@Lawdeedaw

I think that's a bit of a flawed argument and hardly what's wrong with the US economy. It would be silly to halt the automation* of driving. Not only is it likely to lead to safer driving but reducing the costs of shipping everything will in effect lower the costs of virtually all goods and improve living standards. Government may have a role to retrain workers or to provide unemployment support but it's not there to prop up industries that are obsolete. No one wants to go back to the days of typists and secretaries and for good reason.

I would rather blame the entrenched firms with their lobbyists protecting their turf through the corrupt political contribution system. If you look at Google Fiber for example: Verizon, Comcast and the like have been mounting various political and legal challenges to keep them from growing and to protect their margins. Free market economies work because new market entrants erode profits over time through innovation. Instead you have politically maintained trusts.

All right, I'm probably feeding a troll, but since I'm starting an advocacy group I'm inevitably going to have to deal with a lot of them so here goes. Wish me luck.

I've heard this argument so many times. So many times. Almost as many times as I hear "how do vegans get enough protein"? (I'll stop asking you about your fiber intake and cholesterol if you stop asking me about my protein levels). So, in retort, I thought I'd appeal to logic. I went to ol' wikipedia to find all the fallacies that you are using. I thought I'd find 1, 2, or maybe 3. Instead I found 8. And I crossed off the ones that were true, but not necessarily in this specific argument:

1. Straw Man - I don't believe any vegan is proposing to save the whole world. We are trying to make a difference in the lives of animals. Your straw man is that our goal is to save the world. It is not.



2. Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy - Regardless of whether we're supposedly hypocritical or not, you have refused to address the moral question at hand. Not the morality of saving the world, but of the moral importance of animals.



3. False Dilemma - Your proposition is that either we save the world or we do nothing. It is not a problem with only 2 solutions.



4. Ignoratio Elenchi/Irrelevant Conclusion - Again, we are not discussing the saving of the world. We are talking about the moral treatment of animals.



5. Nirvana Fallacy - You'll never have heaven on earth. That's not the argument.



6. Red Herring - A favourite argument for many. We are not talking about human suffering.



7. Vacuous Truth - Surprise! There will always be suffering in the world! I know that. We're not talking about that.



8. Moral High Ground Fallacy - I think this one speaks for itself.

A 1/4" hole drilled in the wall and a fiber optic camera w/ LED should reveal all, no?

He must realize that his work "Why There is No Hope" will be, by its very nature, even if he tries with every fiber of his being to make it not so, entirely about Hope.

Perhaps tiny fibers are interlocking, causing an effect along the lines of layering alternating pages of two phone books? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOt-D_ee-JE

It's odd that they focused on sugar in this report. Processed foods are high in omega 6 and the healthy diet they described is high in omega 3 and fiber. That reduction in omega 6 and increase in omga 3 probably had the largest affect on his cholesterol.

Also, saturated fats are not bad for you. That's outdated information.

About 1/2 of kids in the US today will grow up with out religion. We ARE seeing what is replacing the aspects noted in the video.

Marriage had gone from 73% in the 60 to 46% today. 55% today families have remarried / single parent or no parent as opposed to 30% in the 60s.

The moral fiber needed to stay married is gone.

Abortions are off the hook, but decreasing lately,
gangs, crime, porn, hookups, sex all more morally acceptable today. IS this a good thing for society as a whole? Sex and hooking up on the side might be nice but when it is so rampant is it really a social good?

Are we truly kinder to each other? More willing to help or do we tell the government to step in?

The direction of morality is indeed heading in the wrong direction.

This is one extremely well made machine. I cannot even believe how extremely well this held together, even after the crash (it was practically still in one piece). I find this carbon-fiber/single piece engineering breed of helicopter fascinating. It is far better in a number of fields--and then on top of EVERYTHING to see it go through this absolutely catastrophic situation and remain in one piece (as they said, many helicopters would start breaking apart mid-air due to the absolute savagery of the forces involved and at play here; yet this thing holds together the whole time, even though it is a test design and not even an "improved" or possibly it's "final" design).

I really think that this type of design and make will eventually start to make it's way through the industry. It is just too obvious that the bonuses out-way the negatives to me--then add in the fact that while still in it's testing phase they successfully handled a "worst case" scenario breakdown for a helicopter and then crashed it, then once again showing that the helicopter was VERY good at sending all the forces across the design and holding together (showing that it did a good job during TWO events really)... I really don't know how you couldn't be a bit hyped for this type of design moving forward if you were a helicopter engineer, pilot, mechanic, and especially the manufacturers.

To me, my first thought was, this could end up being the "jeep" of helicopters...

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

Nope, the mainstream theory is that we don't have a clue. We're just fairly certain it didn't go down 6000 years ago and that the earth wasn't formless before there was light and that whatever process happened probably couldn't care less whether we mix fibers, etc...

I'll second that.
I built a nearly identical plane 25 years ago, it cost about $125, and another $200 for the controller setup. It's wings were made of fiberglass/graphite spars inside dense foam cores...easy to build, easy to repair, and didn't hurt if it hit a person. (it did only have about a 15 min flight time without thermals, but batteries and motors are better now) Why are they going with carbon fiber for a non-combat fixed wing drone over fiberglass and/or foam (or are they testing combat drones)? Is it just to make it cost more? Why not just CNC mill them out of titanium billets? ;-)

$50K? Something smells here. Should be under $1K unless there's a lot we aren't seeing. Maybe it's all in the electronics and optics (it would need a bit more than a cell phone camera), but it still seems exorbitant. I think it could be more efficient to make them cheap and disposable/recyclable rather than 'hardened'.

It's not the case, it's based on my personal experience that Gods words are in fact true. That He is exactly who He says He is, and that His promises are true; when I placed my faith in Jesus Christ as I was born again as a new person and received the Holy Spirit. He utterly transformed me, inside and out. I can attest with every fiber of my being that His words are true, and trustworthy.

Kim needs to cut back on the insoluable fiber.

I hate this device with every fiber of my being.

It's an ostentatious, gaudy and useless bauble built for privileged, elite parasites. It holds no value in any society. The unbelievable waste of technology and resources that has been diverted to the creation and acquisition of such an embarrassing canker brings shame on us all.

Anyone who purchases one of these monstrosities should have it strapped around their neck as they're paraded in front of the community that they embezzled their wealth from.

In a just society, these would be worn on the wrists of the underserved homeless people who dragged these oligarchs off the top of their pyramids and bludgeoned them in the gutter.

One of these days I'll have a Tesla...and Google Fiber...and a DJI aerial drone...and one of those crazy Japanese toilets...