The BS is the/. article summary. From the transcript:
Robert Lustig: Well high fructose corn syrup, it should say that, now in Australia for instance the sodas don't have high fructose corn syrup they have sucrose. Well sucrose is half fructose. You know a lot has been made over this high fructose corn syrup being particularly evil. In fact high fructose corn syrup is either 42% or 55% fructose, the rest is glucose. Well sucrose is 50% fructose the rest is glucose. In fact high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are equally problematic.
Norman Swan: Basically table sugar.
Robert Lustig: Table sugar -- that's right. We were not designed to eat all of this sugar, we're supposed to be eating our carbohydrate, particularly our fructose, with high fibre. Well the fact is we have 100 pound bags of sugar that go into the cakes, and the donuts.
Norman Swan: So we don't need to get obsessed on fruit sugars, it's sugar itself, sucrose.
Robert Lustig: Absolutely, it's sugar in general.
---
So don't blame the article, blame the summarizer. I've read (but can't link) that the difference between the current American diet and the diet in the 50's is almost exclusively the amount of sugar eaten.
Why not just buy externals? Speed isn't an issue playing DVD data, and you can just add drives as needed. They aren't much more expensive than bare drives, and a lot cheaper than any RAID I know of.
Actually nicotine is a potent poison which has adverse effects on nearly every system in the body.
No doubt, but other chemicals that are vital for life in small doses are poisonous in large ones. Most anti-venoms are made from the venom itself. Cone snails are quite poisonous but may prove vital in pain treatment. Botulin is a poison that is useful in calming nervous tics, aside from its cosmetic purpose. Vitamin A can be toxic.
That doesn't mean that in the relatively small doses inhaled, nicotine might be fairly benign by itself.
Thanks for the info. I'd assumed session musicians were generally payed more of a flat fee, with relatively little of their income coming from royalties. I suppose it can spread the risk a bit if the wage/royalty ratio is low for all parties.
yes they did. although I suspect a lot of those session guys backed it too
Why? Are the session guys really collecting significant coin from performances they did fifty years ago? (Not to mention the question of whether they should.)
Society will be safer. *Anyone* can kill. If you are in jail, at least there is one less variable.
We already locked everyone up on a planet called Earth.
I ought to bring out the "jump to conclusions" mat. Look, people, you can either not jail anyone, because how can you truly prove guilt beyond any doubt, or you can have a system where it's possible you jail the occasional innocent. How high should your standard be? It should be such that the damage done by the criminals that aren't convicted (and then go on to commit other crimes) is less than the damage done by imprisoning the innocent who are convicted. It should also be high enough to discourage the powerful from gaming the system to control the less powerful.
In this case, the guy got a cash payout for the wrongful imprisonment, then lured someone to his place on the premise of taking a picture of something for sale, and murdered her.
People who've been unjustly stripped of their freedom don't tend to come out of prison with too great respect for the law.
True, but perfection is impossible to achieve. People who are killed by someone who wasn't found guilty of a previous crime lose quite a bit too.
The thing is: For every innocent person in jail, there's a criminal that got away with the crime.
But often they'll get locked up for other offenses.
Having an innocent person in jail isn't just bad for that person, but bad for society as a whole.
But having a guilty person not in jail is also bad for society, as one-time offenders are far more likely to commit additional offenses than the average person.
The only way never to imprison an innocent person is never to imprison anyone. Thus the reasonable doubt standard, which tries to minimize locking up the innocent, but can't entirely prevent it, while still locking up most of the guilty who pass through the system.
And then you have guys like the one released a few years ago after multiple years in jail for a rape he didn't commit, who then murdered a woman after being released. Some of the innocent aren't *that* innocent.
You trust the police far too much. They ARE government employees, after all, with all the eliteness and objectivity that that implies.
While in other cases trust in the police may be an issue, the police don't decide guilt or innocence, they merely collect evidence and build a case, and I see no evidence of anything wrong in their evidence gathering. Based on what's described in this article, I would expect a conviction.
Not quite. UCITA tries to formalize it, but that doesn't mean courts have held EULAs to be invalid in its absence. They should, though, given its conflict with the standard principles of contract law (offer and acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations.)
And another thing. Police love it when people accept a "It's understood that we good guys are going to break the law, because the law was written overbroad" law. Like speed limits. They love it because the policeman's only power is to crack down on lawbreakers... and oh what fun it is when the good guys -- once arrogantly immune to the policeman's intimidations -- are now required to break the law, and to place themselves on the defensive, in their normal course of business.
It's more than that, it's a tool they can use on those they "know" are guilty, but don't think they can prove to a jury's satisfaction. Just charge the person with the kitchen sink, and then you've got a better basis for forcing a plea bargain, and the case can be closed. "If they were innocent, they wouldn't be suspects."
Sorry I haven't responded sooner, esp. since you were responding presumably long after the story disappeared. Alas,/. isn't always conducive to long discussions.
There's no way you're going to get most builders to spend lots of money on soundproofing, when they can cut costs and increase their profit instead
The assumption I'm making is that someone with a forward thinking view sets out to build this community, in the same way that planned communities like Columbia, MD, and Peachtree City, GA were built. Perhaps someone like Richard Branson, who has shown an economic contribution to reducing CO2. The idea is that by going the extra mile, you attract the middle class and even some upper class, rather than targeting lower class and LMC.
The city/condo design basis means that individuals don't have much of an exterior to maintain. The idea is that there may be shared gardens outside, with some private areas for individuals who want that and are willing to maintain, but nothing much more than a large deck/porch/balcony area for outside as part of one's home.
This implies that you are either taking too many photos now, or you weren't taking enough photos back then.
Actually, it's mainly longer mini-movies. And yes, back then I could only take 10 second ones with the camera I had, so I wasn't taking "enough" back then. The current camera allows me to take movies as much as the card will hold.
Also, the pics are somewhat higher resolution, and thus larger, with my more recent camera.
Some of this might be ameliorated if you're willing to go the extra distance on construction. Build for soundproofing and for security. (Of course, that raises the cost.) Have HOA rules and meaningful fines for violations. one thought, if a lot of the apartments are structurally similar, is to make it fairly easy to move somehow.
I admit I've never lived in a downtown area.
The problem is the other people: they're loud, they're rude, they're careless, and they don't care about anyone but themselves.
Is this endemic to people or to people who tend to rent? Do condos have fewer of these problems?
While I'll grant you the mass of humanity doesn't always make me happy, I can go to the mall and be in the vicinity of hundreds without it being much of an issue. Assisted living places are also something like what I've described, though granted they've self-selected a less boisterous crowd.
I admit I haven't looked into overall building costs, and that might be the damper on more urban dwelling. A fair bit of construction in the suburbs is devoted to cars: streets, bridges, garages, parking lots, etc. All the space devoted to cars means things are even more spread out, leading to even more streets, etc. devoted to cars, making walking impractical and leading to yet *more* usage of cars. Cars are also one of the major expenses for a family, especially when insurance, consumables, and repairs are factored in.
New York et al, also aren't my perfect design. I'd like to see a very large building with no interior roads (perhaps some sort of access tunnels with electric transport vehicles), surrounded by playgrounds, ballfields, parks, bike trails, etc. Even in most cities, you have a lot of space devoted to automobiles.
And people in dense places tend to spend more on other things, too (both high supply and demand). The commute savings might be overcome by the import costs of Belgian beer alone....
Would you rather have a small lawn you spend more time mowing than using in any other way and crappy beer, or no lawn and beer you like?
Agreed. New York CIty might seem like an ecological nightmare, for example, but when you consider just how many people are living in that relatively small space, it's per-person impact is so much less. I live in the 'burbs, and couldn't imagine living without driving every day. I have relatives who live in Boston who own one car. The wife hasn't driven in years. She will occasionally take a taxi.
But cities just naturally make everything more expensive. For the cost of my house, land, etc., I could get a couple of small apartments in Boston. Give me a living situation where I can have a 2,000 sq ft apartment for $250K, with shopping, gyms, schools, playgrounds, etc. in easy walking distance, and I'd want to move.
I managed to summon the fire department to my comp sci building about 15 years ago this way.
Microwave had hard to read display from off angles. If someone cooked something but didn't finish it, the time remaining stayed on the display. If you then entered (say) 15 seconds, it would *keep* the digits from the previous time and append yours. So I put a bagel in to heat for 15 seconds and went in to talk to someone. Several minutes later, the fire alarm went off, presumably after the bagel had been cooking for several minutes (plus 15 seconds.)
In a similar pocket-related tech issue, I've activated the panic feature on my car's remote keyfob several times just by leaning over. Couldn't it take the simultaneous press of two buttons?
Slashdot Mirror
The BS is the /. article summary. From the transcript:
Robert Lustig: Well high fructose corn syrup, it should say that, now in Australia for instance the sodas don't have high fructose corn syrup they have sucrose. Well sucrose is half fructose. You know a lot has been made over this high fructose corn syrup being particularly evil. In fact high fructose corn syrup is either 42% or 55% fructose, the rest is glucose. Well sucrose is 50% fructose the rest is glucose. In fact high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are equally problematic.
Norman Swan: Basically table sugar.
Robert Lustig: Table sugar -- that's right. We were not designed to eat all of this sugar, we're supposed to be eating our carbohydrate, particularly our fructose, with high fibre. Well the fact is we have 100 pound bags of sugar that go into the cakes, and the donuts.
Norman Swan: So we don't need to get obsessed on fruit sugars, it's sugar itself, sucrose.
Robert Lustig: Absolutely, it's sugar in general.
---
So don't blame the article, blame the summarizer. I've read (but can't link) that the difference between the current American diet and the diet in the 50's is almost exclusively the amount of sugar eaten.
Why not just buy externals? Speed isn't an issue playing DVD data, and you can just add drives as needed. They aren't much more expensive than bare drives, and a lot cheaper than any RAID I know of.
Actually nicotine is a potent poison which has adverse effects on nearly every system in the body.
No doubt, but other chemicals that are vital for life in small doses are poisonous in large ones. Most anti-venoms are made from the venom itself. Cone snails are quite poisonous but may prove vital in pain treatment. Botulin is a poison that is useful in calming nervous tics, aside from its cosmetic purpose. Vitamin A can be toxic.
That doesn't mean that in the relatively small doses inhaled, nicotine might be fairly benign by itself.
"payed"->"paid".
I am not smarter than a fifth grader.
Thanks for the info. I'd assumed session musicians were generally payed more of a flat fee, with relatively little of their income coming from royalties. I suppose it can spread the risk a bit if the wage/royalty ratio is low for all parties.
yes they did. although I suspect a lot of those session guys backed it too
Why? Are the session guys really collecting significant coin from performances they did fifty years ago? (Not to mention the question of whether they should.)
Society will be safer. *Anyone* can kill. If you are in jail, at least there is one less variable.
We already locked everyone up on a planet called Earth.
I ought to bring out the "jump to conclusions" mat. Look, people, you can either not jail anyone, because how can you truly prove guilt beyond any doubt, or you can have a system where it's possible you jail the occasional innocent. How high should your standard be? It should be such that the damage done by the criminals that aren't convicted (and then go on to commit other crimes) is less than the damage done by imprisoning the innocent who are convicted. It should also be high enough to discourage the powerful from gaming the system to control the less powerful.
In this case, the guy got a cash payout for the wrongful imprisonment, then lured someone to his place on the premise of taking a picture of something for sale, and murdered her.
People who've been unjustly stripped of their freedom don't tend to come out of prison with too great respect for the law.
True, but perfection is impossible to achieve. People who are killed by someone who wasn't found guilty of a previous crime lose quite a bit too.
The thing is: For every innocent person in jail, there's a criminal that got away with the crime.
But often they'll get locked up for other offenses.
Having an innocent person in jail isn't just bad for that person, but bad for society as a whole.
But having a guilty person not in jail is also bad for society, as one-time offenders are far more likely to commit additional offenses than the average person.
The only way never to imprison an innocent person is never to imprison anyone. Thus the reasonable doubt standard, which tries to minimize locking up the innocent, but can't entirely prevent it, while still locking up most of the guilty who pass through the system.
And then you have guys like the one released a few years ago after multiple years in jail for a rape he didn't commit, who then murdered a woman after being released. Some of the innocent aren't *that* innocent.
You trust the police far too much. They ARE government employees, after all, with all the eliteness and objectivity that that implies.
While in other cases trust in the police may be an issue, the police don't decide guilt or innocence, they merely collect evidence and build a case, and I see no evidence of anything wrong in their evidence gathering. Based on what's described in this article, I would expect a conviction.
Can it work to help forgetting? There's goatse.cx, tubgirl, and that weekend in Tijuana...
Sir, I work for the department of redundancy department
Which one?
Not quite. UCITA tries to formalize it, but that doesn't mean courts have held EULAs to be invalid in its absence. They should, though, given its conflict with the standard principles of contract law (offer and acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations.)
I couldn't tell from their pics; did their Adam model have a belly button?
No it isn't. You're thinking of UCITA, which only ever passed in Maryland and Virginia. The UCC itself long predates the sale of commercial software.
And another thing. Police love it when people accept a "It's understood that we good guys are going to break the law, because the law was written overbroad" law. Like speed limits. They love it because the policeman's only power is to crack down on lawbreakers... and oh what fun it is when the good guys -- once arrogantly immune to the policeman's intimidations -- are now required to break the law, and to place themselves on the defensive, in their normal course of business.
It's more than that, it's a tool they can use on those they "know" are guilty, but don't think they can prove to a jury's satisfaction. Just charge the person with the kitchen sink, and then you've got a better basis for forcing a plea bargain, and the case can be closed. "If they were innocent, they wouldn't be suspects."
At least the firewall seems to have done its job.
Sorry I haven't responded sooner, esp. since you were responding presumably long after the story disappeared. Alas, /. isn't always conducive to long discussions.
There's no way you're going to get most builders to spend lots of money on soundproofing, when they can cut costs and increase their profit instead
The assumption I'm making is that someone with a forward thinking view sets out to build this community, in the same way that planned communities like Columbia, MD, and Peachtree City, GA were built. Perhaps someone like Richard Branson, who has shown an economic contribution to reducing CO2. The idea is that by going the extra mile, you attract the middle class and even some upper class, rather than targeting lower class and LMC.
The city/condo design basis means that individuals don't have much of an exterior to maintain. The idea is that there may be shared gardens outside, with some private areas for individuals who want that and are willing to maintain, but nothing much more than a large deck/porch/balcony area for outside as part of one's home.
This implies that you are either taking too many photos now, or you weren't taking enough photos back then.
Actually, it's mainly longer mini-movies. And yes, back then I could only take 10 second ones with the camera I had, so I wasn't taking "enough" back then. The current camera allows me to take movies as much as the card will hold.
Also, the pics are somewhat higher resolution, and thus larger, with my more recent camera.
Some of this might be ameliorated if you're willing to go the extra distance on construction. Build for soundproofing and for security. (Of course, that raises the cost.) Have HOA rules and meaningful fines for violations. one thought, if a lot of the apartments are structurally similar, is to make it fairly easy to move somehow.
I admit I've never lived in a downtown area.
The problem is the other people: they're loud, they're rude, they're careless, and they don't care about anyone but themselves.
Is this endemic to people or to people who tend to rent? Do condos have fewer of these problems?
While I'll grant you the mass of humanity doesn't always make me happy, I can go to the mall and be in the vicinity of hundreds without it being much of an issue. Assisted living places are also something like what I've described, though granted they've self-selected a less boisterous crowd.
I admit I haven't looked into overall building costs, and that might be the damper on more urban dwelling. A fair bit of construction in the suburbs is devoted to cars: streets, bridges, garages, parking lots, etc. All the space devoted to cars means things are even more spread out, leading to even more streets, etc. devoted to cars, making walking impractical and leading to yet *more* usage of cars. Cars are also one of the major expenses for a family, especially when insurance, consumables, and repairs are factored in.
New York et al, also aren't my perfect design. I'd like to see a very large building with no interior roads (perhaps some sort of access tunnels with electric transport vehicles), surrounded by playgrounds, ballfields, parks, bike trails, etc. Even in most cities, you have a lot of space devoted to automobiles.
And people in dense places tend to spend more on other things, too (both high supply and demand). The commute savings might be overcome by the import costs of Belgian beer alone....
Would you rather have a small lawn you spend more time mowing than using in any other way and crappy beer, or no lawn and beer you like?
Agreed. New York CIty might seem like an ecological nightmare, for example, but when you consider just how many people are living in that relatively small space, it's per-person impact is so much less. I live in the 'burbs, and couldn't imagine living without driving every day. I have relatives who live in Boston who own one car. The wife hasn't driven in years. She will occasionally take a taxi.
But cities just naturally make everything more expensive. For the cost of my house, land, etc., I could get a couple of small apartments in Boston. Give me a living situation where I can have a 2,000 sq ft apartment for $250K, with shopping, gyms, schools, playgrounds, etc. in easy walking distance, and I'd want to move.
How many broken CD cases do you have? How many broken DVD cases? I like DVD cases a lot better, they're a lot less fragile.
I managed to summon the fire department to my comp sci building about 15 years ago this way.
Microwave had hard to read display from off angles. If someone cooked something but didn't finish it, the time remaining stayed on the display. If you then entered (say) 15 seconds, it would *keep* the digits from the previous time and append yours. So I put a bagel in to heat for 15 seconds and went in to talk to someone. Several minutes later, the fire alarm went off, presumably after the bagel had been cooking for several minutes (plus 15 seconds.)
In a similar pocket-related tech issue, I've activated the panic feature on my car's remote keyfob several times just by leaning over. Couldn't it take the simultaneous press of two buttons?