The thing to ask here is whether Chicago State University has agreed to some sort of contract that requires it to honor "academic freedom".
Academic freedom has nothing to do with this. Academic freedom doesn't mean you can use your employer's trademarks on a website you create for your own purposes, even if that purpose is to harangue your employer over what you see as employment issues.
Meanwhile, color me surprised that the administration is showing no interest in resolving the faculty members' complaints.
Read the letter, looked at the blog. The university was right to act to protect their trademark.
Where do you get your information that the University is showing no interest in resolving the complaints? The legal notice came from the legal department. It dealt solely with the trademark issue. The only complaint I saw in a quick look was "they are hiring their friends". Sounds like disgruntled losers in a promotion war. Classic "he said she said". Does the University trademark attorney have any part to play in that debate?
Whether the complaints, whatever they are, have any merit or not is a different issue. In any case, that group doesn't need to use university trademarks to make them.
"Organizers won't be able to have any effect on normal spectators, but supporters will be banned from bringing reflex cameras and nonprofessional equipment to the competitions," Konov added.
"Reflex" cameras, as he calls them, are DSLRs (Digital Single Lens REFLEX), which *are* professional equipment, so methinks he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I suspect that you are seeing a bad translation of what he actually did say. Remember, he's almost certainly speaking Russian. The Washington Times article was in English.
"Reflex" applies to more than DSLR, you know, and there are a lot of SLR cameras that are hardly professional grade equipment. It's your claim that "reflex *are* professional" that is questionable. But even so, the statement was translated as "reflex cameras and non-professional equipment", so your statement is not in any way contradicted by what the translation says. If the translation is correct, he's actually classed "reflex cameras" as professional equipment. "Reflex cameras and other non-professional" would be be classing them as non-pro.
I think it is actually a reasonable limitation. The athletes there deserve enough respect that they know when some journalist is taking photos or making videos of them while they are relaxing in the athlete village. Yeah, it will be hard to enforce.
I'd say, if anything, your attempt at claiming that the same people who thank unions for Saturdays off are the same people who want Saturday mail delivery was the troll comment. I simply pointed out that the two situations are not as related as you pretend. It is not hypocritical in the least to enjoy one's free weekends while thinking that infrastructure services would be provided by those who choose to work on those same weekends, because it is a choice for them and they do get other days off. It is the concept of "time off" that is the critical feature of the "weekends" vs. having to work seven days a week, not those two specific days of the week necessarily.
Actually yes they usually do. Even in the more remote areas where cell phones and broadband aren't available, you still generally have a phone.
"A phone" is not the communications system that electronic bill systems are designed for. Email for bills and paying via the web are Internet, not landline phone, operations. The rural users who you think can be made so independent of USPS that their mailboxes can be moved ten to twenty miles away because "electronic communications" has solved the paper billing/payment system are the ones who have the least access to the electronic billing/payment systems.
Now, I suppose you could expect them to call everyone who would send them a bill and then pay it over the phone, but that's hardly the same convenience you expect from your electronic billing/payment systems, so maybe you should cut them a little slack, huh?
This isn't exactly asking anybody to go anywhere they don't already go, it's simply saying that they check their mail about the same time that they go to town to get the provisions they already need anyways.
You've never lived in a really rural area, have you? They don't go to the store every day. Maybe once a week. Maybe even less. Now, I know, you care so little for what you get via the USPS that you don't care if you see the mail but once a week, but I suspect that's based in large part on your access to electronic communications systems, to wit, the Internet, which they are least likely to have.
And for those who live between towns and shop in one but wind up with their mailbox in the other thanks to your consolidation efforts would be making special trips, unless you think it's ok to force them to shop where you want them to instead of where they want to.
You want your mailbox down the block so that the carrier doesn't know exactly where you live or doesn't have to go so far when delivering, that's fine. But stop pushing for consolidation in places you've never been and never experienced, ok?
but even then they don't send a whole lot of material to rural areas other than mail order catalogs.
Oh, well then, it is certainly ok to move every rural dweller's mailbox ten miles or more away from them into the "big city" cause the only thing those hicks get in their mail is free toilet paper for the outhouse. Sure, ya, ok then. Alpha_Wolf says it should be that way because he doesn't care about his mail, so what person in their right mind would care about theirs?
You get your wish: Rio is hosting the next summer games.
Let's see how they handle the world cup before we leap for joy at them having the Olympics. It's not a foregone conclusion that the cup will run anything near smoothly.
they mostly seem to be too warm or too flat.
Well, what with global climate change, the winter Olympics are going to have to add a whole bunch of snow-free sports if they are going to continue anyway. That's a boon to all those already hot countries -- they can now bid for the winter games, and snowbound ones like Antarctica can host the summer ones.
And slightly off topic: Only on slashdot can you find somebody who praises unions for giving us saturdays off (incorrectly I might add as it was Henry Ford who initiated that) while at the same time believing it is a travesty that the USPS is considering no longer working on saturday.
Perhaps that "somebody" realizes that the generic "Saturday off" and having some people work on Saturday but get incentive pay to do so and other days of the week off aren't mutually exclusive concepts, especially when one refers to generic employment and one refers to a common infrastructure.
Sure its an inconvenience, but now that electronic communication is common the volume just isn't there anymore to make it cost effective to continue the old ways.
The same rural people whose mailboxes you want to be ten or twenty miles away from their homes are the same rural people who don't get the "electronic communications" you city dwellers find to be the solution to every problem.
I've had the same snail mail address for fifteen years. Mobile?
and it will need to be addressed at some point
You mean like all the companies that will send you your bills by email and take online payments, some of which have done so for years? The problem, for those who want that particular answer, has been solved.
But some people seem to think that their particular choice should be applied to everyone else and paper bills should be done away with completely, replaced by email. That's a problem that only telling those people to sit down and be quiet will solve.
The biggest problem with email bills is them not being delivered. The middle of last week I found out about an online meeting on Sunday from someone who asked me if I was attending. What online meeting? Turns out that GMail had started labeling one of my important mailing lists as spam about two months ago. Thanks. GMail. Wouldn't it be nice to find out you are two months behind a credit card payment because the emailed bills, which you had been getting, were now being kept from you because your ISP decided they were spam?
But you'll know when you don't get the bill, won't you? Sure. One of my credit card companies doesn't send anything when the balance is 0. "No email", for me, for some credit cards, would mean "no bill". The rare month when it means "GMail screwed you" will not be unusual enough for me to worry about not getting a bill.
What would you recommend someone use to protect their family from guns?
Stand very still. Most guns have very limited sensory capability and cannot accurately locate something that isn't moving. If you don't startle them, or try to corner them, they are usually quite passive. Some will even allow you to pet them if you make soothing vocal noises as you slowly approach.
But don't ever get between a gun and its cub. A mother gun is very very aggressive.
And don't open the car window to feed them. That just encourages them to break into cars.
I almost had my first real auto accident the other day. I was driving while listening to NPR. They had a story about the increase in bears breaking into cars at national parks. The bears knew there was food inside, and they had learned how to open the doors by watching people do it. Very smart. They'd go in, the door would close behind them, and they'd be trapped. (They don't see how people open them from inside, I guess.) They tear the inside up trying to get out. The warning was, if you approach your car and it is rocking back and forth, it may have a bear trapped inside. They interviewed the expert -- how do you get the bear out of your car? Well, she said, you walk over to the car and... open the door.
Thank god we have experts in these things to tell us what to do.
Eleven words: "People put shit on the web. Google lets you find it."
The suggestion that Google should pounce upon any 16 digit numbers it finds that meet the single-digit checksum test is just ridiculous. Oh, and start with "all known 8 digit prefixes". Now, the first four identify the card type, so there's a natural limit there. But the next four are 10,000 possibilities.
We'd complain loudly if someone scanned the web looking for things that LOOK like they shouldn't be there and issue takedown notices. No, people here DO complain loudly when the "someone" matches ??AA and the target is digital media. But credit card companies should scan for their prefixes and issue take downs for anything that matches a possible credit card number?
I can see a wonderful jimmy to the system along the lines of anti-meth and other anti-this or that campaigns. Create "web pages" for Google to index that are pseudo-random number generators so Google or the credit card companies can find tons of "credit cards" to cancel. People who don't want you to find meth recipes through google already pollute the namespace so you can't do that; people who want to put a monkey wrench into the credit card system can do the same thing.
A necktie is topologically equivalent to both a collar/leash and a noose.
This cannot be a coincidence.
A doughnut is topologically equivalent to both a collar/leash and a noose. This cannot be a coincidence. And it is topologically equivalent to the cup of coffee you dunk it in. This certainly cannot be a coincidence.
And it is topologically equivalent to the hypothetical spherical cow. That probably is a coincidence.
Yes. I'm saying there isn't a significant difference between the metabolic processing of sucrose and HFCS.
When you say 'yes' it looks like you are agreeing with me, and you are not. I've already told you one significant difference -- the time it takes to hydrolyze the sucrose into components. That firehose carries the same water that the straw does, but if you think there isn't a significant difference in how one deals with the output of a firehose and the output of a straw, you are a nut.
But sucrose is very close to HFCS. Sufficiently close that difference in health outcomes are not apparent.
Water is water, but the "health outcome" is significantly different if you drink 100 gallons of it over a month or over a two hour period. Ignoring the transport and uptake rates of what you eat and simply comparing the chemical structure of intermediate products doesn't tell you the whole story. That gallon of ice cream you take a month to get through probably won't be a problem even if you are a diabetic, but if you try to down it in one sitting your blood glucose level will be so high you'll be in a coma. But ice cream is ice cream, isn't it? It isn't possible that the uptake rate could make any difference, could it?
The parent post only claims it is "more harmful", while the response starts talking about lack of chemical differences. I see this every time the topic of HFCS comes up, two groups talking right past each other.
This. The side that promotes HFCS always say that fructose is fructose, which is patently obvious. From that they jump to "HFCS is just like sugar", which isn't so patently obvious when you understand that it isn't true, chemically, and ignores the metabolic processing differences and system loading.
Water is water! Yes, that's true. But you get hurt bad when you try drinking from a firehose. People are people! Yes, that's true, but someone gets hurt really bad when 10,000 of them try to exit through one door all at the same time. (Like the Who concert in Ohio.)
The cleaving happens in the brush border. The brush border is on the inside of your stomach.
Wrong. From the link I provided: "Hydrolytic cleavage of sucrose, like that of of maltose, occurs in the brush border at the surface of the intestinal epithelial cells." The intestinal epithelial cells are not in the stomach. Not "ms" in the stomach.
Taubes rightly points to examples of peoples (like the Pima) who's health turned to shit after they were displaced and were given grains in place of a hunter gatherer lifestyle. HFCS didn't even exist back then.
That's why I said "the use of HFCS and other processed carbs." White bread.
No one has produced evidence that the 4-5% different in ratio makes any difference in the metabolic response.
If you read the link I already provided, you'll see the evidence. "Both sugars are then taken up by specific transport: Glucose by the SGLT1 transporter, and fructose by the GLUT5 transporter, which is named after glucose but in fact is more active on fructose than on glucose." Different uptake mechanisms. "Fructose degradation , sometimes called fructolysis, is carried out in the liver." Different metabolic processing. "Fructose and sucrose appear to promote obesity more strongly than equivalent amounts of starch or glucose;". Different result.
Fact is, we still aren't exactly sure about what we need to eat and in what proportions.
No, the fact is that we can eat a large variety of things in different proportions and our bodies usually work it all out in the long run. Like people who eat no carbs still have glucose coursing through their veins.
However, in almost all cases where we try to cut out certain substances from our diets we find that bad things start happening, like sailors at sea.
If by "sailors at sea" you are referring to scurvy, that wasn't from an attempt at cutting certain substances out of their diets, it came about as a natural result of a natural scarcity of a certain thing. Nobody said "hey, let's keep sailors from eating oranges", they just naturally didn't eat oranges because oranges didn't keep well on long voyages and they didn't want to eat "greens" (moldy oranges).
Cold turkey method. Might work. However, it is an easy way to fall off a new diet is to radically change what you do in 1 day. You have years of bad habits to break. It will take years to undo that mess. Pick 1 thing at a time. Have goals, have rewards for those goals. 1/3rd is a good start and you go from there. Each person is different. Ideally for me it is 5-15g a day. As measured by testing.
If you are at 5-15g and "testing" it sounds like you are an Atkins who is in maintenance mode.
Cold turkey is best to start Atkins. It pushes your metabolism to switch to using fat for energy and away from carbs very hard. It's called "induction", and it is much easier to be in induction and say "no" than to be in maintenance and say "how much does that contain?" Once you are in full ketosis, then add back until you are just borderline.
It took me about two weeks in induction to get to ketosis the first time. Now it takes about two days.
there is no chemical difference between HFCS and Sucrose.
Wrong again. HFCS is high-fructose corn syrup. The ratio of fructose to glucose is higher in HFCS than in sucrose. That's why it is called "high fructose".
The problem with HFCS is that it first bypasses the metabolic pathway that sucrose must go through, thereby creating a rush as the simple sugars are directly absorbed by the blood. Second, it puts a stress on the liver where fructose is metabolized, which causes more fructose to be converted to storage forms since there is more available at one time than can be used. The rush of glucose also stresses the glucose regulatory systems and can lead to diabetes and near-diabetes.
Gary Taubes has dealt with the "HFCS is just sugar" myth in his books. He points out that the common factor in aboriginal peoples who adopt a western diet and earn an obesity epidemic with it is the use of HFCS and other processed carbs. They eat fats and sugars in their natural diet and do fine. It's when they pick up the HFCS and white bread that they start to bulk up.
This stuff about HFCS being just like sugar is marketing hype by the people who make HFCS products, aimed at people who are ignorant of the metabolism of sugars. "HFCS is just like sugar" is about as true as saying "drinking from a firehose is the same as sipping a glass of water through a straw."
And thank God that nobody else lives any further from school than you ever did, so your experience can be accepted as a global standard for how things ought to be.
Cars are not for schoolchildren.
Nobody said that schoolchildren were driving cars. They are quite reasonable as passengers in cars, however. And when the school is five miles away and there is a car going that direction already, it seems reasonable for "schoolchildren" to ride in cars.
If you as an adult are whining about the time it takes you to commute to work and how much productive stuff you could be doing, then I'd assume you would understand that a "schoolchild" who is spending a lot of time riding a back to and from school might appreciate a ride in a car and the time that he can do something productive, both during the car ride and by not wasting time on a bike.
For a small extra free; autonomous taxis on standby, to drive you to where your car is.
Finally we have an admission that we already have a system in place where people can get in a vehicle and don't have to do the tedious work of driving. They aren't autonomous but they already exist. If people are so ready and willing to buy a new car that is autonomous, why aren't they selling the ones they have and using taxis today?
On a car, killing the engine and applying the brakes is perfectly safe (assuming the other cars on the road are also autonomous so they won't run into disabled cars stopped in front of them)
First, assume a spherical cow... yes, all problems are trivial from that point on.
Oh, oh, oh, and can you imagine the havoc those utility guys who come around to mark the underground utilities with cans of spray paint would create? I can see the fun -- call 1 800 DIG SAFE or whatever the number is and tell them you're digging a hole in a local parking lot.
You don't have to steal a car, you just herd it where you want it to go by chasing it with a can of spray paint.
Or even more fun, tape cans of spray paint on the front of a dozen autonomous vehicles and watch them run away from each other, and other cars running away from them.
And the autonomous UPS vehicle when the driver tries to load a case of spray paint to deliver to the local hardware store.
Actually, we trust computers all the time, and you do too. I don't check the result of the computer's computation of the square root of 75.354, I don't check the sum on my sales slip,
If your life depended on the sum on your sales slip being correct, I bet you'd be checking it every time.
I won't hesitate to hand over control of my car to the car's computer, as soon as it is feasible. I wouldn't even ask for a lower insurance. Getting rid of tedious work is reason enough.
Why aren't you using taxis to get around today? If getting rid of tedious work is worth paying for a new car, why isn't paying a taxi driver to get rid of the tedious work sufficient reason to spend money on that?
Slashdot Mirror
The thing to ask here is whether Chicago State University has agreed to some sort of contract that requires it to honor "academic freedom".
Academic freedom has nothing to do with this. Academic freedom doesn't mean you can use your employer's trademarks on a website you create for your own purposes, even if that purpose is to harangue your employer over what you see as employment issues.
FDIC insures bank's depositors against malefesance by the bank.
You mean something like "A Chinese Bitcoin exchange has vanished without trace, taking more than $4 million of the virtual currency with it ..."
So the US/UK bank bailouts never happened right?
In the US at least, who do you think insures the banks? "An independent agency of the federal government, the FDIC was created in 1933 ..."
Meanwhile, color me surprised that the administration is showing no interest in resolving the faculty members' complaints.
Read the letter, looked at the blog. The university was right to act to protect their trademark.
Where do you get your information that the University is showing no interest in resolving the complaints? The legal notice came from the legal department. It dealt solely with the trademark issue. The only complaint I saw in a quick look was "they are hiring their friends". Sounds like disgruntled losers in a promotion war. Classic "he said she said". Does the University trademark attorney have any part to play in that debate?
Whether the complaints, whatever they are, have any merit or not is a different issue. In any case, that group doesn't need to use university trademarks to make them.
"Organizers won't be able to have any effect on normal spectators, but supporters will be banned from bringing reflex cameras and nonprofessional equipment to the competitions," Konov added.
"Reflex" cameras, as he calls them, are DSLRs (Digital Single Lens REFLEX), which *are* professional equipment, so methinks he doesn't know what he's talking about.
I suspect that you are seeing a bad translation of what he actually did say. Remember, he's almost certainly speaking Russian. The Washington Times article was in English.
"Reflex" applies to more than DSLR, you know, and there are a lot of SLR cameras that are hardly professional grade equipment. It's your claim that "reflex *are* professional" that is questionable. But even so, the statement was translated as "reflex cameras and non-professional equipment", so your statement is not in any way contradicted by what the translation says. If the translation is correct, he's actually classed "reflex cameras" as professional equipment. "Reflex cameras and other non-professional" would be be classing them as non-pro.
I think it is actually a reasonable limitation. The athletes there deserve enough respect that they know when some journalist is taking photos or making videos of them while they are relaxing in the athlete village. Yeah, it will be hard to enforce.
(ignoring the first troll comment)
I'd say, if anything, your attempt at claiming that the same people who thank unions for Saturdays off are the same people who want Saturday mail delivery was the troll comment. I simply pointed out that the two situations are not as related as you pretend. It is not hypocritical in the least to enjoy one's free weekends while thinking that infrastructure services would be provided by those who choose to work on those same weekends, because it is a choice for them and they do get other days off. It is the concept of "time off" that is the critical feature of the "weekends" vs. having to work seven days a week, not those two specific days of the week necessarily.
Actually yes they usually do. Even in the more remote areas where cell phones and broadband aren't available, you still generally have a phone.
"A phone" is not the communications system that electronic bill systems are designed for. Email for bills and paying via the web are Internet, not landline phone, operations. The rural users who you think can be made so independent of USPS that their mailboxes can be moved ten to twenty miles away because "electronic communications" has solved the paper billing/payment system are the ones who have the least access to the electronic billing/payment systems.
Now, I suppose you could expect them to call everyone who would send them a bill and then pay it over the phone, but that's hardly the same convenience you expect from your electronic billing/payment systems, so maybe you should cut them a little slack, huh?
This isn't exactly asking anybody to go anywhere they don't already go, it's simply saying that they check their mail about the same time that they go to town to get the provisions they already need anyways.
You've never lived in a really rural area, have you? They don't go to the store every day. Maybe once a week. Maybe even less. Now, I know, you care so little for what you get via the USPS that you don't care if you see the mail but once a week, but I suspect that's based in large part on your access to electronic communications systems, to wit, the Internet, which they are least likely to have.
And for those who live between towns and shop in one but wind up with their mailbox in the other thanks to your consolidation efforts would be making special trips, unless you think it's ok to force them to shop where you want them to instead of where they want to.
You want your mailbox down the block so that the carrier doesn't know exactly where you live or doesn't have to go so far when delivering, that's fine. But stop pushing for consolidation in places you've never been and never experienced, ok?
but even then they don't send a whole lot of material to rural areas other than mail order catalogs.
Oh, well then, it is certainly ok to move every rural dweller's mailbox ten miles or more away from them into the "big city" cause the only thing those hicks get in their mail is free toilet paper for the outhouse. Sure, ya, ok then. Alpha_Wolf says it should be that way because he doesn't care about his mail, so what person in their right mind would care about theirs?
You get your wish: Rio is hosting the next summer games.
Let's see how they handle the world cup before we leap for joy at them having the Olympics. It's not a foregone conclusion that the cup will run anything near smoothly.
they mostly seem to be too warm or too flat.
Well, what with global climate change, the winter Olympics are going to have to add a whole bunch of snow-free sports if they are going to continue anyway. That's a boon to all those already hot countries -- they can now bid for the winter games, and snowbound ones like Antarctica can host the summer ones.
...except by credential reporters who have singed an NDA while strip searching the spectators...
Altogether now, key of E flat, ... "Proust in his first book wrote about wrote about, Proust in his first book wrote about...".
And slightly off topic: Only on slashdot can you find somebody who praises unions for giving us saturdays off (incorrectly I might add as it was Henry Ford who initiated that) while at the same time believing it is a travesty that the USPS is considering no longer working on saturday.
Perhaps that "somebody" realizes that the generic "Saturday off" and having some people work on Saturday but get incentive pay to do so and other days of the week off aren't mutually exclusive concepts, especially when one refers to generic employment and one refers to a common infrastructure.
Sure its an inconvenience, but now that electronic communication is common the volume just isn't there anymore to make it cost effective to continue the old ways.
The same rural people whose mailboxes you want to be ten or twenty miles away from their homes are the same rural people who don't get the "electronic communications" you city dwellers find to be the solution to every problem.
We're an increasingly mobile world,
I've had the same snail mail address for fifteen years. Mobile?
and it will need to be addressed at some point
You mean like all the companies that will send you your bills by email and take online payments, some of which have done so for years? The problem, for those who want that particular answer, has been solved.
But some people seem to think that their particular choice should be applied to everyone else and paper bills should be done away with completely, replaced by email. That's a problem that only telling those people to sit down and be quiet will solve.
The biggest problem with email bills is them not being delivered. The middle of last week I found out about an online meeting on Sunday from someone who asked me if I was attending. What online meeting? Turns out that GMail had started labeling one of my important mailing lists as spam about two months ago. Thanks. GMail. Wouldn't it be nice to find out you are two months behind a credit card payment because the emailed bills, which you had been getting, were now being kept from you because your ISP decided they were spam?
But you'll know when you don't get the bill, won't you? Sure. One of my credit card companies doesn't send anything when the balance is 0. "No email", for me, for some credit cards, would mean "no bill". The rare month when it means "GMail screwed you" will not be unusual enough for me to worry about not getting a bill.
What would you recommend someone use to protect their family from guns?
Stand very still. Most guns have very limited sensory capability and cannot accurately locate something that isn't moving. If you don't startle them, or try to corner them, they are usually quite passive. Some will even allow you to pet them if you make soothing vocal noises as you slowly approach.
But don't ever get between a gun and its cub. A mother gun is very very aggressive.
And don't open the car window to feed them. That just encourages them to break into cars.
I almost had my first real auto accident the other day. I was driving while listening to NPR. They had a story about the increase in bears breaking into cars at national parks. The bears knew there was food inside, and they had learned how to open the doors by watching people do it. Very smart. They'd go in, the door would close behind them, and they'd be trapped. (They don't see how people open them from inside, I guess.) They tear the inside up trying to get out. The warning was, if you approach your car and it is rocking back and forth, it may have a bear trapped inside. They interviewed the expert -- how do you get the bear out of your car? Well, she said, you walk over to the car and ... open the door.
Thank god we have experts in these things to tell us what to do.
The suggestion that Google should pounce upon any 16 digit numbers it finds that meet the single-digit checksum test is just ridiculous. Oh, and start with "all known 8 digit prefixes". Now, the first four identify the card type, so there's a natural limit there. But the next four are 10,000 possibilities.
We'd complain loudly if someone scanned the web looking for things that LOOK like they shouldn't be there and issue takedown notices. No, people here DO complain loudly when the "someone" matches ??AA and the target is digital media. But credit card companies should scan for their prefixes and issue take downs for anything that matches a possible credit card number?
I can see a wonderful jimmy to the system along the lines of anti-meth and other anti-this or that campaigns. Create "web pages" for Google to index that are pseudo-random number generators so Google or the credit card companies can find tons of "credit cards" to cancel. People who don't want you to find meth recipes through google already pollute the namespace so you can't do that; people who want to put a monkey wrench into the credit card system can do the same thing.
A necktie is topologically equivalent to both a collar/leash and a noose. This cannot be a coincidence.
A doughnut is topologically equivalent to both a collar/leash and a noose. This cannot be a coincidence. And it is topologically equivalent to the cup of coffee you dunk it in. This certainly cannot be a coincidence.
And it is topologically equivalent to the hypothetical spherical cow. That probably is a coincidence.
Yes. I'm saying there isn't a significant difference between the metabolic processing of sucrose and HFCS.
When you say 'yes' it looks like you are agreeing with me, and you are not. I've already told you one significant difference -- the time it takes to hydrolyze the sucrose into components. That firehose carries the same water that the straw does, but if you think there isn't a significant difference in how one deals with the output of a firehose and the output of a straw, you are a nut.
But sucrose is very close to HFCS. Sufficiently close that difference in health outcomes are not apparent.
Water is water, but the "health outcome" is significantly different if you drink 100 gallons of it over a month or over a two hour period. Ignoring the transport and uptake rates of what you eat and simply comparing the chemical structure of intermediate products doesn't tell you the whole story. That gallon of ice cream you take a month to get through probably won't be a problem even if you are a diabetic, but if you try to down it in one sitting your blood glucose level will be so high you'll be in a coma. But ice cream is ice cream, isn't it? It isn't possible that the uptake rate could make any difference, could it?
The parent post only claims it is "more harmful", while the response starts talking about lack of chemical differences. I see this every time the topic of HFCS comes up, two groups talking right past each other.
This. The side that promotes HFCS always say that fructose is fructose, which is patently obvious. From that they jump to "HFCS is just like sugar", which isn't so patently obvious when you understand that it isn't true, chemically, and ignores the metabolic processing differences and system loading.
Water is water! Yes, that's true. But you get hurt bad when you try drinking from a firehose. People are people! Yes, that's true, but someone gets hurt really bad when 10,000 of them try to exit through one door all at the same time. (Like the Who concert in Ohio.)
The cleaving happens in the brush border. The brush border is on the inside of your stomach.
Wrong. From the link I provided: "Hydrolytic cleavage of sucrose, like that of of maltose, occurs in the brush border at the surface of the intestinal epithelial cells." The intestinal epithelial cells are not in the stomach. Not "ms" in the stomach.
Taubes rightly points to examples of peoples (like the Pima) who's health turned to shit after they were displaced and were given grains in place of a hunter gatherer lifestyle. HFCS didn't even exist back then.
That's why I said "the use of HFCS and other processed carbs." White bread.
No one has produced evidence that the 4-5% different in ratio makes any difference in the metabolic response.
If you read the link I already provided, you'll see the evidence. "Both sugars are then taken up by specific transport: Glucose by the SGLT1 transporter, and fructose by the GLUT5 transporter, which is named after glucose but in fact is more active on fructose than on glucose." Different uptake mechanisms. "Fructose degradation , sometimes called fructolysis, is carried out in the liver." Different metabolic processing. "Fructose and sucrose appear to promote obesity more strongly than equivalent amounts of starch or glucose;". Different result.
Fact is, we still aren't exactly sure about what we need to eat and in what proportions.
No, the fact is that we can eat a large variety of things in different proportions and our bodies usually work it all out in the long run. Like people who eat no carbs still have glucose coursing through their veins.
However, in almost all cases where we try to cut out certain substances from our diets we find that bad things start happening, like sailors at sea.
If by "sailors at sea" you are referring to scurvy, that wasn't from an attempt at cutting certain substances out of their diets, it came about as a natural result of a natural scarcity of a certain thing. Nobody said "hey, let's keep sailors from eating oranges", they just naturally didn't eat oranges because oranges didn't keep well on long voyages and they didn't want to eat "greens" (moldy oranges).
Cold turkey method. Might work. However, it is an easy way to fall off a new diet is to radically change what you do in 1 day. You have years of bad habits to break. It will take years to undo that mess. Pick 1 thing at a time. Have goals, have rewards for those goals. 1/3rd is a good start and you go from there. Each person is different. Ideally for me it is 5-15g a day. As measured by testing.
If you are at 5-15g and "testing" it sounds like you are an Atkins who is in maintenance mode.
Cold turkey is best to start Atkins. It pushes your metabolism to switch to using fat for energy and away from carbs very hard. It's called "induction", and it is much easier to be in induction and say "no" than to be in maintenance and say "how much does that contain?" Once you are in full ketosis, then add back until you are just borderline.
It took me about two weeks in induction to get to ketosis the first time. Now it takes about two days.
Once sucrose is cleaved in to fructose and glucose a few ms after hitting the stomach,
Wrong.
there is no chemical difference between HFCS and Sucrose.
Wrong again. HFCS is high-fructose corn syrup. The ratio of fructose to glucose is higher in HFCS than in sucrose. That's why it is called "high fructose".
The problem with HFCS is that it first bypasses the metabolic pathway that sucrose must go through, thereby creating a rush as the simple sugars are directly absorbed by the blood. Second, it puts a stress on the liver where fructose is metabolized, which causes more fructose to be converted to storage forms since there is more available at one time than can be used. The rush of glucose also stresses the glucose regulatory systems and can lead to diabetes and near-diabetes.
Gary Taubes has dealt with the "HFCS is just sugar" myth in his books. He points out that the common factor in aboriginal peoples who adopt a western diet and earn an obesity epidemic with it is the use of HFCS and other processed carbs. They eat fats and sugars in their natural diet and do fine. It's when they pick up the HFCS and white bread that they start to bulk up.
This stuff about HFCS being just like sugar is marketing hype by the people who make HFCS products, aimed at people who are ignorant of the metabolism of sugars. "HFCS is just like sugar" is about as true as saying "drinking from a firehose is the same as sipping a glass of water through a straw."
I walked to my first school,
And thank God that nobody else lives any further from school than you ever did, so your experience can be accepted as a global standard for how things ought to be.
Cars are not for schoolchildren.
Nobody said that schoolchildren were driving cars. They are quite reasonable as passengers in cars, however. And when the school is five miles away and there is a car going that direction already, it seems reasonable for "schoolchildren" to ride in cars.
If you as an adult are whining about the time it takes you to commute to work and how much productive stuff you could be doing, then I'd assume you would understand that a "schoolchild" who is spending a lot of time riding a back to and from school might appreciate a ride in a car and the time that he can do something productive, both during the car ride and by not wasting time on a bike.
For a small extra free; autonomous taxis on standby, to drive you to where your car is.
Finally we have an admission that we already have a system in place where people can get in a vehicle and don't have to do the tedious work of driving. They aren't autonomous but they already exist. If people are so ready and willing to buy a new car that is autonomous, why aren't they selling the ones they have and using taxis today?
On a car, killing the engine and applying the brakes is perfectly safe (assuming the other cars on the road are also autonomous so they won't run into disabled cars stopped in front of them)
First, assume a spherical cow... yes, all problems are trivial from that point on.
Just tell your car to drive around for a few hours, and come pick you up in an hour.
1. Wastes a lot of gas/electricity.
2. Clogs the roads with cars going nowhere fast.
3. I want to leave NOW, I don't want to have to wait for my car to come back where I am.
4. Where does it wait to pick you up if you are a minute or two late?
And if it is driving around for a few hours, it isn't coming back to pick me up in an hour, is it?
You don't have to steal a car, you just herd it where you want it to go by chasing it with a can of spray paint.
Or even more fun, tape cans of spray paint on the front of a dozen autonomous vehicles and watch them run away from each other, and other cars running away from them.
And the autonomous UPS vehicle when the driver tries to load a case of spray paint to deliver to the local hardware store.
The possibilities are endless.
Actually, we trust computers all the time, and you do too. I don't check the result of the computer's computation of the square root of 75.354, I don't check the sum on my sales slip,
If your life depended on the sum on your sales slip being correct, I bet you'd be checking it every time.
I won't hesitate to hand over control of my car to the car's computer, as soon as it is feasible. I wouldn't even ask for a lower insurance. Getting rid of tedious work is reason enough.
Why aren't you using taxis to get around today? If getting rid of tedious work is worth paying for a new car, why isn't paying a taxi driver to get rid of the tedious work sufficient reason to spend money on that?