Hey, Jesus wasn't appreciated as much in his time either. You just wait and see! In 1000 years time Right Said Fred will be recognized as the second coming of the messiah. You hear it here first!
Fair enough, perhaps I'm taking too much of a scientists view and should remember that most juries are sadly lacking in scientifically literate members.
Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?
My first question would be what has the neighbor done to protect himself from the stuff making him sick.
Okay, but let's assume that he could prove that it isn't anything in his house and isn't any of the multitude of other sources flying around. Why does he have to do something to protect himself? Isn't that a bit like me punching you in the face and blaming your for not having your guard up?
I also disagree that I should have to wear ear plugs because of your loud music. Closing a window might be reasonable, but you expect me to wear ear plugs or get a white noise generator because you are (hypothetically) a jerk?
And didn't the Netherlands just say internet access was a basic human right?
Okay, so I agree with everything you said, my point was purely about how dressing this as a "human rights" issue is a bit melodramatic when the focus should really be on how silly the whole premise is. But, to play devil's advocate again, I could argue that even if internet access is a basic human right, you could access the internet with a wired rather than wireless connection.
Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?
Also, if I was your neighbor and, according to your argument, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my house, you won't mind if I play loud rock music at 2 AM in the morning every day? I think your right to a good nights sleep in your own home should trump by right to rock out at an unsocialable hour.
"I feel as if my life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason, and it has forced me to have to defend my very basic human rights."'"
Ok, so the guy filing the suit is a moron and the suit has no technical merit at all. But really? Running a router is now a basic human right? A little melodramatic don't you think?
You can bitch and whine all you like. It doesn't change the fact that HFCS is natural according to the food labeling rules. And whether or not it's "natural" by food labeling rules or your hysterical personal definition has no baring on whether or not it's good for you.
And, FYI, Splenda is not natural and nobody ever claimed it was. Yes the Splenda adverts are deliberately vague (some might say misleading) on that point, but they do not explicitly claim that it's natural.
Right. But the point I was originally replying to was regarding food labeling. There are rules for food labeling which, while certainly not scientifically useful, nevertheless exist.
No, there are rules for food labeling. How do you tell the difference between an apple pie made with natural ingredients and one that includes artificial ingredients (maybe it's sweetened with Splenda instead of sugar)?
It's your definition of "natural" that is meaningless. Presumably you don't consider anything that's not raw as "natural"?
Well, exactly. But, for what it's worth, there are rules relating to whether or not something can be labeled as natural as HFCS usually meets those rules.
Not that natural means good or artificial means bad, but food companies know that ignorant people attach value to the "natural" label so it's a useful label to them at least.
Nothing in there invalidates the label of natural (assuming the acid wash involves a natural acid like acetic acid). Do you think making an apple pie has less steps? Does that make apple pie not natural (assuming you use natural ingredients)?
It's not tortured at all. If all the processing that is done is either physical separation (e.g. distillation) or traditional cooking methods (e.g. boiling, roasting) or uses natural processes (e.g. fermentation), then it retains its natural status. Otherwise anything that is cooked would be classed as artificial, which would make it a useless label.
If you, for example, treated it with HCl, then it would be classed as artificial.
Not, as you point out, that being natural makes any difference as to whether or not its good for you.
Sugar is a class of chemicals of which fructose, sucrose and glucose are examples. Nothing you said contradicts what I said. I didn't say anything about table sugar and neither did the OP I was replying to.
Splenda (sucralose) is not natural because it is chemical modified from sugar. Splenda have never claimed to be all-natural although their commercials are deliberately vague. HFCS is not chemically modified, it is separated from corn.
We have projectors in a couple of conference rooms. Most of the time they are broken, so we have our own projector that we lug around the building when we need it.
The real problem with moving my laptop is that I use a two monitor setup at my desk with my laptop on a dock. Taking it off the dock often makes it throw a wobbly. Putting it back on the dock almost always makes it freak out.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, Jesus wasn't appreciated as much in his time either. You just wait and see! In 1000 years time Right Said Fred will be recognized as the second coming of the messiah. You hear it here first!
I found this piece rather informative:
5 creepy ways video games are trying to get you addicted
You're both wrong. It's 2099. And to answer your question "how many time-travelers from the year 2099 are posting on Slashdot?", One. RightSaidFred99.
Fair enough, perhaps I'm taking too much of a scientists view and should remember that most juries are sadly lacking in scientifically literate members.
So, in other words, a wireless device emitting EM radiation that he claims to be sensitive to.
Finally!
Next up, flying cars, jet packs and sassy domestic house cleaning robots, like in the Jetsons. Roomba doesn't count because it isn't sassy enough.
Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?
My first question would be what has the neighbor done to protect himself from the stuff making him sick.
Okay, but let's assume that he could prove that it isn't anything in his house and isn't any of the multitude of other sources flying around. Why does he have to do something to protect himself? Isn't that a bit like me punching you in the face and blaming your for not having your guard up?
I also disagree that I should have to wear ear plugs because of your loud music. Closing a window might be reasonable, but you expect me to wear ear plugs or get a white noise generator because you are (hypothetically) a jerk?
And didn't the Netherlands just say internet access was a basic human right?
Okay, so I agree with everything you said, my point was purely about how dressing this as a "human rights" issue is a bit melodramatic when the focus should really be on how silly the whole premise is. But, to play devil's advocate again, I could argue that even if internet access is a basic human right, you could access the internet with a wired rather than wireless connection.
Well, fair enough, but to play devil's advocate for a second here, what if it was really making him sick (it isn't)? Clearly you can't claim to be able to do whatever you want within the confines of your own house if it makes the guy next door sick?
Also, if I was your neighbor and, according to your argument, I can do whatever I want within the confines of my house, you won't mind if I play loud rock music at 2 AM in the morning every day? I think your right to a good nights sleep in your own home should trump by right to rock out at an unsocialable hour.
Or even better. Ask him how he knows the wireless devices are on?
From the summary:
"I feel as if my life and liberty are under attack for no valid reason, and it has forced me to have to defend my very basic human rights."'"
Ok, so the guy filing the suit is a moron and the suit has no technical merit at all. But really? Running a router is now a basic human right? A little melodramatic don't you think?
You can bitch and whine all you like. It doesn't change the fact that HFCS is natural according to the food labeling rules. And whether or not it's "natural" by food labeling rules or your hysterical personal definition has no baring on whether or not it's good for you.
And, FYI, Splenda is not natural and nobody ever claimed it was. Yes the Splenda adverts are deliberately vague (some might say misleading) on that point, but they do not explicitly claim that it's natural.
i.e. table sugar is exactly 50% fructose.
But isn't fructose as several other posters have already pointed out.
Right. But the point I was originally replying to was regarding food labeling. There are rules for food labeling which, while certainly not scientifically useful, nevertheless exist.
No, there are rules for food labeling. How do you tell the difference between an apple pie made with natural ingredients and one that includes artificial ingredients (maybe it's sweetened with Splenda instead of sugar)?
It's your definition of "natural" that is meaningless. Presumably you don't consider anything that's not raw as "natural"?
Well, exactly. But, for what it's worth, there are rules relating to whether or not something can be labeled as natural as HFCS usually meets those rules.
Not that natural means good or artificial means bad, but food companies know that ignorant people attach value to the "natural" label so it's a useful label to them at least.
Nothing in there invalidates the label of natural (assuming the acid wash involves a natural acid like acetic acid). Do you think making an apple pie has less steps? Does that make apple pie not natural (assuming you use natural ingredients)?
Can you not read (and since we're getting nasty) asshole? Did I say anything about sucrose?
It's not tortured at all. If all the processing that is done is either physical separation (e.g. distillation) or traditional cooking methods (e.g. boiling, roasting) or uses natural processes (e.g. fermentation), then it retains its natural status. Otherwise anything that is cooked would be classed as artificial, which would make it a useless label.
If you, for example, treated it with HCl, then it would be classed as artificial.
Not, as you point out, that being natural makes any difference as to whether or not its good for you.
Well, it is. Doesn't mean it's good for you, but it is natural.
Sugar is a class of chemicals of which fructose, sucrose and glucose are examples. Nothing you said contradicts what I said. I didn't say anything about table sugar and neither did the OP I was replying to.
Splenda (sucralose) is not natural because it is chemical modified from sugar. Splenda have never claimed to be all-natural although their commercials are deliberately vague. HFCS is not chemically modified, it is separated from corn.
- Salty-type snacks? Check. Even the supposedly all-natural pita chips.
Why would HFCS conflict with the "all-natural" label in your mind? HFCS is natural. It comes from corn.
Sugar is also high fructose and therefore also fattening.
Chemistry fail. Fructose is a sugar, but not all sugars are fructose. Glucose is not fructose.
We have projectors in a couple of conference rooms. Most of the time they are broken, so we have our own projector that we lug around the building when we need it.
The real problem with moving my laptop is that I use a two monitor setup at my desk with my laptop on a dock. Taking it off the dock often makes it throw a wobbly. Putting it back on the dock almost always makes it freak out.