I think the wording on the WSJ article is unclear and the more likely scenario is that the iPhone will continue to have a Lightning port but that the power adapter will have a USB-C port, i.e., a USB-C to Lightning cable will replace the USB-A to Lightning cable.
This would allow iPhones to plug directly into MacBooks without buying a separate adapter (plus for Apple ecosystem) but require most everyone else to buy a new USB-A to Lightning connector (great for sales).
I don't know about the data rates over Lightning, but I'd guess it would be more likely that they could tweak that and get the much faster USB-C data speeds as a bonus. Backing up your phone would be much faster.
You might start with the fact that fossil fuels get nothing like $5.3 trillion in subsidies. That's almost 7% of world GDP.
Direct (pre-tax) subsidies are around $480 billion, and most of that is petrostates selling gas to their citizens at below market prices. Developed countries supply rounding error level direct subsidies to fossil fuels and most of those are generic business development tax breaks provided to any large corporation.
You get those ridiculous multi-trillion numbers that places like the IMF and Grist put out by pricing externalities - e.g., counting as a "subsidy" any side-effect of the use of fossil fuels. But those externalities are notoriously broad - for instance, IMF counts road construction and maintenance as a fossil fuel subsidy. So this solar road would get that "subsidy" plus whatever the extra cost of the solar road was. IMF also counts road accidents as a fossil fuel subsidy - which would now become a solar subsidy.
The closest IMF gets to pricing externalities that are specific to fossil fuels is climate change, but those are based on mostly on projections and not current conditions. If you want to count not banning something as a "subsidy", feel free, but it's not a common point of view.
Libertarians are by no means universally hostile to a Universal Basic Income. Cato had a wide-ranging set of essays and discussions around the UBI - the lead essay was pro while other essays ranged from lukewarm support to implementation concerns. No one was really adamantly opposed.
Since that series of essays, the current Libertarian Presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, has said he's open to a UBI (and, until forced to walk it back, even open to using a carbon tax to fund it).
On the conservative side, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon (!), Charles Murray, Marco Rubio and others have all supported some form of UBI. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a form of UBI and one of the most politically popular features of the tax code.
The devil is in the details, but some form of UBI is coming - we're running out of work.
It happened to me and I baby my phone - always in the front left pocket by itself and it looked brand new (no scratches anywhere). Never dropped, bashed, bumped, sat on - and I'm not a phone masher. I primarily use it for web surfing or social media.
The problem seems to be how they mount the electronics that connect the screen to the circuit board - it's right at the "flex spot" on the 6 Plus and eventually gets loose. In my case, the phone was so obviously in otherwise perfect shape they just gave me a new one on the spot.
Within the last month, my iPhone 6 Plus started losing its ability to respond to touches. Putting it in front of an A/C vent was the only way to get it to work for more than a few minutes at a time.
But when I went into the local Apple Store, they swapped it out for free even though it was well out of normal warranty. I just showed up for a Genius appointment with my phone in "dead touch" mode, showed it to the guy (who peered at it from the side for a few minutes) and then he went and got a new (or refurbished) one. He told me the phone was ever so slightly bent (maybe by the thickness of a sheet of paper) but obviously not abused and that the policy was to just replace them.
I don't know if it's just my Apple Store that's doing this but it sounds like it has quietly become corporate policy for phones that are not obviously bashed up.
I gave you the math and you still don't get it. If 100 grams of sucrose makes you sated and the reason you are sated is 50 grams of glucose, then you would need 111 grams of HFCS-55 to give you the same 50 grams of satiating glucose, meaning you'd have 61 grams of fructose vs the 50 you'd get with sucrose.
111 *.45 = 50 grams of glucose 111 * 55 = 61 grams of fructose
61 / 50 = 1.22 or 22% more fructose. Still not 30% or 35% or 40% or whatever random number you decide it must be with your "very simple math".
I still don't buy the idea that someone opens and consumes another entire container of soda on a regular basis because they are missing a few grams of glucose after ingesting a large quantity of glucose. But even on your terms, the numbers aren't as bad as you continue to insist.
OK - I can see I'm arguing with an innumerate kook, but I'll finish with this:
If you have 100 grams of sucrose, 50 grams is fructose, 50 grams is glucose.
If you have 100 grams of HFCS-55, 55 grams is fructose, 45 grams is glucose.
You have 10% more of that "fat-forming sugar" fructose, not 30% more.
Giving you the most tendentious and ludicrous reading and "equalizing" the quantities so you can get 50 grams of glucose from the HFCS-55, you move to 111 grams of HFCS-55, of which 61 grams is fructose, which would be 22% more than the original quantity. Still not 30%.
There is a huge difference between the Big Gulp phenomenon and typical soda consumption. People generally drink their sodas in single-serve containers, which have a fixed number of calories and grams of various sugars. The idea that 3.0 fewer grams of glucose is going to make people drink another can of soda that they otherwise would have skipped is a stretch - that's not really how people consume soda.
When you get to Big Gulp/Double Gulp sizes, you're screwed no matter what - you've far exceeded any "glucose satiety" signal. Yes, you probably need to metabolize 1.5 more grams of fructose, but you're already metabolizing nearly 60 grams of fructose - that additional gram and a half is a rounding error. A Big Gulp with pure sucrose will have the same negative effects.
There is a difference between saying sugar is bad for you metabolically (true) and that fructose does not trigger ghrelin (probably true) and that 2-3 grams of fructose a day is going to have any significant effect on your metabolism.
I'm doing a comparison between cane sugar and HFCS-55 - both of which are bad for you and, in the amounts actually consumable, about equally bad.
I'm generally in the Taubes camp myself - I'm simply saying that there isn't much difference (in the amounts within a typical diet) between HFCS-55 and cane sugar. HFCS-42 may, ironically, be worse for you even though it has much lower fructose content, because it is widely used as a fat substitute in baked goods. While it has a beneficial glucose/fructose balance, it's directly increasing your sugar consumption while lowering your fat consumption - and most people don't even recognize it, because it is less sweet than sugar, they can use more and it still doesn't make the product overly sweet.
HFCS largely comes in two formulations - HFCS-55 (used in sugary drinks) and HFCS-42 (used in baked goods).
Both start as corn syrup, which is created by taking corn starch (long chains of glucose) and adding two enzymes (amylase and glucoamylase) which gives you "corn syrup", also known as "glucose syrup". It's nearly pure glucose. If you buy corn syrup at the store, this is what you get - glucose syrup.
Because it's not very sweet, companies then convert some of the glucose into fructose using another enzyme (Xylose isomerase). This process costs time and money, so they only do it to get to the final ratios they want. This is done in big batches and then the unconverted and converted syrups are blended - essentially they are adding relatively expensive fructose to relatively cheap glucose and not the other way around.
HFCS-55 is 55% fructose/45% glucose and is used to sweeten drinks. While it has a higher ratio of fructose to glucose than does sucrose (50/50), it is also sweeter than sucrose, so companies can use less. Mexican Coke uses 37.5 grams of sucrose per can, American Coke uses 35 grams of HFCS-55 per can. This works out to 0.5 grams more fructose in the American can, but 2.0 grams less glucose in the can. American Coke has, therefore, less calories (140 vs 150 per can).
HFCS-42 is used in baked goods as a fat substitute. It keeps baked goods "fresh" and moist longer, which allows a reduction in fat (which normally performs that duty). If they simply swapped in more sucrose for the fat, the resulting baked good would be too sweet, so they use HFCS-42 (which has a 42/58 ratio of fructose-to-glucose) which is less sweet. The resulting baked good has more overall sugar calories but less fructose and less fat.
I don't drink sugary drinks, so HFCS-55 is moot for me and I generally try to avoid low-fat baked goods (because they suck). Even someone drinking 2 liters of soda per day would only consume an extra 3 grams of fructose (12 calories) while losing 18 grams of glucose (72 calories) - it's a net reduction of 60 calories per day. Which is probably better for you than the nagtive effects of 3 grams of fructose.
The ironic bit is that many "health conscious" folks have switched to all-natural agave syrup/nectar, which has about a 3-to-1 fructose-to-glucose ratio. Because of this, it is quite a bit sweeter than sucrose and you can use less of it. But you are definitely consuming a far higher amount of fructose.
Agave syrup has been shown (in typically small studies) to raise triglyceride levels. It's far worse for you than HFCS-55 or HFCS-42.
Mexican Coca Cola (sucrose) has 150 calories per can (355ml) American Coca Cola (HFCS-55) has 140 calories per can (355ml)
HFCS-55 is slightly sweeter than sucrose, so you need less of it. In a typical can of sugar soda, you will consume 18.75 grams of fructose and 18.75 grams of glucose.
In a can of HCFS-55 soda, you will consumer 19.25 grams of fructose and 15.75 grams of glucose.
The change in total fructose is negligible (+0.5 grams) compared to the change in glucose (-3.0 grams).
As people generally consume soda in discrete amounts (12oz, 20oz,.5 liter), it seems unlikely that HFCS-55 in sugary drinks is making a huge change in the amount of fructose consumed. It does appear to be making a minor contribution in total calorie reduction (about 7% less calories).
Freezing them. Retailers can request frozen versions of the Hostess snack cakes which will last for several months in the freezer. Once unfrozen, they have the same shelf life as a "fresh" one - about 45 days. This lets retailers stock up and release cakes as needed.
One difference may be that people native to the Americas have a far more limited number of human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) which are involved in innate immunity. In 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles Mann goes over this issue in some detail. HLA diversity is an important aspect to innate immunity - each antigen is capable of "seeing" a specific type of foreign protein and generating an immune response for it. The more kinds of HLAs an individual has, the more diseases he or she can fight off quickly, and the more kinds of HLAs a population has the more likely that a disease outbreak will be limited.
Native Americans have problems on both ends - typical "Old World" humans have 35 different HLAs they can inherit while typical "New World" humans only have 17. Old World humans also tend to have a few more HLAs per individual and their populations are very diverse - perhaps as few as 1 in 200 will share the same set of HLAs. New World humans, on the other hand, are far more clustered - as many as 1/3 of all native South Americans have identical HLA profiles.
New World humans may therefore be uniquely susceptible to Zika and its spread may become more widespread - there may not be any innate herd immunity to the virus. If Zika falls into a HLA pattern that simply doesn't exist in South America, native peoples will be in grave danger.
You routinely buy insurance that protects you from mechanical defect or wear-and-tear. If the defect is egregious enough, lawsuits will be filed (presumably by the insurance companies or as class actions) and you will get some sort of recompense (if only in lower insurance bills than you would otherwise have gotten). You are still making the decision to use an autonomous car, so you are in some sense responsible for that choice. ("Yeah, I know Android Car is a better driver than Microsoft Car, but I got a great deal on it...") This doesn't even get into issues that may arise if the software has a problem dealing with a condition caused by the owner - e.g., your tires are bald or you forced it to drive in conditions it's not rated as capable of handling.
Google will also have counterbalancing claims if you (or the car company using Google's software) don't keep the software updated - there can be no "I preferred to stay on Jellybean" for Android Cars.
Out of the box, a browser just doesn't have that much of a UI. Tabs, back/forward button, URL, search box. A handful of buttons/drop downs. Some sort of menu.
The only change that took any getting used to was the Awesomebar, which I disliked at first but came to prefer.
The out of the box UI experience has mostly just shuffled some things around and collapsed the menu bar (which still exists if you want it) into the hamburger menu. Slowly getting rid of the dialog boxes and replacing them with tabbed pages is a plus from my perspective but I guess you could whine about that if you really liked the old cramped dialogs.
Generally there are a handful of GUI tweaks every year or so, takes me 5 minutes to learn how to navigate the changes and then, once again, I ignore the GUI. Because the whole point of a browser is to be focused on the content, not the chrome.
I've never understood the Australis hate - a browser's chrome has to be the least important thing I can think of. As long as it's not actively hostile, why does anyone care? I simply don't interact with the chrome all that much.
People generally seem to like the Chrome GUI, which is largely what Australis goes for. If the biggest browser user base is happy with it, it can't be that awful.
If browser chrome is a problem for you - you're using it wrong.
I use about a dozen extensions and except for ForecastFox (which hasn't been developed in years), I've yet to have an extension broken by a Firefox upgrade. I know it happens, but it's just as much lazy extension developers as Firefox devs.
And if you hate the rapid release cycle, move to an ESR channel. Once a year releases, with bugfixes.
Every time a Mozilla article is posted on Slashdot, the entire conversation just becomes a huge slag-fest. You would have thought Asa Dotzler shot their dog.
Mozilla is a fairly large company. It has resources to do more than a single thing at a time. As long as those things generally fall into their "Free, Open Web" philosophy and don't completely sap their ability to pump out Firefox releases, who cares?
In the same post, you will have people complaining about the feverish release cycle of Firefox and also complaining about how they've "abandoned" the project. Or complaining about issues (like memory usage or speed) that haven't been true for years. Firefox is certainly within the ballpark of every other browser when it comes to speed, memory use, standards compliance, promptness of exploit fixes, etc. There are a few areas (multiprocess and 64 bit being primary) where they lag.
All the freaking whinging about the Australis GUI (when you can get extensions that will drag you right back to 1999) or frequent release cycles is ridiculous. Mozilla always tried to be competitive with other browsers. Four years ago, people complained about slow release cycles vis-a-vis Chrome or talked about how clean the Chrome GUI was - Mozilla listened to those complainers and got a new set of complainers.
There will also be a bunch of people recommending Pale Moon or Iceweasel or whatever. Those browsers wouldn't exist without Firefox - if Mozilla goes dark, those projects will run out of steam very quickly. It's healthier to look at them as distributions rather than alternatives - tweaked to a specific user base.
I like Firefox because the extension ecosystem is still miles better than Chrome after Chrome has had 50+ releases to become competitive. I like Mozilla because they at least give one crap for the concept of a free, open web that isn't incessantly spying on you.
This isn't to say Mozilla is perfect - they've certainly screwed up their share of times. But we should want a healthy Mozilla out there - your alternatives are Google or Microsoft monetizing your every click.
I don't know who those "too many" are, but libertarians are usually tarred by that brush and would disagree completely. Libertarians are generally anti-Big Government and anti-Big Business. Look up regulatory capture and rent seeking - terms that mostly originate from libertarian critiques of modern markets.
If a government does not protect the institution of slavery, including the market for slaves themselves, slaves can revolt more easily - it was the government's monopoly of violence in the antebellum South that allowed slavery to even exist, considering that the number of slaves generally vastly outnumbered the number of slave owners.
Even the existence of a anti-slave portion of the country (the North) caused enormous problems. Slaves could simply run away and if they could make it to the North without being recaptured by agents of the Southern pro-slavery government, they could live free. It was such a problem that they introduced the Fugitive Slave Act precisely to "fix" the problem of free movement of people (which is related to free markets). Once again, a government stepped in to enforce slavery - had the government not been involved, slavery would have died out long before then.
I read your comment about congress-critters having "wet dreams over a draft" and assumed you'd be talking about Democrats, but, oddly, you seem to think Republicans want a draft. The only bills introduced in the last decade-plus to reinstate the draft were sponsored by Democrats (Charlie Rangel seem to bring one up every once in a while). Left leaning policy wonks have brought up the idea, and Dana Milbank famously wrote an op-ed promoting a new draft.
Now, some of this is basically an attempt to highlight alleged hypocrisy or to "spread the pain" outside of the perceived "only poor folk join the military" viewpoint of many on the left. Leaving aside that volunteering for the military isn't particularly clustered around poverty (it is clustered around a history of family members in the military), this is pretty cynical fear-mongering that's not much better than what the Republicans do. And to the extent that it's sincerely held belief (e.g., Jim McDermott, (D) WA, who honestly believes in a draft), it's a pretty daft one that generally revolves around social engineering (forming a "more engaged" populace through compulsory service).
Honestly, neither party is all that coherent when it comes to foreign relations and the military. Both sides are happy to bomb brown people all over the world and both want to do it on the cheap. It's a choice between feckless and reckless.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the wording on the WSJ article is unclear and the more likely scenario is that the iPhone will continue to have a Lightning port but that the power adapter will have a USB-C port, i.e., a USB-C to Lightning cable will replace the USB-A to Lightning cable.
This would allow iPhones to plug directly into MacBooks without buying a separate adapter (plus for Apple ecosystem) but require most everyone else to buy a new USB-A to Lightning connector (great for sales).
I don't know about the data rates over Lightning, but I'd guess it would be more likely that they could tweak that and get the much faster USB-C data speeds as a bonus. Backing up your phone would be much faster.
You might start with the fact that fossil fuels get nothing like $5.3 trillion in subsidies. That's almost 7% of world GDP.
Direct (pre-tax) subsidies are around $480 billion, and most of that is petrostates selling gas to their citizens at below market prices. Developed countries supply rounding error level direct subsidies to fossil fuels and most of those are generic business development tax breaks provided to any large corporation.
You get those ridiculous multi-trillion numbers that places like the IMF and Grist put out by pricing externalities - e.g., counting as a "subsidy" any side-effect of the use of fossil fuels. But those externalities are notoriously broad - for instance, IMF counts road construction and maintenance as a fossil fuel subsidy. So this solar road would get that "subsidy" plus whatever the extra cost of the solar road was. IMF also counts road accidents as a fossil fuel subsidy - which would now become a solar subsidy.
The closest IMF gets to pricing externalities that are specific to fossil fuels is climate change, but those are based on mostly on projections and not current conditions. If you want to count not banning something as a "subsidy", feel free, but it's not a common point of view.
Libertarians are by no means universally hostile to a Universal Basic Income. Cato had a wide-ranging set of essays and discussions around the UBI - the lead essay was pro while other essays ranged from lukewarm support to implementation concerns. No one was really adamantly opposed.
Since that series of essays, the current Libertarian Presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, has said he's open to a UBI (and, until forced to walk it back, even open to using a carbon tax to fund it).
On the conservative side, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Richard Nixon (!), Charles Murray, Marco Rubio and others have all supported some form of UBI. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a form of UBI and one of the most politically popular features of the tax code.
The devil is in the details, but some form of UBI is coming - we're running out of work.
That lowercase 'm' is a horror show. Simply awful.
It's also no good as a coding font (lack of distinction between various problematic glyphs) but that's probably not its audience.
It happened to me and I baby my phone - always in the front left pocket by itself and it looked brand new (no scratches anywhere). Never dropped, bashed, bumped, sat on - and I'm not a phone masher. I primarily use it for web surfing or social media.
The problem seems to be how they mount the electronics that connect the screen to the circuit board - it's right at the "flex spot" on the 6 Plus and eventually gets loose. In my case, the phone was so obviously in otherwise perfect shape they just gave me a new one on the spot.
Within the last month, my iPhone 6 Plus started losing its ability to respond to touches. Putting it in front of an A/C vent was the only way to get it to work for more than a few minutes at a time.
But when I went into the local Apple Store, they swapped it out for free even though it was well out of normal warranty. I just showed up for a Genius appointment with my phone in "dead touch" mode, showed it to the guy (who peered at it from the side for a few minutes) and then he went and got a new (or refurbished) one. He told me the phone was ever so slightly bent (maybe by the thickness of a sheet of paper) but obviously not abused and that the policy was to just replace them.
I don't know if it's just my Apple Store that's doing this but it sounds like it has quietly become corporate policy for phones that are not obviously bashed up.
I gave you the math and you still don't get it. If 100 grams of sucrose makes you sated and the reason you are sated is 50 grams of glucose, then you would need 111 grams of HFCS-55 to give you the same 50 grams of satiating glucose, meaning you'd have 61 grams of fructose vs the 50 you'd get with sucrose.
111 * .45 = 50 grams of glucose
111 * 55 = 61 grams of fructose
61 / 50 = 1.22 or 22% more fructose. Still not 30% or 35% or 40% or whatever random number you decide it must be with your "very simple math".
I still don't buy the idea that someone opens and consumes another entire container of soda on a regular basis because they are missing a few grams of glucose after ingesting a large quantity of glucose. But even on your terms, the numbers aren't as bad as you continue to insist.
OK - I can see I'm arguing with an innumerate kook, but I'll finish with this:
If you have 100 grams of sucrose, 50 grams is fructose, 50 grams is glucose.
If you have 100 grams of HFCS-55, 55 grams is fructose, 45 grams is glucose.
You have 10% more of that "fat-forming sugar" fructose, not 30% more.
Giving you the most tendentious and ludicrous reading and "equalizing" the quantities so you can get 50 grams of glucose from the HFCS-55, you move to 111 grams of HFCS-55, of which 61 grams is fructose, which would be 22% more than the original quantity. Still not 30%.
There is a huge difference between the Big Gulp phenomenon and typical soda consumption. People generally drink their sodas in single-serve containers, which have a fixed number of calories and grams of various sugars. The idea that 3.0 fewer grams of glucose is going to make people drink another can of soda that they otherwise would have skipped is a stretch - that's not really how people consume soda.
When you get to Big Gulp/Double Gulp sizes, you're screwed no matter what - you've far exceeded any "glucose satiety" signal. Yes, you probably need to metabolize 1.5 more grams of fructose, but you're already metabolizing nearly 60 grams of fructose - that additional gram and a half is a rounding error. A Big Gulp with pure sucrose will have the same negative effects.
There is a difference between saying sugar is bad for you metabolically (true) and that fructose does not trigger ghrelin (probably true) and that 2-3 grams of fructose a day is going to have any significant effect on your metabolism.
I'm doing a comparison between cane sugar and HFCS-55 - both of which are bad for you and, in the amounts actually consumable, about equally bad.
I'm generally in the Taubes camp myself - I'm simply saying that there isn't much difference (in the amounts within a typical diet) between HFCS-55 and cane sugar. HFCS-42 may, ironically, be worse for you even though it has much lower fructose content, because it is widely used as a fat substitute in baked goods. While it has a beneficial glucose/fructose balance, it's directly increasing your sugar consumption while lowering your fat consumption - and most people don't even recognize it, because it is less sweet than sugar, they can use more and it still doesn't make the product overly sweet.
I wouldn't throw stones...
HFCS largely comes in two formulations - HFCS-55 (used in sugary drinks) and HFCS-42 (used in baked goods).
Both start as corn syrup, which is created by taking corn starch (long chains of glucose) and adding two enzymes (amylase and glucoamylase) which gives you "corn syrup", also known as "glucose syrup". It's nearly pure glucose. If you buy corn syrup at the store, this is what you get - glucose syrup.
Because it's not very sweet, companies then convert some of the glucose into fructose using another enzyme (Xylose isomerase). This process costs time and money, so they only do it to get to the final ratios they want. This is done in big batches and then the unconverted and converted syrups are blended - essentially they are adding relatively expensive fructose to relatively cheap glucose and not the other way around.
HFCS-55 is 55% fructose/45% glucose and is used to sweeten drinks. While it has a higher ratio of fructose to glucose than does sucrose (50/50), it is also sweeter than sucrose, so companies can use less. Mexican Coke uses 37.5 grams of sucrose per can, American Coke uses 35 grams of HFCS-55 per can. This works out to 0.5 grams more fructose in the American can, but 2.0 grams less glucose in the can. American Coke has, therefore, less calories (140 vs 150 per can).
HFCS-42 is used in baked goods as a fat substitute. It keeps baked goods "fresh" and moist longer, which allows a reduction in fat (which normally performs that duty). If they simply swapped in more sucrose for the fat, the resulting baked good would be too sweet, so they use HFCS-42 (which has a 42/58 ratio of fructose-to-glucose) which is less sweet. The resulting baked good has more overall sugar calories but less fructose and less fat.
I don't drink sugary drinks, so HFCS-55 is moot for me and I generally try to avoid low-fat baked goods (because they suck). Even someone drinking 2 liters of soda per day would only consume an extra 3 grams of fructose (12 calories) while losing 18 grams of glucose (72 calories) - it's a net reduction of 60 calories per day. Which is probably better for you than the nagtive effects of 3 grams of fructose.
The ironic bit is that many "health conscious" folks have switched to all-natural agave syrup/nectar, which has about a 3-to-1 fructose-to-glucose ratio. Because of this, it is quite a bit sweeter than sucrose and you can use less of it. But you are definitely consuming a far higher amount of fructose.
Agave syrup has been shown (in typically small studies) to raise triglyceride levels. It's far worse for you than HFCS-55 or HFCS-42.
Let's take some concrete examples:
Mexican Coca Cola (sucrose) has 150 calories per can (355ml)
American Coca Cola (HFCS-55) has 140 calories per can (355ml)
HFCS-55 is slightly sweeter than sucrose, so you need less of it. In a typical can of sugar soda, you will consume 18.75 grams of fructose and 18.75 grams of glucose.
In a can of HCFS-55 soda, you will consumer 19.25 grams of fructose and 15.75 grams of glucose.
The change in total fructose is negligible (+0.5 grams) compared to the change in glucose (-3.0 grams).
As people generally consume soda in discrete amounts (12oz, 20oz, .5 liter), it seems unlikely that HFCS-55 in sugary drinks is making a huge change in the amount of fructose consumed. It does appear to be making a minor contribution in total calorie reduction (about 7% less calories).
Freezing them. Retailers can request frozen versions of the Hostess snack cakes which will last for several months in the freezer. Once unfrozen, they have the same shelf life as a "fresh" one - about 45 days. This lets retailers stock up and release cakes as needed.
Did they hire Elroy Patashnik?
One difference may be that people native to the Americas have a far more limited number of human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) which are involved in innate immunity. In 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles Mann goes over this issue in some detail. HLA diversity is an important aspect to innate immunity - each antigen is capable of "seeing" a specific type of foreign protein and generating an immune response for it. The more kinds of HLAs an individual has, the more diseases he or she can fight off quickly, and the more kinds of HLAs a population has the more likely that a disease outbreak will be limited.
Native Americans have problems on both ends - typical "Old World" humans have 35 different HLAs they can inherit while typical "New World" humans only have 17. Old World humans also tend to have a few more HLAs per individual and their populations are very diverse - perhaps as few as 1 in 200 will share the same set of HLAs. New World humans, on the other hand, are far more clustered - as many as 1/3 of all native South Americans have identical HLA profiles.
New World humans may therefore be uniquely susceptible to Zika and its spread may become more widespread - there may not be any innate herd immunity to the virus. If Zika falls into a HLA pattern that simply doesn't exist in South America, native peoples will be in grave danger.
You routinely buy insurance that protects you from mechanical defect or wear-and-tear. If the defect is egregious enough, lawsuits will be filed (presumably by the insurance companies or as class actions) and you will get some sort of recompense (if only in lower insurance bills than you would otherwise have gotten). You are still making the decision to use an autonomous car, so you are in some sense responsible for that choice. ("Yeah, I know Android Car is a better driver than Microsoft Car, but I got a great deal on it...") This doesn't even get into issues that may arise if the software has a problem dealing with a condition caused by the owner - e.g., your tires are bald or you forced it to drive in conditions it's not rated as capable of handling.
Google will also have counterbalancing claims if you (or the car company using Google's software) don't keep the software updated - there can be no "I preferred to stay on Jellybean" for Android Cars.
There are 52,000 reported bugs open in Chromium. That doesn't even include the closed/wontfix ones.
Out of the box, a browser just doesn't have that much of a UI. Tabs, back/forward button, URL, search box. A handful of buttons/drop downs. Some sort of menu.
The only change that took any getting used to was the Awesomebar, which I disliked at first but came to prefer.
The out of the box UI experience has mostly just shuffled some things around and collapsed the menu bar (which still exists if you want it) into the hamburger menu. Slowly getting rid of the dialog boxes and replacing them with tabbed pages is a plus from my perspective but I guess you could whine about that if you really liked the old cramped dialogs.
Generally there are a handful of GUI tweaks every year or so, takes me 5 minutes to learn how to navigate the changes and then, once again, I ignore the GUI. Because the whole point of a browser is to be focused on the content, not the chrome.
I've never understood the Australis hate - a browser's chrome has to be the least important thing I can think of. As long as it's not actively hostile, why does anyone care? I simply don't interact with the chrome all that much.
People generally seem to like the Chrome GUI, which is largely what Australis goes for. If the biggest browser user base is happy with it, it can't be that awful.
If browser chrome is a problem for you - you're using it wrong.
I use about a dozen extensions and except for ForecastFox (which hasn't been developed in years), I've yet to have an extension broken by a Firefox upgrade. I know it happens, but it's just as much lazy extension developers as Firefox devs.
And if you hate the rapid release cycle, move to an ESR channel. Once a year releases, with bugfixes.
Every time a Mozilla article is posted on Slashdot, the entire conversation just becomes a huge slag-fest. You would have thought Asa Dotzler shot their dog.
Mozilla is a fairly large company. It has resources to do more than a single thing at a time. As long as those things generally fall into their "Free, Open Web" philosophy and don't completely sap their ability to pump out Firefox releases, who cares?
In the same post, you will have people complaining about the feverish release cycle of Firefox and also complaining about how they've "abandoned" the project. Or complaining about issues (like memory usage or speed) that haven't been true for years. Firefox is certainly within the ballpark of every other browser when it comes to speed, memory use, standards compliance, promptness of exploit fixes, etc. There are a few areas (multiprocess and 64 bit being primary) where they lag.
All the freaking whinging about the Australis GUI (when you can get extensions that will drag you right back to 1999) or frequent release cycles is ridiculous. Mozilla always tried to be competitive with other browsers. Four years ago, people complained about slow release cycles vis-a-vis Chrome or talked about how clean the Chrome GUI was - Mozilla listened to those complainers and got a new set of complainers.
There will also be a bunch of people recommending Pale Moon or Iceweasel or whatever. Those browsers wouldn't exist without Firefox - if Mozilla goes dark, those projects will run out of steam very quickly. It's healthier to look at them as distributions rather than alternatives - tweaked to a specific user base.
I like Firefox because the extension ecosystem is still miles better than Chrome after Chrome has had 50+ releases to become competitive. I like Mozilla because they at least give one crap for the concept of a free, open web that isn't incessantly spying on you.
This isn't to say Mozilla is perfect - they've certainly screwed up their share of times. But we should want a healthy Mozilla out there - your alternatives are Google or Microsoft monetizing your every click.
I don't know who those "too many" are, but libertarians are usually tarred by that brush and would disagree completely. Libertarians are generally anti-Big Government and anti-Big Business. Look up regulatory capture and rent seeking - terms that mostly originate from libertarian critiques of modern markets.
If a government does not protect the institution of slavery, including the market for slaves themselves, slaves can revolt more easily - it was the government's monopoly of violence in the antebellum South that allowed slavery to even exist, considering that the number of slaves generally vastly outnumbered the number of slave owners.
Even the existence of a anti-slave portion of the country (the North) caused enormous problems. Slaves could simply run away and if they could make it to the North without being recaptured by agents of the Southern pro-slavery government, they could live free. It was such a problem that they introduced the Fugitive Slave Act precisely to "fix" the problem of free movement of people (which is related to free markets). Once again, a government stepped in to enforce slavery - had the government not been involved, slavery would have died out long before then.
Slavery is the ultimate government regulation.
Star Wars VII: The Search for Luke
I read your comment about congress-critters having "wet dreams over a draft" and assumed you'd be talking about Democrats, but, oddly, you seem to think Republicans want a draft. The only bills introduced in the last decade-plus to reinstate the draft were sponsored by Democrats (Charlie Rangel seem to bring one up every once in a while). Left leaning policy wonks have brought up the idea, and Dana Milbank famously wrote an op-ed promoting a new draft.
Now, some of this is basically an attempt to highlight alleged hypocrisy or to "spread the pain" outside of the perceived "only poor folk join the military" viewpoint of many on the left. Leaving aside that volunteering for the military isn't particularly clustered around poverty (it is clustered around a history of family members in the military), this is pretty cynical fear-mongering that's not much better than what the Republicans do. And to the extent that it's sincerely held belief (e.g., Jim McDermott, (D) WA, who honestly believes in a draft), it's a pretty daft one that generally revolves around social engineering (forming a "more engaged" populace through compulsory service).
Honestly, neither party is all that coherent when it comes to foreign relations and the military. Both sides are happy to bomb brown people all over the world and both want to do it on the cheap. It's a choice between feckless and reckless.