A cost analysis of Vista content protection [LWN.net]

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 14:23 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection by dion
Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Transfat != poison.

It's stabilised vegitable oil. The proccess that produces this causes certain types of fatty acids that make your LDS cholesterol raise more rapidly then some other types of common fat.

Since highten LDS cholesterol is associated with greater risk of heart disease then people assume that transfat causes heart disease... which isn't even nessicarially true.

All this 'poison' stuff is realy irritating. It should sound very familar:
http://www.dhmo.org/

There is no adverse effects from transfat in moderation. If you eat nothing but fast food then your health is going to go to shit, which is the whole target of this. Fast foods places use a lot of transfat, but you can't pass a law based on targetting specific types of businesses like that.. you wouldn't get away with it they'd lobby against you and stop it.

But you can't lobby against stopping 'man made poison'. It's the social engineers people trying to get people to eat less fast food.

I don't have a problem with that, but it should be taken care of through public education rather then subverting government to your own ends.

Banning isn't going to realy do anything. Fatty fast foods are still going to be just as unhealthy if they use other types of fat. It's just not a balanced diet. People are still going to become fat asses, not eat properly, and get no excerise weither or not their food uses one type of fat or another.

If you don't want to use cisco, then don't. Your better off without it.

(Log in to post comments)

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 19:15 UTC (Mon) by dion (subscriber, #2764) [Link]

As far as I can tell trans fats are worse for your health than the alternatives and the alternatives are not expensive or rare, so what's the argument for using trans fats?

Nobody is trying to outlaw shitty KFC type food, or McD, it's a relatively simple case of forcing the industry to use a less harmful ingredient.

... but this is entrirely off topic, my point was that some times it makes perfect sense to outlaw something for the good of the people and that the customers are actually better off because of it.

Take a hypotetical example, let's say cigarrets contain additives that only serve to make the victims addicted, would forcing the industry to stop adding that crap really infringe on anybodys freedom?

To get all of this a bit back on topic: I'd be all for making copyright a two-way trade, either the copyrightholder respects fair use and allows it or he gets no copyright protection at all.