Did you try reading the article ? It's all explained in there. The laser can ignite leaner mixtures. It's got better timing, and it ignites the mixture from the center instead of the top.
What would have been the advantage of getting ready for IPv6 early ? It would only have been more work, and less reward.
Re:The sugar lobby is worse than oil company lobbi
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Corn syrup is a mixture of 55% fructose, and 45% glucose. Sugar is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Almost identical.
Sugar in the form of pure sucrose is not natural at all. Sugar cane and beetroots are not pure, because they contains lots of fiber to slow down absorption. Starches are glucose polymers and don't contain fructose. Natural high fructose foods, such as fruits also contains lots of fiber. A soft drink contains no fiber, and lots of fructose. Something not found in nature at all. Your body doesn't need sugar. It needs carbohydrates, but they can be supplied in many different (and healthy) ways, such as starches and glucose.
The rat study you point to is not a fair comparison, because the rats could choose how much they eat, and that depends not only on the metabolic processes, but also on the flavor. Everybody agrees HFCS and sugar don't taste the same, even though the metabolic process is virtually identical. For starters, HFCS tastes sweeter than the same concentration of sugar.
Re:No one seems to have watched the video
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
Apparently you didn't watch the video either. He never said HFCS was worse than sucrose. In fact, he says, multiple times, they are equally bad.
Re:The sugar lobby is worse than oil company lobbi
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
You obviously didn't watch the presentation. For the body, HFCS and sugar are basically equivalent. Both are bad.
Your opinion is wrong: OPEC sells in dollars because that is the world's reserve currency
And because the major oil future exchange is in the US. A major shift to alternative currencies will only happen when there's a reliable and active futures market in those currencies.
Overpopulation ? The Gobi desert is still mostly empty, last time I looked, as is the Australian outback, the Sahara, Antarctica, Greenland, and our oceans. All of those areas are much more hospitable than the surface of Mars. There's more room too. Don't forget Mars is a lot smaller than the Earth.
Besides, you can't fix overpopulation by going to Mars. How many people are born on Earth every minute, and how many could you realistically send to Mars ? Not enough to make a difference.
In order to get closer to the stars, you'll need a better energy source first. It makes sense to start there. And fusion was only an example. Feel free to substitute any range of research projects that involve energy, medicine, or something equally useful.
Adapting to the climate change on Earth is easier than adapting to the climate of Mars.
And defending against huge extinction events (assuming we'd even care), isn't going to be easy, but I'm pretty sure it's easier than trying to escape to Mars. Don't forget we don't have to defend everybody. Put a few thousand people in a big bunker inside a mountain, for example. No doubt that's cheaper than putting the same people in a self-sufficient habitat on Mars.
Not on earth, but there's plenty of low gravity in low earth orbit, which is much more accessible than the moon.
Besides, you have to ask yourself what kind of product you would be able to manufacture on the moon, that would benefit from low gravity, and high vacuum, and where the profit would pay for the huge setup and shipping costs.
Most likely, this product can be replaced by something that's a little easier to make.
It would be simpler and cheaper to protect yourself from such an extinction event right here on earth, than to build a self-sufficient society on Mars.
Going to America was a billion times cheaper, and you didn't have to leave. Instead, you could claim a piece of land, and live there more comfortably than the place you came from.
If you're aiming for 'side effects that can not be predicted' then why not aim for a reasonable main target at the same time ?
You could invest in nuclear fusion research, for example, which would probably also lead to all kinds of useful spin-off knowledge, while at the same time doing something useful in solving our future energy crisis.
Spending trillions of dollars doing something silly, in the hope that you may accidentally stumble on something useful isn't very productive.
The Earth is already terraformed, so we might as well stay here.
Also, I don't buy your claims that we can easily reach Mars, and/or basically terraform it for free. And even if we could, there's not much to be gained in doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple. There's no profit in space travel. Space is huge, and mostly empty.
The type of machine most kids will be using in the future is a deep fryer.
... and if all your old hardware that was running fine on XP is still supported in the new OS.
Seriously, the OS is just a way to start applications by clicking on them. XP performs this simple task pretty well.
A decade ago is when XP was introduced. It was still sold as recently as 2 years ago.
XP came with my netbook, which is still in perfect condition, but doesn't have the horsepower to run Windows 7.
Did you try reading the article ? It's all explained in there. The laser can ignite leaner mixtures. It's got better timing, and it ignites the mixture from the center instead of the top.
Nice, but we need cars that can handle all the gasoline we get for free when refining crude oil to diesel.
Keep the Fahrenheit, but use the metric system for the rest. Seems like a good solution. Scientists use Kelvin anyway.
What would have been the advantage of getting ready for IPv6 early ? It would only have been more work, and less reward.
Corn syrup is a mixture of 55% fructose, and 45% glucose. Sugar is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Almost identical.
Sugar in the form of pure sucrose is not natural at all. Sugar cane and beetroots are not pure, because they contains lots of fiber to slow down absorption. Starches are glucose polymers and don't contain fructose. Natural high fructose foods, such as fruits also contains lots of fiber. A soft drink contains no fiber, and lots of fructose. Something not found in nature at all. Your body doesn't need sugar. It needs carbohydrates, but they can be supplied in many different (and healthy) ways, such as starches and glucose.
The rat study you point to is not a fair comparison, because the rats could choose how much they eat, and that depends not only on the metabolic processes, but also on the flavor. Everybody agrees HFCS and sugar don't taste the same, even though the metabolic process is virtually identical. For starters, HFCS tastes sweeter than the same concentration of sugar.
Apparently you didn't watch the video either. He never said HFCS was worse than sucrose. In fact, he says, multiple times, they are equally bad.
You obviously didn't watch the presentation. For the body, HFCS and sugar are basically equivalent. Both are bad.
And because the major oil future exchange is in the US. A major shift to alternative currencies will only happen when there's a reliable and active futures market in those currencies.
Overpopulation ? The Gobi desert is still mostly empty, last time I looked, as is the Australian outback, the Sahara, Antarctica, Greenland, and our oceans. All of those areas are much more hospitable than the surface of Mars. There's more room too. Don't forget Mars is a lot smaller than the Earth.
Besides, you can't fix overpopulation by going to Mars. How many people are born on Earth every minute, and how many could you realistically send to Mars ? Not enough to make a difference.
In order to get closer to the stars, you'll need a better energy source first. It makes sense to start there. And fusion was only an example. Feel free to substitute any range of research projects that involve energy, medicine, or something equally useful.
Adapting to the climate change on Earth is easier than adapting to the climate of Mars.
And defending against huge extinction events (assuming we'd even care), isn't going to be easy, but I'm pretty sure it's easier than trying to escape to Mars. Don't forget we don't have to defend everybody. Put a few thousand people in a big bunker inside a mountain, for example. No doubt that's cheaper than putting the same people in a self-sufficient habitat on Mars.
Not on earth, but there's plenty of low gravity in low earth orbit, which is much more accessible than the moon.
Besides, you have to ask yourself what kind of product you would be able to manufacture on the moon, that would benefit from low gravity, and high vacuum, and where the profit would pay for the huge setup and shipping costs.
Most likely, this product can be replaced by something that's a little easier to make.
The Space Nutters will just mod it down as 'Troll', rather than coming up with any real arguments why we need to be on the moon.
It would be simpler and cheaper to protect yourself from such an extinction event right here on earth, than to build a self-sufficient society on Mars.
Going to America was a billion times cheaper, and you didn't have to leave. Instead, you could claim a piece of land, and live there more comfortably than the place you came from.
If you're aiming for 'side effects that can not be predicted' then why not aim for a reasonable main target at the same time ?
You could invest in nuclear fusion research, for example, which would probably also lead to all kinds of useful spin-off knowledge, while at the same time doing something useful in solving our future energy crisis.
Spending trillions of dollars doing something silly, in the hope that you may accidentally stumble on something useful isn't very productive.
The Earth is already terraformed, so we might as well stay here.
Also, I don't buy your claims that we can easily reach Mars, and/or basically terraform it for free. And even if we could, there's not much to be gained in doing so.
Exactly. There's no point in sending people to Mars either.
None of the reasons make any sense. You can do the same things on Earth, for a fraction of the cost.