Well,if you think that will make you impervious, enjoy.

Further, there is actually quite a bit of evidence that HFCS is NOT the same as other sugars. Industry critics dispute those studies, but they exist.

I understand that this is one of those topics that the Pop Skeptic community has taken under its wing, but not because of evidence one way or the other.

Bocarsly, M. E. "High-fructose Corn Syrup Causes Characteristics of Obesity in Rats: Increased Body Weight, Body Fat and Triglyceride Levels." NIH.gov. National Institutes of Health, Nov. 2010. Web. 16 June 2013

https://www.princeton.edu/main...

Havel PJ (2005). "Dietary Fructose: Implications for Dysregulation of Energy Homeostasis and Lipid/Carbohydrate Metabolism". Nutrition Reviews 63 (5):133–157.

Dufault R, LeBlanc B, Schnoll R, Cornett C, Schweitzer L, Wallinga D, Hightower J, Patrick L, Lukiw WJ (2009). "Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: Measured concentrations in food product sugar". Environmental Health 8: 2. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-2. PMC 2637263

  LeBlanc BW, Eggleston G, Sammataro D, Cornett C, Dufault R, Deeby T, St Cyr E (26 August 2009). "Formation of Hydroxymethylfurfural in Domestic High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Its Toxicity to the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera)". Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57 (16): 7369–7376. doi:10.1021/jf9014526. PMID 19645504.

Exactly, that's precisely what the majority of stoned people at Burning Man will say. Of course, that's because they aren't so good at arithmetic and even worse at history. Since 1967, when the census bureau began tracking it, there has been exactly one instance of real median income falling over any five year period. That's the last five years. Every other period in American history has seen median incomes are increase. It's just these last five years that Damon republican in the Whitehouse has fucked it all up.

Your parents and grandparents actually worked, hard, in the heat, to afford an 800 square foot home. Today's young leftist mooches live in their parent's 800 square foot basement, working part time and complaining about how tough it is.

    Get off my lawn - or mow it. The Mexican who came to my door unable to speak English couple of years ago pushing a broken down mower now arrives in a $30,000 dually. Because he worked for it.

The GP is arguing that there is no body of credible evidence

No, he said he "hasn't seen" any evidence.

The GP is claiming said link doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence

That is not what he said. You're putting words in his mouth. If he'd said that I wouldn't have responded to him.

Here is the entirety of his comment:

I have never seen any study suggesting that, except the single widely ridiculed Yale study. Not surprising given how nearly identical sucrose and HFCS are in the gut.

EU to UK is the exception, being an island. The rest of (mainland) Europe sees no reason to monitor the movements of people. Hostile borders (eg EU to south) generate more information. But to assume that all movements generate the same amount of data as an air flight does is false. Dangerously false.

Consider some-American-one who goes to ... CAR for business (of whatever sort), and in the process crosses many borders, then returns to the US. (I ignore the question of who gets fuck ed on the way) Since CAR is a long way from the at - risk areas, he should not raise any alarms.

Beyond one degree of separation, border controls are not effective.

It's not just programmers that think in terms of effincident please processes, in fact I'd say that's more the domain of the business person. You can get a degree in how to most effectively and efficiently run an operation to deliver goods to customers, that's called a mba. MBAs, and MBA style thinking about efficient process, is not popular with the burning man crowd.

The pdf linked in the article mentions a few points. The following is my understanding of what they said. It doesn't represent my opinion.

    The commenters generally agreed that patent trolling isn't currently a big problem in Canada. Canadian companies are affected more by US trolls, because the Canadian system already handles it pretty well. Therefore "don't fix it if it ain't broke". Any change will have good and bad consequences, and Canada doesn't need much good consequences.

Universities were given as an example of institutions which do real, valuable research and development, but don't manufacture products. They license their technology, so they are non-practicing entities. How do you legally distinguish a research institution and a company who licenses the results of that work vs a troll?

I happen to know that the vast majority of trolling is done by four companies. Hundreds of thousands of people have patents. The challenge is to target those four needles in a very large haystack. When you're targeting a needle in a haystack, and want to destroy the needle (troll) without harming the hay (inventors etc) you want to use precision tools.

Good (or pedantic?) point. Since I come from a country where the head of state, head of government, and head crook are the same office, I tend to think of all national heads as "head of state".

Yeah the same thing bugs me when watching football (handegg ). I get excited for half second when the announcer says Manning just set a record, then goes on to say it's the record for most completed passes in the first quarter of a home game in Denver against a team with a winning record on the road. Wtf.

And you believe in Australia?

Say your ERT is engaged in a dynamic entry to deal with a hostage situation. It might be critical to take out a lookout quietly.

Absolutely, positively not. If police departments are doing "dynamic entry" into a hostage situation with the plan to execute lookouts then we have a big problem.

Or say you are trying to get into a drug manufacturing compound that has armed guards with a night raid before they can blow the warehouse (or any similar sort of entry where you need surprise). Silencers can add to your odds of being able to execute.

Police are not supposed to "execute". You've been playing too much Rainbow Six.

The purpose of silencers is to kill undetected. There is no appropriate police activity which requires undetected killing.

For many decades now we've had female heads of state (ie Thatcher), female Supreme Court justices, female CEOs of top companies (ie Whitman). At this point, women have done pretty much everything men have done. It's not 1940 anymore. Isn't it time we stop the sexist talk about "female astronauts", "lady lawyers", etc and just talk about astronauts and lawyers? Do we really need to call one of our national leaders a "black woman senator"? She's senator, period. She's neither less than or better than another senator based on her genitalia or her complexion.

The other day I was watching TV and they were talking about the "first black female Puerto Rican pole vault champion" or some such horseshit. She's not the first pole vault champion, nor the first woman, or even th first woman pole vault champion, so give it a rest already. Will you leftists never see beyond anybody's genitalia and complexion?

Censorship:
The review of books, movies, etc., to prohibit publication and distribution, usually for reasons of morality or state security.
--Oran's Dictionary of Law

The key difference between censorship and laws related to libel, national security, conspiracy and harassment (including the law being discussed on this page) is that censorship prevents the words from being published. These other laws say that you might get in trouble AFTER publishing certain things. The common phrase used to distinguish the two is "prior restraint". You might ask why the distinction matters. If this law is abused, you might see a news headline like "Journalist arrested for criticizing prime minister". Under a censorship regime, you'd not see any headline at all - the newspaper is censored.

If information is REMOVED after it is published, that might qualify as censorship - it's preventing people from reading it. The fact that it's removed before it's read could mean that the public can't judge whether or not the removal is proper. On the other hand, if someone just gets in trouble afterward for something they published, the government's actions are visible to the public, so it's not technically censorship. Of course just because it's not censorship doesn't mean it's okay. A lot of things are bad , censorship is just one of many bad things.

GP is correct. Censorship means proactively preventing publication. This law may well be BAD. It is not censorship, by the definition of the word censorship. Again that doesn't mean it's a good law, it's just not murder, censorship, or jaywalking.

And why should anyone care about "recommended" levels of anything?

God, I hope you're not a pharmacist.