Things would probably work themselves out if there weren't so much in the sugar subsidy. If sugary treats and drinks were rare instead of common we probably wouldn't have as much diabetes or overweight people, myself included. I feel this kind of stuff is sadly typical of the world we live in, propaganda at its finest.
I'm not sure this has to do with subsidies. Companies like Coca Cola put billions of dollars into marketing and advertising, and sugar is very addictive. On the other hand, there are a lot of protests when governments try to regulate junk food (like when Bloomberg tried to ban big sodas), the whole "nanny state" debate. In that context, no wonder there's an obesity issue in the US (and other countries). I had some heated discussion with some american friends over this topic, it gets very ideological.
If sugar and other sweeteners weren't so dirt cheap, maybe people wouldn't eat a dozen donuts for breakfast and maybe if these sugary "treats" went back to being treats instead of staples of the American, possibly other, diets we wouldn't be in this predicament. I agree that sugar is quite addictive. The craving for a pizza or ice cream can be overwhelming for me. Some of the food manufacturers in my opinion should almost be regulated like the tobacco industry. They do the same thing. Just no one wants to talk about favorite sugary food or drink causing ailments, it is like the greatest secret everyone knows.
"Both controversy and confusion exist concerning fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with respect to their metabolism and health effects. These concerns have often been fueled by speculation based on limited data or animal studies. In retrospect, recent controversies arose when a scientific commentary was published suggesting a possible unique link between HFCS consumption and obesity. Since then, a broad scientific consensus has emerged that there are no metabolic or endocrine response differences between HFCS and sucrose related to obesity or any other adverse health outcome."
The primary author is the central driver behind his own Rippe Lifestyle Institute [http://www.rippehealth.com/] who, turns out, partners directly with Coca-Cola [http://www.rippehealth.com/partners/index.htm], including "outreach" and "coordinat[ing] a number of symposia", which in all likelihood means paid speaking engagements. He and Coca-Cola may have honorable intentions, or he may be paid to advance their agenda. We don't know either way, but what we do know is they are connected to each other.
Hahaha, this is too funny. I was wondering if I could find some info suggesting that they are being paid off but I didn't think of looking for it on their site. Good detective work.
Actually not. The fructose is indeed the problem, but HFCS contains only slightly more fructose than sucrose (table sugar) does: sucrose is 50% fructose, HFCS is about 55% fructose.
In sucrose, the fructose and glucose are chemically bonded together in pairs, while in HFCS, they're just mixed together. But this also doesn't help much; although the body must split the sucrose molecule into its parts in order to metabolize it, this doesn't take very long.
Okay, well, other experts like Robert Lustig think they're not very different.
The thing you have to watch out for is that lots of people want to find the "good" form of sugar. That's why we see products in the stores with ingredients listed like brown sugar, "evaporated cane juice", etc.
I concede that there might be a bigger difference between sucrose and HFCS metabolism than I was aware, and you did start off your comment with "Sugar would be bad but...". Nonetheless I think it would be easy for someone reading your comment to take away the idea that HFCS is the big problem and sucrose is okay, because people want to do that.
So I think the point that sucrose is not really okay either deserves more emphasis than you gave it.
I can't find the actual papers but it seems like his opinion is not exactly conclusive and his wiki page suggests something along those lines as well.
> The thing you have to watch out for is that lots of people want to find the "good" form of sugar.
> Nonetheless I think it would be easy for someone reading your comment to take away the idea that HFCS is the big problem and sucrose is okay, because people want to do that.
I literally said that they both bad. They can takeaway whatever they want but I can't really be blamed for that.
It's less about replacing HFCS with sugar leading to good outcomes than it is replacing sugar with HFCS leading to worse outcomes. Neither is good, but table sugar is (marginally) less bad.
Choosing between two evils is still evil... How about xylitol with stevia, which has fewer calories, while still having some (not screwing with receptors as much) and combining the two actually curbs the less desirable flavors of both.
I've been using this combination for kool-aid for a while, Generally about 25% of the calories in a pitcher vs sugar. Though I don't do it that often.... sometimes I just want some grape (or black cherry) koolaid.
I'm pretty sure it all feeds into the same system... as do things advertised as healthy lifestyle choices. Fruit smoothies are probably about as bad as soda (except you get a bit of fiber, and some micro-nutrients) in terms of the affect on your blood sugar. HFCS is only part of the problem...
The bigger thing is the human (and all, really) body is complex and varied. A lot of things play into the nutritional needs of a person. We've also had a lot of migration and mixed heritage the past couple hundred years, much broader and deeper than any point in history before it. It usually takes some time for a society to optimize for certain food sources.
Even then, we have some vary diverse cultures coming together (and I do love great fusion foods)... Combined with mixed family allergies, and a lot of mono-crops and ever limited diets by huge swaths of society. The body does adapt, as it stands though, most people are too sedentary (myself included)...
Once metabolic syndrom sets in, it gets very complicated... I'm at a point where a bit of heavy starch (bread, pasta) throws me off for a couple days... many grains will mess me up too... if I have more than around 100g of net carbs a day, I have issues. Most people have way more than 100g of just sugar any given day.
The "food pyramid" is mostly lopsided.. and subsidies mostly push some of the worst things for us. In general, we get too much grains, more meat than needed, not enough vegetables and fruits (I mean the likes of peppers, tomatoes, squash and cucumber here)... far too many heavily refined foods (from vegetable oils that are really unnatural, to fruit juices). Many people don't gain weight or really show it, but are just as unhealthy from their diets.
I'm really bad at sticking with what works best for me... because I like pasta, and bread, and rice, and potatoes. I just know I shouldn't have them anymore, and when I do (a couple times a week) I really feel it. Not to mention that even if I go weeks with really minimal carbs/sugars, my body is really efficient with gluconeogenesis and starts creating a lot of keytones, which has its' own issues.
It all sucks. I'm over 350#, and excercise is all but impossible with my bad knees... it's all I can do to not gain more weight. Since starting Invokana, my weight and blood sugar levels are at least stable (but elevated), but getting farther is difficult to say the least. I wish I know a lot of what I know today a few decades ago... I would have never started drinking "diet" soda, which is way worse in a lot of ways, and also would have cut most of the carbs back when it would have made more of a difference.
The system being what happens when your body processes sugars. Sugar by itself isn't too different from what your body easily converts into sugars (that being all carbs besides fiber), and glycemic index/load values for foods vary a lot.
My point is that what is advertised, subsidized and promoted by the government is lopsided from what's really ideal. The food industry is both part of the problem and responding to consumer demand. As to my body telling me something, that's another point.... That being that not everyone notices or feels the affect as significantly even though it's there.
It's not just sugar, it having too much starch/grains in our diet as well... mostly the heavily refined foods. People are also mislead into believing that some things are healthier when they really aren't... fruit snacks, smoothies, etc are just about as bad as the sugary stuff, or worse if you consider the deceptive marketing.
I don't think we should, as a society, ban any given food, but the marketing allowed, and the information distributed in education really needs to change.
Actually, you don't even need the msi, unless that is the only mode you have for installation. Can use the java package with a /s switch and then use the deployment.properties file with custom configs in the link below to disable many features for java.
Visit /r/sysadmin and ask how well that works. Oracle makes undocumented changes and breaks things all the time. So you can have the proper settings to ignore toolbars, but randomly they'll install. Whoops. Who at Oracle do you complain to?
MSI's are just safer/simpler/easier to test/easier to deploy. The fact that they hide it is pretty unforgivable.
If they are installing, you are using the wrong installer. The one from the developers section on oracle's website does not include these toolbar's. Yes, msi's are easier to work with and many companies do not provide them, not just Oracle, but when you are given lemon's you make lemonade. Especially since complaining to oracle will get you no where.
And most IT Admins know that the best place to get the installer isn't from Java.com that has crapware built into the installer but from the link below which doesn't have crapware built in.
I think it's not that nerd outrage isn't a force for change, it's that nerds just find a workaround like this link, and then move on with their life. The rest of people get stuck w/ toolbars, supercookies, etc.
You can also use Ninite, which solves this kind of problem for quite a few popular software packages without having to remember specific workarounds for every one.
I work for a school district in the US and we see this occasionally. We just wipe the computer and restore files to the Users network drive from backup.
I personally think getting into a good backup regimen is a better use for the money than paying some scumbags.
I work for a school district in the US and we have to have a gateway content filter to prevent students from accessing inappropriate web sites. We use an iboss content filter which can decrypt ssl and rencrypt on the fly. It can also force google safe search and such. I suspect this company uses something similar.
>We use an iboss content filter which can decrypt ssl and rencrypt on the fly.
Is it safe to assume this is some sort of trusted MITM proxy?
I think this is really taking it too far. We use Lightspeed and they block SSL traffic during the handshake based on the domain its destined for. No need to decrypt anything.
It runs as a transparent proxy. We used to use Lightspeed but found it lacking in reporting. It can act as a MITM proxy if you turn the option on. We do however force safe search on search sites that the box works with.
(Perhaps you were being sarcastic) but these kids most probably won't be able to access a great many of the informative and educational websites that allow them to research and learn about how to properly secure computers and their online experience. Because (I've seen this) they are most likely dumped under the category of "hacking websites" ... even perfectly benign network tools.
I think MS needs to quit trying to reinvent entire OS's and start tweaking features within the OS and specific portions of the OS. That I think is one thing that Apple did correctly. They keep a similar user experience between versions but tweak various features within it building upon the previous release.
You'll be delighted to find the UX in desktop mode to be pretty much the same (sans Start Menu, which becomes more and more obsolete if you pin stuff to the task bar) with loads of nice tweaks. From a better file copy dialog to a new task manager – the improvements are there.
Am I the only person who remembers the switch from OS 9->OS X? The noise around Windows 7->Windows 8 sounds quite similar to the noise Mac users where making around that time.
