TV & Radio were heavily regulated and we even had the Fairness Doctrine which *required* media companies to broadcast contrasting viewpoints. In the Fairness Doctrine era, the vast majority of top 25 TV markets had maybe 5 commercial television stations.
That was a reaction to earlier deliberately biased material like the Hearst newspapers. Fox tries to do something similar but the scale is vastly different - Murdoch doesn't seem to have ever had anyone framed or beaten up while Hearst had a reputation for going that far.
Correction:
Pretending that the "sheep" who want a fair system for all don't come in massive flocks and pretending that the wolves are not as rare as they are.
Liberty is not being free of government you fuckwit - liberty is being having a say in how and works and effectively being a part of it. All the "democracy is two wolves and a sheep choosing dinner" manipulative pricks are pretending that the "sheep" who want a fair system for all come in massive flocks and the wolves are very rare.
Democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others:)
Numbers are wrong above - very wrong - I shouldn't post before coffee starts the brain.
The main point to consider is sheer volume. A pile of apples worth of fructose is not a problem since it comes with fibre etc and there really isn't much of it. A few drinks full of huge amounts of sucrose and fructose is a different story and above a threshold where it really starts to matter. Anything extra beyond that is adding to the problem.
However that sucrose in it breaks down into glucose plus fructose so in the end you are getting more fructose and less glucose from that HFCS-42 than from cane sugar (which will break down to 50% fructose 50% glucose). I think it's 42%+29% fructose (71% fructose) and 29% glucose. Are you starting to see why there is a distinction yet?
We actually DO know that pure fructose is bad. The question is whether HFCS has a "high enough" fructose content to make it significantly
Get too much fructose and it doesn't really matter what else is delivered with it or where it came from (eg. breakdown from sucrose). That tiny bit extra is often a tiny bit on top of far too much.
The problem at hand is consuming far too much sugar and HFCS is slightly worse than the others.
Yes but could you claim that a Metallica Albumn violates the copyright of your comment? Given the vast differences between the Transformers movie and the Ubuntu distro I think that's a fair analogy. I cannot see how it can be considered an honest statement that someone thinks that it violates their copyright. I suspect a bot is doing this but there is should be no excuse for that and a penalty should apply for making a false claim.
Water isn't a poison either but you can drown. The problems here are a LOT of fructose or a LOT of sucrose delivered swiftly without having to deal with a lot of fibre etc.
You'd have to eat a huge number of apples to match the content of a HFCS sweetened drink. It's only too much, sometimes to the point of overloading the liver, that is the problem.
You've written a lot but it is entirely irrelevant because this is a global thing and I am not American. I've had a bit of contempt for Gore ever since his wife started using his position, just like a fucking aristocrat of old, to make things difficult for musicians. Who the fuck voted for her? By coming in and "jazzing" things up in response to some Republicans spouting PR bullshit he's provided fuel for utter pricks to suggest that the scientists are lying instead of it just being Washington lies as usual.
No you are just pushing a point that I disagree with because you are ascribing blame to the scientists and not some opportunists in politics. Politics is nearly always a partisan game so you are pushing a bit of a tautology and making up a totally irrelevant point that you can pretend I have missed.
Now we are finally getting away from 19th century white supremecist bullshit! Thank Christ for that. Causation - lots of stuff and not just the 19th century ideas of things like other races having smaller brains.
Both are bad in large dose but eating large amounts of fructose has extra problems as your second link says. At the scales sugar is consumed now the difference may look small.
It's also worth mentioning that HFCS is not all fructose.
There has been a lot written and an article from a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California San Francisco had a very good summary. I'm not sure where is is but here's a TV segment and transcript that deals with it: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm
Guzzling soda sweetened with HFCS is bad for you. But guzzling the same amount of soda sweetened with cane sugar is no better.
Both are bad but apparently the HFCS is 50% worse.
based on conjecture and superstition, not data.
Some time ago perhaps but it is now well understood.
Don't blame the scientists for Al Gore dumbing things down and "jazzing" things up in response to some Republicans spouting PR bullshit they were paid to say.
It was a partisan battle against legitimate science and it is still going on. The reason you are seeing it the way you are is because at one point some Republicans decided, with the help of a lot of donor money, to make it a point of difference between them and the Democrats. Prior to that other conservatives, such as Margret Thatcher in the UK, were on the side of reality and not inspired to drift off into the land of fantasy on that topic by large donations.
HFCS is no better or worse than sucrose -- they're essentially the same damn thing
No. There's a lot of fructose that can only be broken down in the liver in it. While vast amounts of either sugar is bad for you HFCS is a bit worse. In small doses the difference is ignorable but people eating shitloads of HFCS for their body size are getting a variety of extra health problems on top.
But like Gretsky said, stop skating where the puck is and start trying to figure out where it will be.
It's what they have always done and it worked many times. MS Windows was a cheap and nasty workstation OS after all - nowhere near the first but "good enough" and "cheap enough". Same with MS Word and all the rest. It's not going to work every time but it's what they do. They are reactive and not active and sadly see no reason to change. If they did more than follow we'd probably be on some advanced platform instead of something that looks like Enlightenment from 1998 only not as good. MS had an awesome thing with Xenix and if they had built on that instead of a bastard child of a cut down CP/M clone and a cut down VMS clone they would have had something much better much earlier for a lot less expenditure and we wouldn't be nose deep in a malware swamp.
IMHO it would need a TV series since a major point of it is that there is so much going on and connections between the things. Cutting it back into a movie would mean throwing a lot away.
"The Expanse" on TV has excitement but they should have got someone who has at least heard of the Apollo space program to look over the script. "We've only got two hours of air in this fucking enormous space" and a few other bits where plot depended on physics being wrong was a bit annoying at times.
I haven't seen the film but I was thinking something along those lines last night looking at some images of a rocky cliff on Mars from Curiousity. All those sharp edges instead of the worn rounded rocks seen in places with a lot of blowing sand on Earth.
If said codec is lossy, is it really the same work of art or a derivative?
There was a famous situation of a sculpture of puppies being found to violate a photograph of those puppies so it looks like if something is recognisable as being similar enough it's seen as the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"delivered swiftly without having to deal with a lot of fibre etc"
That was a reaction to earlier deliberately biased material like the Hearst newspapers. Fox tries to do something similar but the scale is vastly different - Murdoch doesn't seem to have ever had anyone framed or beaten up while Hearst had a reputation for going that far.
Correction:
Pretending that the "sheep" who want a fair system for all don't come in massive flocks and pretending that the wolves are not as rare as they are.
Liberty is not being free of government you fuckwit - liberty is being having a say in how and works and effectively being a part of it. All the "democracy is two wolves and a sheep choosing dinner" manipulative pricks are pretending that the "sheep" who want a fair system for all come in massive flocks and the wolves are very rare.
:)
Democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others
Numbers are wrong above - very wrong - I shouldn't post before coffee starts the brain.
The main point to consider is sheer volume. A pile of apples worth of fructose is not a problem since it comes with fibre etc and there really isn't much of it. A few drinks full of huge amounts of sucrose and fructose is a different story and above a threshold where it really starts to matter. Anything extra beyond that is adding to the problem.
Comparing it calorie to calorie doesn't really descibe very well what is going on:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm
However that sucrose in it breaks down into glucose plus fructose so in the end you are getting more fructose and less glucose from that HFCS-42 than from cane sugar (which will break down to 50% fructose 50% glucose).
I think it's 42%+29% fructose (71% fructose) and 29% glucose.
Are you starting to see why there is a distinction yet?
Get too much fructose and it doesn't really matter what else is delivered with it or where it came from (eg. breakdown from sucrose).
That tiny bit extra is often a tiny bit on top of far too much.
The problem at hand is consuming far too much sugar and HFCS is slightly worse than the others.
Yes but could you claim that a Metallica Albumn violates the copyright of your comment?
Given the vast differences between the Transformers movie and the Ubuntu distro I think that's a fair analogy. I cannot see how it can be considered an honest statement that someone thinks that it violates their copyright. I suspect a bot is doing this but there is should be no excuse for that and a penalty should apply for making a false claim.
Water isn't a poison either but you can drown.
The problems here are a LOT of fructose or a LOT of sucrose delivered swiftly without having to deal with a lot of fibre etc.
You'd have to eat a huge number of apples to match the content of a HFCS sweetened drink. It's only too much, sometimes to the point of overloading the liver, that is the problem.
You've written a lot but it is entirely irrelevant because this is a global thing and I am not American.
I've had a bit of contempt for Gore ever since his wife started using his position, just like a fucking aristocrat of old, to make things difficult for musicians. Who the fuck voted for her?
By coming in and "jazzing" things up in response to some Republicans spouting PR bullshit he's provided fuel for utter pricks to suggest that the scientists are lying instead of it just being Washington lies as usual.
No you are just pushing a point that I disagree with because you are ascribing blame to the scientists and not some opportunists in politics.
Politics is nearly always a partisan game so you are pushing a bit of a tautology and making up a totally irrelevant point that you can pretend I have missed.
Now we are finally getting away from 19th century white supremecist bullshit! Thank Christ for that.
Causation - lots of stuff and not just the 19th century ideas of things like other races having smaller brains.
Both are bad in large dose but eating large amounts of fructose has extra problems as your second link says.
At the scales sugar is consumed now the difference may look small.
It's also worth mentioning that HFCS is not all fructose.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3821440.htm
Both are bad but apparently the HFCS is 50% worse.
Some time ago perhaps but it is now well understood.
Don't blame the scientists for Al Gore dumbing things down and "jazzing" things up in response to some Republicans spouting PR bullshit they were paid to say.
It was a partisan battle against legitimate science and it is still going on.
The reason you are seeing it the way you are is because at one point some Republicans decided, with the help of a lot of donor money, to make it a point of difference between them and the Democrats. Prior to that other conservatives, such as Margret Thatcher in the UK, were on the side of reality and not inspired to drift off into the land of fantasy on that topic by large donations.
No.
There's a lot of fructose that can only be broken down in the liver in it. While vast amounts of either sugar is bad for you HFCS is a bit worse.
In small doses the difference is ignorable but people eating shitloads of HFCS for their body size are getting a variety of extra health problems on top.
It's what they have always done and it worked many times. MS Windows was a cheap and nasty workstation OS after all - nowhere near the first but "good enough" and "cheap enough". Same with MS Word and all the rest. It's not going to work every time but it's what they do. They are reactive and not active and sadly see no reason to change.
If they did more than follow we'd probably be on some advanced platform instead of something that looks like Enlightenment from 1998 only not as good. MS had an awesome thing with Xenix and if they had built on that instead of a bastard child of a cut down CP/M clone and a cut down VMS clone they would have had something much better much earlier for a lot less expenditure and we wouldn't be nose deep in a malware swamp.
IMHO it would need a TV series since a major point of it is that there is so much going on and connections between the things. Cutting it back into a movie would mean throwing a lot away.
I think I'd rather read Hornblower despite it lacking the magic cat.
"The Expanse" on TV has excitement but they should have got someone who has at least heard of the Apollo space program to look over the script. "We've only got two hours of air in this fucking enormous space" and a few other bits where plot depended on physics being wrong was a bit annoying at times.
I haven't seen the film but I was thinking something along those lines last night looking at some images of a rocky cliff on Mars from Curiousity. All those sharp edges instead of the worn rounded rocks seen in places with a lot of blowing sand on Earth.
There was a famous situation of a sculpture of puppies being found to violate a photograph of those puppies so it looks like if something is recognisable as being similar enough it's seen as the same thing.
Sucks really.
Surely the perjury clause can be used this time since they have nothing to do with the copyright holders.