21–30 of 63 posts
It seems that Princeton's press release greatly overstated the results of the study. It also seems that there are some valid questions about the methodology of the study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But do you really think that the only possible technologies that could give you the features of the current internet are TCP, IP and Unix? There are lots of ways to do networking, and government subsidy didn't pay for all of them. (Even if HTTP didn't exist, gopher would have filled in just fine!) Nor did it pay for the commercialization of the web browser, which is what made it truly practical for people to us…
The failure of private firms to account for network externalities is one of the classic examples of coordination failure. So yes, the fact that the US government stepped in and built ARPAnet probably accelerated the emergence of what you and I call the internet by a decade or more. I agree that private innovation almost always outpaces public innovation. But it took massive government to get the ball rolling in the f…
Why didn't we see ARPAnet get huge in the early 1980s? The real bottleneck to internet adoption was the lack of computing power (memory and CPU), which were necessary for the rise of graphical interfaces, which were necessary for lots of people to be able to use computers. These things were developed rapidly, and privately. The limits that were pushed to do this were not government edicts, but physical constraints (heat dissipation, die shrinks.) Remember that Xerox PARC was a private research lab!
The "lead" you're talking about sat idle for twenty years until cheap computers got good enough to help normal people. Therefore that "lead" was essentially wasted according to any sensible economic theory.
(I think that ARPAnet was technically great, and TCP/IP, sockets, Unix, etc., are all fine technologies. All I'm saying is that we're at no loss economically if technological development is paid for in a moral way, rather than the way we do it now.)
Unfortunately, I don't see the amount of HFCS that's used in the American food system changing much; at least until the government can find a way to continue to prop up the corn farmers.
So you have a subsidy on corn, a tariff on sugar, and the double imbalance causes companies to use HFCS.
If we got rid of the tariff on sugar we could import sugar from brazil, and make ethanol out of it. (Which actually works, unlike ethanol from corn.)
It's politically impractical to just leave the corn farmers out to dry, so instead we choose some other food and give them subsidies on that if they agree to switch from corn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would make more sense if I had a better understanding of biochemistry. It's only a matter of time before an awesome explanation is posted. (Yes....!)
A basic explanation is that fructose is metabolized very differently from glucose. Glucose is absorbed from the digestive tract and directly enters the blood; fructose is routed to the liver and converted into fat. Considering the difference in these mechanisms, it isn't surprising that HFCS leads to higher weight gain, because it directly leads to increased synthesis of adipose tissue.
Can someone in the know please express their opinion on the raw food lifestyle? If you're going to dismiss it as ridiculous I'd like you to back up your claims with at the very least strong personal anecdotal evidence, e.g., "I feel extremely happy and energetic, yet I eat tons of meat and cheese." I'm reading a book that suggests that cooking food results in the denaturing of proteins, digestive enzymes, and other n…
I've been eating lots of heavily processed meats and cheeses every day- Keilbasa, Havarti, Cheddar, and Summer Sausages.
Even during the first week, I felt more awake and alert than I had eating a carb-heavy diet. A carb-heavy lunch left me dragging a bit in the afternoon, but the low-carb diet, while very much not a raw-food lifestyle, is working well for me.
Can someone in the know please express their opinion on the raw food lifestyle? If you're going to dismiss it as ridiculous I'd like you to back up your claims with at the very least strong personal anecdotal evidence, e.g., "I feel extremely happy and energetic, yet I eat tons of meat and cheese." I'm reading a book that suggests that cooking food results in the denaturing of proteins, digestive enzymes, and other n…
My diet so far has consisted of blue-rare steak (all you need to do to be safe is to sear the edges and sides to kill E. coli that has gotten onto the meat during butchering. I learned this in my microbiology class!) [You have to watch out about things like steak sauce - read the labels, and you'll find out that almost all of them have sugar in them. So I never use steak sauce, ketchup, or any of that shit - just salt+pepper.]
Salads are great, as long as you make your own dressing (so that you can keep it low-sugar.) Just a little salt, vinegar, and a nice lettuce mix, and just a little feta cheese...
Berries can be great if you need something sweet; they have enough fiber to keep you from getting an insulin spike if you're on my diet. [Be careful to not do this too much - they're expensive, and you can overdo it by gorging on several boxes every day! Many of your needs for vitamins are met with meat and leafy greens.]
At any rate, what I've described is probably called a paleo diet (maybe?) Meat is such an essential part of my life! I'm pretty healthy, and I've lost a lot of fat eating this way. (I used to be 215 lbs, now I'm at 171; I'm 6'1".)
One more thing - I used to drink sugary soda and fruit juices - these are both terrible things to put into your body. Cut that out alone, and you'll be doing yourself a huge favor.
Can someone in the know please express their opinion on the raw food lifestyle? If you're going to dismiss it as ridiculous I'd like you to back up your claims with at the very least strong personal anecdotal evidence, e.g., "I feel extremely happy and energetic, yet I eat tons of meat and cheese." I'm reading a book that suggests that cooking food results in the denaturing of proteins, digestive enzymes, and other n…
On the other hand, it seems unlikely to me that the hydrochloric acid in your stomach doesn't also denature the hell out of proteins. In fact, your body probably has to denature proteins to get at the amino acids in them so it can build the precise proteins it needs.
Can someone in the know please express their opinion on the raw food lifestyle? If you're going to dismiss it as ridiculous I'd like you to back up your claims with at the very least strong personal anecdotal evidence, e.g., "I feel extremely happy and energetic, yet I eat tons of meat and cheese." I'm reading a book that suggests that cooking food results in the denaturing of proteins, digestive enzymes, and other n…
Can someone in the know please express their opinion on the raw food lifestyle? If you're going to dismiss it as ridiculous I'd like you to back up your claims with at the very least strong personal anecdotal evidence, e.g., "I feel extremely happy and energetic, yet I eat tons of meat and cheese." I'm reading a book that suggests that cooking food results in the denaturing of proteins, digestive enzymes, and other n…
However, I'd suggest that the book you are reading is probably junk science. A protein is a long chain of amino acids folded into a certain structure. Denaturation is the process of unfolding it, and will be performed by stomach acid if not by heat. A protein is digested by separating it into it's component amino acids. Denaturation is a necessary step in this process.