From what I heard from my relatives in Simferopol, even the Crimean Tatars lined up to vote "for Putin" and now that Russian passports are starting to be issued the Tatars are the first in line to get them. It's quite telling that even most of the Tatars choose Russia as the lesser evil.
Russia is seeing a country that is essentially on the brink of civil war right next to its borders. On top of that, that country happens to control many of the major resource pipelines into and out of Russia. They have a vested interest in keeping Ukraine stable.
Oh yeah. What better way to ensure stability than to start a civil war?
That's great - you're clearly capable of comprehending the sources I link to. Now as soon as you actually come up with some statistics to back our original assertion, we can start to take you seriously.
Because anyone with a used car will tell you, they're real reliable and you don't have to spend anything to constantly repair/maintain them !
Technically speaking, every car is a used car. And since all vehicles require maintenance, your sarcastic insinuations are entirely correct. They're also entirely meaningless.
Now in Toronto most police collect over $100,000 wages and benefits, some as much as $150,000.
That's simply a lie. Only one third of police in Toronto made over 100k. How you get "most" from "one third", I'm not sure, but there does appear to be some kind of error in your analysis. Moreover, most of those who make over 100k do so by working extra jobs; ie. providing security for corporations and events, on their off time.
And these MRAPs - yes, every Cop Shop seems to need one. You know, you might need to lay siege to a crack house... God forbid cops do like they had done for years and just fucking BREAK DOWN THE DOOR.
Adolf has already handed you your ass on the main point you were trying to make but, just to finish this off, here's the situation with those MRAP's you hate so much:
Police departments inside the United States are acquiring MRAP vehicle through the 1033 program, which allows the Defense Department to redistribute equipment it no longer needs to state and municipal agencies. Rather than buying a new vehicle, which would cost $535,000-$600,000 to produce, some police departments like the Ohio State University Police Department have picked up surplus MRAPs from the Pentagon for free. By October 2013, nearly dozen departments in several states had acquired the armored vehicles. Domestic agencies plan to use them in disaster relief roles, as they can go through flooded areas unlike normal police armored vehicles, and to respond to terrorist threats, like playing a role in guarding sports stadiums. MRAPs used by police forces have the machine gun turret removed and are repainted from their original flat desert tan to black. Organizations have become critical about police use of military vehicles and worried about police militarization. Proponents of the domestic acquisitions say they fill the same role as the standard police Lenco BearCat armored vehicles which cost $200,000, while the MRAPs can be received for free.
The tour guide may have been misquoting Strauss, but I remember those very words from that day, so don't tell me no one ever said that about a fission reactor.
You're right, random, poorly informed people said it. And are apparently still saying it. Good job on calling him out - we need more pedants on slashdot.
In addition to the lawyers you'd have to kill a significant percentage of environmentalists, plus all the NIMBYs. The real issue isn't decommissioning costs, the real issue is the inability to build new reactors. If it wasn't for the public/political aversion to nuclear reactors, you could decommission the place, build a modern one right beside it, and use the leftover waste to power the new reactor.
I'm in favour of open carry, but I think your definition of "harass" is rather silly. Most of the videos I see of open-carry proponents interacting with cops involve them acting like complete morons while the cops ask completely reasonable questions. A police officer having a discussion with you is not harassment, even if you chose to be a dick to them.
The hospital pretty much does not believe in Mitochondrial disease. Just as many didn't believe in fibromylangia or Lyme disease.
I'm not aware of anyone who "didn't believe in Lyme disease". I AM aware that the vast majority of medical professionals still reject "chronic Lyme disease", because there's no evidence for it.
Fibromylangia is just a label that's been stuck on a bunch of symptoms which may or may not be related, and may or may not have a common cause. Everyone agrees that the symptoms exist - nobody can show a mechanism which explains them all.
And instead claim "she is just crazy..."
In cases like the ones you mentioned, that diagnosis is accurate 9 times out of 10. Mitochondrial disease is different since we actually know more or less what causes it, and have pretty good tests for it which can rule out purely psychosomatic illnesses. However, given that her only real assessment was a diagnosis by her parents who then went doctor-shopping for a guy who agreed with them.... I'd say "you're all crazy" is a far more likely explanation than "she has a rare and trendy disease which you've successfully diagnosed via google and paranoia".
Much as Microsoft earned the hatred people had for them. With Microsoft now on the path back to being a well behaved company, Google is taking their place.
I was with you, right up until that bit. No way man. Microsoft was on the path to being a well behaved company, right up until Windows 8. Then they threw it all away again. It's obvious that they're tying to go the same way as Google; getting you to tie everything together using a common microsoft account, from your user account on your desktop/laptop, to your phone, your xbox, your search platform and mapping application.... pretty much every service they offer.
Sure you CAN create a Windows 8 user account without linking it to their service, but they make it difficult enough that even I have problems figuring out which sequence of links to click, and my non-tech-savvy friends get completely lost and just give in. And if you do succeed, it prevents you from accessing the Apps Market, unless you want to type in your e-mail address and password every time you go to download or use an app.
Just give them some time to develop their own social networking platform and they'll be an even more demented version of google.
Well, if you are willing to take on the establishment and tell 1/2 the population (women) that it isn't their body and it is the government that is control of their reproductive systems and whether or not they are allowed to have children then go for it. Effectively, that is what you are saying.
O_o
I think you forgot to call me Hitler....
Just like China has determined that women should only have 1 child, you are saying that the government should dictate that women should only have children that meet certain requirements.
It's not an either or situation. If you have a disabled child, you are not denying a healthy child.
Oh, but it is, and you are.
Most people will only have a set number of children in their lifetime. For the majority in the western world, that's somewhere between 1 and 3. If you have one disabled child, and you were only planning on having 2 kids, you're unlikely to now change your mind and have 3.
Additionally, depending on the exact medical condition, a deformed child may impede your ability to have further children. You may have been planning on having 2 kids, but due to the added attention and cost associated with a handicapped child, you find yourself unable to afford any further children. So instead of 2 healthy children, you end up with one who is disabled.
Either way it doesn't seem like a good trade, to me.
As you seem to be arguing so strenuously, it is a very personal issue that unless you are directly involved with it you cannot begin to make that choice for somebody else.
The decision to become a heroin addict is a deeply personal one also, yet we seem to have no difficulty legislating against it. Even if you could successfully argue that "personal issues" should not be legislated, that still doesn't mean we can't do ANYTHING about it. At the very least we can make sure that people are educated on the issue, and are given the information and advice needed to make the right decision.
If I remember right, DC loses more power than AC on wire runs & has a higher shock risk.
You got that completely backwards - AC loses more power than DC on wire runs. That's one of the reasons why the massive very-long-distance lines tend to be DC. I'm not sure about the shock risk, but I don't think it matters much anyway. The biggest issue is that A/C is very easy and cheap to "step down" to lower voltages, whereas it was extremely difficult to do for DC until just recently, and it's still pretty expensive.
Your USB idea is interesting. I guess you could have a hub in the ceiling of each room, powered by the regular A/C current, then run regular USB cables from that to all lights, and a couple slots on each A/C outlet for other devices. If you connect all the hubs together, it would be awesome for a "Smart Home" - have a server in the basement that controls all your lighting and smart appliances, while acting as a media center and storage for your portable devices. It would be a niche market at the moment, but I could see it becoming more popular in the future. Of course, by then it will probably be a completely different standard anyway...
So when experts and professionals in their fields say HFCS is a danger, they are quacks, but when the industry says it's perfectly safe, they are to be believed. It's a damned good thing people didn't take "safe" for an answer where tobacco was concerned. The similarities are obvious including all the crank doctors out there making unsubstantiated claims about the harms of smoking.
Sure, the similarities are obvious. As are the similarities between anti-tobacco and the anti-vaccine lunatics. Hell, who needs science, right? All we need is a small group arguing with a big group! Clearly the small guys are always right!
Please.
Even the creationists have their "professionals". Pick any bunch of half baked fucktards, and they'll have at least a handful of "professionals" to give them that air of legitimacy. They're still idiots. What matters is what the science shows. The reason we know that tobacco is harmful is because that's where the evidence led us. Billions of dollars paid by tobacco industries didn't make any fucking difference, other than creating a controversy for a little while. For those of us who care about what's true, shit like that makes no difference - where the evidence leads, we follow.
For example, the FDA approved aspartame. But only after Dick Cheney.. blah blah blah
Yeah, look, I don't care. If your evidence consists of conspiracy theories, just give it a rest. I want real evidence. You can "prove" pretty much anything you want by appealing to conspiracies. Until you show me something that doesn't hinge on vague accusations and random correlations, you can't realy expect me to take you seriously.
I haven't actually read the wikipedia article, but I feel confident that it does a good job of relaying the relevant info while dismissing all the bullshit. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
I would like to know just what constitutes a believable source to you?
A peer reviewed study which has been replicated by numerous independent sources, and has not been contradicted by any well-designed studies. That's pretty much the gold standard. I'm willing to bend, but you need to make a damn good case for why your evidence doesn't meet those standards.
Reminds me of the global warming denial.
Yeah, the nature-nuts do have a lot in common with the anti-AGW folks, don't they? Relying on a handful of "experts" and a bunch of anecdotes, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nice example!
If you could provide that list of countries with a lack of diabetes, and the substances they banned (like I keep asking), that would be wonderful. Or just admit you were making it up, so we can dismiss your initial point and move on.
That's not actually accurate. First of all, there are LOTS of professionals against the use of HFCS.
Sure, and there are a lot of professionals who are cranks. What matters is what the science/evidence shows.
It isn't even corn syrup.
That's technically accurate, and thanks for the correction.
Also, HFCS isn't as sweet as real sugar or any of the alternatives such as stevia. This means in order to get the desired flavor, they have to add lots more of it. And that's part of the draw. Not only is it a sweetener, it is also a filler.
It's not a filler - it's a sweetener. It doesn't add bulk, it just adds calories. The lettuce on your BLT is a filler - it adds bulk without (much) calories.
The "meat" at taco bell, for example, has so many fillers added, it can't even be considered meat. I'm not compaining about taco bell... I like it actually.
Heh. Well I'm not a big fan of Taco Bell. Only thing I like there is their "Fries Supreme", and apparently that's not even sold in the US. But I'd like to see some evidence for your claim. Because taco bell claims otherwise:
The relevant bit: "After cooking our 100% premium beef, we remove and drain off excess fat. Then we add water for moisture, along with our signature blend of 12 authentic seasonings, spices, and other ingredients - much the same way you prepare taco meat at home."
Of course, they could be lying, but given all the myths that get passed around about fast-food, I'm more likely to side with them than with you. Some evidence to support your position would be wonderful.
In contrast, try comparing Dr. Pepper... CocaCola imported from Mexico... HFCS is less sweet and contains a much larger ratio in the mix.
Taste is entirely subjective, so I'm not going to go into that. It has no relevance to the health claims, anyway.
Look, I really don't want to get drawn into extended back-and-forth Fisking. I didn't read all of your links, because the first one seemed questionable on the face of it. I picked one semi-randomly, and it was the Mayo article (almost always a credible source). Here is what that article says:
"At this time, there's insufficient evidence to say that high-fructose corn syrup is any less healthy than other types of sweeteners. We do know, however, that too much added sugar â" not just high-fructose corn syrup â" can contribute unwanted calories that are linked to health problems, such as weight gain, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and high triglyceride levels. All of these boost your risk of heart disease. "
That is the crux of what I said earlier. It's calories in vs. calories out. That right there is the biggest issue with Americans. You eat more calories on average than other nations, and you get less exercise than many. The excessive use of HFCS is a part of that, but the insane size of your portions is - in my opinion - equally responsible. Regardless of the individual contributing factors, the real cause of diabetes is (as I already stated) excessive caloric consumption, and poor fitness. Blaming it on "preservatives" and "additives" is silly - the only thing you need to look at is how many calories are in the average persons daily intake, and how much exercise they get.
Of course, the quality of a diet is important when it comes to other considerations - you require certain nutrients and vitamins which you might not get if you eat junk food all the time. But that also has nothing to do with diabetes, and, even in that case, blaming "preservatives" and "additives" would be ridiculous.
Just to be fair, I did go check out one of your crank websites too; the list of "10 worst food ingredients" is full of the same kind o
Learn about HFCS and why it is preferred by manufacturers over natural sugar but also why it doesn't work so well within the human body pushing internal organs beyond natural tollerance.
I know all about it. The only claims made about it's "dangers" are pushed by... well, "cranks" would be the less offensive term. There's certainly no credible scientific data that suggests any inherent harm in corn syrup. The only real harm is the excessive use of sugar, period. HFCS has made it cheap to add sugar to all kinds of things, and our diets have become more sweetened - and, therefore, more calorie-dense - as a result. Replace HFCS with any other type of sugar at the same price, and the health effects would remain.
I didn't say only preservatives, however. Nice of you to omit parts of what I said to make it more convenient to draw your incorrect conclusion. Do you follow maps in the same way without getting lost?
Well now you're just being a dick. If you made any other "links", I didn't see them. I can't respond to what I don't see - you can blame that on your inability to communicate, or on my eeeevil plan to make you look ridiculous; I guess the latter is more satisfying?
Diabetes is caused by over consumption. But also by the ingredients in the foods we eat.
Ok, which ingredients? Names and evidence, please.
In countries where many of the ingredients found in foods in the US are banned or limited, they have a much lower rate of diabetes.
True. Also, in countries where they don't have you, diabetes rates are much lower. I guess we can conclude that you cause diabetes?
Just as an example, the last time the UK homicide rate was as high as it is currently in the USA was at the end of the 17th century.
That's true, but I don't think it shows what you want it to show. It rather tends to prop up the anti-gun-control position. After all, the UK murder rate in the 1800's was generally less than 2 per 100,000, even though gun control was non-existent. The first real gun laws were passed around the end of that century, and even then, there was no control on the sale/purchase of firearms - they simply started requiring that you have a license in order to carry a weapon in public.
Those numbers tend to suggest that there are other factors which are responsible for the high rate of homicide in the US.
Also, it's interesting to note that the homicide rate in the US has pretty much mirrored the rates in Europe. In the 1600/1700's it was around 40 per 100,000, and has declined over time, with some hiccups here and there.
Some people are just asking to be killed and the only thing keeping them alive is this silly law that says you can't kill them. I think that maybe every 10 years or so we should just legalize murder for a month or two. Let's give everyone the opportunity to go out and whack somebody. I'll bet that 99.99% of the people who get killed will be people that the world will be better off without.
Given the disparity in gun ownership (and proficiency in the use of firearms) between the two political parties in the US, I'm thinking this would turn out very positive for one side... not so much for the other.
We want to save money, for example. In business, we want to lose less money so, in food production, they add preservatives or use ingredients with longer shelf lives.
Well, no, actually, people want to pay lower prices. Manufacturers don't lose money - they pass the cost on to the consumer. Sure, an individual farmer might go out of business if his entire crop goes tits-up, but a large corporation just ends up with a lower supply, and you end up paying a higher price for your carrots. Humans didn't invent preservatives so that businesses could save money - we invented them because we, as individuals:
1. Wanted our food to last longer, so we'd have less spoilage. 2. Prefer to pay lower prices at the market, which encourages our suppliers to also limit spoilage.
Having spent my childhood in a country where we often bottled/canned our own food, I can tell you we were quite happy to get our hands on whatever preservatives we could. Feeding the family was expensive enough without having to worry about whether half your supplies would go bad in a month. It's not until you're rich, fat, and happy, that you can start demonizing those big bad corporations and their horrible toxins. I can't think of a better example of White People's Problems.
The consequence of this falls to the consumer and back to society as a whole as it deals with increases in health problems such as diabetes.
Preservatives cause diabetes? Wow, who knew! Silly me - I thought it was a split between a genetic predisposition, and an adult-onset disease caused by poor fitness and over-consumption.
To say murder is "like a disease" is to fail to see the over-all pattern of human behaviors... the causes which lead to effects which lead to more causes and more effects.
Sure, except "cause and effect" is a completely different thing. When I hit a light-bulb with a hammer, the light-bulb breaks. That's cause and effect, but it's certainly not analogous to a disease. What they're talking about here is a pattern of diffusion, with factors which prevent a spread into some areas, while other factors encourage spread into others. If your idea of modeling the spread of disease is just "well, this one guy coughed on me and then I got sick", then yes, the simplistic cause-and-effect model makes sense to you; however, what's being proposed here is something quite a bit more nuanced, and potentially a LOT more useful.
My problem is when they can feel free to "mandate" with gaps in knowledge, but then "refuse" over gaps in knowledge.
Totally. Like, we can't prove that god doesn't send you to hell for wearing a seatbelt, but they mandate wearing seatbelts anyway! And we can't prove that the christian god isn't the only one true god, yet, despite that, they refuse to mandate forced conversion to christiaity! The nerve of those people.
If you're new to the concepts of probability and uncertainty, I suggest taking a few college courses. The rest of us are quite comfortable evaluating each case based on the inherent risks and benefits.
He said it shouldn't be a choice, and he's absolutely right. Medical exemption is not a choice - it's an exemption granted by a qualified medical practitioner. The reason vaccination shouldn't be a choice is exactly because of exceptions like your son; herd immunity allows us to makes such exceptions, and still keep him safe. If we end up breaking herd-immunity, people with legitimate issues are the ones who are most likely to be harmed.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I heard from my relatives in Simferopol, even the Crimean Tatars lined up to vote "for Putin" and now that Russian passports are starting to be issued the Tatars are the first in line to get them. It's quite telling that even most of the Tatars choose Russia as the lesser evil.
Signed, V. Putin.
No, wait, that's too obvious.
Signed, Vladimir P.
Russia is seeing a country that is essentially on the brink of civil war right next to its borders. On top of that, that country happens to control many of the major resource pipelines into and out of Russia. They have a vested interest in keeping Ukraine stable.
Oh yeah. What better way to ensure stability than to start a civil war?
That's great - you're clearly capable of comprehending the sources I link to. Now as soon as you actually come up with some statistics to back our original assertion, we can start to take you seriously.
Because anyone with a used car will tell you, they're real reliable and you don't have to spend anything to constantly repair/maintain them !
Technically speaking, every car is a used car. And since all vehicles require maintenance, your sarcastic insinuations are entirely correct. They're also entirely meaningless.
Not a lie, the benefits bring the average over the $100K.
Another lie - the one third figure is with benefits included. The base-pay of a constable starts at 63k and tops out at around 90k.
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2...
You're comparing a phone to a bank?
Now in Toronto most police collect over $100,000 wages and benefits, some as much as $150,000.
That's simply a lie. Only one third of police in Toronto made over 100k. How you get "most" from "one third", I'm not sure, but there does appear to be some kind of error in your analysis. Moreover, most of those who make over 100k do so by working extra jobs; ie. providing security for corporations and events, on their off time.
And these MRAPs - yes, every Cop Shop seems to need one. You know, you might need to lay siege to a crack house... God forbid cops do like they had done for years and just fucking BREAK DOWN THE DOOR.
Adolf has already handed you your ass on the main point you were trying to make but, just to finish this off, here's the situation with those MRAP's you hate so much:
Police departments inside the United States are acquiring MRAP vehicle through the 1033 program, which allows the Defense Department to redistribute equipment it no longer needs to state and municipal agencies. Rather than buying a new vehicle, which would cost $535,000-$600,000 to produce, some police departments like the Ohio State University Police Department have picked up surplus MRAPs from the Pentagon for free. By October 2013, nearly dozen departments in several states had acquired the armored vehicles. Domestic agencies plan to use them in disaster relief roles, as they can go through flooded areas unlike normal police armored vehicles, and to respond to terrorist threats, like playing a role in guarding sports stadiums. MRAPs used by police forces have the machine gun turret removed and are repainted from their original flat desert tan to black. Organizations have become critical about police use of military vehicles and worried about police militarization. Proponents of the domestic acquisitions say they fill the same role as the standard police Lenco BearCat armored vehicles which cost $200,000, while the MRAPs can be received for free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Cops are widely believed (there are some naysayers) to get promotions and plumb assignments based on ticket revenue.
Leprechauns are widely believed (there are some naysayers) to hide their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
"Widely believed" is widely used to make bullshit seem more legitimate.
The tour guide may have been misquoting Strauss, but I remember those very words from that day, so don't tell me no one ever said that about a fission reactor.
You're right, random, poorly informed people said it. And are apparently still saying it. Good job on calling him out - we need more pedants on slashdot.
In addition to the lawyers you'd have to kill a significant percentage of environmentalists, plus all the NIMBYs. The real issue isn't decommissioning costs, the real issue is the inability to build new reactors. If it wasn't for the public/political aversion to nuclear reactors, you could decommission the place, build a modern one right beside it, and use the leftover waste to power the new reactor.
I'm in favour of open carry, but I think your definition of "harass" is rather silly. Most of the videos I see of open-carry proponents interacting with cops involve them acting like complete morons while the cops ask completely reasonable questions. A police officer having a discussion with you is not harassment, even if you chose to be a dick to them.
The hospital pretty much does not believe in Mitochondrial disease. Just as many didn't believe in fibromylangia or Lyme disease.
I'm not aware of anyone who "didn't believe in Lyme disease". I AM aware that the vast majority of medical professionals still reject "chronic Lyme disease", because there's no evidence for it.
Fibromylangia is just a label that's been stuck on a bunch of symptoms which may or may not be related, and may or may not have a common cause. Everyone agrees that the symptoms exist - nobody can show a mechanism which explains them all.
And instead claim "she is just crazy..."
In cases like the ones you mentioned, that diagnosis is accurate 9 times out of 10. Mitochondrial disease is different since we actually know more or less what causes it, and have pretty good tests for it which can rule out purely psychosomatic illnesses. However, given that her only real assessment was a diagnosis by her parents who then went doctor-shopping for a guy who agreed with them .... I'd say "you're all crazy" is a far more likely explanation than "she has a rare and trendy disease which you've successfully diagnosed via google and paranoia".
Much as Microsoft earned the hatred people had for them. With Microsoft now on the path back to being a well behaved company, Google is taking their place.
I was with you, right up until that bit. No way man. Microsoft was on the path to being a well behaved company, right up until Windows 8. Then they threw it all away again. It's obvious that they're tying to go the same way as Google; getting you to tie everything together using a common microsoft account, from your user account on your desktop/laptop, to your phone, your xbox, your search platform and mapping application .... pretty much every service they offer.
Sure you CAN create a Windows 8 user account without linking it to their service, but they make it difficult enough that even I have problems figuring out which sequence of links to click, and my non-tech-savvy friends get completely lost and just give in. And if you do succeed, it prevents you from accessing the Apps Market, unless you want to type in your e-mail address and password every time you go to download or use an app.
Just give them some time to develop their own social networking platform and they'll be an even more demented version of google.
Well, if you are willing to take on the establishment and tell 1/2 the population (women) that it isn't their body and it is the government that is control of their reproductive systems and whether or not they are allowed to have children then go for it. Effectively, that is what you are saying.
O_o
I think you forgot to call me Hitler ....
Just like China has determined that women should only have 1 child, you are saying that the government should dictate that women should only have children that meet certain requirements.
Ah, ok. Yeah, Mao is just as good ....
It's not an either or situation. If you have a disabled child, you are not denying a healthy child.
Oh, but it is, and you are.
Most people will only have a set number of children in their lifetime. For the majority in the western world, that's somewhere between 1 and 3. If you have one disabled child, and you were only planning on having 2 kids, you're unlikely to now change your mind and have 3.
Additionally, depending on the exact medical condition, a deformed child may impede your ability to have further children. You may have been planning on having 2 kids, but due to the added attention and cost associated with a handicapped child, you find yourself unable to afford any further children. So instead of 2 healthy children, you end up with one who is disabled.
Either way it doesn't seem like a good trade, to me.
As you seem to be arguing so strenuously, it is a very personal issue that unless you are directly involved with it you cannot begin to make that choice for somebody else.
The decision to become a heroin addict is a deeply personal one also, yet we seem to have no difficulty legislating against it. Even if you could successfully argue that "personal issues" should not be legislated, that still doesn't mean we can't do ANYTHING about it. At the very least we can make sure that people are educated on the issue, and are given the information and advice needed to make the right decision.
If I remember right, DC loses more power than AC on wire runs & has a higher shock risk.
You got that completely backwards - AC loses more power than DC on wire runs. That's one of the reasons why the massive very-long-distance lines tend to be DC. I'm not sure about the shock risk, but I don't think it matters much anyway. The biggest issue is that A/C is very easy and cheap to "step down" to lower voltages, whereas it was extremely difficult to do for DC until just recently, and it's still pretty expensive.
Your USB idea is interesting. I guess you could have a hub in the ceiling of each room, powered by the regular A/C current, then run regular USB cables from that to all lights, and a couple slots on each A/C outlet for other devices. If you connect all the hubs together, it would be awesome for a "Smart Home" - have a server in the basement that controls all your lighting and smart appliances, while acting as a media center and storage for your portable devices. It would be a niche market at the moment, but I could see it becoming more popular in the future. Of course, by then it will probably be a completely different standard anyway ...
So when experts and professionals in their fields say HFCS is a danger, they are quacks, but when the industry says it's perfectly safe, they are to be believed. It's a damned good thing people didn't take "safe" for an answer where tobacco was concerned. The similarities are obvious including all the crank doctors out there making unsubstantiated claims about the harms of smoking.
Sure, the similarities are obvious. As are the similarities between anti-tobacco and the anti-vaccine lunatics. Hell, who needs science, right? All we need is a small group arguing with a big group! Clearly the small guys are always right!
Please.
Even the creationists have their "professionals". Pick any bunch of half baked fucktards, and they'll have at least a handful of "professionals" to give them that air of legitimacy. They're still idiots. What matters is what the science shows. The reason we know that tobacco is harmful is because that's where the evidence led us. Billions of dollars paid by tobacco industries didn't make any fucking difference, other than creating a controversy for a little while. For those of us who care about what's true, shit like that makes no difference - where the evidence leads, we follow.
For example, the FDA approved aspartame. But only after Dick Cheney .. blah blah blah
Yeah, look, I don't care. If your evidence consists of conspiracy theories, just give it a rest. I want real evidence. You can "prove" pretty much anything you want by appealing to conspiracies. Until you show me something that doesn't hinge on vague accusations and random correlations, you can't realy expect me to take you seriously.
Also you might want to check an impartial source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
I haven't actually read the wikipedia article, but I feel confident that it does a good job of relaying the relevant info while dismissing all the bullshit. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
I would like to know just what constitutes a believable source to you?
A peer reviewed study which has been replicated by numerous independent sources, and has not been contradicted by any well-designed studies. That's pretty much the gold standard. I'm willing to bend, but you need to make a damn good case for why your evidence doesn't meet those standards.
Reminds me of the global warming denial.
Yeah, the nature-nuts do have a lot in common with the anti-AGW folks, don't they? Relying on a handful of "experts" and a bunch of anecdotes, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nice example!
If you could provide that list of countries with a lack of diabetes, and the substances they banned (like I keep asking), that would be wonderful. Or just admit you were making it up, so we can dismiss your initial point and move on.
That's not actually accurate. First of all, there are LOTS of professionals against the use of HFCS.
Sure, and there are a lot of professionals who are cranks. What matters is what the science/evidence shows.
It isn't even corn syrup.
That's technically accurate, and thanks for the correction.
Also, HFCS isn't as sweet as real sugar or any of the alternatives such as stevia. This means in order to get the desired flavor, they have to add lots more of it. And that's part of the draw. Not only is it a sweetener, it is also a filler.
It's not a filler - it's a sweetener. It doesn't add bulk, it just adds calories. The lettuce on your BLT is a filler - it adds bulk without (much) calories.
The "meat" at taco bell, for example, has so many fillers added, it can't even be considered meat. I'm not compaining about taco bell... I like it actually.
Heh. Well I'm not a big fan of Taco Bell. Only thing I like there is their "Fries Supreme", and apparently that's not even sold in the US. But I'd like to see some evidence for your claim. Because taco bell claims otherwise:
http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition/foodfacts/BeefQuality
The relevant bit:
"After cooking our 100% premium beef, we remove and drain off excess fat. Then we add water for moisture, along with our signature blend of 12 authentic seasonings, spices, and other ingredients - much the same way you prepare taco meat at home."
Of course, they could be lying, but given all the myths that get passed around about fast-food, I'm more likely to side with them than with you. Some evidence to support your position would be wonderful.
In contrast, try comparing Dr. Pepper ... CocaCola imported from Mexico ... HFCS is less sweet and contains a much larger ratio in the mix.
Taste is entirely subjective, so I'm not going to go into that. It has no relevance to the health claims, anyway.
Look, I really don't want to get drawn into extended back-and-forth Fisking. I didn't read all of your links, because the first one seemed questionable on the face of it. I picked one semi-randomly, and it was the Mayo article (almost always a credible source). Here is what that article says:
"At this time, there's insufficient evidence to say that high-fructose corn syrup is any less healthy than other types of sweeteners. We do know, however, that too much added sugar â" not just high-fructose corn syrup â" can contribute unwanted calories that are linked to health problems, such as weight gain, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and high triglyceride levels. All of these boost your risk of heart disease. "
That is the crux of what I said earlier. It's calories in vs. calories out. That right there is the biggest issue with Americans. You eat more calories on average than other nations, and you get less exercise than many. The excessive use of HFCS is a part of that, but the insane size of your portions is - in my opinion - equally responsible. Regardless of the individual contributing factors, the real cause of diabetes is (as I already stated) excessive caloric consumption, and poor fitness. Blaming it on "preservatives" and "additives" is silly - the only thing you need to look at is how many calories are in the average persons daily intake, and how much exercise they get.
Of course, the quality of a diet is important when it comes to other considerations - you require certain nutrients and vitamins which you might not get if you eat junk food all the time. But that also has nothing to do with diabetes, and, even in that case, blaming "preservatives" and "additives" would be ridiculous.
Just to be fair, I did go check out one of your crank websites too; the list of "10 worst food ingredients" is full of the same kind o
Learn about HFCS and why it is preferred by manufacturers over natural sugar but also why it doesn't work so well within the human body pushing internal organs beyond natural tollerance.
I know all about it. The only claims made about it's "dangers" are pushed by ... well, "cranks" would be the less offensive term. There's certainly no credible scientific data that suggests any inherent harm in corn syrup. The only real harm is the excessive use of sugar, period. HFCS has made it cheap to add sugar to all kinds of things, and our diets have become more sweetened - and, therefore, more calorie-dense - as a result. Replace HFCS with any other type of sugar at the same price, and the health effects would remain.
I didn't say only preservatives, however. Nice of you to omit parts of what I said to make it more convenient to draw your incorrect conclusion. Do you follow maps in the same way without getting lost?
Well now you're just being a dick. If you made any other "links", I didn't see them. I can't respond to what I don't see - you can blame that on your inability to communicate, or on my eeeevil plan to make you look ridiculous; I guess the latter is more satisfying?
Diabetes is caused by over consumption. But also by the ingredients in the foods we eat.
Ok, which ingredients? Names and evidence, please.
In countries where many of the ingredients found in foods in the US are banned or limited, they have a much lower rate of diabetes.
True. Also, in countries where they don't have you, diabetes rates are much lower. I guess we can conclude that you cause diabetes?
Just as an example, the last time the UK homicide rate was as high as it is currently in the USA was at the end of the 17th century.
That's true, but I don't think it shows what you want it to show. It rather tends to prop up the anti-gun-control position. After all, the UK murder rate in the 1800's was generally less than 2 per 100,000, even though gun control was non-existent. The first real gun laws were passed around the end of that century, and even then, there was no control on the sale/purchase of firearms - they simply started requiring that you have a license in order to carry a weapon in public.
Those numbers tend to suggest that there are other factors which are responsible for the high rate of homicide in the US.
Also, it's interesting to note that the homicide rate in the US has pretty much mirrored the rates in Europe. In the 1600/1700's it was around 40 per 100,000, and has declined over time, with some hiccups here and there.
Some people are just asking to be killed and the only thing keeping them alive is this silly law that says you can't kill them. I think that maybe every 10 years or so we should just legalize murder for a month or two. Let's give everyone the opportunity to go out and whack somebody. I'll bet that 99.99% of the people who get killed will be people that the world will be better off without.
Given the disparity in gun ownership (and proficiency in the use of firearms) between the two political parties in the US, I'm thinking this would turn out very positive for one side ... not so much for the other.
We want to save money, for example. In business, we want to lose less money so, in food production, they add preservatives or use ingredients with longer shelf lives.
Well, no, actually, people want to pay lower prices. Manufacturers don't lose money - they pass the cost on to the consumer. Sure, an individual farmer might go out of business if his entire crop goes tits-up, but a large corporation just ends up with a lower supply, and you end up paying a higher price for your carrots. Humans didn't invent preservatives so that businesses could save money - we invented them because we, as individuals:
1. Wanted our food to last longer, so we'd have less spoilage.
2. Prefer to pay lower prices at the market, which encourages our suppliers to also limit spoilage.
Having spent my childhood in a country where we often bottled/canned our own food, I can tell you we were quite happy to get our hands on whatever preservatives we could. Feeding the family was expensive enough without having to worry about whether half your supplies would go bad in a month. It's not until you're rich, fat, and happy, that you can start demonizing those big bad corporations and their horrible toxins. I can't think of a better example of White People's Problems.
The consequence of this falls to the consumer and back to society as a whole as it deals with increases in health problems such as diabetes.
Preservatives cause diabetes? Wow, who knew! Silly me - I thought it was a split between a genetic predisposition, and an adult-onset disease caused by poor fitness and over-consumption.
To say murder is "like a disease" is to fail to see the over-all pattern of human behaviors... the causes which lead to effects which lead to more causes and more effects.
Sure, except "cause and effect" is a completely different thing. When I hit a light-bulb with a hammer, the light-bulb breaks. That's cause and effect, but it's certainly not analogous to a disease. What they're talking about here is a pattern of diffusion, with factors which prevent a spread into some areas, while other factors encourage spread into others. If your idea of modeling the spread of disease is just "well, this one guy coughed on me and then I got sick", then yes, the simplistic cause-and-effect model makes sense to you; however, what's being proposed here is something quite a bit more nuanced, and potentially a LOT more useful.
My problem is when they can feel free to "mandate" with gaps in knowledge, but then "refuse" over gaps in knowledge.
Totally. Like, we can't prove that god doesn't send you to hell for wearing a seatbelt, but they mandate wearing seatbelts anyway! And we can't prove that the christian god isn't the only one true god, yet, despite that, they refuse to mandate forced conversion to christiaity! The nerve of those people.
If you're new to the concepts of probability and uncertainty, I suggest taking a few college courses. The rest of us are quite comfortable evaluating each case based on the inherent risks and benefits.
He said it shouldn't be a choice, and he's absolutely right. Medical exemption is not a choice - it's an exemption granted by a qualified medical practitioner. The reason vaccination shouldn't be a choice is exactly because of exceptions like your son; herd immunity allows us to makes such exceptions, and still keep him safe. If we end up breaking herd-immunity, people with legitimate issues are the ones who are most likely to be harmed.