If you understood American history well, you'd know new taxes don't go so well. If you actually knew our current laws, you'd know that sugar is actually all taxed to shit and back. So much so there are black markets that find ways to import sugar in to America illegally. What we need to stop is the corn subsidy programs, that would cause the price of HFCS to increase in line with sugar. The cost increase of the finished product might be enough to slow consumption alone.
The 6.5oz size had more to do with expense then portion control. It was the amount the could be sold for 5 cents profitably, which was well in the range of most buyers.
Nothing to do with the merits of the substance itself, but everything to do with oddities of American law. Caloric intake shot up in the '80s after HFCS replaced sugar in drinks. That's because drink costs fell dramatically because of lower sweetener costs. U.S. Sugar tariffs kept soda prices artificially high when using sugar, this in turn kept drink sizes small and refills non-free.
What this shows is portion size is best limited by price. Ban HFCS drinks and the sweetener cost somewhere around doubles. This would curtail many restaurants giving free refills and would make drink, at least the sugary ones more expensive.
>I believe this goes a long way into explaining why large servings of soda are more likely to sell than large servings of orange juice.
It goes a little way, maybe. It's far easier to explain that coke is easier to sell based on two factors, price and portability.
For OJ to be easily portable it is generally frozen and concentrated. Keeping it frozen is expensive. The rate of concentration is around 1 to 3, so 12 oz of OJ concentrate to make 48oz of drink. Retail, 12oz of concentrate is over $2.
Soda syrup comes in gallon or larger 'bags' (inside boxes) that connect directly to a fountain dispenser. These boxes do not need to be refrigerated. The rate to concentration starts at 1 to 5 and can be higher. A 128 fl oz gallon will produce 640 fl oz at said ratio. A quick online search shows a gallon container is around $10. I'm guessing it's cheaper if you buy a lot of it for use in a dispenser.
So.04$ oz OJ.01$ oz Cola
This is discounting a lot of different costs, like refrigeration, CO2, water, etc. But the general idea is that OJ would cost 4 times as much and would require more freezer space to a business. I'm guessing my calculations are pretty close just based on the size and cost of juice at McDonalds vs a fountain drink.
So it's businesses fault that we don't perform physical activity? Should we go back and ban the combine harvester? Forced manual labor? Give back the last 150 years of technical progress so we don't have to work so much?
The problem we have here is we have allowed the government and corporations to establish subsidies (corn mostly) that allow the production of lots of cheap fat and sugary food. Allowing the government to control more is just going to allow more regulatory capture, increasing the problems we have now, not fixing them. Leveling the playing field so corn prices increase (and meat prices by proxy) relative to the costs of healthier fruits and vegetables, That would actually involve less government control then we have now.
This ban is really a ban. It has the force the law of behind it. And you can be damn sure that this will expand. Hell if it doesn't work, maybe you'll have to show your ID to buy sweet drinks and have it logged in a database so you don't buy too much in one day. You know it's for your health.
You have to cry before a tyranny is established, because once it is you no longer have the right to cry.
Soda's were sold in 6oz bottles not because it was a reasonable serving size, but because glass bottles and sugar were expensive. Once plastic reduced the material costs and HFCS got around the sugar tariffs drink size exploded. It is unfortunate I cannot find a normalized timeline of the price of cola vs the cost of living, but it would show that HFCS had a dramatic effect. It has nothing to do with a world gone mad, it has to do with dropping costs. It's like saying people buying 70" TVs are in a world gone mad, when 40 years ago a 18" TV cost the same.
Did you take in to account that most fast food drink cups are filled with 30 to 70% ice? Most people make the conversion error in calculating caloric intake without discounting the pure water (ice) content. It's likely, unless this person drinks without ice, he's talking closer to 60% of his RDA. Still high, but not as insane. Now for actual 'personal' bottles like the 1L and 20oz, what you get the full calorie shot. In the summer months I like a large cup with mostly ice and a little drink so I can have a cold drink for hours, guess I'd have to carry my own cup in NY.
Cane sugar and HFCS are both a problem, but due to the weird way sugar tarriffs work in the U.S. Sugar based soft drinks were comparatively expensive and until around 1985 free refills were uncommon. HFCS allowed much lower soft drink production costs leading to 44oz Mega's and all you can drink. Graphs of HFCS production and increased soda trend each other quite well.
So yes, the previous poster would be somewhat correct in banning HFCS drinks would lead to lower consumption, mostly due to increased prices if the price of the sweetener is a significant proportion of the total cost.
Many of the drink cups are refillable so in a sit down restaurant it would be a wash. Maybe the restaurants with fountain drinks can have a price for BYOC customers (Bring Your On Cup).
Oh Noes Mr +5Troll we can't do that, that's a backwards law.
But if people don't pay their own costs for health care they will eat metric shittons of sugar shit and expect 'the government' to pay for it. And because 'we' are the government, 'we' will want to control how people live their lives so it doesn't cost 'me' more.
Yes Mr +5Troll, that is the cost of Universal Health Care, your freedom. Sorry about all those terrible things that happened in the past to give us our freedoms, but getting an extra 20 years out of life is worth it.
It's the governments job to make sure the manufacture tells you how deadly their shit really is, to prevent them from selling poison has healthfood. It is not the governments job to keep me from eating said poison if I know what it does. When moral busybodies command a government to regulate vice they create a black market with far more negative effects then the original ailment. Just what I want, a gangbanger slinging 32oz cokes and double meat burgers on the street corner.
Sell a 32oz coke without permission from the law and you'll be fined. Don't pay the fine and they will close down your business by force. Force meaning armed officers with guns. You are a naive idiot to believe that the law is not a tool of force and these days that force is a gun, rather then the swords and bows of the past.
So NY state is right to limit the sizes of cups. One extra reason could be that smaller cups take up less landfill.
Limiting the size of cups is like limiting the size of gas tanks. People will just fill up more often. As with gas, the only real way to limit consumption is increase price. If you want to do something about the obesity epidemic lobby the government to stop paying farmers to stop turning a billion metric shittons of corn in to HFCS. Or, at least tax the hell out of it. Drink prices would go up, and free refills of sweet crap would disappear.
Other then the fact your explanation is wrong. Hunter gatherers did eat sweet stuff, like the honey he stated. They ate as much as they could just like us. Only difference between us and them is their supply of sweets ran out pretty quick, then they had to spend a huge amount of that energy to chase down some creature that didn't want to be ate. Sugar isn't an artificial modern creation, high fructose corn syrup would be that modern invention. Modern fruits are really irrelevant in this conversation, being that very little of our dietary sugars are from fruit. We don't crave sugar because we eat modern sugar, we crave sugar because it is fuel.
Evolutionary theory can be used to explain anything incorrectly. Please don't fall into the trap of making shit up as you go along.
We're seeing increased use of SWAT teams, no-knock search warrants, and violence by our police against the civilian population that simply wasn't present 10 or 15 years ago.
I assure you, it was occurring well over 15 years ago. Remember Waco was almost 20 years ago now. The difference between now and then is it's not just the groups labeled right or left wing nuts that have noticed. It has gotten far worse over time, even small police departments are 'militarized' these days. At least at this time we can still freely complain about it on the internet. Back in the early '90s you didn't hear about it so much because they news only reported what the police said happened and the people the knew the truth were talking about it at a diner over coffee.
Zynga's not doing so well either. Facebook is a joke in the context of TFA, just like you stated. Their bones will be buried with MySpace soon enough. I should coin GAAM (google, apple, amazon, microsoft), because it's likely they'll be dominating tech sales for some time to come.
Then why didn't all the old Windows tablets end up ruling the roost?
Because they didn't have anyone to steal a good idea from at the time. I'm not sure Microsoft ever innovated.
The biggest issue with Apple 'controlling' the market is Apple's control over its market, they love controlling and locking down consumer devices, that doesn't get in to the enterprise very far. Apple simply doesn't provide the platforms that run the back end of a business. Microsoft is well established there, I don't see a lot of places dropping MSSQL or AD any time soon. If Microsoft ever gets a tablet out that doesn't suck like a hoover and integrates with the security polices already established, they could see profitable market in businesses. Windows 8 is there attempt at this, too bad it's going to piss off all the desktop users and hang itself in doing so.
Uh huh....that's why Apple makes way more money than IBM and Microsoft combined.
IBM was a money printing machine for a time. So was Microsoft. Today it's Apple that prints their own money. Sometime in the future it will be someone else. It is the nature of things.
The question currently is how long Apple will be able to keep it up without King Jobs at the throne.
No, it's the unfortunate condition of the law in its current form that will take a group of reasonable people, add a charter and a lawyer, and turn it in to an immoral and ahuman device. Your business might shit flowers and go on nature walks with Jesus today, but get bought out by Oracle tomorrow and start killing seals with a bat. It's a good idea to license your software before you release it. The GPL was designed to address abuses that had already occurred with open/free computer code at the time it was written. The corporate world doesn't have to play that game. They can submit to Apple's and MIcrosoft's will any day of the week and get rich from doing it.
The GPL doesn't prevent your competitor from using it. It prevents your competitor from taking it, improving it, and using it directly against you. In the GPL he has to release the improvements back to the community. The entire 'community' benefits in the end because of the code you released.
With the BSD license, the competitor takes your code, makes it better then charges you to use the improved features. Granted there are a lot of cases where BSD code is good, but long term open computing platforms are not one of them.
In every case a freedom has a set of associated costs. If you use 'free' software to reduce business costs, there is going to be a cost when it comes to selling the software. It seems an odd position that you want the code to be 'free' as in no rules so you can sell it and be protected by IP, copyright, and trademark rules.
Slashdot Mirror
If you understood American history well, you'd know new taxes don't go so well. If you actually knew our current laws, you'd know that sugar is actually all taxed to shit and back. So much so there are black markets that find ways to import sugar in to America illegally. What we need to stop is the corn subsidy programs, that would cause the price of HFCS to increase in line with sugar. The cost increase of the finished product might be enough to slow consumption alone.
The 6.5oz size had more to do with expense then portion control. It was the amount the could be sold for 5 cents profitably, which was well in the range of most buyers.
Nothing to do with the merits of the substance itself, but everything to do with oddities of American law. Caloric intake shot up in the '80s after HFCS replaced sugar in drinks. That's because drink costs fell dramatically because of lower sweetener costs. U.S. Sugar tariffs kept soda prices artificially high when using sugar, this in turn kept drink sizes small and refills non-free.
What this shows is portion size is best limited by price. Ban HFCS drinks and the sweetener cost somewhere around doubles. This would curtail many restaurants giving free refills and would make drink, at least the sugary ones more expensive.
People don't need freedom or liberty to survive either. I should take them away before you use them to make a bad decision.
>I believe this goes a long way into explaining why large servings of soda are more likely to sell than large servings of orange juice.
It goes a little way, maybe. It's far easier to explain that coke is easier to sell based on two factors, price and portability.
For OJ to be easily portable it is generally frozen and concentrated. Keeping it frozen is expensive. The rate of concentration is around 1 to 3, so 12 oz of OJ concentrate to make 48oz of drink. Retail, 12oz of concentrate is over $2.
Soda syrup comes in gallon or larger 'bags' (inside boxes) that connect directly to a fountain dispenser. These boxes do not need to be refrigerated. The rate to concentration starts at 1 to 5 and can be higher. A 128 fl oz gallon will produce 640 fl oz at said ratio. A quick online search shows a gallon container is around $10. I'm guessing it's cheaper if you buy a lot of it for use in a dispenser.
So .04$ oz OJ .01$ oz Cola
This is discounting a lot of different costs, like refrigeration, CO2, water, etc. But the general idea is that OJ would cost 4 times as much and would require more freezer space to a business. I'm guessing my calculations are pretty close just based on the size and cost of juice at McDonalds vs a fountain drink.
So it's businesses fault that we don't perform physical activity? Should we go back and ban the combine harvester? Forced manual labor? Give back the last 150 years of technical progress so we don't have to work so much?
The problem we have here is we have allowed the government and corporations to establish subsidies (corn mostly) that allow the production of lots of cheap fat and sugary food. Allowing the government to control more is just going to allow more regulatory capture, increasing the problems we have now, not fixing them. Leveling the playing field so corn prices increase (and meat prices by proxy) relative to the costs of healthier fruits and vegetables, That would actually involve less government control then we have now.
This ban is really a ban. It has the force the law of behind it. And you can be damn sure that this will expand. Hell if it doesn't work, maybe you'll have to show your ID to buy sweet drinks and have it logged in a database so you don't buy too much in one day. You know it's for your health.
You have to cry before a tyranny is established, because once it is you no longer have the right to cry.
Soda's were sold in 6oz bottles not because it was a reasonable serving size, but because glass bottles and sugar were expensive. Once plastic reduced the material costs and HFCS got around the sugar tariffs drink size exploded. It is unfortunate I cannot find a normalized timeline of the price of cola vs the cost of living, but it would show that HFCS had a dramatic effect. It has nothing to do with a world gone mad, it has to do with dropping costs. It's like saying people buying 70" TVs are in a world gone mad, when 40 years ago a 18" TV cost the same.
Sell 700mL of soda in one container and you'll see exactly what kind of punishment the state levels against you.
Did you take in to account that most fast food drink cups are filled with 30 to 70% ice? Most people make the conversion error in calculating caloric intake without discounting the pure water (ice) content. It's likely, unless this person drinks without ice, he's talking closer to 60% of his RDA. Still high, but not as insane. Now for actual 'personal' bottles like the 1L and 20oz, what you get the full calorie shot. In the summer months I like a large cup with mostly ice and a little drink so I can have a cold drink for hours, guess I'd have to carry my own cup in NY.
Cane sugar and HFCS are both a problem, but due to the weird way sugar tarriffs work in the U.S. Sugar based soft drinks were comparatively expensive and until around 1985 free refills were uncommon. HFCS allowed much lower soft drink production costs leading to 44oz Mega's and all you can drink. Graphs of HFCS production and increased soda trend each other quite well.
So yes, the previous poster would be somewhat correct in banning HFCS drinks would lead to lower consumption, mostly due to increased prices if the price of the sweetener is a significant proportion of the total cost.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp Is a good read on U.S. sugar tarriff, this has been ongoing for a lot longer then the 1980's, or even 1880's.
Many of the drink cups are refillable so in a sit down restaurant it would be a wash. Maybe the restaurants with fountain drinks can have a price for BYOC customers (Bring Your On Cup).
Then make people pay their own health costs!?!
Oh Noes Mr +5Troll we can't do that, that's a backwards law.
But if people don't pay their own costs for health care they will eat metric shittons of sugar shit and expect 'the government' to pay for it. And because 'we' are the government, 'we' will want to control how people live their lives so it doesn't cost 'me' more.
Yes Mr +5Troll, that is the cost of Universal Health Care, your freedom. Sorry about all those terrible things that happened in the past to give us our freedoms, but getting an extra 20 years out of life is worth it.
How the fuck did this get modded insightful.
It's the governments job to make sure the manufacture tells you how deadly their shit really is, to prevent them from selling poison has healthfood. It is not the governments job to keep me from eating said poison if I know what it does. When moral busybodies command a government to regulate vice they create a black market with far more negative effects then the original ailment. Just what I want, a gangbanger slinging 32oz cokes and double meat burgers on the street corner.
Sell a 32oz coke without permission from the law and you'll be fined. Don't pay the fine and they will close down your business by force. Force meaning armed officers with guns. You are a naive idiot to believe that the law is not a tool of force and these days that force is a gun, rather then the swords and bows of the past.
So NY state is right to limit the sizes of cups. One extra reason could be that smaller cups take up less landfill.
Limiting the size of cups is like limiting the size of gas tanks. People will just fill up more often. As with gas, the only real way to limit consumption is increase price. If you want to do something about the obesity epidemic lobby the government to stop paying farmers to stop turning a billion metric shittons of corn in to HFCS. Or, at least tax the hell out of it. Drink prices would go up, and free refills of sweet crap would disappear.
Other then the fact your explanation is wrong. Hunter gatherers did eat sweet stuff, like the honey he stated. They ate as much as they could just like us. Only difference between us and them is their supply of sweets ran out pretty quick, then they had to spend a huge amount of that energy to chase down some creature that didn't want to be ate. Sugar isn't an artificial modern creation, high fructose corn syrup would be that modern invention. Modern fruits are really irrelevant in this conversation, being that very little of our dietary sugars are from fruit. We don't crave sugar because we eat modern sugar, we crave sugar because it is fuel.
Evolutionary theory can be used to explain anything incorrectly. Please don't fall into the trap of making shit up as you go along.
We're seeing increased use of SWAT teams, no-knock search warrants, and violence by our police against the civilian population that simply wasn't present 10 or 15 years ago.
I assure you, it was occurring well over 15 years ago. Remember Waco was almost 20 years ago now. The difference between now and then is it's not just the groups labeled right or left wing nuts that have noticed. It has gotten far worse over time, even small police departments are 'militarized' these days. At least at this time we can still freely complain about it on the internet. Back in the early '90s you didn't hear about it so much because they news only reported what the police said happened and the people the knew the truth were talking about it at a diner over coffee.
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Zynga-s-Downfall-Exposes-The-Biggest-Threat-To-3939452.php
Zynga's not doing so well either. Facebook is a joke in the context of TFA, just like you stated. Their bones will be buried with MySpace soon enough. I should coin GAAM (google, apple, amazon, microsoft), because it's likely they'll be dominating tech sales for some time to come.
Then why didn't all the old Windows tablets end up ruling the roost?
Because they didn't have anyone to steal a good idea from at the time. I'm not sure Microsoft ever innovated.
The biggest issue with Apple 'controlling' the market is Apple's control over its market, they love controlling and locking down consumer devices, that doesn't get in to the enterprise very far. Apple simply doesn't provide the platforms that run the back end of a business. Microsoft is well established there, I don't see a lot of places dropping MSSQL or AD any time soon. If Microsoft ever gets a tablet out that doesn't suck like a hoover and integrates with the security polices already established, they could see profitable market in businesses. Windows 8 is there attempt at this, too bad it's going to piss off all the desktop users and hang itself in doing so.
Uh huh....that's why Apple makes way more money than IBM and Microsoft combined.
IBM was a money printing machine for a time.
So was Microsoft.
Today it's Apple that prints their own money.
Sometime in the future it will be someone else. It is the nature of things.
The question currently is how long Apple will be able to keep it up without King Jobs at the throne.
No, it's the unfortunate condition of the law in its current form that will take a group of reasonable people, add a charter and a lawyer, and turn it in to an immoral and ahuman device. Your business might shit flowers and go on nature walks with Jesus today, but get bought out by Oracle tomorrow and start killing seals with a bat. It's a good idea to license your software before you release it. The GPL was designed to address abuses that had already occurred with open/free computer code at the time it was written. The corporate world doesn't have to play that game. They can submit to Apple's and MIcrosoft's will any day of the week and get rich from doing it.
The GPL doesn't prevent your competitor from using it. It prevents your competitor from taking it, improving it, and using it directly against you. In the GPL he has to release the improvements back to the community. The entire 'community' benefits in the end because of the code you released.
With the BSD license, the competitor takes your code, makes it better then charges you to use the improved features. Granted there are a lot of cases where BSD code is good, but long term open computing platforms are not one of them.
In every case a freedom has a set of associated costs. If you use 'free' software to reduce business costs, there is going to be a cost when it comes to selling the software. It seems an odd position that you want the code to be 'free' as in no rules so you can sell it and be protected by IP, copyright, and trademark rules.
>
Besides, airplanes tend not to slam on their brakes like cars and trucks do.
No, but the sky is capable of doing scary shit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_draft