The real problem is not the deamonization of Fructose but that the "processed" vs "natural" red herring is being used to ignore that sucrose is processed by the body into fructose and glucose. Meaning the body turns sugar into the exact same sort of mixture as HFCS. So in reality, as bad as HFCS is, sucrose is JUST AS BAD.
That said, I can't speak to this current study of telomeres but there is plenty of mechanism of action known for fructose. Fructose (unlike glucose) is processed exclusively in the liver, through many of the same pathways as alcohol.
Whether bound into a sucrose molecule or free floating in an HFCS mixture, 90% of fructose is processed int he liver (the rest is just excreted). The liver makes a number of things out of it, including hormones that suppress feelings of fullness (causing you to eat measurably more), but it also makes some of the worst kinds of cholesterol, VLDLs.
But you are right, the natural vs processed comparison is kind of bunk, especially when its "processed natural" anyway. The only natural vs processed argument that makes any sense is this: In nature sugar is found with fiber. Just try eating anywhere NEAR the sugar in a soda by eating apples or sugar cane....and then try doing it with a full meal. Good luck.
Pressing apples into juice....is processing. If you think of processing as primarily "Removing fiber from food" then it makes a lot more sense. In the end that is mainly what a lot of processing does. It removes the main constituent of food that limits how much and how fast we can eat.
Then to top it all off, with the "low fat" kick, they then remove the fat as well, which makes the food taste reminicent of cardboard, so to fix that, they add sugar. Its like an assault from all sides.... remove both fat and fiber, both things that moderate apetite and fullness, and replace with sugar, which suppresses fullness and gets turned into the worst kinds of cholesterol.
> Disclaimer: I work in computer forensics. Most hacks are done by people who haven't even thought of covering > their tracks and you'll have nice local log entries that tally up with those on the remote server that scream out > "Look, here's me hacking teh gibson!". Advanced hacks are almost impossible to spot without a) a good IDS b) > examining the discs offline.
I have only had the "pleasure" of dealing with a few actual incidents. A couple of times on personal systems (apparently "Spykidz 0wn3d" me) a couple of times at work. I think the most memorable for me was when we found someone had installed an IRC bouncer on a production mail server using a password they likely sniffed as some professor insisted on using telnet (we did, eventually, get to close that down).
I got the job of spending a day figuring out what they were up to, so I setup a sniffer (two actually because it was a braindead system and I needed one for each direction) and I spied on the...well.... kids.
The most memorable part of the whole exchange between them was about how "I might be offline for a while because my dad is talking about cancelling comcast"
I agree its bad, and its something the unix community has moved away from and avoided, but its not so much "anti-unix" as "What unix did when it was a teenager and would rather we didn't talk about in public, especially not in front of its kids"
And...that is where binary logging should stay, until it can be eliminated entirely.
The idea to put the Cheerios in a bag instead of a flask came in 2011, when Cichewicz stumbled upon a how-to blog for growing psychedelic mushrooms. Those growers use big, breathable plastic bags called mushroom bags. One 50-cent bag, Cichewicz calculated, would provide the same growing surface area as 18 Erlenmeyer flasks.
Sometimes having all the money to buy the best equipment doesn't lead to the best solutions. Turns out some necessity can drive invention. Might even be called its...mother.
I looked into magic mushrooms when I was in my 20s (its getting harder and harder to commit to that kind of experience these days....oh boy...6 hours eh?....yah.....) and its really amazing what people came up with.
One of my favorites, was to use an oven rack as a virtual contamination hood. Preheat the oven, then pull out the rack and use it as a work surface. The flames trying to keep the oven hot give you a nice stream of warm decently sterile air, which keeps mold spores and bacteria off your work.... believe it or not, it actually works quite well.
I am really curious....is there some slashdot cacheing issue because the link was posted and I acknowledged it around 3 hours ago, and this is the second response with the same info since then so....I wonder if some people see old pages?
Was a video I saw that addressed the degrees of this issue. That is, they started showing a graph of what people polled thought income inequality looked like in terms of relative distribution of wealth. They showed what people thought it should be, people of different ends of the political spectrum. Then they showed what people thought was a healthy or acceptable distribution..... and then the real one.
The thing is, everybody seems to agree that some inequality is ok. Everybody seems to agree that there is more inequality than there should be. Everybody also underestimates how much inequality there is, showing the real numbers were as far removed from what people thought it was as what they thought it was was from what they thought was ideal.
> And someone giving even more money to A cause they don't like that B is overcharging them - that's cutting > off the nose to spite the face.
Or that is you over-simplifying their values. I guess if you accept that the only reason they have for disliking A is a feeling of being "overcharged" then, and only then it makes sense. Most people I know who would pay more elsewhere have more reasons than that to dislike the big banks and not want to do business with them.
Actually score multiple points there for open relationships. One problem my wife and I have never had is having to worry the least bit about these issues. One of us wants to do a little dating or fool around with someone we just.... are honest about it.
Its amazing that nobody ever thought of this before, it really is a lot easier, cheaper, and more reliable, not to mention less stress. That way we can argue about important things like the housework.
Right but, is it really that hard to understand? I mean yes, if you only value strict dollar value it seems like a contradiction but, if you realize that smaller operators take a larger proportionate risk with each transaction, you understand why they have to charge more for it to be worth it.
It makes as much sense to me to pay this extra fee as it would to pay the extra dollar to get similar coffee at the local coffee shop because I like that there is a local coffee shop at the corner and I get value from it being there and not being just another starbucks.
Its called values, different people have different ones and....shocker.... make decisions based on them.
> The whole article is written by folks who clearly have no idea about how the internet works.
No. It is written by someone who thinks he knows how it is supposed to work and not how it actually is setup. I had the same thought about transparent proxy however... his final assessment is SPOT ON.
The user, who is paying for internet access, is attempting to connect to a remote machine and, having that connection HIJACKED by a transparent proxy.
If I send a TCP SYN to w.x.y.z, then, as a paying fucking customer, I want that SYN packet to be delivered to w.x.y.z and responded to by the same. There is absolutely no scenario where I want someone else intercepting the traffic and doing something else instead.
In short, the author of the article shouldn't need to know those details because they are all the same to him. End result is, his connection is being tampered with, and he is not recieving the service he paid for.
I bet there are no perverse incentives there. You know its funny, you always hear how big our prison population is, or maybe how much it balooned, 700% since the early 1970s. I was curious, what happens when you look at population growth over that time...surely you would expect some growth....
Turns out about 30%. A 30% larger population has 700% more people incarcerated.
And that is just prison population. Imagine what that means for the much larger population of people on probation and parole, restricted in their movements, subject to drug tests which, just on false positive rate alone means they are risking a nonzero chance of reincarceration for no reason at all. It is absolute insanity.
And beyond the fact that they criminalize nonviolent behavior and put addicts in jail for no real good reason, my sister is a prison gaurd, most of the job is taking care of the mentally disabled since prisons replaced all the closed down asylums.
So which is worst inventing a crime for little other reason than to selectively enforce it against people who can't fight back with lawyers as an excuse to create jobs to support the lifestyle of the well off suburbanites, or using this same scheme to abuse the mentally disabled?
Personally, it beats me, but, conveniently, the same criminals did both at the same time.
> I have been using one for 2 years, my wife just found out last week. She was furious. > She struggles with trying to come up with good passwords all the time. Based on past > experience, she does come up with good ones. The last one I know about is 13 > characters long.
I talked my wife into trying one out, and she setup keepass. It is really unfortunate it doesn't set auto save on every change as a default option in the config because she changed every password she had one night, went to bed without saving, and had windows updates reboot her computer in the night.
The morning was not a happy time. She spent much of the next day resetting passwords.
It was about 2 years before she was willing to try again.
I agree with this guy mostly, except in his assessment of the advice. The xkcd in question is very good advice for the times when you need to choose a password, and makes the case for why itself, I have nothing more to add to the comic than what it says on that topic.
Where I see this article as wrong is that it misses that xkcd is telling us how and why to use that method. It does not even attempt to address the point this guy is trying to make, which, is entirely different.
Yes, less passwords good.... password manager to replace passwords with random keys and protect them with a single good password....yes very good. Good advice but....you still need to choose a password for your fucking password manager.... leaving you right back where you started.
He failed to even address the point of the xkcd comic and instead is calling it wrong in order to make an entirely unrelated point. Perhaps because without mentioning xkcd, nobody would listen to his rather banal points that others have made before?
> The law as it stands in most of Europe doesn't delete the record of such a crime having happened, but does hide > that information to encourage offenders to rehabilitate and become a non-criminal and regular member of > society. Without the prospect of ever being able to live normally once an indiscretion has occurred, what would > motivate an offender to stop offending?
You nailed it exactly; if we offer those prospect to former criminals who have paid their "debt to society" then they are likely to not re-offend, which is just terrible in terms of job prospects for police and prison gaurds.
Shit many of our laws and policies exist specifically to create bodies to mill through the system, why would we want to provide any means of escape? Think of the prison gaurd's children!
Seems to me it isn't even that if the battery continues to operate. Detecting an impending fault is nice, but, if the layers are already breeched and an unsafe condition growing is detected....then maybe it should actually stop the battery from working so it has to be changed out, rather than just detect and continue to work.
Otherwise the only thing they will be doing is creating a population of people who are going around saying "Please, mine has said for 6 months it needed to be changed, still working fine"
First, I don't see how the hair splitting over what you have to do vs what you choose to do matters. You have the right to make choices, the right to not have your property and effects violated by others. The people doing it are wrong.
Secondly, I think the fact that we equate looking upon a nude photo with sex is a good amount of the problem here. Its really our own overprotective prudishness and nudity taboos that even give rise to this in the first place.
Oh ill spell it out clearly, I really put Ross as more moral and less deserving of punishment than the president of the united states, AND most all his predecessors.
I do think what he did was, based on the circumstance he was in, pretty much self defense and that he has a better case for calling it defense than our own government does with most of what its so called "defense department" does...that is....the people accusing him of being the criminal.
He is less of a criminal to my mind than the government that accuses him. He has no actual victims that I know of, and the only alleged victim, had plenty of hand in his own situation. So I see nothing Ross actually did all that wrong, he did exactly what a person in his position should be expected to do.
If the government didn't want to create drug kingpins and the associated problems, maybe it shouldn't have created the market for them, the blame should be put where it belongs, with the policy makers who make the policies with such predictable outcomes.
It did, but it also took the conquered land for its own, and refused to leave the confederate states government in tact. None of which was justified. The war was never about freeing the slaves, it was for much more terrible purpose of maintaining power for the central government.
Not just that bit, if the stakes are high enough.... I would even argue that self defense applies. The had a real fear not only for the life and safety of himself but of many other people around the world. It is very understandable to me that his actions are actually consistent with a desire to preserve his own life and the lives of others in face of a credible threat.
Hell he was probably more justified than many of our own presidents drone strikes.
You mean the people who entered into an underworld business agreement where the stakes were known to be very high and attempted to blackmail a kingpin threatening the safety and very life of both him and his various other, honest associates?
Yes, lets pretend they had no part in bringing that upon themselves.
I have far more sympathy for him than them. Blackmailers are scum. They are such scum that even the state generally agrees they are criminals even when what they threaten to reveal is crime.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem is not the deamonization of Fructose but that the "processed" vs "natural" red herring is being used to ignore that sucrose is processed by the body into fructose and glucose. Meaning the body turns sugar into the exact same sort of mixture as HFCS. So in reality, as bad as HFCS is, sucrose is JUST AS BAD.
That said, I can't speak to this current study of telomeres but there is plenty of mechanism of action known for fructose. Fructose (unlike glucose) is processed exclusively in the liver, through many of the same pathways as alcohol.
Whether bound into a sucrose molecule or free floating in an HFCS mixture, 90% of fructose is processed int he liver (the rest is just excreted). The liver makes a number of things out of it, including hormones that suppress feelings of fullness (causing you to eat measurably more), but it also makes some of the worst kinds of cholesterol, VLDLs.
But you are right, the natural vs processed comparison is kind of bunk, especially when its "processed natural" anyway. The only natural vs processed argument that makes any sense is this: In nature sugar is found with fiber. Just try eating anywhere NEAR the sugar in a soda by eating apples or sugar cane....and then try doing it with a full meal. Good luck.
Pressing apples into juice....is processing. If you think of processing as primarily "Removing fiber from food" then it makes a lot more sense. In the end that is mainly what a lot of processing does. It removes the main constituent of food that limits how much and how fast we can eat.
Then to top it all off, with the "low fat" kick, they then remove the fat as well, which makes the food taste reminicent of cardboard, so to fix that, they add sugar. Its like an assault from all sides.... remove both fat and fiber, both things that moderate apetite and fullness, and replace with sugar, which suppresses fullness and gets turned into the worst kinds of cholesterol.
> Disclaimer: I work in computer forensics. Most hacks are done by people who haven't even thought of covering
> their tracks and you'll have nice local log entries that tally up with those on the remote server that scream out
> "Look, here's me hacking teh gibson!". Advanced hacks are almost impossible to spot without a) a good IDS b)
> examining the discs offline.
I have only had the "pleasure" of dealing with a few actual incidents. A couple of times on personal systems (apparently "Spykidz 0wn3d" me) a couple of times at work. I think the most memorable for me was when we found someone had installed an IRC bouncer on a production mail server using a password they likely sniffed as some professor insisted on using telnet (we did, eventually, get to close that down).
I got the job of spending a day figuring out what they were up to, so I setup a sniffer (two actually because it was a braindead system and I needed one for each direction) and I spied on the...well.... kids.
The most memorable part of the whole exchange between them was about how "I might be offline for a while because my dad is talking about cancelling comcast"
utmp.
I agree its bad, and its something the unix community has moved away from and avoided, but its not so much "anti-unix" as "What unix did when it was a teenager and would rather we didn't talk about in public, especially not in front of its kids"
And...that is where binary logging should stay, until it can be eliminated entirely.
binary logging is bad mm'kay.
Sometimes having all the money to buy the best equipment doesn't lead to the best solutions. Turns out some necessity can drive invention. Might even be called its...mother.
I looked into magic mushrooms when I was in my 20s (its getting harder and harder to commit to that kind of experience these days....oh boy...6 hours eh?....yah.....) and its really amazing what people came up with.
One of my favorites, was to use an oven rack as a virtual contamination hood. Preheat the oven, then pull out the rack and use it as a work surface. The flames trying to keep the oven hot give you a nice stream of warm decently sterile air, which keeps mold spores and bacteria off your work.... believe it or not, it actually works quite well.
I am really curious....is there some slashdot cacheing issue because the link was posted and I acknowledged it around 3 hours ago, and this is the second response with the same info since then so....I wonder if some people see old pages?
A bit too busy at work today to browse videos but, that looks like the one. It is indeed kind of bleak.
Was a video I saw that addressed the degrees of this issue. That is, they started showing a graph of what people polled thought income inequality looked like in terms of relative distribution of wealth. They showed what people thought it should be, people of different ends of the political spectrum. Then they showed what people thought was a healthy or acceptable distribution..... and then the real one.
The thing is, everybody seems to agree that some inequality is ok. Everybody seems to agree that there is more inequality than there should be. Everybody also underestimates how much inequality there is, showing the real numbers were as far removed from what people thought it was as what they thought it was was from what they thought was ideal.
Yes I understand that you hold this opinion.
Do you even have a point other than that you refuse to recognize that people might have more nuanced world views than you?
> And someone giving even more money to A cause they don't like that B is overcharging them - that's cutting
> off the nose to spite the face.
Or that is you over-simplifying their values. I guess if you accept that the only reason they have for disliking A is a feeling of being "overcharged" then, and only then it makes sense. Most people I know who would pay more elsewhere have more reasons than that to dislike the big banks and not want to do business with them.
Actually score multiple points there for open relationships. One problem my wife and I have never had is having to worry the least bit about these issues. One of us wants to do a little dating or fool around with someone we just.... are honest about it.
Its amazing that nobody ever thought of this before, it really is a lot easier, cheaper, and more reliable, not to mention less stress. That way we can argue about important things like the housework.
Right but, is it really that hard to understand? I mean yes, if you only value strict dollar value it seems like a contradiction but, if you realize that smaller operators take a larger proportionate risk with each transaction, you understand why they have to charge more for it to be worth it.
It makes as much sense to me to pay this extra fee as it would to pay the extra dollar to get similar coffee at the local coffee shop because I like that there is a local coffee shop at the corner and I get value from it being there and not being just another starbucks.
Its called values, different people have different ones and....shocker.... make decisions based on them.
> The whole article is written by folks who clearly have no idea about how the internet works.
No. It is written by someone who thinks he knows how it is supposed to work and not how it actually is setup. I had the same thought about transparent proxy however... his final assessment is SPOT ON.
The user, who is paying for internet access, is attempting to connect to a remote machine and, having that connection HIJACKED by a transparent proxy.
If I send a TCP SYN to w.x.y.z, then, as a paying fucking customer, I want that SYN packet to be delivered to w.x.y.z and responded to by the same. There is absolutely no scenario where I want someone else intercepting the traffic and doing something else instead.
In short, the author of the article shouldn't need to know those details because they are all the same to him. End result is, his connection is being tampered with, and he is not recieving the service he paid for.
I bet there are no perverse incentives there. You know its funny, you always hear how big our prison population is, or maybe how much it balooned, 700% since the early 1970s. I was curious, what happens when you look at population growth over that time...surely you would expect some growth....
Turns out about 30%. A 30% larger population has 700% more people incarcerated.
And that is just prison population. Imagine what that means for the much larger population of people on probation and parole, restricted in their movements, subject to drug tests which, just on false positive rate alone means they are risking a nonzero chance of reincarceration for no reason at all. It is absolute insanity.
And beyond the fact that they criminalize nonviolent behavior and put addicts in jail for no real good reason, my sister is a prison gaurd, most of the job is taking care of the mentally disabled since prisons replaced all the closed down asylums.
So which is worst inventing a crime for little other reason than to selectively enforce it against people who can't fight back with lawyers as an excuse to create jobs to support the lifestyle of the well off suburbanites, or using this same scheme to abuse the mentally disabled?
Personally, it beats me, but, conveniently, the same criminals did both at the same time.
> I have been using one for 2 years, my wife just found out last week. She was furious.
> She struggles with trying to come up with good passwords all the time. Based on past
> experience, she does come up with good ones. The last one I know about is 13
> characters long.
I talked my wife into trying one out, and she setup keepass. It is really unfortunate it doesn't set auto save on every change as a default option in the config because she changed every password she had one night, went to bed without saving, and had windows updates reboot her computer in the night.
The morning was not a happy time. She spent much of the next day resetting passwords.
It was about 2 years before she was willing to try again.
I agree with this guy mostly, except in his assessment of the advice. The xkcd in question is very good advice for the times when you need to choose a password, and makes the case for why itself, I have nothing more to add to the comic than what it says on that topic.
Where I see this article as wrong is that it misses that xkcd is telling us how and why to use that method. It does not even attempt to address the point this guy is trying to make, which, is entirely different.
Yes, less passwords good.... password manager to replace passwords with random keys and protect them with a single good password....yes very good. Good advice but....you still need to choose a password for your fucking password manager.... leaving you right back where you started.
He failed to even address the point of the xkcd comic and instead is calling it wrong in order to make an entirely unrelated point. Perhaps because without mentioning xkcd, nobody would listen to his rather banal points that others have made before?
> The law as it stands in most of Europe doesn't delete the record of such a crime having happened, but does hide
> that information to encourage offenders to rehabilitate and become a non-criminal and regular member of
> society. Without the prospect of ever being able to live normally once an indiscretion has occurred, what would
> motivate an offender to stop offending?
You nailed it exactly; if we offer those prospect to former criminals who have paid their "debt to society" then they are likely to not re-offend, which is just terrible in terms of job prospects for police and prison gaurds.
Shit many of our laws and policies exist specifically to create bodies to mill through the system, why would we want to provide any means of escape? Think of the prison gaurd's children!
Seems to me it isn't even that if the battery continues to operate. Detecting an impending fault is nice, but, if the layers are already breeched and an unsafe condition growing is detected....then maybe it should actually stop the battery from working so it has to be changed out, rather than just detect and continue to work.
Otherwise the only thing they will be doing is creating a population of people who are going around saying "Please, mine has said for 6 months it needed to be changed, still working fine"
First, I don't see how the hair splitting over what you have to do vs what you choose to do matters. You have the right to make choices, the right to not have your property and effects violated by others. The people doing it are wrong.
Secondly, I think the fact that we equate looking upon a nude photo with sex is a good amount of the problem here. Its really our own overprotective prudishness and nudity taboos that even give rise to this in the first place.
Oh ill spell it out clearly, I really put Ross as more moral and less deserving of punishment than the president of the united states, AND most all his predecessors.
I do think what he did was, based on the circumstance he was in, pretty much self defense and that he has a better case for calling it defense than our own government does with most of what its so called "defense department" does...that is....the people accusing him of being the criminal.
He is less of a criminal to my mind than the government that accuses him. He has no actual victims that I know of, and the only alleged victim, had plenty of hand in his own situation. So I see nothing Ross actually did all that wrong, he did exactly what a person in his position should be expected to do.
If the government didn't want to create drug kingpins and the associated problems, maybe it shouldn't have created the market for them, the blame should be put where it belongs, with the policy makers who make the policies with such predictable outcomes.
It did, but it also took the conquered land for its own, and refused to leave the confederate states government in tact. None of which was justified. The war was never about freeing the slaves, it was for much more terrible purpose of maintaining power for the central government.
and yet the very group which claims he broke their laws uses this very excuse on a daily basis. So which is it?
Not just that bit, if the stakes are high enough.... I would even argue that self defense applies. The had a real fear not only for the life and safety of himself but of many other people around the world. It is very understandable to me that his actions are actually consistent with a desire to preserve his own life and the lives of others in face of a credible threat.
Hell he was probably more justified than many of our own presidents drone strikes.
I don't believe my personal judgement of a persons actions is limited by the strict question of legality.
You mean the people who entered into an underworld business agreement where the stakes were known to be very high and attempted to blackmail a kingpin threatening the safety and very life of both him and his various other, honest associates?
Yes, lets pretend they had no part in bringing that upon themselves.
I have far more sympathy for him than them. Blackmailers are scum. They are such scum that even the state generally agrees they are criminals even when what they threaten to reveal is crime.