Care to provide a link?
Sure, the Wikipedia article provides an adequate discussion of fructose metabolism.
I kinda always thought that all sugars are metabolized by 'normalizing' them to glucose and fructose. In case of sucrose it involves hydrolysis of one weak chemical bond, that produces glucose and fructose. HFCS simply skips that step.
More or less, although it's a bit more complicated due to how sugar molecules are transported in different cell types (as discussed in the above link). However, most commercial HFCS compositions have more fructose than glucose, which can lead to excess Krebs cycle intermediates that are in turn directed to fatty acid metabolism (via acetyl-CoA).
Everyone knows at this point that our problem isn't with fats, it's with carbs.
Unfortunately, when it comes to nutrition, "everyone" has fallen for a mixture of quackery and old wives' tales. Case in point: your conflation of simple sugars and complex carbohydrates, which ignores the excessive animal protein and extraordinary dearth of fiber currently consumed in Western diets.
Table sugar is 100% sucrose, a disaccharide consisting of one glucose and one fructose molecule covalently bound together. HFCS is a mixture of glucose and fructose as monosaccharides (individual sugar molecules). Multiple HFCS compositions exist commercially.
Just let the EFF compute the entropy in your browser fingerprint for ya.
"...probably won't," concluded Pandell...Science was wrong.
What a dumb remark. The prediction, that the Triple Crown is an unlikely event, is correct. That this outcome happened to occur in our timeline is neither here nor there.
Using BarTab Heavy and the other BarTab addons to load and unload tabs in the background makes a huge difference to performance. So does using uBlock Origin instead of ABP. (And NoScript of course).
A terror suspect not linked to terrorism?
I think they mean terrorist NGOs like ISIS that aren't "foreign powers?" Or maybe it's for general FISA Court-approved warrants with no link to terror?
It's an interesting topic. What are we? Are we our physical bodies? Are we the information that we've associated? Are we souls/spirits within a shell?
I think so too, but I also think that at this point there is overwhelming evidence that we are our physical bodies - our whole organism - and zero evidence for any rival proposition.
Personally, I don't feel like my physical body (fond of it though I am) is "me." If I woke up tomorrow in a different form, I would still be the core person that I am.
That's really just a guess, best. It appears highly likely that the "core person that you are" is your form. To put it another way, the statement "if I woke up a different person, I would still be the same person" is merely contradictory.
But I'm weird like that, in that my identity exists independent of it. I don't think that's the case for most people.
Again - this is hard to read as anything other than assertion, in this case motivated by feelings of apparent superiority over other people. (I don't mean to insult you at all, but to me the way that statement is written sounds like bluster).
Why is there an assumption that intelligence implies will? Why would an AI have goals?
Exactly! I tried to make the same point in this comment, which has apparently sparked a lively discussion.
We already know that the human brain changes substantially and structurally over time (and that we can change it further by meddling).
Critically, the structure is spatiotemporally contiguous throughout these changes - which is totally unlike the transfer hypotheticals.
the human brain with no obvious connection to what materials the underlying machinery is composed of
Again, this is just asserting the conclusion that the physical structure of the brain is unimportant, and then reasoning backwards from that conclusion.
It's like claiming that a car won't drive, if we make it out of aluminum instead of out of steel or the wheels of wood not rubber.
I think what you're saying is akin to claiming that something without wheels, differentials or a steering column is still a "car" which "drives." It may be a highly efficient vehicle, but it's not going to "feel the same."
That's the point here - the mind isn't a homunculus inhabiting your head, which can simply get a new job managing a different theater. All evidence to date supports the materialist proposition that to radically alter the physical structure of the mind/brain would be to radically alter its subjective character as well.
I didn't say they would help, I said "we would find out" because the nuclear powers would undoubtedly try it.
Still, some asteroids are relatively loose agglomerations of rocks, so maybe in that case it would make a difference.
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce