Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:danger vs taste (Score 1) 629

by electrosoccertux (#49562229) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

Aspartame does break down into poison. One of the components it breaks down into is methanol. Wood alcohol. The stuff that makes you blind. Drinking the amount of aspartame found in 14 cases of pop every day would fill your system with a large amount of methanol. No question that's going to have negative effects.

The amount of methanol actually found in *normal* consumption of diet sodas, however, is similar to the amount found in things like fruit juice. If your body can deal with fruit juice, it can deal with aspartame-sweetened drinks. As always, it's the dose that makes the poison.

Yes, there is a positive correlation between drinking diet sodas and being overweight. But that's an expected correlation, not a causation. Seriously, what sort of person who's not prone (for whatever reasons) to weight gain is suddenly going to decide, "You know, I want to switch from normal pepsi to diet."? The people who start drinking diet are the ones having trouble with weight gain already. The problem is, a can of pepsi is 150 calories. That's the amount of calories in 1/3 cup of raisins. Yeah, it helps somewhat with your calorie consumption, but it's not the big picture on its own.

it doesn't break down in your stomach, it breaks down above 112F or something.

The most recent study I read was in 2008 or so (and yes, I read the entire thing). The conclusion was the per-kilogram consumption level in mice found to increase the CHANCES (I don't recall if it was additive or multiplicative) of getting cancer by 5% was the quantity of aspartame found in 12-12oz cans of diet coke.

And you had to drink that quantity every day for ... 10 years, or something.
Sometime that I never, ever do or will do, and if I did, I would have teeth problems long before cancer problems

and even if you were drinking that much, the quality of life improvement because you enjoy it so is probably worth the 5% increase in risk for cancer

Comment: why did Samsung have Exynos if weren't using it? (Score 1) 27

by electrosoccertux (#49521485) Attached to: For High-End CPUs, Qualcomm Ditches TSMC For Samsung

can anyone explain why Samsung went to the trouble of designing Exynos if they weren't going to use it everywhere?

From what I can tell they were used in their foreign mobile offerings (international Galaxy versions), possibly because of different LTE patents required for US use, and possibly due to less competition from handset manufacturers meant they didn't need to differentiate on performance. Still, I'm surprised one would go to the trouble designing their own SOC and not go to the trouble of using that R&D investment everywhere.

Comment: Re:He's good. (Score 2, Insightful) 198

Not to mention that defrauding banksters isn't the crime it is made out to be

Actually, even if you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that it's OK to steal from people you don't like, defrauding bankers hurts us all here. Here's why: 1) It costs the bank's customers through higher credit interest and lower debit interested 2) If the bank fails customers are likely to lose out (although most individual customers will have their deposits guaranteed by the state) 3) The state guarantees deposits of individual customers (up to a certain limit) so, if the state has to bail out those customers, we all pay.

banks don't fail over $1.8m if they weren't going to fail already.

The banks can't just raise rates to make up for it, either, then customers will go elsewhere. If anything this just encourages banks to operate with more efficiency.

The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.