Well, you collected a bunch of things, and now suddenly the scanner stops working.
You look around and suddenly you notice that there's nobody around.
You could abandon the basket and go to another store, but that would take time and effort...
Or you could "come back and pay tomorrow".
That logic lands you firmly in metaphysical territory - you have to take nearly everything on "faith" at that point. You take on faith that your wife won't stab you in the neck with a pencil in the next five minutes, or that your boss will pay you at the end of the week, or that the air you breath won't turn into chocolate pudding in the next five seconds.
Ah, but you have personal experience of your wife, boss and the air. On the other hand you only have little to no experience of DDT or the large Hadron collider.
Wrong - if I'm not studying them, and there's no practical application, and I'm not testing them... then it most likely doesn't mean anything to me. I don't have to take anything on faith, because there's nothing to decide.
Ah, but there is. You take science on faith when you take a vaccination, vote to protect the environment from DDT or vote to build the next Hadron Collider...
Right. So you have empirically tested certain aspects of chemistry/physics. However, there are many many areas of research with no practical application yet. How would you test those ? You don't, you take them on faith.
It does all go back to discipline, I'm afraid. People who have none can never see it, it's funny...
Or maybe the people who "have discipline" aren't getting the same strong biochemical signals for whatever reason.
People who're "disciplined" can never see that other people may have problems other than discipline, it's funny...
Discipline is well and good, but it's clearly not sufficient for the majority of people. Seems like there are underlying reasons which are not being addressed.
You know, people don't just eat "Too much intake by 10%". They're eating too much because their bodies/hormones are driving them to eat.
You should start by reading Gary Taubes, although his emphasis on insulin is somewhat overblown.
Yeah, there's a lot of research. Most all of it has problems though. For instance in the Nurses' Health Study, they used Food Frequency Questionnaires, which have significant issues. People drastically under-report consumption of "socially undesireable" foods like Red Meat.
You should read these for some issues with those studies.
Normally, cholesterol intake does not correspond to serum cholesterol in any case, since your liver makes up the difference. It's not really something to worry about.
1. Social Security is already broke, it's not going to last much longer anyway.
2. Prices will come down over time.
3. The fertility rate in developed countries is already sub-replacement, it goes down with increasing wealth.
4. If you're healthy, there's a million things to do, places to go.
5. You decide if it's worth it to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like /. managed to take it down early. Good Job everyone!
Well, you collected a bunch of things, and now suddenly the scanner stops working. You look around and suddenly you notice that there's nobody around. You could abandon the basket and go to another store, but that would take time and effort... Or you could "come back and pay tomorrow".
Tough choice. I wonder how many people stopped paying after the self-scan stopped working.
That logic lands you firmly in metaphysical territory - you have to take nearly everything on "faith" at that point. You take on faith that your wife won't stab you in the neck with a pencil in the next five minutes, or that your boss will pay you at the end of the week, or that the air you breath won't turn into chocolate pudding in the next five seconds.
Ah, but you have personal experience of your wife, boss and the air. On the other hand you only have little to no experience of DDT or the large Hadron collider.
Wrong - if I'm not studying them, and there's no practical application, and I'm not testing them... then it most likely doesn't mean anything to me. I don't have to take anything on faith, because there's nothing to decide.
Ah, but there is. You take science on faith when you take a vaccination, vote to protect the environment from DDT or vote to build the next Hadron Collider...
Right. So you have empirically tested certain aspects of chemistry/physics. However, there are many many areas of research with no practical application yet. How would you test those ? You don't, you take them on faith.
It does all go back to discipline, I'm afraid. People who have none can never see it, it's funny...
Or maybe the people who "have discipline" aren't getting the same strong biochemical signals for whatever reason. People who're "disciplined" can never see that other people may have problems other than discipline, it's funny ...
No, there are biochemical reasons which drive people to eat.
Discipline is well and good, but it's clearly not sufficient for the majority of people. Seems like there are underlying reasons which are not being addressed.
You know, people don't just eat "Too much intake by 10%". They're eating too much because their bodies/hormones are driving them to eat. You should start by reading Gary Taubes, although his emphasis on insulin is somewhat overblown.
Nobody else has the amount of disposable income that Americans do. This will result in much less money for the cartels.
The increase in violence, if any, will be temporary. People won't continue fighting if there isn't that much money to be made.
Actually the HFCS in soda is more like 65/35. I imagine the excess fructose does make a difference. http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/what-a-%E2%80%98sweet-surprise%E2%80%99-hfcs-contains-more-fructose-than-believed/
The honor of being #2, and perhaps #1 goes to Mao's Great Leap Forward which killed 20-43million.
Wait, 23andme already ships to Australia, and I'm pretty sure they respect local laws. How does this work again ?
Yeah, there's a lot of research. Most all of it has problems though. For instance in the Nurses' Health Study, they used Food Frequency Questionnaires, which have significant issues. People drastically under-report consumption of "socially undesireable" foods like Red Meat.
You should read these for some issues with those studies.
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2009/03/will-eating-meat-make-us-die-younger.html
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/09/new-study-shows-that-lying-about-your.html
Not true at all. Saturated fats don't cause heart attacks, there aren't any studies that show otherwise.
Normally, cholesterol intake does not correspond to serum cholesterol in any case, since your liver makes up the difference. It's not really something to worry about.
I don't see any fundamental issues here. There are always problems.
Everything starts out expensive...
Some examples would be nice. For one thing, you wouldn't know the real life expectancy until people start dying. Not sure how instant that can be ...
1. Social Security is already broke, it's not going to last much longer anyway. 2. Prices will come down over time. 3. The fertility rate in developed countries is already sub-replacement, it goes down with increasing wealth. 4. If you're healthy, there's a million things to do, places to go. 5. You decide if it's worth it to you.
Nope. Amazon fired their Associates in Colorado specifically to avoid doing so.
This may be obvious, but if your laptop is especially hot, you might want to open it up and clean out the fan, if you haven't done it for a while.
Sorry, fructose is only metabolized in the liver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose_metabolism