So how about, instead of relying on old prejudices, we instad attempt to actually examine the research and gauge it on it's own merits.
The problem with this suggestion is that MS has already thrown so many bad studies at us in the past, it should no longer be the default to take them seriously. The burden of proof is on them, and better yet, if MS is serious, set up the study to be double-blind (perhaps funded in half by Redhat or whatnot), etcetera, publish the results whatever they may be. Follow all scientific procedures. Or better yet, a challenge between a linux team and a MS team on something like making a server that can survive the most hits - where both teams have equal motivation to tweak their machines and whatnot.
It should not be, pay some guy/group to do a linux/MS, publish results if the results are good otherwise they don't see the light of day. MS did this so many times, they should be laughed at and not looked at. People's time is too limited for that.
It be like if Bush came with another proposal for a war. The burden is on the other side. They lost their credibility, they should be the ones working hard to get it back. Not us.
I understand your argument, and you are correct, however take away the Hz and you don't have a computer! So clockspeed means everything if you look at it that way. So many people these days including G5 and AMD enthusisasts are making statements like "clockspeed means nothing", but I think it weakens their arguments because although you get the gist of what they are trying to say, it sounds ridiculous. Your arguments will have more gravitas if you avoid extreme statements such as this.
Tangent to your argument, I'd like to add that a chip doesn't have to be clocked, clockspeed is there solely to synch the flow of data.
As I understand it, the problem with clocked chips is that even when the data is ready in one area, the clocked chips will always wait a minimum X amount of cycles for the worst case scenario of data latency. Also, the circuitry associated with setting everything up by clock is assuming at least 20% of the chip circuitry(perhaps more these days) and taking greater amounts every generation as well as getting overly complex.
I remember reading a few years back a great deal of articles about research into clockless chips (on/. too, don't have the time to look for it):
Re:I used to think Republican = Limited Government
on
DMCA Abuse Widespread
·
· Score: 1
Well,
It's not that we can't create a new party (we have many but close to 0 representation in congress) - but our winner rules in many areas create an imbalanced representation compared to the parliaments based more closely on the purely English system.
Certain positions require winner-takes-all but some should be more flexible.
The other problem is Gerrymandering. Representatives of congress literally create the borders to their own districts, protecting against newcomers.
The last problem has been the dominance of the career politician over the citizen politician in top politics. One recent example of citizen polician is probably Jesse Ventura. The rest of the bums are pretty much career politicians - beholden to their corporate allies.
I used to think Republican = Limited Government
on
DMCA Abuse Widespread
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
At least that's what they tout.
And now they are in power, they want a more and more powerful government in all areas - the only thing they are willing to downsize are social programs.
Don't get me wrong, the Democrats suck too.
George Washington was right when he told the American people to avoid a two party system at all costs.
But the only problem with rooms is that the wall tend to be hard to move, unlike cubicles.
At least if you use wood framing and the electrical wiring as it is here. AFAIK, I think in germany, they use very lightweight bricks for inside walls (they are like a cross between styrafoam and pumice in texture and weight - very light). And they put wiring in PVC-type pipes, even inside wiring, so it's relatively easy to move rooms around compared to wood framing. But nowhere near the ease of cubicles.
Sherman would be correct -- in a free market. Fortunately for us, those who rely on helping create freedom-reducing laws eventually find themselves violating their own creations.
I don't see how installing a rootkit secretly has much to do in a free market or a monopoly. In either case, Sony's product went beyond the norm of what you expect a normal music CD to do - i.e. nothing - to your computer.
I think that the premise of Google killing these ads are false as well.
Without ad-blocker turned off. (though Firefox is set to block ads), I still get 2-4 pop-unders per session. I wonder how many Firefox itself is blocking.
In any case, I'm not focused on the ad but the little 'X' button to shut them off. I wonder how often it simply became uneconomical to advertise this way and how often would someone would return to an insignificant website that throws pop-ups or pop-unders around like that? It's a quick way to drive away your audience.
Okay, the occasional ringtone someone has to have, I can see someone paying for.
But to listen to half-assed quality tunes on a device not made for that and probably sucks the batterylife of said device, I don't see this thing suceeding in pulling in regular customers to make decent revenue.
Who'd pay 1-1/2 times iTunes price? Which is already overpriced considering what I can get some used CDs for on amazon.com or ebay or half.com, etcetera.
And for all the people who complain about it not being a sport, or it not being fair, you're all just as jealous as myself that you can't play computer games for a living...
I won't complain about him having his job....
But I couldn't envision myself having it. Actually went to a video game college (to make them!) and after the 3rd semester, all I could think about was that I was going waste my life making products that would be enjoyed for maybe a year before it became hopelessly obsolete. Actually that would be optimistic, as most games are bound for the trash heap of history w/o being so much as a footnote. That's probably why I switched to something I assigned more meaning to.
I imagine that the same feeling of non-accomplishment might be attached to this job somehow, in the end. Not sure how I could look back after 20 years of doing something like that. There doesn't seem to be any ever lasting quality to the output of it.
However, since most jobs are like that and this one pays at least 10x better, I'm sure most people could live with it:)
Well, I think Epson would probably disagree with you on the longevity. I probably would, too, as I've had high end dye sub output look like the poster in the window of a beach popsicle stand in just a year or two (you know - all cyan with a touch of yellow here and there...not a hint of magenta to be found). The longevity figures are all artifically created
I believe those figures are derived under an ideal environment - say in a photo album, printed on non-acidic paper (company brand) in UV protective plastic, etc.
But besides that, what you mentioned was constantly exposed to the sun's rays by the sounds of it. I think that ages and yellows almost any paper.
I repeat simple common sense - drink water most of the time. It seems nothing else is safe these days.
I don't know where you get the idea that water is "safe". Hell, here in Ontario, Canada, we had the Walkerton debacle in 2000 wherein people died from E.coli that was circulated through "clean" tap water. And this is in an industrialized nation where we're not supposed to have problems with this kind of crap anymore. God forbid you visit/live in Mexico or Africa or some such where the water quality is worse.
- water can carry harmful bacteria
Water = H20
Water + E.coli = deadly Coca Cola = deadly
I did not give you permission to add E.coli to your water>:( Also, I didn't say to drink "ocean water = (at a minimum) salt + water." Don't blame me when it turns out unsafe. I didn't specifically advocate tap water. You can get bottled water from a reputable bottler such as say the Coca-Cola Company (Dasani). It should be as safe as Cola.
Shall I go on?
Not really. Your list is ridiculous in the perspective of risk. Also, cook your chicken fully to avoid samonella and use better cuts of pork (porkchops) and not bacon to avoid fat - 1st grade shit here, really. Didn't you mom teach you?
I also see some thing missing on your list: -inhaling tar&nicotine sticks are not the most healthy things for your lungs -exchanging bodily fluids with complete strangers might not be a bright idea -inhaling paint thinner may get you high and brain damaged
There is a well documented correlation between overindulgence of fats and sugars and diabetes/obesity. It's like driving under the influence of alcohol, your chances of getting into an accident is higher but not guaranteed.
These other risks such as mad cow disease or E.coli are bad luck that can't be guarded against reasonably in the US if you insist on tap water (or even bottled water) and if you are in Mexico drink bottled water. The reason you get the shits in Mexico is not only because of what the water contains but what you are used to. After a couple of weeks of living their, your immune system will get used to it or you'll die of dehydration, what not. Let time tell.
Again, think with half a brain and use common sense - then your posts may have a point.
I could find links that lead to studies that support all of the previous claims, but anyone who really cares enough can just Google it. What I'm getting at is that nothing is safe. That's why we have an immune system, but it's also why we get sick and die. That's why I've given up on eating "healthy", because nobody can agree on what "healthy" is!
Then you should just think what humans are likely evolved to eat by now and try to shoot for eating the food and drinking such drinks that it should, by nature, be designed to eat and process. This means that purely processed food such as candybars should be indulged in sparingly. Same with fruitjuice which is basically natural sugar water - fruits are healthier whole.
Humans were not evolved to eat massive amounts of sugar - Europeans started getting cavities en masse when introduced to refined sugar in the 1600/1700s (starting with Royalty who could afford sugar first initially). Native Americans still have higher rates of diabetes and alcoholism because of the complete lack of experience with alcohol (alcohol is a type of sugar) that Europeans bought with them to America. Europeans had at least 4,000 years to evolve toward it.
I agree with all you say - but I'm interested in this high fructose corn syrup stuff. I've been told it's evil and will kill us all, but a little research told me that all they do is use enzymes to break (invert) the sucrose into fructose and glucose (I could be a bit off on the details here). It's the same process by which bees turn nectar into honey. It makes it taste sweeter.
So, I'm not yet convinced that high fructose corn syrup is much more evil than, say honey? (which, as you observe, is not that good - excess leads to diabetes etc.)
I don't believe I said anything was evil though I'm apt to think of some things as undesirable.
Corn Syrup and Hydrogenated Stuff (margarine and found in snack foods) have been correlated to the rise of diabetes and obesity since they were introduced in the 1970's. Although correlation does not necessarily mean causation, the fact that "consumers love the taste" of containing hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated ingredients speaks volumes, even if the cause is just the excess calories.
One page I found warning us of the danger of HFCS going on about the "chemicals" used in manufacture. These "chemicals" were the enzymes that bees use.
Again, I don't consider HFCS poison in itself, but in quanity. Consider, in Europe, people as a whole had little tooth cavity problems until the 1600/1700s, when they started making refined sugars (started among Royalty/rich first because sugar started out very exensive and they started getting more deserts). This naturally suggests that our bodies as a whole aren't evolved to digest such quanities of sugar if our teeth already have problems with it.
Consider the native americans - they have problems with alcohol when the Europeans started bring it over - because the Europeans had thousands of years to evolve to digest it compared to Indian's complete inexperience. To this day, their rates of diabetes and alcoholism is much higher (alcohol is a sugar, though I don't know if the diabetics are alcoholics, didn't read up on that yet). Humans are not evolved to eat super high amounts of sugar at will - simply because this was never our situation before for the great majority of the population.
I would say the same applies to apple juice or orange juice. They are basically sugar water (albeit natural) and the unprecendeted availability of juice (year round) and the unprecedented availability of it and cheap cost is something relatively new to us humans. Before, most fruits or juices were consumed according to local seasons, but most likely whole with their bodies with the exception for wine, schnaps (english word?), other alcohols, and ciders.
Note: Many "fruit juices" have added high fructose corn syrup so they are not all natural either. Another popular sugar is white grape sugar.
BTW, I believe Corn Syrup is used in America since the '70s mostly because subsidies make sugar more expensive. In Europe, sugar is more used in soda still though that doesn't make it better for health:)
Another problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup is that it has a much higher uptake than regular sugar into the bloodstream.
Go to wiki or other reliable resource and look this stuff up.
Nothing is bad in moderation. Or at least worrying about. Drink water most of the time and I doubt you have to worry what the occasional cup of coffee, wine, hard liquor, soda does to you.
I repeat simple common sense - drink water most of the time. It seems nothing else is safe these days. Some weeks it comes out that red wine/coca-cola/coffee is good because of X and then the next week it's bad because of Y.
Above all - don't drink the shit that has 'corn syrup' or 'high fruchtose corn syrup' or whatever 'syrup' in it. It'll just get you diabetes faster. This includes most sweet drinks not diet. Like Starbucks Frappacinos at the next 7-eleven.
I'm serious about water. Up to 50 years ago, most people had water most of the time. It's good for you body and there is nothing for your kidneys/liver has to filter. Now, I know people who wouldn't look at a glass water - much less have one for days on end - instead ingesting endless gallons of soda. I hate to see their health 20 years down the road.
It's probably going to get worse in the future as this generation are accustomed to the friendly coca-cola vending machines besides the non-working water founta in schools these days.
Coffee is bad because it encourages you to consume more calories through milk and sugar, plus it has caffiene and the various crap that goes with it. I think caffeine is more of a addiction - I seen people who never had coffee before turn into caffeine addicts who needed a cup 'to wake up' and then one at lunch and then another at 4pm. I wouldn't care but they actually became cranky if they didn't get their fix.
Not that I don't like a good cappacino at lunch myself. But if common sense prevailed and people didn't have an insatiable want of drinking something more 'tasty' or sugary or exotic or whatever at every turn - I doubt reports of this kind would worry anybody.
*I'd say unsweetended green tea is okay too in mass quantities but then there will be a report out next week:)
Massachusetts' effort to institute open, non-proprietary document formats has come from the accessibility community, who claim that Open-Source desktop software lags behind Windows; and thus that a transition to Open Document will amount to discrimination against the blind and those with other disabilities
What does one necessarily have to do with the other? Microsoft can put in the fileformat in their software just like OpenSource apps.
Furthermore the parliament cannot propose laws, so it's really not in the position to "lord over mundane aspects of life". Maybe you're thinking of the Council of Ministers or (most probably) the Commission? The commissioners are appointed by the member states, so maybe that's what you were referrring to. Even then:
* Governments of member states are democraticly elected
HAHAHAHAHA!
I like how Germany passed the EU constitution so overwhelmingly through it's parliament while it's people had similiar ambivalence toward it as the French did. I mean, it was not only off by public opinion by a few percent - but the vote of 569 to 23.
I wonder if it went to referendum, how overwhelmingly it would have passed. Or not.
We can trust our democratically elected officials for nothing. It's not surprising when the vote in most democracies gets reduced to that of the South Park election parody - Douche vs. Turd.
Wow, the Worldwide Press Freedom Index. I'm not impressed but thanks.
Anyway the Freedom of the Press != Freedom of Speech.
If you don't know the difference, imagine why the media of the world might have less to fear from saying certain things over individuals saying certain things.
I'd love to get out of my hole - but since I'm a European that lives in both America and Europe (Germany) I might have half a clue to what I'm talking about - not an entire clue - but half a clue. Which comes from half and half living.
I don't know how to feel about the US keeping control. It's not that I care about the countries involved, but I'm afraid if the control were moved out of the US, where freedom of speech is much more voraciously protected than other countries (like Europe countries), that the PC police will go around and simply stop pointing at domains that some factions making up the international group does not approve of. Probably in the guise of protecting the people or some such.
It may sound paranoid, but the stories of how the unelected EU parliament tries to lord over every mundane aspect of life and of how they tried to widen their scope ever more really gives me second, third, and fourth thoughts about this issue.
I know that how the U.N. might be a more apt analogy in this case, but that just even more shivers down my spine.
Dye-subs are maybe a little more expensive than inkjet but much better:
True Photo look with a real clear coat print on top - not smear resistant - smear proof! No "drying out" of the cartridge (dye sub colors are dry to begin with). Regardless of dpi - much smoother look. 99 years life of print.
I tried the inkjets a few years back (the HP photoprinter, forget th model - but hell, I even hassled myself with syringes to refill those overpriced PoS cartridges) and I'm sure nothings changed - dyesubs give you professionally looking results while an inkjet print looks like an inkjet print.
Spend the few dollars more in the beginning for a dyesub, it's well worth it down the road. I believe they start under $200 these days, probably cheaper (I only checked out Hiti printers).
No matter if you choose inkjet or "dye sub" printers, crisp detail and smooth color gradation are the keys to good prints. When you get your photos back from the lab, they're shiny and smooth (without lines or dots). Getting this quality at home depends on several factors including printer resolution, i.e., how many dots per inch (DPI) of ink the printer lays on the paper as well as paper quality......
But I would never use inkjet, well anywhere. On photos because it would always smear and generally give out crappy results (you can see the intermittent lines). Plus it looks god-awful on regular paper and that ink cartridge dries out if you don't tend to regularly use it every few weeks.
Except for the cheap paper bit, dye-sub doesn't have these problems and even a lower resolution looks better because it' more blended in. My dye-sub puts on a clear coat too so it has that professional look from the photo lab, not the cheapo inkjet look. And I can only print on photo paper with my dye-sub so the quality is kinda always forced on me:) but I don't mind. The cartridges aren't with ink so it can't dry out (the color layers are on a plastic and heat transferred to the paper).
I use a Hiti printer (Hi-touch Imaging) which only focuses on these printers but they are good. I don't know if it supports linux but it's stand-alone anyway. Plus I find the price of consumables reasonable - fifty 4x6s and a dyesub cartridge bundled together for under 20 bucks.
But whatever company somebody goes with, avoid inkjet! Plus my photos have a life of 99 years - I don't think the same can be said for inkjet (imagine that stored in someplace moderately humid).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this suggestion is that MS has already thrown so many bad studies at us in the past, it should no longer be the default to take them seriously. The burden of proof is on them, and better yet, if MS is serious, set up the study to be double-blind (perhaps funded in half by Redhat or whatnot), etcetera, publish the results whatever they may be. Follow all scientific procedures. Or better yet, a challenge between a linux team and a MS team on something like making a server that can survive the most hits - where both teams have equal motivation to tweak their machines and whatnot.
It should not be, pay some guy/group to do a linux/MS, publish results if the results are good otherwise they don't see the light of day. MS did this so many times, they should be laughed at and not looked at. People's time is too limited for that.
It be like if Bush came with another proposal for a war. The burden is on the other side. They lost their credibility, they should be the ones working hard to get it back. Not us.
, it's not our problem anymore to examine them
Tangent to your argument, I'd like to add that a chip doesn't have to be clocked, clockspeed is there solely to synch the flow of data.
As I understand it, the problem with clocked chips is that even when the data is ready in one area, the clocked chips will always wait a minimum X amount of cycles for the worst case scenario of data latency. Also, the circuitry associated with setting everything up by clock is assuming at least 20% of the chip circuitry(perhaps more these days) and taking greater amounts every generation as well as getting overly complex.
I remember reading a few years back a great deal of articles about research into clockless chips (on
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/async/misc/newsfactor
http://dataweek.co.za/Article.ASP?pklArticleID=22
Well,
It's not that we can't create a new party (we have many but close to 0 representation in congress) - but our winner rules in many areas create an imbalanced representation compared to the parliaments based more closely on the purely English system.
Certain positions require winner-takes-all but some should be more flexible.
The other problem is Gerrymandering. Representatives of congress literally create the borders to their own districts, protecting against newcomers.
The last problem has been the dominance of the career politician over the citizen politician in top politics. One recent example of citizen polician is probably Jesse Ventura. The rest of the bums are pretty much career politicians - beholden to their corporate allies.
At least that's what they tout.
And now they are in power, they want a more and more powerful government in all areas - the only thing they are willing to downsize are social programs.
Don't get me wrong, the Democrats suck too.
George Washington was right when he told the American people to avoid a two party system at all costs.
Thanks smartass^_^
But the only problem with rooms is that the wall tend to be hard to move, unlike cubicles.
At least if you use wood framing and the electrical wiring as it is here. AFAIK, I think in germany, they use very lightweight bricks for inside walls (they are like a cross between styrafoam and pumice in texture and weight - very light). And they put wiring in PVC-type pipes, even inside wiring, so it's relatively easy to move rooms around compared to wood framing. But nowhere near the ease of cubicles.
so couldn't there be speakers that cancel incoming and outgoing noise planted at the edge of cubicles to make a field of silence?
I'm not sure it's feasible, but it'd be a cool idea.
How can you stay neutral when one side is funding your research?
but why would you want to burden yourself by being bound to a program for the rest of its useful life?
I don't see how installing a rootkit secretly has much to do in a free market or a monopoly. In either case, Sony's product went beyond the norm of what you expect a normal music CD to do - i.e. nothing - to your computer.
I think that the premise of Google killing these ads are false as well.
Without ad-blocker turned off. (though Firefox is set to block ads), I still get 2-4 pop-unders per session. I wonder how many Firefox itself is blocking.
In any case, I'm not focused on the ad but the little 'X' button to shut them off. I wonder how often it simply became uneconomical to advertise this way and how often would someone would return to an insignificant website that throws pop-ups or pop-unders around like that? It's a quick way to drive away your audience.
Okay, the occasional ringtone someone has to have, I can see someone paying for.
But to listen to half-assed quality tunes on a device not made for that and probably sucks the batterylife of said device, I don't see this thing suceeding in pulling in regular customers to make decent revenue.
Who'd pay 1-1/2 times iTunes price? Which is already overpriced considering what I can get some used CDs for on amazon.com or ebay or half.com, etcetera.
I won't complain about him having his job....
But I couldn't envision myself having it. Actually went to a video game college (to make them!) and after the 3rd semester, all I could think about was that I was going waste my life making products that would be enjoyed for maybe a year before it became hopelessly obsolete. Actually that would be optimistic, as most games are bound for the trash heap of history w/o being so much as a footnote. That's probably why I switched to something I assigned more meaning to.
I imagine that the same feeling of non-accomplishment might be attached to this job somehow, in the end. Not sure how I could look back after 20 years of doing something like that. There doesn't seem to be any ever lasting quality to the output of it.
However, since most jobs are like that and this one pays at least 10x better, I'm sure most people could live with it:)
Because artists could go straight to iTunes and charge less per song and still get more money. Like $.69 per song or something.
They can do that with albums right now, but I wonder how many people would buy a $>7 album on impulse versus a $1 song/single in the meantime.
Because artist could go straight to iTunes and charge less per song and still get more money. Like $.69 per song or something.
They can do that with albums right now, but I wonder how many people would buy a $>7 album on impulse versus a $1 song/single in the meantime.
I believe those figures are derived under an ideal environment - say in a photo album, printed on non-acidic paper (company brand) in UV protective plastic, etc.
But besides that, what you mentioned was constantly exposed to the sun's rays by the sounds of it. I think that ages and yellows almost any paper.
Before I have to answer a stupid reply, I meant to type:
Water = H20
Water + E.coli = deadly
Coca Cola = okay
Coca Cola + E.coli = deadly
NOT "Coca Cola=deadly"
Water = H20
Water + E.coli = deadly
Coca Cola = deadly
I did not give you permission to add E.coli to your water>:( Also, I didn't say to drink "ocean water = (at a minimum) salt + water." Don't blame me when it turns out unsafe. I didn't specifically advocate tap water. You can get bottled water from a reputable bottler such as say the Coca-Cola Company (Dasani). It should be as safe as Cola.
Not really. Your list is ridiculous in the perspective of risk. Also, cook your chicken fully to avoid samonella and use better cuts of pork (porkchops) and not bacon to avoid fat - 1st grade shit here, really. Didn't you mom teach you?
I also see some thing missing on your list:
-inhaling tar&nicotine sticks are not the most healthy things for your lungs
-exchanging bodily fluids with complete strangers might not be a bright idea
-inhaling paint thinner may get you high and brain damaged
There is a well documented correlation between overindulgence of fats and sugars and diabetes/obesity. It's like driving under the influence of alcohol, your chances of getting into an accident is higher but not guaranteed.
These other risks such as mad cow disease or E.coli are bad luck that can't be guarded against reasonably in the US if you insist on tap water (or even bottled water) and if you are in Mexico drink bottled water. The reason you get the shits in Mexico is not only because of what the water contains but what you are used to. After a couple of weeks of living their, your immune system will get used to it or you'll die of dehydration, what not. Let time tell.
Again, think with half a brain and use common sense - then your posts may have a point.
Then you should just think what humans are likely evolved to eat by now and try to shoot for eating the food and drinking such drinks that it should, by nature, be designed to eat and process. This means that purely processed food such as candybars should be indulged in sparingly. Same with fruitjuice which is basically natural sugar water - fruits are healthier whole.
Humans were not evolved to eat massive amounts of sugar - Europeans started getting cavities en masse when introduced to refined sugar in the 1600/1700s (starting with Royalty who could afford sugar first initially). Native Americans still have higher rates of diabetes and alcoholism because of the complete lack of experience with alcohol (alcohol is a type of sugar) that Europeans bought with them to America. Europeans had at least 4,000 years to evolve toward it.
Is common sense that hard?
I don't believe I said anything was evil though I'm apt to think of some things as undesirable.
Corn Syrup and Hydrogenated Stuff (margarine and found in snack foods) have been correlated to the rise of diabetes and obesity since they were introduced in the 1970's. Although correlation does not necessarily mean causation, the fact that "consumers love the taste" of containing hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated ingredients speaks volumes, even if the cause is just the excess calories.
Again, I don't consider HFCS poison in itself, but in quanity. Consider, in Europe, people as a whole had little tooth cavity problems until the 1600/1700s, when they started making refined sugars (started among Royalty/rich first because sugar started out very exensive and they started getting more deserts). This naturally suggests that our bodies as a whole aren't evolved to digest such quanities of sugar if our teeth already have problems with it.
Consider the native americans - they have problems with alcohol when the Europeans started bring it over - because the Europeans had thousands of years to evolve to digest it compared to Indian's complete inexperience. To this day, their rates of diabetes and alcoholism is much higher (alcohol is a sugar, though I don't know if the diabetics are alcoholics, didn't read up on that yet). Humans are not evolved to eat super high amounts of sugar at will - simply because this was never our situation before for the great majority of the population.
I would say the same applies to apple juice or orange juice. They are basically sugar water (albeit natural) and the unprecendeted availability of juice (year round) and the unprecedented availability of it and cheap cost is something relatively new to us humans. Before, most fruits or juices were consumed according to local seasons, but most likely whole with their bodies with the exception for wine, schnaps (english word?), other alcohols, and ciders.
Note: Many "fruit juices" have added high fructose corn syrup so they are not all natural either. Another popular sugar is white grape sugar.
BTW, I believe Corn Syrup is used in America since the '70s mostly because subsidies make sugar more expensive. In Europe, sugar is more used in soda still though that doesn't make it better for health:)
Another problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup is that it has a much higher uptake than regular sugar into the bloodstream.
Go to wiki or other reliable resource and look this stuff up.
Anyway, the chemicals in the decaffeination process don't sound particularly appealing either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decaffeination
Nothing is bad in moderation. Or at least worrying about. Drink water most of the time and I doubt you have to worry what the occasional cup of coffee, wine, hard liquor, soda does to you.
I repeat simple common sense - drink water most of the time. It seems nothing else is safe these days. Some weeks it comes out that red wine/coca-cola/coffee is good because of X and then the next week it's bad because of Y.
Above all - don't drink the shit that has 'corn syrup' or 'high fruchtose corn syrup' or whatever 'syrup' in it. It'll just get you diabetes faster. This includes most sweet drinks not diet. Like Starbucks Frappacinos at the next 7-eleven.
I'm serious about water. Up to 50 years ago, most people had water most of the time. It's good for you body and there is nothing for your kidneys/liver has to filter. Now, I know people who wouldn't look at a glass water - much less have one for days on end - instead ingesting endless gallons of soda. I hate to see their health 20 years down the road.
It's probably going to get worse in the future as this generation are accustomed to the friendly coca-cola vending machines besides the non-working water founta in schools these days.
Coffee is bad because it encourages you to consume more calories through milk and sugar, plus it has caffiene and the various crap that goes with it. I think caffeine is more of a addiction - I seen people who never had coffee before turn into caffeine addicts who needed a cup 'to wake up' and then one at lunch and then another at 4pm. I wouldn't care but they actually became cranky if they didn't get their fix.
Not that I don't like a good cappacino at lunch myself. But if common sense prevailed and people didn't have an insatiable want of drinking something more 'tasty' or sugary or exotic or whatever at every turn - I doubt reports of this kind would worry anybody.
*I'd say unsweetended green tea is okay too in mass quantities but then there will be a report out next week:)
What does one necessarily have to do with the other? Microsoft can put in the fileformat in their software just like OpenSource apps.
HAHAHAHAHA!
I like how Germany passed the EU constitution so overwhelmingly through it's parliament while it's people had similiar ambivalence toward it as the French did. I mean, it was not only off by public opinion by a few percent - but the vote of 569 to 23.
I wonder if it went to referendum, how overwhelmingly it would have passed. Or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4539393.stm
We can trust our democratically elected officials for nothing. It's not surprising when the vote in most democracies gets reduced to that of the South Park election parody - Douche vs. Turd.
Wow, the Worldwide Press Freedom Index. I'm not impressed but thanks.
Anyway the Freedom of the Press != Freedom of Speech.
If you don't know the difference, imagine why the media of the world might have less to fear from saying certain things over individuals saying certain things.
I'd love to get out of my hole - but since I'm a European that lives in both America and Europe (Germany) I might have half a clue to what I'm talking about - not an entire clue - but half a clue. Which comes from half and half living.
I don't know how to feel about the US keeping control. It's not that I care about the countries involved, but I'm afraid if the control were moved out of the US, where freedom of speech is much more voraciously protected than other countries (like Europe countries), that the PC police will go around and simply stop pointing at domains that some factions making up the international group does not approve of. Probably in the guise of protecting the people or some such.
It may sound paranoid, but the stories of how the unelected EU parliament tries to lord over every mundane aspect of life and of how they tried to widen their scope ever more really gives me second, third, and fourth thoughts about this issue.
I know that how the U.N. might be a more apt analogy in this case, but that just even more shivers down my spine.
See my other comment on this thread.
Dye-subs are maybe a little more expensive than inkjet but much better:
True Photo look with a real clear coat print on top - not smear resistant - smear proof!
No "drying out" of the cartridge (dye sub colors are dry to begin with).
Regardless of dpi - much smoother look.
99 years life of print.
I tried the inkjets a few years back (the HP photoprinter, forget th model - but hell, I even hassled myself with syringes to refill those overpriced PoS cartridges) and I'm sure nothings changed - dyesubs give you professionally looking results while an inkjet print looks like an inkjet print.
Spend the few dollars more in the beginning for a dyesub, it's well worth it down the road. I believe they start under $200 these days, probably cheaper (I only checked out Hiti printers).
But I would never use inkjet, well anywhere. On photos because it would always smear and generally give out crappy results (you can see the intermittent lines). Plus it looks god-awful on regular paper and that ink cartridge dries out if you don't tend to regularly use it every few weeks.
Except for the cheap paper bit, dye-sub doesn't have these problems and even a lower resolution looks better because it' more blended in. My dye-sub puts on a clear coat too so it has that professional look from the photo lab, not the cheapo inkjet look. And I can only print on photo paper with my dye-sub so the quality is kinda always forced on me:) but I don't mind. The cartridges aren't with ink so it can't dry out (the color layers are on a plastic and heat transferred to the paper).
I use a Hiti printer (Hi-touch Imaging) which only focuses on these printers but they are good. I don't know if it supports linux but it's stand-alone anyway. Plus I find the price of consumables reasonable - fifty 4x6s and a dyesub cartridge bundled together for under 20 bucks.
But whatever company somebody goes with, avoid inkjet! Plus my photos have a life of 99 years - I don't think the same can be said for inkjet (imagine that stored in someplace moderately humid).