Windows currently has the problem that it still mostly thinks of itself as a single user system
This is more a problem with people writing Windows applications...
if you install an app, it'll put some stuff in HKLM, some other stuff in HKCU... and then a large number of apps won't work if you then log into another user. This destroys the concept of the admin inistalling apps for the unprivileged users to use. It's not just apps writing to privileged locations, it's apps relying on the existence of configuration in HKCU - they should read it from HKLM or automatically create defaults.. precious few apps do this.
The other way developers tend to mess things up is assuming they can always write to HKLM, rather than realising that this should be considered as much a privileged location as parts of the file system.
This is what amazes me about these discussions: they hired Cutler, the architect of a very successful OS, that had all of the necessary security features. They updated and reimplemented his architecture for modern PC hardware. They then mangled it beyond all recognition by insisting that programs written for Win 3.1 and later Win95 run under NT/2K/XP as if they were still on single-user, no priv separation, versions, and we're still living with that behaviour today.
Gutting the OS security model is not the only way to do this. Indeed disabling the OS security model to deal with a few (or one) misbehaving apps is almost certainly not the right way to go about things. Better is to be able to assign elevated privileges to applications, rather than users. So far as legacy applications go the obvious solution is to use a virtual machine.
I tried to run my users with no privs on the last job, and always got bitten by programs such as WordPerfect, which insisted they had to run with PowerUser privs. Meanwhile, complex, computationaly demanding, graphics-heavy programs such as Spartan
Quite an apt name for a program which is neat and tidy in terms of it's file system use.
(visual environment for quantum chemistry), quietly installed in their own folder, didn't write to the registry, and could be moved without breaking because they didn't install anything to the system directories. The second one is no less complex than WP, yet it behaved for non-priv'd users while popular programs with large development teams funded by reasonable-sized corporations, didn't.
It isn't the complexity of the program, so much as the competance of the programmers. By the sound of things "Spartan" was written by scientists and engineers. But is the average corporate coder required to hold a degree (in any subject)?
The Truly Best Answer would be someone at Redmond deciding, "hey, the next version of our OS will be Microsoft VMS!" Just put the Vista graphical environment on top of a real VMS core, remember that the default SYSTEM account should not ship with password MANAGER,
Nor should the SYSTEM password in ALTUAF be blank:)
GUIs may be better than command lines for desktop apps but the power of shell scripting and the like makes it a poor fit for a server.
There are plenty of non-server situations where a GUI can be clumsy. e.g. for complex find/replace on a document GUI tools can be inadequte (can't use regular expressions) or very complex (lots of clicking as opposed to typing a few symbols).
- The Windows programming culture assumes a single user, single tasking computer.
Without any effective security. It's not unknown for applications to refuse to open files stored on CDs, unless they are first copied to somewhere else.
- Users on Windows are administrator by default
Only on a standalone Windows machine.
The first is the developers fault, the second is Microsoft's. At least Microsoft are trying to fix their end. But even 4 years after Windows XP was released, software is being released by developers who should know better that still require either admin rights or much tinkering to get to run as non-admin.
The problem is older than 4 years. The same problem was obvious with Windows NT, it could even occur with windows 3.0, when used with a network system supporting a security model.
The most recent one I encountered was an application for BACS payments a couple of weeks ago - their tech support's answer was "run as admin".This is actually a third problem, "support" failing to understand that the software in question is broken.
I managed to get it to work for non admins (since this was on a Windows domain) only by caclsing (aka chmodding) the application's directory writeable by all!
It's obvious that the developer had simply not tested the program as non admin.
Maybe they hadn't heard of the User Shell Folders registry keys, which have been in Windows for over a decade, either!
1) Lots of things want access to various areas in HKLM or HKCR. They might only read the areas, but the program asks for read/write/delete/create access since it was coded poorly. You can grant the software such rights, but that is a serious change. I want a new access level called "lie" which tells the program that it has write access, but then only fails when it actually tries to write.
Sounds like "Copy On Write", a concept which has been around for quite some time.
Rense is neither racist nor anti semitic. He personally is anti zionist, a really large difference. Look it up if you don't know the difference. "Zionism" is a rather extreme and predatory political movement, it is not a "race".
The original poster may well fully understand the difference, Zionism has, fairly sucessfully, hidden behind Jewish people for just over a century. Political movenments have been doing this kind of thing probably for as long as they have existed.
There are secular jewish zionists, atheist zionists, even christian zionists, of all human "races" and colors. It's a political distinction-get it now?
Note also that plenty of Zionists dislike Jews, notably some of the Christian Zionists who see current events in the Middle East as being the fulfilment of the Book of Revalation. There has always been an anti-Jewish element within Zionism though. On the other hand some of the strongest critics of Zionism are Orthodox Rabbis, who consider Zionism and Judeaism to be mutually exclusive.
The closest thing to it, in a parallel analogy, might be the Wahhabists, an extreme mostly-muslim movement with predatory political overtones...Very similar goals and tactics to the zionists. both are equally repulsive.
The difference that the Wahhbists do not have the ear of mainstream Western media and no US Government official would publically support them.
Don't confuse legitimate political differences with racism, even though certain other political orgs, like the JDL, etc., want you to.
Quite a few Zionist supporting organisations are not purely political entities, with a great deal of trouble being taken to avoid calling them "terrorist organisations", even when they get caught "red handed".
You're great at regurgitating quotes and links from biased sources,
It's rather hard to find an unbiased source when it comes to political subjects. Especially where they concern countries who's influence extends over the entire planet, thus making it difficult to find disinterested observers.
It would be nice, for a change, to hear of some specific examples of how the government has used its powers beyond the reasonable scope of national security. Governments have a tendency to confuse "national security" with the security of government and the security of government officials. Specifics of abuse tend to take a while to come out, either from the research of historians or the confessions of men and women too old to fear a quick death.
Not that I expect you to beleive me, but I can safely say that the vast majority of the employees of the National Security Agency are quite interested in acting in a legal and ethical fashion.
I had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Is there anyone in the US Government who has not taken such an oath.
The majority of the employees here are terribly intelligent and thoughtful individuals. Some have considered that perhaps the President is not acting in the best interests of the United States and its citizens, but in his own best interests. This feeling is nonpartisan and spreading more rapidly as news of his failings as a morally-guided leader reach us.
Things are a lot bigger than one person. You might also like to consider the massive industry involved in lobbying the US Congress. Especially where it involves foreign governments and big business.
Further, Rense is a conspiracy wack-job site, so the claim is even more dubious.
If publishing wacky conspiracy theories is a criteria for "dubious" then the entire (so called) "MainStream Media", including the CNN article linked to, would have to be considered "dubious".
I'm aware there's some controversy over the timings of 40 yard dashes for NFL players. OTOH, the track records are timed from the gun, not from first movement, so 100m records carry about 0.1-0.15 seconds penalty... the amount of time it takes the runners to react to the sound of the gun.
depends if they listening for the sound of the gun or looking for the smoke/flash from the gun.
If this had even a grain of accuracy, the NFL Player's Union would be screaming to reduce protective gear requirements -- way too many players stand to lose way too much money from injuries as it is.
Before you could even consider reducing the amount of protective clothing the rules would need changing to make the game less dangerous. The problem with adding more armour is that it does not make the game less intrically dangerous, since players will try and compensate for the armour.
Funny that Rugby is called that, when the game rarely involves a rug.
That's because Rugby Football is named after the place it was first played. Ditto with American Football and Australian Rules Football. "Rugby" is an abbreviation. In the same way that "Soccer" is an abbreviation of "Association Football", the "Football Association" having been created to draw up a uniform set of rules. This was required since it became possible, in the 19th century, for sports teams and spectators to travel large distances to play and watch.
Expect all digital signals to have some encoded regionality which is intended to put the content owner in command.
But probably about as effective as DVD region codes.
The major problem with these methods is they effectively kill foreign markets, because there's usually no distributor or the distributor asks too high a cost for content, which ultimately drives piracy.
The other factor involved is that people are not prepared to wait whilst the companies involved get their acts together. Especially when many of them are the various arms of transnational (even global) companies.
Maybe some day they'll learn that you can maximize profit by maximizing access.
They first need to understand that their market is anyone who understands the language the content is in. For some languages, including English, Spanish and Arabic this more or less equates to the entire planet. Instead those involved appear to be too busy trying to make 21st century technologies emulate the restrictions of those form the 20th, even the 19th and earlier (the time it can take a movie to get to some parts of the world would be considered "slow" by prehistoric peoples).
The parent was talking about a turbocharger which only revs up when exhaust gases are increased (during acceleration) where as a supercharger is always on and usually run by the crankshaft (I think?) this makes turbocharger more efficient than a supercharger.
A supercharger need to be "always on" any more than the driving wheels are "always on". It it was attached using a centrifugal clutch it would only operate above a certain RPM...
Why not apply the same principle here to the hydrogen engines then? They will produce heat just as conventional gas engines do, that same heat can be used further down the line to drive a steam engine. And as an added bonus, you get a supply of water for free, as a combustion product from the Hydrogen engine!
You get water out of an engine burning hydrocarbons anyway.
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that for all practicle purposes it isn't a fuel,
It's a poor choice of fuel for a vehicle because of bulky and heavy tanking arrangements needed as well as the complex fueling systems required. Liquid fuels are just so much easier to handle.
it's a means of energy storage. e.g. as an alternative to pumped storage hydro-electric where geography dosn't allow for having a big lake up in the air.
I for one live in a place where hydrogen gas isn't very available, except for the kind that is bonded with oxygen and pours down almost daily. I think there is a dilemma about how to "start the process". Should people start buying hydrogen powered cars and hope there will be gas stations around, or should the stations be built, hoping that people around them will start getting hydrogen cars?
One big problem with hydrogen is that it is a gas, in order to get a useful amount into a vehicle tank you either have to convert it to a liquid, either by cooling (hydrogen needs to be very cool before it will become liquid) or compressing it into a sealed tank (which is more difficult with hydrogen than butane, propane or methane). Current "gas stations" tend to mostly geared up to dealing with fuels which are liquid at ordinary temperatures, possibly with a sideline in bottles of compressed gas filled off site.
The only way I know how to get pure hydrogen around here right now is to put magnesium into vinegar (or any other acid, but vinegar is easiest to get).
As a byproduct you a rather impure solution of magnesium etanoate.
Your real identity or someone who used your computer while they were over your house, or someone that borrowed your laptop?
The identity is that of a computer, not a person. Assuming a one to one correspondence between people and computers is daft. No doubt it won't take long before someone comes out with a hack to make changing the identity of a computer trivial.
Many people appear to have very funny ideas about how BT works and how trackers "control" how peers interact... in reality, BT peers form ad-hoc point-to-point links and the tracker's only true purpose is to provide source propagation. Trackers have absolutely no control over who uploads how much to whoever
This is negotiated between the clients involved. Once the clients have started interacting it dosn't even matter too much if the tracker goes away...
Fructose is metabolized by the liver and converted directly into fat.
Because that's all a mammalian biochemical system can do with it.
Glucose is used by every single one of your cells. Also in sucrose, the two molecules are bound together, which takes some energy to break up.
Does the digestive system simply split sucrose into glucose and fructose? Or is it possible for the digestive system to just extract the glucose from sucrose? Any biochemists familiar with the reactions and enzymes involved...
Actually, I think it's the other way around. Sucrose is a diglyceride of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS has higher concentrations of fructose, at least 55% maybe higher. Corn farmer unions claim that since sucrose is 50% fructose, the HFCS should have the same effect on the body since it's only 5% different. However, metabolism is a complicated chemical process and it's quite possible that the extra 5% can wreak more havoc on the system.
Note that a 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose is not the same as sucrose. When dealing with organic and especially biological chemical processes what appear to be small chemical differences.
The other thing is that HFCS is understood to suppress the 'full' feeling, leading people with HFCS in their diet to eat alot more.
Tiny quantities of a chemical can have very dramatic effects on living organisms. Many pharamcuticals having milligrammes of active ingredients, with a lot of "filler" so you have a resonable sized pill or a potion you can measure with a teaspoon. Even though in the US the same agency regulates both food and drugs the idea that foods may contain drugs significent to weight gain/loss tends to be considered "fringe". With the status quo being to simply measure the energy released when foods are burned in high preassure oxygen, even though it's rather obvious that nothing like this happens in any living organism.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows currently has the problem that it still mostly thinks of itself as a single user system
This is more a problem with people writing Windows applications...
if you install an app, it'll put some stuff in HKLM, some other stuff in HKCU... and then a large number of apps won't work if you then log into another user. This destroys the concept of the admin inistalling apps for the unprivileged users to use.
It's not just apps writing to privileged locations, it's apps relying on the existence of configuration in HKCU - they should read it from HKLM or automatically create defaults.. precious few apps do this.
The other way developers tend to mess things up is assuming they can always write to HKLM, rather than realising that this should be considered as much a privileged location as parts of the file system.
This is what amazes me about these discussions: they hired Cutler, the architect of a very successful OS, that had all of the necessary security features. They updated and reimplemented his architecture for modern PC hardware. They then mangled it beyond all recognition by insisting that programs written for Win 3.1 and later Win95 run under NT/2K/XP as if they were still on single-user, no priv separation, versions, and we're still living with that behaviour today.
:)
Gutting the OS security model is not the only way to do this. Indeed disabling the OS security model to deal with a few (or one) misbehaving apps is almost certainly not the right way to go about things. Better is to be able to assign elevated privileges to applications, rather than users. So far as legacy applications go the obvious solution is to use a virtual machine.
I tried to run my users with no privs on the last job, and always got bitten by programs such as WordPerfect, which insisted they had to run with PowerUser privs. Meanwhile, complex, computationaly demanding, graphics-heavy programs such as Spartan
Quite an apt name for a program which is neat and tidy in terms of it's file system use.
(visual environment for quantum chemistry), quietly installed in their own folder, didn't write to the registry, and could be moved without breaking because they didn't install anything to the system directories.
The second one is no less complex than WP, yet it behaved for non-priv'd users while popular programs with large development teams funded by reasonable-sized corporations, didn't.
It isn't the complexity of the program, so much as the competance of the programmers. By the sound of things "Spartan" was written by scientists and engineers. But is the average corporate coder required to hold a degree (in any subject)?
The Truly Best Answer would be someone at Redmond deciding, "hey, the next version of our OS will be Microsoft VMS!" Just put the Vista graphical environment on top of a real VMS core, remember that the default SYSTEM account should not ship with password MANAGER,
Nor should the SYSTEM password in ALTUAF be blank
GUIs may be better than command lines for desktop apps but the power of shell scripting and the like makes it a poor fit for a server.
There are plenty of non-server situations where a GUI can be clumsy. e.g. for complex find/replace on a document GUI tools can be inadequte (can't use regular expressions) or very complex (lots of clicking as opposed to typing a few symbols).
- The Windows programming culture assumes a single user, single tasking computer.
Without any effective security. It's not unknown for applications to refuse to open files stored on CDs, unless they are first copied to somewhere else.
- Users on Windows are administrator by default
Only on a standalone Windows machine.
The first is the developers fault, the second is Microsoft's. At least Microsoft are trying to fix their end. But even 4 years after Windows XP was released, software is being released by developers who should know better that still require either admin rights or much tinkering to get to run as non-admin.
The problem is older than 4 years. The same problem was obvious with Windows NT, it could even occur with windows 3.0, when used with a network system supporting a security model.
The most recent one I encountered was an application for BACS payments a couple of weeks ago - their tech support's answer was "run as admin".This is actually a third problem, "support" failing to understand that the software in question is broken.
I managed to get it to work for non admins (since this was on a Windows domain) only by caclsing (aka chmodding) the application's directory writeable by all!
It's obvious that the developer had simply not tested the program as non admin.
Maybe they hadn't heard of the User Shell Folders registry keys, which have been in Windows for over a decade, either!
1) Lots of things want access to various areas in HKLM or HKCR. They might only read the areas, but the program asks for read/write/delete/create access since it was coded poorly. You can grant the software such rights, but that is a serious change. I want a new access level called "lie" which tells the program that it has write access, but then only fails when it actually tries to write.
Sounds like "Copy On Write", a concept which has been around for quite some time.
Rense is neither racist nor anti semitic. He personally is anti zionist, a really large difference. Look it up if you don't know the difference. "Zionism" is a rather extreme and predatory political movement, it is not a "race".
The original poster may well fully understand the difference, Zionism has, fairly sucessfully, hidden behind Jewish people for just over a century.
Political movenments have been doing this kind of thing probably for as long as they have existed.
There are secular jewish zionists, atheist zionists, even christian zionists, of all human "races" and colors. It's a political distinction-get it now?
Note also that plenty of Zionists dislike Jews, notably some of the Christian Zionists who see current events in the Middle East as being the fulfilment of the Book of Revalation. There has always been an anti-Jewish element within Zionism though.
On the other hand some of the strongest critics of Zionism are Orthodox Rabbis, who consider Zionism and Judeaism to be mutually exclusive.
The closest thing to it, in a parallel analogy, might be the Wahhabists, an extreme mostly-muslim movement with predatory political overtones...Very similar goals and tactics to the zionists. both are equally repulsive.
The difference that the Wahhbists do not have the ear of mainstream Western media and no US Government official would publically support them.
Don't confuse legitimate political differences with racism, even though certain other political orgs, like the JDL, etc., want you to.
Quite a few Zionist supporting organisations are not purely political entities, with a great deal of trouble being taken to avoid calling them "terrorist organisations", even when they get caught "red handed".
You're great at regurgitating quotes and links from biased sources,
It's rather hard to find an unbiased source when it comes to political subjects. Especially where they concern countries who's influence extends over the entire planet, thus making it difficult to find disinterested observers.
It would be nice, for a change, to hear of some specific examples of how the government has used its powers beyond the reasonable scope of national security.
Governments have a tendency to confuse "national security" with the security of government and the security of government officials.
Specifics of abuse tend to take a while to come out, either from the research of historians or the confessions of men and women too old to fear a quick death.
Not that I expect you to beleive me, but I can safely say that the vast majority of the employees of the National Security Agency are quite interested in acting in a legal and ethical fashion. I had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Is there anyone in the US Government who has not taken such an oath.
The majority of the employees here are terribly intelligent and thoughtful individuals. Some have considered that perhaps the President is not acting in the best interests of the United States and its citizens, but in his own best interests. This feeling is nonpartisan and spreading more rapidly as news of his failings as a morally-guided leader reach us.
Things are a lot bigger than one person. You might also like to consider the massive industry involved in lobbying the US Congress. Especially where it involves foreign governments and big business.
Yes everybody missed the point that despite the documents being "faked" .. the person who's name was on them vouched for their contents.
Since this is person i.e. singular. The claim of their authenticity is, self evidently, uncorroborated.
Further, Rense is a conspiracy wack-job site, so the claim is even more dubious.
If publishing wacky conspiracy theories is a criteria for "dubious" then the entire (so called) "MainStream Media", including the CNN article linked to, would have to be considered "dubious".
Capital Hill Blue and Rense may not be reliable sources,
What criteria are you using for "reliable"? If anything Internet based media have been better than print and televison based media in recent years.
I'm aware there's some controversy over the timings of 40 yard dashes for NFL players. OTOH, the track records are timed from the gun, not from first movement, so 100m records carry about 0.1-0.15 seconds penalty... the amount of time it takes the runners to react to the sound of the gun.
depends if they listening for the sound of the gun or looking for the smoke/flash from the gun.
If this had even a grain of accuracy, the NFL Player's Union would be screaming to reduce protective gear requirements -- way too many players stand to lose way too much money from injuries as it is.
Before you could even consider reducing the amount of protective clothing the rules would need changing to make the game less dangerous. The problem with adding more armour is that it does not make the game less intrically dangerous, since players will try and compensate for the armour.
Funny that Rugby is called that, when the game rarely involves a rug.
That's because Rugby Football is named after the place it was first played. Ditto with American Football and Australian Rules Football.
"Rugby" is an abbreviation. In the same way that "Soccer" is an abbreviation of "Association Football", the "Football Association" having been created to draw up a uniform set of rules. This was required since it became possible, in the 19th century, for sports teams and spectators to travel large distances to play and watch.
Expect all digital signals to have some encoded regionality which is intended to put the content owner in command.
But probably about as effective as DVD region codes.
The major problem with these methods is they effectively kill foreign markets, because there's usually no distributor or the distributor asks too high a cost for content, which ultimately drives piracy.
The other factor involved is that people are not prepared to wait whilst the companies involved get their acts together. Especially when many of them are the various arms of transnational (even global) companies.
Maybe some day they'll learn that you can maximize profit by maximizing access.
They first need to understand that their market is anyone who understands the language the content is in. For some languages, including English, Spanish and Arabic this more or less equates to the entire planet.
Instead those involved appear to be too busy trying to make 21st century technologies emulate the restrictions of those form the 20th, even the 19th and earlier (the time it can take a movie to get to some parts of the world would be considered "slow" by prehistoric peoples).
The parent was talking about a turbocharger which only revs up when exhaust gases are increased (during acceleration) where as a supercharger is always on and usually run by the crankshaft (I think?) this makes turbocharger more efficient than a supercharger.
A supercharger need to be "always on" any more than the driving wheels are "always on". It it was attached using a centrifugal clutch it would only operate above a certain RPM...
Why not apply the same principle here to the hydrogen engines then? They will produce heat just as conventional gas engines do, that same heat can be used further down the line to drive a steam engine. And as an added bonus, you get a supply of water for free, as a combustion product from the Hydrogen engine!
You get water out of an engine burning hydrocarbons anyway.
The biggest problem with hydrogen is that for all practicle purposes it isn't a fuel,
It's a poor choice of fuel for a vehicle because of bulky and heavy tanking arrangements needed as well as the complex fueling systems required. Liquid fuels are just so much easier to handle.
it's a means of energy storage. e.g. as an alternative to pumped storage hydro-electric where geography dosn't allow for having a big lake up in the air.
I for one live in a place where hydrogen gas isn't very available, except for the kind that is bonded with oxygen and pours down almost daily. I think there is a dilemma about how to "start the process". Should people start buying hydrogen powered cars and hope there will be gas stations around, or should the stations be built, hoping that people around them will start getting hydrogen cars?
One big problem with hydrogen is that it is a gas, in order to get a useful amount into a vehicle tank you either have to convert it to a liquid, either by cooling (hydrogen needs to be very cool before it will become liquid) or compressing it into a sealed tank (which is more difficult with hydrogen than butane, propane or methane).
Current "gas stations" tend to mostly geared up to dealing with fuels which are liquid at ordinary temperatures, possibly with a sideline in bottles of compressed gas filled off site.
The only way I know how to get pure hydrogen around here right now is to put magnesium into vinegar (or any other acid, but vinegar is easiest to get).
As a byproduct you a rather impure solution of magnesium etanoate.
Your real identity or someone who used your computer while they were over your house, or someone that borrowed your laptop?
The identity is that of a computer, not a person. Assuming a one to one correspondence between people and computers is daft. No doubt it won't take long before someone comes out with a hack to make changing the identity of a computer trivial.
Many people appear to have very funny ideas about how BT works and how trackers "control" how peers interact... in reality, BT peers form ad-hoc point-to-point links and the tracker's only true purpose is to provide source propagation. Trackers have absolutely no control over who uploads how much to whoever
This is negotiated between the clients involved. Once the clients have started interacting it dosn't even matter too much if the tracker goes away...
Also it wasn't elemental mercury, which is basically inert to humans.
At least in soild or liquid form.
Yes, Dimethylmercury has as much to do with mercury as alumina to aluminium, cyanates to cyanide, hydrogen to water, etc.
Or even Sodium Chloride to Sodium and and Chlorine (in general any alkali metal and any halogen)
It annoys me when people can't even get the most basic grasp of chemistry.
If they did things like "Di-Hydrogen-Monoxide" would just be laughed at.
Fructose is metabolized by the liver and converted directly into fat.
Because that's all a mammalian biochemical system can do with it.
Glucose is used by every single one of your cells. Also in sucrose, the two molecules are bound together, which takes some energy to break up.
Does the digestive system simply split sucrose into glucose and fructose? Or is it possible for the digestive system to just extract the glucose from sucrose? Any biochemists familiar with the reactions and enzymes involved...
Actually, I think it's the other way around. Sucrose is a diglyceride of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS has higher concentrations of fructose, at least 55% maybe higher. Corn farmer unions claim that since sucrose is 50% fructose, the HFCS should have the same effect on the body since it's only 5% different. However, metabolism is a complicated chemical process and it's quite possible that the extra 5% can wreak more havoc on the system.
Note that a 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose is not the same as sucrose. When dealing with organic and especially biological chemical processes what appear to be small chemical differences.
The other thing is that HFCS is understood to suppress the 'full' feeling, leading people with HFCS in their diet to eat alot more.
Tiny quantities of a chemical can have very dramatic effects on living organisms. Many pharamcuticals having milligrammes of active ingredients, with a lot of "filler" so you have a resonable sized pill or a potion you can measure with a teaspoon. Even though in the US the same agency regulates both food and drugs the idea that foods may contain drugs significent to weight gain/loss tends to be considered "fringe". With the status quo being to simply measure the energy released when foods are burned in high preassure oxygen, even though it's rather obvious that nothing like this happens in any living organism.