generally don't get much exercise, and - unless you have a fast metabolism - converts it into fat. Even if you do have a fast metabolism and don't get fat, it doesn't mean you're safe from developing diabetes.
Fat does not confuse the digestive tract. It's been present in our diets for hundreds of thousands of years. Sugar and other refined carbs, not so much.
This is a classic example of folks getting offended about the idea of people getting offended.
Native Americans used to be called 'Indians' and now are beginning to be referred to a 'First Nations'. 'Indians' is a word that seems to be socially unacceptable now, but it's got nothing to do with the word being in any way derogatory. Indians (from India) are still called 'Indian'. (Interestingly enough, 'Indians', i.e. folks from India, experience a remarkable amount of discrimination - due to the caste system - in their country that has nothing to do with race.) 'Native American' is just a different term to refer to 'Indians', but either of these terms aren't inherently discriminatory. They just have baggage.
According to Steven Pinker (a Harvard College Professor), the politically correct terms for black-skinned Americans started out as whatever it started out as, but eventually landed up being 'Negro', then 'black', then 'African American'. Okay. Well, the politically correct term for 'slum' was proceeded by 'ghetto', then by 'inner city' then again by 'slum'. Which are correct? I think there is no such thing. Which are offensive? Well, that depends on who hears it.
I used to get offended when people called me skinny.
My sister was born in the US, but only a few years after moved to South Africa (with the rest of us). Technically she's an American who grew up in Africa... If she refers to herself as an American African or an African American in Africa people nod and carry on. She would never dream of referring to herself as 'African American' in the US because people are (irrationally, IMO) sensitive to this term.
In Africa, people are explicitly referred to as either black, white, coloured (partially white/black), Chinese or Indian. No one cares or thinks twice about it. That's just how it is/they are.
Some African Americans refer to each other affectionately as 'nigger', as in " 'sup nigger!', etc. Is this wrong? Well, no. Anyway, who cares since it's not coming from folks who can be held accountable for racism since they're black (oops!) anyway.
I don't think the problem lies with the terminology - unless, of course, it's clearly intended to be insulting. If it is, it's usually not difficult to tell.
It's interesting that, in South Africa, whites are blatantly the minority - 7 million out of a population of 53 million. They don't go around fussing about the use of the word 'minority' to refer to them as if it's an insult. This is because that's exactly what they are. It accurately describes their demographic. Using the same term to refer to African Americans & folks of Mexican or Native American origin is a blatant no-no.
How terminology is perceived is up to individuals. It's understandable that people do get offended by words, but that doesn't make their reaction right or the folks who used the word(s) racist or evil. And legislating supporting these kinds of reactions just seems ridiculous.
Of course, racism is unacceptable. So is classism, sexism and all sorts of other ism's. But the issue of individuals' interpretations of how they personally relate to specific terminology is a personal matter. Although these perspectives are certainly valid and understandable, it makes no sense that they are considered 'right' or are legally upheld.
you've got to be kidding - you don't know of any useful apps? let me name one or two:
- iPhone improvers - like a better dialler or iBlacklist (jailbroken phones only)
- Cisco's Webex app
- instant babysitter: movies, games - some brilliant (stardefense, galaxy on fire, powerboat, crayon physics deluxe), others crap (...)
- iRdesktop
- chat (skype, fring, soon trillian astra
- tom tom for iphone (http://iphone.tomtom.com/)
- amazon kindle or countless other games for whiling away the time in the john (if that isn't useful then what is?)
My two (.5) and four year old love my Nintendo DS. Obviously they can't play anything fancy, but there are games available that suit their ages and they can't get enough (it's been 2 weeks now). They play Smart Kids and Go, Diego, Go!.
The more obvious choice for this age group would be a Leap Frog Leapster2, which apparently has a lot of parents impressed. I'm a fan of Leap Frog's animation DVD's and their books also, but I tried out the Leapster2 and decided to return it after using it for only 15 minutes. The handheld is quite sturdy, but the screen resolution is shite and the buttons are quite heavy - even my thumbs got tired very quickly. (the web part of the 'deal' for parents to track kids' progress was also buggy and not intuitive).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, humans seek out sweet stuff, but in nature refined sweet stuff is/used to be pretty hard to come by. Sure, fruit has always been around, but it has been selectively bred to be much sweeter than it was in nature.
You're right, our bodies are designed to process them effectively. Very effectively, into energy. This is the problem when you have a lot of it in refined forms, whether it's chips, sugar or white rice; even high carbohydrate forms of naturally occurring vegetables, such as potatoes. Your body processes it so quickly that - if you have more than you can use, which in our society is most of the time - it doesn't know what to do with all the energy, since we generally don't get much exercise, and - unless you have a fast metabolism - converts it into fat. Even if you do have a fast metabolism and don't get fat, it doesn't mean you're safe from developing diabetes.
Fat does not confuse the digestive tract. It's been present in our diets for hundreds of thousands of years. Sugar and other refined carbs, not so much.
This is a classic example of folks getting offended about the idea of people getting offended. Native Americans used to be called 'Indians' and now are beginning to be referred to a 'First Nations'. 'Indians' is a word that seems to be socially unacceptable now, but it's got nothing to do with the word being in any way derogatory. Indians (from India) are still called 'Indian'. (Interestingly enough, 'Indians', i.e. folks from India, experience a remarkable amount of discrimination - due to the caste system - in their country that has nothing to do with race.) 'Native American' is just a different term to refer to 'Indians', but either of these terms aren't inherently discriminatory. They just have baggage. According to Steven Pinker (a Harvard College Professor), the politically correct terms for black-skinned Americans started out as whatever it started out as, but eventually landed up being 'Negro', then 'black', then 'African American'. Okay. Well, the politically correct term for 'slum' was proceeded by 'ghetto', then by 'inner city' then again by 'slum'. Which are correct? I think there is no such thing. Which are offensive? Well, that depends on who hears it.
I used to get offended when people called me skinny.
My sister was born in the US, but only a few years after moved to South Africa (with the rest of us). Technically she's an American who grew up in Africa... If she refers to herself as an American African or an African American in Africa people nod and carry on. She would never dream of referring to herself as 'African American' in the US because people are (irrationally, IMO) sensitive to this term.
In Africa, people are explicitly referred to as either black, white, coloured (partially white/black), Chinese or Indian. No one cares or thinks twice about it. That's just how it is/they are.
Some African Americans refer to each other affectionately as 'nigger', as in " 'sup nigger!', etc. Is this wrong? Well, no. Anyway, who cares since it's not coming from folks who can be held accountable for racism since they're black (oops!) anyway.
I don't think the problem lies with the terminology - unless, of course, it's clearly intended to be insulting. If it is, it's usually not difficult to tell.
It's interesting that, in South Africa, whites are blatantly the minority - 7 million out of a population of 53 million. They don't go around fussing about the use of the word 'minority' to refer to them as if it's an insult. This is because that's exactly what they are. It accurately describes their demographic. Using the same term to refer to African Americans & folks of Mexican or Native American origin is a blatant no-no.
How terminology is perceived is up to individuals. It's understandable that people do get offended by words, but that doesn't make their reaction right or the folks who used the word(s) racist or evil. And legislating supporting these kinds of reactions just seems ridiculous.
Of course, racism is unacceptable. So is classism, sexism and all sorts of other ism's. But the issue of individuals' interpretations of how they personally relate to specific terminology is a personal matter. Although these perspectives are certainly valid and understandable, it makes no sense that they are considered 'right' or are legally upheld.
genuinely useful - er... say what now?
you've got to be kidding - you don't know of any useful apps? let me name one or two:
- iPhone improvers - like a better dialler or iBlacklist (jailbroken phones only)
- Cisco's Webex app
- instant babysitter: movies, games - some brilliant (stardefense, galaxy on fire, powerboat, crayon physics deluxe), others crap (...)
- iRdesktop
- chat (skype, fring, soon trillian astra - tom tom for iphone (http://iphone.tomtom.com/)
- amazon kindle or countless other games for whiling away the time in the john (if that isn't useful then what is?)
okay, that's more than two.
jeebers bro, what are you smoking?
My two (.5) and four year old love my Nintendo DS. Obviously they can't play anything fancy, but there are games available that suit their ages and they can't get enough (it's been 2 weeks now). They play Smart Kids and Go, Diego, Go!. The more obvious choice for this age group would be a Leap Frog Leapster2, which apparently has a lot of parents impressed. I'm a fan of Leap Frog's animation DVD's and their books also, but I tried out the Leapster2 and decided to return it after using it for only 15 minutes. The handheld is quite sturdy, but the screen resolution is shite and the buttons are quite heavy - even my thumbs got tired very quickly. (the web part of the 'deal' for parents to track kids' progress was also buggy and not intuitive).
You sound like a smart guy. Why don't you vote?