I've only just begun using TrueCrypt, but my experience, also, is that it just
works, also. I like making and maintaining a container, which can be moved to
a thumb (flash memory) drive for traveling.
I like the command line options of TrueCrypt.
Most importantly:
1) Reading the web site and documentation gives me the impression the
developers know what they are doing. I like it that, in the comments above,
the developers are criticized for an incorrect statement about block chaining,
and the error was corrected immediately.
When I read the web sites and documentation of commercial encryption
products, so much is written by bored marketing people that I fear that the
company is controlled by someone who majored in English Literature. (Nothing
against majoring in Eng. Lit., but such people should not have control over
products that require advanced understanding of technology.)
2) To me, it is absolutely necessary that any encryption software I
use be Open Source. I fear that a rogue employee or a an owner of a commercial
encryption software company would put in a back door, or would introduce a
weakness.
The U.S. government has decided that it can secretly force companies
to help in surveillance. This means that commercial companies cannot be
trusted. (The drawbacks of secret action are called "Blowback" by some in the
U.S. government. Blowback is not seen as a bad thing, because if decreases the
political stability in the world, which means that employees of U.S.
government secret agencies will get raises and promotions.)
For conventional encryption, like sending encrypted files
automatically to a private FTP site for safe offline storage, I use Gnu Privacy Guard. Also Open Source, of course.
TrueCrypt is disk encryption software for Windows XP/2000/2003 and Linux. Version 4.1 was released last month. It seems to have been designed by people who are VERY serious about encryption. For example, TrueCrypt "provides two levels of plausible deniability".
Many of the comments that have been posted say that thermal printing is okay. If you buy good, expensive thermal stock, thermal printing lasts 5 years. Even the companies that sell the materials don't promise more than that, and that's only for very special stock.
Sometimes people keep documents for many years. In some cases, it could be inconvenient for the label to fade.
I've researched inkjet printers. There are inkjet receipt printers that might work for labels. But that's a research project, of course.
First, ask yourself if the sadness and depression is realistic. Is your connection with other people far less than is required to meet your needs? People in the U.S. culture often have families in which the members are very disconnected from each other. It's healthy to feel sad about that.
Second, depression is caused by inner conflict. To relieve depression, you must resolve inner conflict. The fake methods of dealing with depression don't work, they just delay the intensity of the problem until later.
This was not: "The two posts that have actually mentioned this phenomenon so far have both been penned by Chris Bradshaw. Apparently he is the sole target of this dastardly plot.
" You are trying to shut off the entire discussion by attacking one messenger?
Maybe the New York Netflix operates differently. The Salem Netflix, that serves Portland, Oregon, definitely does some funny business, in my experience. But Netflix is, for us, still far better than what is in second place. The Blockbusters here are staffed by often difficult, bored people. And who wants to drive to look over a few DVDs when Netflix has a huge list?
Another note to go with my parent post: This article is HIGHLY suspect. It could easily be from the Cut-Down-All-the-Forests-to-Make-a-few-People-Rich -Institute.
BROKEN MODERATION SYSTEM!!! Mod Parent Up, not down.
On 2005-12-25, 11:02, the parent comment is at -1, Troll. But, it is exactly correct, and very insightful.
To repeat: "We have only one environmental problem in this world, and that is the huge number of people on this planet. All other problems are just secondary manifestations of this one."
Note that these bugs are marked as "Resolved Invalid". Note that EVERY comment from a developer contains some criticism of people reporting the bugs. Note that NO comment from a developer shows any willingness to understand the value of what has been reported.
Apparently Mozilla developers have VERY little patience, and want bug reports that allow them to fix something in an afternoon. The seem to want to ignore bugs that require considerable investigation.
Many, many people report memory use problems in Mozilla and Firefox. The subject is building in interest. Sooner or later the bug needs to be fixed, rather than spend hours and hours discussing why it can't be fixed.
Developers: Please no more emphasizing the shortcomings of what has been reported. Try to see the good. That's a good philosophy in other areas, too.
No words will fix the problem.
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 1
The Mozilla and Firefox CPU and memory hogging bug needs to be fixed, not
ignored. No amount of words, no amount of attitude, will make the problem go
away.
An educated guess: Probably developers would find that fixing the CPU
and memory hogging bug would solve many, many other small issues, and make
working with the code much more fun.
No other program in Windows or Linux has this problem, apparently. The
problem is entirely caused by something in the Mozilla programs. The fact that
the problem is largely unchanged for more than 2 years indicates that it was
in the code base more than 2 years ago. That's a clue.
You said, "Even if a developer DOES experience the problem, how
does he/she track it down? Tools such as valgrind make the browser run 100x
slower while being debugged - can you possibly surf for a week like that?"
That's easy. When someone experiences the CPU and/or memory hogging
problem, have them send their history file. Use the history file to program
the browser to load web pages automatically. If I were trying that, I would
write a program to arrange the history file so that it could be used as input
to a keyboard imitation program written in AutoIt or AutoHotkey (Windows). Run the test
program on a test computer. We have many of them here; Mozilla developers probably
do too.
You said, "Care to post bug #s?". That's really, really
disgusting. After this long discussion, and you calling me a troll, you are
demonstrating once again that you didn't read what I posted. I already posted
a bug number and extensive discussion! That's the behavior I have seen over
and over again with Mozilla and Firefox developers: A total lack of
willingness to let someone else lead.
The problem is, it has become obvious, a social problem, not a
technical one. If I were a Mozilla developer, I would think that solving this
bug was much more exciting than any of the others. Somehow, Mozilla developers
spray words at the problem rather than fixing it. Why?
My guess is that the social structure of the Mozilla Foundation is
such that no one is able to work on an extremely serious and wide-ranging bug
such as the CPU and memory hogging bug.
The Mozilla Foundation needs a real leader. Having a lawyer who
understands nothing about technical things is not leadership.
Maybe I could head the Mozilla Foundation, at least temporarily. I
have the necessary programming and top management experience. I certainly have
clear ideas about things that need to be done, and how to do them. I say this,
not because I need work, but because I am demonstrating a solution. My guess
is that the Mozilla Foundation needs more fund-raising, and some structure
that allows resolving big issues like the CPU and memory hogging bug.
Mozilla browser (SeaMonkey) has the SAME problem.
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Mozilla browser (SeaMonkey) has the SAME problem with CPU and memory hogging.
You said, "I'm not saying there aren't problems that need to be
acknowledged..."
First, I am very thankful for Firefox. I am very thankful that we have
open source developers.
However, maybe there is a need for change. Maybe the Mozilla
Foundation needs better leadership and someone to raise money so that
important issues that aren't favored by volunteers can be addressed.
Second, look what you've done. It seemed in the beginning of your
comment that you were giving an informed answer. However, in fact your answer
is completely uninformed about the issue to which you were responding. You
didn't read the articles in Information Week, and you apparently have no
theory about why there are such SERIOUS problems in Mozilla browser and
Firefox.
Some bugs are very difficult to characterize. Those require a
developer to be a true scientist. However, Firefox developers apparently look
for bugs that are easy to fix. Bugs such as this one, which is now more than 2
1/2 years old, are ignored.
You said, "... too many people file bugs and then can't give us the answers we need."
No developer has asked me for more information, but they have marked the CPU and memory hogging bug reports as invalid.
You said, "If you use awful grammar and difficult-to-read style, well, why do you expect us to put hours into fixing a bug when you don't bother to spend 5 minutes properly reporting it?"
Every month I make part of my living as a writer, and have done so for more than 18 years. I did
a very clear test using both Windows XP and Linux, and found the same problem.
You said, "... many users use extensions, which basically
invalidate their bug reports since we can't possibly debug under the effects
of the many changes extensions make, ESPECIALLY if we don't know what
extensions and versions of extensions you're using."
As many other people have asked, why is it possible that an extension
can crash all open windows and tabs in Mozilla or Firefox browsers? Shouldn't
the browser reject use of the extension, rather than just crashing?
You said, "It takes the user 5 minutes to try a nightly. I think
asking the user to get a nightly build is reasonable."
Again you have shown that you didn't bother to inform yourself about the issue being
discussed. My best guess is that NO developer has bothered to read the bug
reports I've filed. Once developers realize that it won't be easy to
characterize or fix, they give some excuse, and mark the bug invalid. That's
been my experience.
It sometimes takes DAYS to re-create the bug. The bug happens during
normal use. Many people leave Firefox open during the time they are
researching a subject, so they can come back to their research as they left
it. Then, when Firefox crashes, or begins taking all the CPU power or begins
using so much memory that the hard drive thrashes, they lose all of their work!
You said, "Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of
the userbase."
That's a new excuse! I've added it as number nine in my list. That
excuse does NOT apply here. The CPU and memory hogging bug is being discussed
publicly in long articles you apparently didn't read.
Nothing you said will make this subject go away! The problem has received lots
of attention from the public, and the attention is building.
If you have no serious interest in a subject, please don't post comments. Please don't use
Slashdot as a way of acting out anger. Please don't pretend to have an interest in a subject so that
you can have a platform for expressing annoyance.
Firefox has a SHOWSTOPPER bug.
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 1
There's an issue here. Firefox has a SHOWSTOPPER bug that heavily affects its most intense users. You obviously didn't read the articles in Information Week to which I linked.
Please don't comment on Slashdot stories in which you (obviously) have no interest.
100% CPU use when Firefox idle.
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The article is a bit confused, that's true. Actually, the CPU use becomes essentially 100% even though Firefox is completely idle, slowing all programs and the operating system to a crawl.
"... occasional crash due to mem leaks..."
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"... occasional crash due to mem leaks after ff has been running for days..."
That's the problem that occurs for people who do a lot of research using Firefox.
Firefox has very serious problems.
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
For those who do extensive research using a browser, Firefox has serious
problems. Opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs causes crashes and
CPU and memory hogging. That kind of heavy user often sees Firefox using 99% CPU and/or more than 400 Megabytes. See these Information Week articles:
The problems are the same in the Mozilla browser. Both have had a CPU and memory hogging bug for more than 2 1/2 years.
The evidence is that Mozilla leaders don't care. Quote from the second article linked above: "Schroepfer and Beard admitted
that Mozilla is not working on any of the problems in our bulleted list except
for the high memory usage issue. So problems like high CPU usage, program
freezes and lock-ups, and long pauses before a tab or the browser opens from
hyperlink clicks in other applications might not be fixed in the next version
of the program."
For both Firefox and the Mozilla browser, there is a lot of talk about crashes and how to avoid them. Here are some quotes about crashes from the Known Issues for SeaMonkey 1.0 Beta
page:
"A significant number of SeaMonkey crashes are actually caused by
Java. Please make sure you are using the latest available version of
Java."
"Sun's JRE will crash at startup if your useragent does not begin
with Mozilla/5."
"Some SeaMonkey crashes are actually caused by Flash. Please make
sure you are using the latest available Flash plugin (Bug 211213)."
"On Windows the Adobe SVG plugin crashes. Workaround: Don't copy
it (NPSVG3.dll, NPSVG3.zip) into your plugins folder. If you want to view
SVGs, SeaMonkey builds (except Linux GTK1) include native SVG support. (Bug
133567)"
Mozilla developers refuse to consider bugs that bug reporters
cannot characterize completely. See this Slashdot comment: Leadership
problem? See this list of excuses: 1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the
nightly version. 2) Yes, this bug exists, but it isn't important. 3) No one
has posted a TalkBack report. (If they read the bug report, they would know
that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.)
4) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. 5) This
bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. (The
other bugs aren't specified.) 6) You are using Firefox in a way that would
crash any software. 7) I don't like the way you worded your report. 8) You
should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.
I agree exactly. But the article linked by Slashdot and the second article to which I linked is saying that fructose is bad, period. The entire animal kingdom has a history of tens of millions of years of eating fruit. And now fruit is poisonous to some degree? Something is wrong somewhere.
The entire reason plants invented fruit is to encourage animals to eat it and drop the seeds somewhere where another fruit tree will grow. Is this alliance suspect?
U.S. lawmakers have become arrogant and corrupt. Laws no longer need to be logical. Laws no longer need to serve everyone. Laws no longer need to be carefully constructed.
Now, U.S. lawmakers make laws that support their own ignorant prejudices, or support those who contribute money.
Slashdot Mirror
I've only just begun using TrueCrypt, but my experience, also, is that it just works, also. I like making and maintaining a container, which can be moved to a thumb (flash memory) drive for traveling.
I like the command line options of TrueCrypt.
Most importantly:
1) Reading the web site and documentation gives me the impression the developers know what they are doing. I like it that, in the comments above, the developers are criticized for an incorrect statement about block chaining, and the error was corrected immediately.
When I read the web sites and documentation of commercial encryption products, so much is written by bored marketing people that I fear that the company is controlled by someone who majored in English Literature. (Nothing against majoring in Eng. Lit., but such people should not have control over products that require advanced understanding of technology.)
2) To me, it is absolutely necessary that any encryption software I use be Open Source. I fear that a rogue employee or a an owner of a commercial encryption software company would put in a back door, or would introduce a weakness.
The U.S. government has decided that it can secretly force companies to help in surveillance. This means that commercial companies cannot be trusted. (The drawbacks of secret action are called "Blowback" by some in the U.S. government. Blowback is not seen as a bad thing, because if decreases the political stability in the world, which means that employees of U.S. government secret agencies will get raises and promotions.)
For conventional encryption, like sending encrypted files automatically to a private FTP site for safe offline storage, I use Gnu Privacy Guard. Also Open Source, of course.
TrueCrypt is disk encryption software for Windows XP/2000/2003 and Linux. Version 4.1 was released last month. It seems to have been designed by people who are VERY serious about encryption. For example, TrueCrypt "provides two levels of plausible deniability".
I agree with what you said.
In my comment, I was talking about a REAL fix: Read the Recent Great Books. See the section "Understanding Your Inner Self" I especially recommend The Primal Scream: Primal Therapy: The Cure for Neurosis.
Nothing you said opposes what I said. Both can logically exist together.
Many of the comments that have been posted say that thermal printing is okay. If you buy good, expensive thermal stock, thermal printing lasts 5 years. Even the companies that sell the materials don't promise more than that, and that's only for very special stock.
Sometimes people keep documents for many years. In some cases, it could be inconvenient for the label to fade.
I've researched inkjet printers. There are inkjet receipt printers that might work for labels. But that's a research project, of course.
"sadness and depression"
First, ask yourself if the sadness and depression is realistic. Is your connection with other people far less than is required to meet your needs? People in the U.S. culture often have families in which the members are very disconnected from each other. It's healthy to feel sad about that.
Second, depression is caused by inner conflict. To relieve depression, you must resolve inner conflict. The fake methods of dealing with depression don't work, they just delay the intensity of the problem until later.
Sure, BB doesn't edit movies. But, do they buy the edited version?
I thought your comment is interesting.
This was not: "The two posts that have actually mentioned this phenomenon so far have both been penned by Chris Bradshaw. Apparently he is the sole target of this dastardly plot. " You are trying to shut off the entire discussion by attacking one messenger?
Maybe the New York Netflix operates differently. The Salem Netflix, that serves Portland, Oregon, definitely does some funny business, in my experience. But Netflix is, for us, still far better than what is in second place. The Blockbusters here are staffed by often difficult, bored people. And who wants to drive to look over a few DVDs when Netflix has a huge list?
That's my experience, too.
Yes, drown those New Yorkers so that there will be more for Coloradoans.
Another note to go with my parent post: This article is HIGHLY suspect. It could easily be from the Cut-Down-All-the-Forests-to-Make-a-few-People-Rich -Institute.
BROKEN MODERATION SYSTEM!!! Mod Parent Up, not down.
On 2005-12-25, 11:02, the parent comment is at -1, Troll. But, it is exactly correct, and very insightful.
To repeat: "We have only one environmental problem in this world, and that is the huge number of people on this planet. All other problems are just secondary manifestations of this one."
Merry Christmas!
See bug which I posted about 2 1/2 years ago.
Take out the space put in by Slashdot and copy the address to a new Window. Bugzilla does not accept visits by people coming from Slashdot.
222660 contains a reference to the same bug in Mozilla:
Linux/Windows Reproducible Crash Tests Note that these bugs are marked as "Resolved Invalid". Note that EVERY comment from a developer contains some criticism of people reporting the bugs. Note that NO comment from a developer shows any willingness to understand the value of what has been reported.
Apparently Mozilla developers have VERY little patience, and want bug reports that allow them to fix something in an afternoon. The seem to want to ignore bugs that require considerable investigation.
Many, many people report memory use problems in Mozilla and Firefox. The subject is building in interest. Sooner or later the bug needs to be fixed, rather than spend hours and hours discussing why it can't be fixed.
Developers: Please no more emphasizing the shortcomings of what has been reported. Try to see the good. That's a good philosophy in other areas, too.
The Mozilla and Firefox CPU and memory hogging bug needs to be fixed, not ignored. No amount of words, no amount of attitude, will make the problem go away.
An educated guess: Probably developers would find that fixing the CPU and memory hogging bug would solve many, many other small issues, and make working with the code much more fun.
No other program in Windows or Linux has this problem, apparently. The problem is entirely caused by something in the Mozilla programs. The fact that the problem is largely unchanged for more than 2 years indicates that it was in the code base more than 2 years ago. That's a clue.
You said, "Even if a developer DOES experience the problem, how does he/she track it down? Tools such as valgrind make the browser run 100x slower while being debugged - can you possibly surf for a week like that?"
That's easy. When someone experiences the CPU and/or memory hogging problem, have them send their history file. Use the history file to program the browser to load web pages automatically. If I were trying that, I would write a program to arrange the history file so that it could be used as input to a keyboard imitation program written in AutoIt or AutoHotkey (Windows). Run the test program on a test computer. We have many of them here; Mozilla developers probably do too.
You said, "Care to post bug #s?". That's really, really disgusting. After this long discussion, and you calling me a troll, you are demonstrating once again that you didn't read what I posted. I already posted a bug number and extensive discussion! That's the behavior I have seen over and over again with Mozilla and Firefox developers: A total lack of willingness to let someone else lead.
The problem is, it has become obvious, a social problem, not a technical one. If I were a Mozilla developer, I would think that solving this bug was much more exciting than any of the others. Somehow, Mozilla developers spray words at the problem rather than fixing it. Why?
My guess is that the social structure of the Mozilla Foundation is such that no one is able to work on an extremely serious and wide-ranging bug such as the CPU and memory hogging bug.
The Mozilla Foundation needs a real leader. Having a lawyer who understands nothing about technical things is not leadership.
Maybe I could head the Mozilla Foundation, at least temporarily. I have the necessary programming and top management experience. I certainly have clear ideas about things that need to be done, and how to do them. I say this, not because I need work, but because I am demonstrating a solution. My guess is that the Mozilla Foundation needs more fund-raising, and some structure that allows resolving big issues like the CPU and memory hogging bug.
Mozilla browser (SeaMonkey) has the SAME problem with CPU and memory hogging.
You said, "I'm not saying there aren't problems that need to be acknowledged..."
First, I am very thankful for Firefox. I am very thankful that we have open source developers.
However, maybe there is a need for change. Maybe the Mozilla Foundation needs better leadership and someone to raise money so that important issues that aren't favored by volunteers can be addressed.
Second, look what you've done. It seemed in the beginning of your comment that you were giving an informed answer. However, in fact your answer is completely uninformed about the issue to which you were responding. You didn't read the articles in Information Week, and you apparently have no theory about why there are such SERIOUS problems in Mozilla browser and Firefox.
Some bugs are very difficult to characterize. Those require a developer to be a true scientist. However, Firefox developers apparently look for bugs that are easy to fix. Bugs such as this one, which is now more than 2 1/2 years old, are ignored.
You said, "... too many people file bugs and then can't give us the answers we need."
No developer has asked me for more information, but they have marked the CPU and memory hogging bug reports as invalid.
You said, "If you use awful grammar and difficult-to-read style, well, why do you expect us to put hours into fixing a bug when you don't bother to spend 5 minutes properly reporting it?"
Every month I make part of my living as a writer, and have done so for more than 18 years. I did a very clear test using both Windows XP and Linux, and found the same problem.
You said, "... many users use extensions, which basically invalidate their bug reports since we can't possibly debug under the effects of the many changes extensions make, ESPECIALLY if we don't know what extensions and versions of extensions you're using."
As many other people have asked, why is it possible that an extension can crash all open windows and tabs in Mozilla or Firefox browsers? Shouldn't the browser reject use of the extension, rather than just crashing?
You said, "It takes the user 5 minutes to try a nightly. I think asking the user to get a nightly build is reasonable."
Again you have shown that you didn't bother to inform yourself about the issue being discussed. My best guess is that NO developer has bothered to read the bug reports I've filed. Once developers realize that it won't be easy to characterize or fix, they give some excuse, and mark the bug invalid. That's been my experience.
It sometimes takes DAYS to re-create the bug. The bug happens during normal use. Many people leave Firefox open during the time they are researching a subject, so they can come back to their research as they left it. Then, when Firefox crashes, or begins taking all the CPU power or begins using so much memory that the hard drive thrashes, they lose all of their work!
You said, "Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the userbase."
That's a new excuse! I've added it as number nine in my list. That excuse does NOT apply here. The CPU and memory hogging bug is being discussed publicly in long articles you apparently didn't read.
Nothing you said will make this subject go away! The problem has received lots of attention from the public, and the attention is building.
If you have no serious interest in a subject, please don't post comments. Please don't use Slashdot as a way of acting out anger. Please don't pretend to have an interest in a subject so that you can have a platform for expressing annoyance.
There's an issue here. Firefox has a SHOWSTOPPER bug that heavily affects its most intense users. You obviously didn't read the articles in Information Week to which I linked.
Please don't comment on Slashdot stories in which you (obviously) have no interest.
The article is a bit confused, that's true. Actually, the CPU use becomes essentially 100% even though Firefox is completely idle, slowing all programs and the operating system to a crawl.
"... occasional crash due to mem leaks after ff has been running for days..."
That's the problem that occurs for people who do a lot of research using Firefox.
For those who do extensive research using a browser, Firefox has serious problems. Opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs causes crashes and CPU and memory hogging. That kind of heavy user often sees Firefox using 99% CPU and/or more than 400 Megabytes. See these Information Week articles:
Firefox 1.5: Not Ready For Prime Time?
Firefox 1.5 Stability Problems? Readers And Mozilla Respond
The problems are the same in the Mozilla browser. Both have had a CPU and memory hogging bug for more than 2 1/2 years.
The evidence is that Mozilla leaders don't care. Quote from the second article linked above: "Schroepfer and Beard admitted that Mozilla is not working on any of the problems in our bulleted list except for the high memory usage issue. So problems like high CPU usage, program freezes and lock-ups, and long pauses before a tab or the browser opens from hyperlink clicks in other applications might not be fixed in the next version of the program."
For both Firefox and the Mozilla browser, there is a lot of talk about crashes and how to avoid them. Here are some quotes about crashes from the Known Issues for SeaMonkey 1.0 Beta page:
"A significant number of SeaMonkey crashes are actually caused by Java. Please make sure you are using the latest available version of Java."
"Sun's JRE will crash at startup if your useragent does not begin with Mozilla/5."
"Some SeaMonkey crashes are actually caused by Flash. Please make sure you are using the latest available Flash plugin (Bug 211213)."
"On Windows the Adobe SVG plugin crashes. Workaround: Don't copy it (NPSVG3.dll, NPSVG3.zip) into your plugins folder. If you want to view SVGs, SeaMonkey builds (except Linux GTK1) include native SVG support. (Bug 133567)"
Mozilla developers refuse to consider bugs that bug reporters cannot characterize completely. See this Slashdot comment: Leadership problem? See this list of excuses: 1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly version. 2) Yes, this bug exists, but it isn't important. 3) No one has posted a TalkBack report. (If they read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.) 4) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. 5) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. (The other bugs aren't specified.) 6) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. 7) I don't like the way you worded your report. 8) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the translating pen scanner from WizcomTech: QuicktionaryII.
Dictionaries are too slow when you are trying to read a language that is new to you.
I agree exactly. But the article linked by Slashdot and the second article to which I linked is saying that fructose is bad, period. The entire animal kingdom has a history of tens of millions of years of eating fruit. And now fruit is poisonous to some degree? Something is wrong somewhere.
The entire reason plants invented fruit is to encourage animals to eat it and drop the seeds somewhere where another fruit tree will grow. Is this alliance suspect?
U.S. lawmakers have become arrogant and corrupt. Laws no longer need to be logical. Laws no longer need to serve everyone. Laws no longer need to be carefully constructed.
Now, U.S. lawmakers make laws that support their own ignorant prejudices, or support those who contribute money.
Corrected Link:
Fructose facts. It seems that people who eat fructose should be careful that they get enough copper.
Fructose facts. It seems that people who eat fructose should be careful that they get enough copper.
Fructose is the sugar in fruit. Is it intended that you don't eat fruit?
Science if frequently arduous and sometimes boring. But over-selling is not an answer.