Except that you're assuming that all HFCS is the variety with more fructose than glucose;
And what I said:
ON THE OTHER HAND... 55 fructose + 42 glucose HFCS, used in sodas
To quote you again... "not correct".
By your logic we should switch all sucrose to the "healthy" HFCS, as it has LESS fructose than either.
Nope. That's you again. I never made such a statement.
Besides... It would not work. Particularly in sodas which would taste horrible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... 55-42 mix is needed so they would be drinkable. Fructose makes glucose taste sweeter.
42-53 mix is actually the original product of getting fructose out of glucose, out of corn starch. BUT... since that is not as sweet as sucrose, it gets refined to 90% fructose, then mixed into 42-53 to make it sweet enough.
42-53 can replace sugar only in foods where there are additional sugars or fat - which is why it is used for cookies and similar processed foods which contain fat and its own starch.
Take a look at fruit yogurts some time. Those being marketed as "healthy" and "with real fruit". Lot's of green leaves and similar nonsense on the packaging.
You'll never find strawberry flavored yogurt without additional fructose. BUT... you might find "berries" or "wild fruits" mix-flavors which contain strawberries - but without additional fructose. FROM THE SAME COMPANY AND BRAND. Same nutritional value. Same weight, packaging, price... Why? Blueberries. Twice the sugar of strawberries and blackberries. Meaning that for 3 parts of fruit, you get 4 parts of sugar. Cherries might squeeze by as well. Apricots too.
The 55% fructose content of HFCS is by weight, not by moles.
Yup.
Density of fructose is 1.67, while density of glucose is 1.54, so the HFCS-55 actually contains 50.7% fructose and 49.3% glucose by moles. This is almost the same as sucrose.
Nope. You're taking a shortcut, imagining that both HFCS and sucrose are just piles of glucose and fructose, measured by volume.
Hint - molar mass of BOTH fructose and glucose is 180.16 g/mol - i.e. THAT is the molar mass of HFCS. It's density is 0.88 g/cm3 for dry mass. http://www.adm.com/_layouts/Pr...
For sucrose molar mass is 342.30 g/mol. With density of 1.587 g/cm3. See where this is going? How it is NOT "almost the same"?
In long... and sorry if I'm repeating myself. I explicitly stated "some 100 units of glucose".
So, if you are taking grams of glucose mixed inside HFCS - you compare it to grams of glucose trapped in sucrose. Same for fructose in the mix. If you are taking cubic centimeters of glucose from HFCS - you compare it to cubic centimeters OF glucose FROM sucrose, along with attached fructose. If you are taking glucose from lengths of strips of paper dipped into 50% HFCS solution... etc.
You are weighing, measuring, counting, drinking, biting... HFCS and sucrose - NOT glucose OR fructose. It's about COMPARISON of same quantities of glucose-fructose compounds/mixes and the satiety THOSE COMPOUNDS/MIXES produce. Except only one part of the mix does that.
Think drinking coffee or tea and sweetening it. You are not measuring spoons of glucose and fructose. You can't take one or the other from the mix. You are taking spoons of sucrose or HFCS - until it is sweet enough. That's the 100% you're looking for. 100% sweet enough. From the one or the other mix or compound of BOTH glucose and fructose together.
Now substitute "sweet enough" with "energizing enough" - i.e. enough of glucose, with fructose coming along for the ride. Whether it is 55-42 or 50-50.
BTW... you are confusing density, molar mass, and how fructose and glucose are measured in HFCS
I.e. Mass per volume of substance - kilograms and meters, 1.694 g/cm3 and 1.54 g/cm3. And mass DIVIDED by amount of actual substance in atoms - grams of substance times number of atoms in molecule of substance times atomic mass of the element, 180.16 g/mol AND 180.16 g/mol.
Molar mass for fructose AND glucose is EXACTLY THE SAME - 180.16 g/mol. Just like their chemical formulas are the same - C6H12O6.
Meanwhile... HFCS 55-42 and 42-53 are measured by DRY MASS. Nobody cares about moles or volume when making that mix.
leaves the body one of two ways: you burp it or fart it.
What happens with the energy in a system with the increase of pressure or heat, i.e. by pumping in gas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Which, when released from a carbonated liquid, heats up and expands further, thus increasing the pressure, speeding up the reaction (digestion) AND expanding the walls of the organs - which absorb nutrients from the food. There's a reason why it takes longer for caffeine from coffee to "give you a kick" than it takes for caffeine in soda.
Commercial HFCS is generally either 42% or 55% fructose, and almost all glucose otherwise. Sucrose, on the other hand, is a molecule that breaks down in the first stages of digestion to 50% fructose and 50% glucose -- so, as the parent said, they are basically identical in most of digestion.
Basically identical in the sense that it's basically the same if you get 100 or 130 cents change when you exchange a dollar for a bag of pennies. It's simple math, on top of other, less simple metabolic processes, such as human body actually producing an enzyme for breaking down sucrose instead of chugging both as a syrup, laced with CO2.
Let's say you have a craving for sugar. I.e. Your body needs quick energy cause your GLUCOSE levels are down. That sugar which is used throughout your body, no conversion needed. So, you have some level of glucose craving which will be satisfied when your glucose satisfaction reaches 100% at which point your body will say "OK. I'm fine. Stop eating sugar."
So, for 100% glucose satisfaction level you need some 100 units of glucose. And since sucrose holds 50 units of glucose for 100 units of sucrose, that means you need 2 units of sucrose for your body to say "Stop!" At the same time, you will ingest 100 units of fructose, which you can't digest directly, which does not activate the satiety signal, and which ends up as fat.
So, 100 units of sucrose equals to 100 units of glucose and 100 units of fructose. And then you stop, as you've reached 100% of your glucose satisfaction. Sucrose: [F][F][F][F][F]-[G][G][G][G][G] Satiety reached at: [F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F] [G][G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G][G]
ON THE OTHER HAND... 55 fructose + 42 glucose HFCS, used in sodas, means that to reach the same level of glucose satisfaction, you need to ingest 2.38 units of HFCS. Meaning that for every 100 units of glucose, you are ingesting 130.9 units of fructose. And THEN your brain says "Stop."
You're getting 30% more of fat producing fructose from HFCS for the same dose of glucose if you were using sucrose. 130 cents on a dollar. So every 3 dollars you're "basically" getting 4 dollars in change.
Basically the same. Virtually identical. There is practically almost no difference. Where's that exchange? I have a cunning plan regarding my retirement and a small island somewhere warm.
Which is all that can be gotten out of designer babies. At best.
The worst is not the "Khaaaaan!!!!!!!!!" What kind of elephant-men would the future generations of white trash tattooed face pierced genitals reality TV watching fame glorifying illiterate vaccine fearing parents would design?
Think what Honey Boo Boo would design should events proceed as they have so far.
...calling statements and facts "just opinions". Self-immolating their own intellect in exchange for the false coin of the last desperate attempt to clutch at pride.
"Better all that is said be mere opinions, and thus an equation and a squiggle and a hard-earned fact be of same value, including such works of mine - than for ME to wrong. Let NOTHING be wrong then, for all is mere thought and nothing is of real value."
Your "argument" could just as well be applied to almost anything. From excrement to cars. Same as it could be turned around and broken by "proving" that money is an instrument of status quo. Cause if it were not so, how do the wealthy remain wealthy, become wealthier and pass on that wealth to their offspring.
Both would be nonsense. It is a tool.
Only we pass around tokens we confuse for money so we give it more material value and imagine it more real than say... mathematics. Which is itself a tool one needs to be able to use the tool of money properly. Hammer to money's nail.
It should not be a surprise that the big corporate stores are suffering from things like showrooming because they don't offer much added value to justify their costs.
Then you've never met a skillful salesman I presume.
Do you even understand that MONEY IS A TOOL and that "more nuanced world views" about money are about as relevant as more nuanced world views about hammers?
This is a contraceptive in disguise. Less babies, later in life, born into poorer and more dysfunctional families if born at all. And that's before being pushed by their over-ambitious parents... until they discover drugs and alcohol.
"Daddy never loved me. He always thought I was a point or two short and that I should have been better." "Mommy didn't want another run of the treatment. She wanted A baby, not me. That's why I'm inadequate."
Most people I know who would pay more elsewhere have more reasons than that to dislike the big banks and not want to do business with them.
None of those reasons having anything to do with the purpose of the transaction - to acquire or use money in a way that guarantees getting most monetary value out of the said money.
All other reasons are akin to picking a car based solely on its color.
Wide adoption of this kind of gene-tampering would probably more likely help reduce the number of stupid than increase the number of high-IQ individuals.
It's not a pill that a woman would take and instantly give birth to a (well adjusted) genius baby. It's a time and money sink for the family, and somewhat of a torture procedure for women. On top of that, it is recognition and acceptance of one's own inferiority - for both parents. And then there's the whole thing regarding the abortion issues.
Those dumb enough to try to fine-tune their future families through this procedure would probably end up never forming a family. Either through repeated attempts to "score higher" and thus delaying pregnancy, or through breakup of relationships due to one or more of the issues above. And that's not taking in account the possibility of the procedure simply failing in any step from fertilization to the offspring growing up and becoming a productive member of the society.
Using a 15 SD scale, with Einsten-level IQ person coming up every 31560 cases, we are at the moment at about 228136 Einsteins. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.co...
But screw Einsteins. We are currently at about 27.6 MILLION people with an IQ of 140. That's like something between a Nepal and Peru of 140 IQ people. And that's not counting those with the IQ above that.
It makes as much sense to me to pay this extra fee as it would to pay the extra dollar to get similar coffee at the local coffee shop because I like that there is a local coffee shop at the corner and I get value from it being there and not being just another starbucks.
Except this is not about coffee or service but about money. And someone giving even more money to A cause they don't like that B is overcharging them - that's cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Its called values, different people have different ones and....shocker.... make decisions based on them.
Which is just fine - as long as those people realize that such a decision is purely emotional and not rational in any way, shape or form. Trouble starts when people start pretending and/or believing that their choices are correct because they are rational and logical. That's being delusional.
Which coincidentally explains the whole bitcoin craze.
Sure taking pics and sending them on the internet isn't that good of an idea. However it shouldn't need to represent the overall character of the person.
Actually, the issue at hand is quite the opposite of that.
The brouhaha is around Lawrence's image of a nice, clean, maybe a little bit clumsy, but generally wholesome talented young girl who just recently won an Oscar and was nominated for another one. And who is made into an idol to hundreds of thousand of girls and women through the recent movie adaptations of Hunger Games books. That was, and IS, society's understanding of her overall character.
In comparison, Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears... were all labeled and treated by the society as bimbos and sex kittens. I.e. Sluts and whores. Some of them laughing it off or even profiting from the incidents further cemented their image of a whore.
Which, from time to time, is considered a positive thing. Pamela Anderson went on Oprah and they talked about their favorite sex positions and how big (or small - Oprah) their husbands' dicks were. Literally. It was fine. Girls will be girls. Girl power and all that. Te-he. Sex and the City made an image of a woman as a materialistic nymphomaniac who profits (one way or another) from her sexcapades a positive thing for years. The 50 shades craze? A poor, sexually repressed girl hooks up with a perverted billionaire and they engage into S&M for several books (and apparently movies) - AND THAT'S A LOVE STORY.
BUT... Society, being part fans part judgmental mob, remembers them all as WHORES. And you don't marry your whore or bring her back to meet the parents. Except in fairy tales like Pretty Woman. Nor do you make a fuss of it when someone brings out the photos or videos of that whore's ass - again. "We've seen it. Move on. She made good money out if it. She probably staged it all. After all, she's an actress. Theaters weren't traditionally right next to whorehouses for no reason. She wouldn't take that photo/video if she didn't intend to share it - like a whore would."
Nor do you bring her home to babysit for your kids and be a role model for your daughter.
Oh... But what if your daughter chooses the newly revealed whore as a role model anyway? And we know she's a whore cause she walks like a whore, quacks like a whore, dresses like a whore, takes naked selfies like all whores do and shakes her ass and boobs for everyone to see on TV... Too late to sign her out from that archery class, and that guy with big arm muscles there says that she's "raw talent" and that maybe she could get into next Olympics if she trains hard. And other stuff.
Well, then you rise up in righteous indignation against those people who treat her, and by extension your daughter, girlfriend, sister, cousin, high school crush, friend... as a common whore. I.e. Those who share her whore-photos around as if she's just another whore.
Remember when way back in the day a former beloved first lady was called a sinner and a whore who should be excommunicated from the Church cause through no fault of her own she was photographed naked, in a private surrounding, through a telephoto lens? Press invented a cute nickname for her too. But despite one being a widow of an assassinated president, and the other an overrated 24-year-old actress, J-Law is a saint while Jackie O was a hoe.
MY DAUGHTER DOES NOT ASSOCIATE WITH WHORES!!! GOT THAT!
Unless say you want to expose to your boss and the general society things like your Google Searches, or your DNS logs, magazines, or surveillance camera of you taking a second glance at the one other person.
Except nobody exposed that here, right? Nobody cares what J-Law reads and what she searches for. But everybody cares if she shows her ass or allows her ass to be shown - like a whore.
Valid, but trivial in comparison to being incinerated during the reentry. Or being smashed to paste cause the chute didn't open. Or bouncing off of the atmosphere into space cause the angle was wrong. Or one of the millions of other things that could have potentially gone wrong, many of which DID go wrong in the past.
Drowning? Hell, at least you made it back to Earth in one piece and it is trivial to do something about it compared to having your air sucked out in space cause you ran into a screw someone left up there.
His 2010 cameo in Iron Man 2 didn't hurt either, and neither did the use of SpaceX for filming of some scenes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ve...
It also helps that unlike Ellison his products are both physical and have direct practicality for most of the population so he is more easily associated with the inventor aspect of Tony Stark persona. Signature red color of his space-age car is another bonus. And so is the whole "rocket man" thing.
In comparison, Ellison is more like Tony Stark BEFORE Iron Man. Yachting billionaire who collects cars, jets, islands and women and has a million dollar entertainment system which uses a swimming pool as a subwoofer, while his "charity" donations seem mostly to revolve around lawsuits.
As for comparison to Steve Jobs... As the Iron Man 2 article above stated, Steve Jobs has "always been less Iron Man, more Willy Wonka". Who, while espousing such lines as "Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?" ended up selling overpriced toys.
While Musk actually seems to be trying to actively fulfill the second part of that quote.
Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday dear radtea, Happy birthday to you.
There... Now everyone reading this thread is guilty of illegally downloading a song.
And since FBI likes gathering prints...
Yeah I was working part time in a five-and-dime My boss was Mr. McGee He told me several times that he didn't like my kind 'Cause I was a bit too leisurely
Seems that I was busy doing something close to nothing But different than the day before That's when I saw her, ooh, I saw her She walked in through the out door, out door
She wore a Raspberry beret The kind you find in a second hand store Raspberry beret And if it was warm she wouldn't wear much more Raspberry beret I think I love her
Slashdot Mirror
You:
Except that you're assuming that all HFCS is the variety with more fructose than glucose;
And what I said:
ON THE OTHER HAND...
55 fructose + 42 glucose HFCS, used in sodas
To quote you again... "not correct".
By your logic we should switch all sucrose to the "healthy" HFCS, as it has LESS fructose than either.
Nope. That's you again. I never made such a statement.
Besides... It would not work. Particularly in sodas which would taste horrible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
55-42 mix is needed so they would be drinkable. Fructose makes glucose taste sweeter.
42-53 mix is actually the original product of getting fructose out of glucose, out of corn starch.
BUT... since that is not as sweet as sucrose, it gets refined to 90% fructose, then mixed into 42-53 to make it sweet enough.
42-53 can replace sugar only in foods where there are additional sugars or fat - which is why it is used for cookies and similar processed foods which contain fat and its own starch.
Take a look at fruit yogurts some time. Those being marketed as "healthy" and "with real fruit".
Lot's of green leaves and similar nonsense on the packaging.
You'll never find strawberry flavored yogurt without additional fructose.
BUT... you might find "berries" or "wild fruits" mix-flavors which contain strawberries - but without additional fructose.
FROM THE SAME COMPANY AND BRAND. Same nutritional value. Same weight, packaging, price...
Why? Blueberries. Twice the sugar of strawberries and blackberries.
Meaning that for 3 parts of fruit, you get 4 parts of sugar.
Cherries might squeeze by as well. Apricots too.
In short...
The 55% fructose content of HFCS is by weight, not by moles.
Yup.
Density of fructose is 1.67, while density of glucose is 1.54, so the HFCS-55 actually contains 50.7% fructose and 49.3% glucose by moles. This is almost the same as sucrose.
Nope.
You're taking a shortcut, imagining that both HFCS and sucrose are just piles of glucose and fructose, measured by volume.
Hint - molar mass of BOTH fructose and glucose is 180.16 g/mol - i.e. THAT is the molar mass of HFCS.
It's density is 0.88 g/cm3 for dry mass.
http://www.adm.com/_layouts/Pr...
For sucrose molar mass is 342.30 g/mol. With density of 1.587 g/cm3.
See where this is going? How it is NOT "almost the same"?
In long... and sorry if I'm repeating myself.
I explicitly stated "some 100 units of glucose".
So, if you are taking grams of glucose mixed inside HFCS - you compare it to grams of glucose trapped in sucrose. Same for fructose in the mix.
If you are taking cubic centimeters of glucose from HFCS - you compare it to cubic centimeters OF glucose FROM sucrose, along with attached fructose.
If you are taking glucose from lengths of strips of paper dipped into 50% HFCS solution... etc.
You are weighing, measuring, counting, drinking, biting... HFCS and sucrose - NOT glucose OR fructose.
It's about COMPARISON of same quantities of glucose-fructose compounds/mixes and the satiety THOSE COMPOUNDS/MIXES produce.
Except only one part of the mix does that.
Think drinking coffee or tea and sweetening it.
You are not measuring spoons of glucose and fructose. You can't take one or the other from the mix.
You are taking spoons of sucrose or HFCS - until it is sweet enough.
That's the 100% you're looking for. 100% sweet enough.
From the one or the other mix or compound of BOTH glucose and fructose together.
Now substitute "sweet enough" with "energizing enough" - i.e. enough of glucose, with fructose coming along for the ride.
Whether it is 55-42 or 50-50.
BTW... you are confusing density, molar mass, and how fructose and glucose are measured in HFCS
I.e. Mass per volume of substance - kilograms and meters, 1.694 g/cm3 and 1.54 g/cm3.
And mass DIVIDED by amount of actual substance in atoms - grams of substance times number of atoms in molecule of substance times atomic mass of the element, 180.16 g/mol AND 180.16 g/mol.
Molar mass for fructose AND glucose is EXACTLY THE SAME - 180.16 g/mol.
Just like their chemical formulas are the same - C6H12O6.
Meanwhile... HFCS 55-42 and 42-53 are measured by DRY MASS.
Nobody cares about moles or volume when making that mix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Now, OUT OF THAT MIX get the same level of blood sugar as you would get from sucrose.
leaves the body one of two ways: you burp it or fart it.
What happens with the energy in a system with the increase of pressure or heat, i.e. by pumping in gas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Which, when released from a carbonated liquid, heats up and expands further, thus increasing the pressure, speeding up the reaction (digestion) AND expanding the walls of the organs - which absorb nutrients from the food.
There's a reason why it takes longer for caffeine from coffee to "give you a kick" than it takes for caffeine in soda.
Commercial HFCS is generally either 42% or 55% fructose, and almost all glucose otherwise. Sucrose, on the other hand, is a molecule that breaks down in the first stages of digestion to 50% fructose and 50% glucose -- so, as the parent said, they are basically identical in most of digestion.
Basically identical in the sense that it's basically the same if you get 100 or 130 cents change when you exchange a dollar for a bag of pennies.
It's simple math, on top of other, less simple metabolic processes, such as human body actually producing an enzyme for breaking down sucrose instead of chugging both as a syrup, laced with CO2.
Let's say you have a craving for sugar.
I.e. Your body needs quick energy cause your GLUCOSE levels are down. That sugar which is used throughout your body, no conversion needed.
So, you have some level of glucose craving which will be satisfied when your glucose satisfaction reaches 100% at which point your body will say "OK. I'm fine. Stop eating sugar."
So, for 100% glucose satisfaction level you need some 100 units of glucose.
And since sucrose holds 50 units of glucose for 100 units of sucrose, that means you need 2 units of sucrose for your body to say "Stop!"
At the same time, you will ingest 100 units of fructose, which you can't digest directly, which does not activate the satiety signal, and which ends up as fat.
So, 100 units of sucrose equals to 100 units of glucose and 100 units of fructose. And then you stop, as you've reached 100% of your glucose satisfaction.
Sucrose:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[G][G][G][G][G]
Satiety reached at:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]
[G][G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G][G]
ON THE OTHER HAND...
55 fructose + 42 glucose HFCS, used in sodas, means that to reach the same level of glucose satisfaction, you need to ingest 2.38 units of HFCS.
Meaning that for every 100 units of glucose, you are ingesting 130.9 units of fructose. And THEN your brain says "Stop."
HFCS(55-42):
[F][F][F][F][F]-[G][G][G][G]
Satiety reached at:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F]
[G][G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G][G]
You're getting 30% more of fat producing fructose from HFCS for the same dose of glucose if you were using sucrose.
130 cents on a dollar.
So every 3 dollars you're "basically" getting 4 dollars in change.
Basically the same. Virtually identical. There is practically almost no difference.
Where's that exchange? I have a cunning plan regarding my retirement and a small island somewhere warm.
Which is all that can be gotten out of designer babies. At best.
The worst is not the "Khaaaaan!!!!!!!!!"
What kind of elephant-men would the future generations of white trash tattooed face pierced genitals reality TV watching fame glorifying illiterate vaccine fearing parents would design?
Think what Honey Boo Boo would design should events proceed as they have so far.
Yes I understand that you hold this opinion.
...calling statements and facts "just opinions".
Self-immolating their own intellect in exchange for the false coin of the last desperate attempt to clutch at pride.
"Better all that is said be mere opinions, and thus an equation and a squiggle and a hard-earned fact be of same value, including such works of mine - than for ME to wrong.
Let NOTHING be wrong then, for all is mere thought and nothing is of real value."
Childish.
However, money is also an instrument of change.
Your "argument" could just as well be applied to almost anything. From excrement to cars.
Same as it could be turned around and broken by "proving" that money is an instrument of status quo.
Cause if it were not so, how do the wealthy remain wealthy, become wealthier and pass on that wealth to their offspring.
Both would be nonsense.
It is a tool.
Only we pass around tokens we confuse for money so we give it more material value and imagine it more real than say... mathematics.
Which is itself a tool one needs to be able to use the tool of money properly.
Hammer to money's nail.
It should not be a surprise that the big corporate stores are suffering from things like showrooming because they don't offer much added value to justify their costs.
Then you've never met a skillful salesman I presume.
Do you even understand that MONEY IS A TOOL and that "more nuanced world views" about money are about as relevant as more nuanced world views about hammers?
Not likely.
This is a contraceptive in disguise.
Less babies, later in life, born into poorer and more dysfunctional families if born at all.
And that's before being pushed by their over-ambitious parents... until they discover drugs and alcohol.
"Daddy never loved me. He always thought I was a point or two short and that I should have been better."
"Mommy didn't want another run of the treatment. She wanted A baby, not me. That's why I'm inadequate."
Most people I know who would pay more elsewhere have more reasons than that to dislike the big banks and not want to do business with them.
None of those reasons having anything to do with the purpose of the transaction - to acquire or use money in a way that guarantees getting most monetary value out of the said money.
All other reasons are akin to picking a car based solely on its color.
Wide adoption of this kind of gene-tampering would probably more likely help reduce the number of stupid than increase the number of high-IQ individuals.
It's not a pill that a woman would take and instantly give birth to a (well adjusted) genius baby.
It's a time and money sink for the family, and somewhat of a torture procedure for women.
On top of that, it is recognition and acceptance of one's own inferiority - for both parents.
And then there's the whole thing regarding the abortion issues.
Those dumb enough to try to fine-tune their future families through this procedure would probably end up never forming a family.
Either through repeated attempts to "score higher" and thus delaying pregnancy, or through breakup of relationships due to one or more of the issues above.
And that's not taking in account the possibility of the procedure simply failing in any step from fertilization to the offspring growing up and becoming a productive member of the society.
Using a 15 SD scale, with Einsten-level IQ person coming up every 31560 cases, we are at the moment at about 228136 Einsteins.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.co...
But screw Einsteins.
We are currently at about 27.6 MILLION people with an IQ of 140.
That's like something between a Nepal and Peru of 140 IQ people.
And that's not counting those with the IQ above that.
It makes as much sense to me to pay this extra fee as it would to pay the extra dollar to get similar coffee at the local coffee shop because I like that there is a local coffee shop at the corner and I get value from it being there and not being just another starbucks.
Except this is not about coffee or service but about money.
And someone giving even more money to A cause they don't like that B is overcharging them - that's cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Its called values, different people have different ones and....shocker.... make decisions based on them.
Which is just fine - as long as those people realize that such a decision is purely emotional and not rational in any way, shape or form.
Trouble starts when people start pretending and/or believing that their choices are correct because they are rational and logical.
That's being delusional.
Which coincidentally explains the whole bitcoin craze.
Sure taking pics and sending them on the internet isn't that good of an idea. However it shouldn't need to represent the overall character of the person.
Actually, the issue at hand is quite the opposite of that.
The brouhaha is around Lawrence's image of a nice, clean, maybe a little bit clumsy, but generally wholesome talented young girl who just recently won an Oscar and was nominated for another one.
And who is made into an idol to hundreds of thousand of girls and women through the recent movie adaptations of Hunger Games books.
That was, and IS, society's understanding of her overall character.
In comparison, Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears... were all labeled and treated by the society as bimbos and sex kittens.
I.e. Sluts and whores.
Some of them laughing it off or even profiting from the incidents further cemented their image of a whore.
Which, from time to time, is considered a positive thing.
Pamela Anderson went on Oprah and they talked about their favorite sex positions and how big (or small - Oprah) their husbands' dicks were.
Literally. It was fine. Girls will be girls. Girl power and all that. Te-he.
Sex and the City made an image of a woman as a materialistic nymphomaniac who profits (one way or another) from her sexcapades a positive thing for years.
The 50 shades craze?
A poor, sexually repressed girl hooks up with a perverted billionaire and they engage into S&M for several books (and apparently movies) - AND THAT'S A LOVE STORY.
BUT...
Society, being part fans part judgmental mob, remembers them all as WHORES.
And you don't marry your whore or bring her back to meet the parents. Except in fairy tales like Pretty Woman.
Nor do you make a fuss of it when someone brings out the photos or videos of that whore's ass - again.
"We've seen it. Move on. She made good money out if it. She probably staged it all. After all, she's an actress. Theaters weren't traditionally right next to whorehouses for no reason. She wouldn't take that photo/video if she didn't intend to share it - like a whore would."
Nor do you bring her home to babysit for your kids and be a role model for your daughter.
Oh... But what if your daughter chooses the newly revealed whore as a role model anyway?
And we know she's a whore cause she walks like a whore, quacks like a whore, dresses like a whore, takes naked selfies like all whores do and shakes her ass and boobs for everyone to see on TV...
Too late to sign her out from that archery class, and that guy with big arm muscles there says that she's "raw talent" and that maybe she could get into next Olympics if she trains hard.
And other stuff.
Well, then you rise up in righteous indignation against those people who treat her, and by extension your daughter, girlfriend, sister, cousin, high school crush, friend... as a common whore.
I.e. Those who share her whore-photos around as if she's just another whore.
Remember when way back in the day a former beloved first lady was called a sinner and a whore who should be excommunicated from the Church cause through no fault of her own she was photographed naked, in a private surrounding, through a telephoto lens?
Press invented a cute nickname for her too.
But despite one being a widow of an assassinated president, and the other an overrated 24-year-old actress, J-Law is a saint while Jackie O was a hoe.
MY DAUGHTER DOES NOT ASSOCIATE WITH WHORES!!! GOT THAT!
Unless say you want to expose to your boss and the general society things like your Google Searches, or your DNS logs, magazines, or surveillance camera of you taking a second glance at the one other person.
Except nobody exposed that here, right?
Nobody cares what J-Law reads and what she searches for.
But everybody cares if she shows her ass or allows her ass to be shown - like a whore.
Cause, a
They were all sluts, and Jeniffer is a nice girl, she is.
Very close to that.
Except they came extra prepared.
Valid, but trivial in comparison to being incinerated during the reentry.
Or being smashed to paste cause the chute didn't open.
Or bouncing off of the atmosphere into space cause the angle was wrong.
Or one of the millions of other things that could have potentially gone wrong, many of which DID go wrong in the past.
Drowning?
Hell, at least you made it back to Earth in one piece and it is trivial to do something about it compared to having your air sucked out in space cause you ran into a screw someone left up there.
...is how when I first read about this back in the late '80s it was not "wolves and bears".
It was A wolf, reported by the rescuers as "going in their direction".
To which the cosmonauts, knowing what they've just been through, laughed.
IT'S A CRAP!
I know.
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
His 2010 cameo in Iron Man 2 didn't hurt either, and neither did the use of SpaceX for filming of some scenes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ve...
It also helps that unlike Ellison his products are both physical and have direct practicality for most of the population so he is more easily associated with the inventor aspect of Tony Stark persona.
Signature red color of his space-age car is another bonus.
And so is the whole "rocket man" thing.
In comparison, Ellison is more like Tony Stark BEFORE Iron Man.
Yachting billionaire who collects cars, jets, islands and women and has a million dollar entertainment system which uses a swimming pool as a subwoofer, while his "charity" donations seem mostly to revolve around lawsuits.
As for comparison to Steve Jobs...
As the Iron Man 2 article above stated, Steve Jobs has "always been less Iron Man, more Willy Wonka".
Who, while espousing such lines as "Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?" ended up selling overpriced toys.
While Musk actually seems to be trying to actively fulfill the second part of that quote.
I thought that the world is about to end (again) and that we were all running out of time.
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear radtea,
Happy birthday to you.
There... Now everyone reading this thread is guilty of illegally downloading a song.
And since FBI likes gathering prints...
Yeah
I was working part time in a five-and-dime
My boss was Mr. McGee
He told me several times that he didn't like my kind
'Cause I was a bit too leisurely
Seems that I was busy doing something close to nothing
But different than the day before
That's when I saw her, ooh, I saw her
She walked in through the out door, out door
She wore a
Raspberry beret
The kind you find in a second hand store
Raspberry beret
And if it was warm she wouldn't wear much more
Raspberry beret
I think I love her
I'm not a smurf.
It is, as usual, all about you, dude.
And your partiality towards seeing things that are not there.
Put treadmill on car. Put runner on treadmill. Drive car to finish line. Profit.