"They are dangerous with high amounts of crime. " not really.
"They discourage innovation"
false. More innovation happen becasue there is more communication.
" little room for building things" depends on the city. Cities created to support manufacturing usually have a lot of ware housing, and older building; both of which are perfect for start ups.
" They have nosy neighbors who try to mandate what you can do in your own home." when the byproduct of what you do leaves your walls, then they have every right to do that, and visa versa. There are also nosy neighbors in the suburbs.
I'm no against suburbs. In fact, I love the suburbs, and hate living in cities.
The problem is not waste, it's distribution. Even with the current level of waste, everyone could eat 3 meals and snacks, everyday. Getting it to people is a lot harder.
If we ended all food waste right now, there would not be 1 less person going hungry. Hell, we can't even get food to people going hungry in the US without a political shit storm happening from people who think it's the same thing as communism.
"Another hint: your windows are made of sand, so are the chips in your computer, so are solar panels, the glasses of your glasses..." no, they aren't. You might want to look it up.
The CO2 being produced through breathing is a net neutral. Plants are carbon neutral. They have been since the carboniferous era. CO2 from using power will be the issue, unless we start a aggressive plan to stop using CO2 emitting technology for power. By aggressive, I mean 75 years.
A) EMP impact on vehicles is highy over rated. In testing the worse case was some erroneous dash lights. Which went away after restarting the car. B) When you're the only one on the road, you will be trivial to watch and find. C) You should probably learn about cars.
" Your body absorbs until it has what it needs" yes.. but what it has evolved to need, and what it actually needs in a modern society are no longer the same thing. Not a lot of famine in the US, for example.
" Non-sugar Carbs, via calories, are why we are fat" problem solved, thank/. poster!
Protip: It's more complicated than that.
"The idea fat people are hooked on sweets is BS." no, it isn't. IN fact sugar can trigger a Dopamine release. In some people as much as some recreational drugs do.
So people can be hooked on sweets.
"They are hooked on higher-calorie, denser-calorie fatty foods." that can ALSO be true.
"I just read an asinine study the other day that incorrectly associated sweeter foods with. higher calorie intake" that can very well be true. I don't know what study you are talking about, so I don't know the specific item they where talking about.
" But the more significant concern is that HFCS laden foods and drinks cause one to crave more since the HFCS interferes with the "I've had enough" mechanisms that normally govern food/drink intake. " False
"And another concern that bears repeating is that HFCS puts an increased burden on the liver and the blood glucose homeostatic mechanisms that are adapted to handling normal table sugars."
Nope.
" my personal concern is that HFCS on the label is a marker I can use to avoid foods and drinks that predispose me to exercise induced asthma problems." Does it? or is it a bias?
That study has be taken apart many, many times. Rats genetically engineered for something, show the thing they were genetically engineered to show. Must be the test.
Bad controls, be methodology, bad samples. Perhaps you should get a more scientific perspective?
Slashdot Mirror
your post begs the question.
You are assuming there is a why. It just was is a perfectly good answer. Why implies a separate reasoning and intent.
The big bang is how the universe we know was created.
It's not really extraordinary, but here you go:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.g...
parts of the world relate to each other? who would have thought?
"They are dangerous with high amounts of crime. "
not really.
"They discourage innovation"
false.
More innovation happen becasue there is more communication.
" little room for building things"
depends on the city. Cities created to support manufacturing usually have a lot of ware housing, and older building; both of which are perfect for start ups.
" They have nosy neighbors who try to mandate what you can do in your own home."
when the byproduct of what you do leaves your walls, then they have every right to do that, and visa versa.
There are also nosy neighbors in the suburbs.
I'm no against suburbs. In fact, I love the suburbs, and hate living in cities.
The problem is not waste, it's distribution. Even with the current level of waste, everyone could eat 3 meals and snacks, everyday.
Getting it to people is a lot harder.
If we ended all food waste right now, there would not be 1 less person going hungry.
Hell, we can't even get food to people going hungry in the US without a political shit storm happening from people who think it's the same thing as communism.
An untested theory, with almost most no supported tech even discussed is not ' Figured out'.
"Another hint: your windows are made of sand, so are the chips in your computer, so are solar panels, the glasses of your glasses ..."
no, they aren't. You might want to look it up.
The Sahara isn't a desert because of sand.
"(and the water being overexploited)
There is no such thing."
Yes, there is. Using more water at a rate then aquifers can be refilled is one example.
" that would make much more of Canada hospitable"
briefly.
It's not like the warming will stop just because Canada is more habitable
The CO2 being produced through breathing is a net neutral.
Plants are carbon neutral. They have been since the carboniferous era.
CO2 from using power will be the issue, unless we start a aggressive plan to stop using CO2 emitting technology for power.
By aggressive, I mean 75 years.
we need global encouragement for people to not have more than 2 children. I nice slow draw down to 3 billion over many decades.
Well then, don't drive on public roads.
The internet of things will make my life better. It will make everyones life better.
The data will allow you to improve everything you do.
Its not the tech, it's the usage.
A) EMP impact on vehicles is highy over rated. In testing the worse case was some erroneous dash lights. Which went away after restarting the car.
B) When you're the only one on the road, you will be trivial to watch and find.
C) You should probably learn about cars.
You see those cameras on the freeway? yeah. Anyone you hang out with got a smart phone? Use plastic anywhere?
Instead of railing against the inevitable, spend that time and energy for protection on what, when, who, why, where and how it can be used?
I want a spy car, but that's probably not what you meant. :)
" (hint: public-key encryption)"
hint: won't work in any practical manner.
FEAR the technology! Its' gunna getcha! It might invade ten privacy you don't actually have on public roads!
" Your body absorbs until it has what it needs"
yes.. but what it has evolved to need, and what it actually needs in a modern society are no longer the same thing.
Not a lot of famine in the US, for example.
" Non-sugar Carbs, via calories, are why we are fat" /. poster!
problem solved, thank
Protip: It's more complicated than that.
"The idea fat people are hooked on sweets is BS."
no, it isn't. IN fact sugar can trigger a Dopamine release. In some people as much as some recreational drugs do.
So people can be hooked on sweets.
"They are hooked on higher-calorie, denser-calorie fatty foods."
that can ALSO be true.
"I just read an asinine study the other day that incorrectly associated sweeter foods with. higher calorie intake"
that can very well be true. I don't know what study you are talking about, so I don't know the specific item they where talking about.
You can't gain more weight then calories and water.
You started paying attention to what you eat and limited intake, and exercised.
" So you eat more of it."
stop putting it in your mouth. Problem solved.
Citation?
Are you sure? the only info I can find comes from one woman making a claim. and most of that article was paywalled.
It smells of typical soda conspiracy nonsense.
References I found all link to here:
http://www.boston.com/news/loc...
Its becasue it's nonsense, and you are trolling.
" But the more significant concern is that HFCS laden foods and drinks cause one to crave more since the HFCS interferes with the "I've had enough" mechanisms that normally govern food/drink intake. "
False
"And another concern that bears repeating is that HFCS puts an increased burden on the liver and the blood glucose homeostatic mechanisms that are adapted to handling normal table sugars."
Nope.
" my personal concern is that HFCS on the label is a marker I can use to avoid foods and drinks that predispose me to exercise induced asthma problems."
Does it? or is it a bias?
Pop quiz, hot shot?
Why do those subsidies exist? what did they replace?
You don't know, do you?
That study has be taken apart many, many times.
Rats genetically engineered for something, show the thing they were genetically engineered to show. Must be the test.
Bad controls, be methodology, bad samples. Perhaps you should get a more scientific perspective?