 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
> third world...
Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I'm wondering... All those absurdly fat people? Would they even *need*
>>> to eat?
>>
>> Brains don't work from fat. They *need* sugar.
>
> ...which is why the liver metabolises fat into sugar?
Hmm... I recalled that if sugar was high, the liver converted sugar into
fat, but if sugar was low, it didn't convert fat back into the same kind of
sugar, and neurones notably couldn't use that.
I must be mixing it up with something else...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:37:59 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
>> third world...
>
> Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
The USSR member nations and their allies, IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind the
>>> third world...
>> Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
>
> The USSR member nations and their allies, IIRC.
Yes, I guess so (except that it's no longer USSR anymore). China, too, I
think.
As a random guess, I'd say Latin America might mostly fall in that
category, too.
India? Pakistan?
I guess the boundaries have also shifted since the term was coined.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 schrieb:
>> Guess what: The fattest people out there - the type who are
>> /literally/ too fat to even get out of bed - actually frequently /die
>> of starvation/.
>
> Dehydration or vitamin deficiency I could believe, but *starvation*??
Yeah. Can't dig up the article, but that's what they said, to my own
surprise.
I can't remember why exactly that was, but it seemed logical at the time
I heard it. Maybe it was something about an underlying cause for both -
an inability to convert fat back to anything useful or the like.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:32:43 +0100, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>
>>>> Would be an interesting twist: First world being thrown back behind
>>>> the third world...
>>> Where the hell is the *second* world, anyway??
>>
>> The USSR member nations and their allies, IIRC.
>
> Yes, I guess so (except that it's no longer USSR anymore). China, too, I
> think.
China might be, The reference I found was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Second_World
> As a random guess, I'd say Latin America might mostly fall in that
> category, too.
Nope, that's counted as third world according to the reference page.
> India? Pakistan?
Also third world.
> I guess the boundaries have also shifted since the term was coined.
Very possibly - it's an economic delimiter, and could well have changed.
I note that Cuba (I'm guessing from the picture) is in the 2nd world as
well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> China might be, The reference I found was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Second_World
Interesting...
>> I guess the boundaries have also shifted since the term was coined.
>
> Very possibly - it's an economic delimiter, and could well have changed.
> I note that Cuba (I'm guessing from the picture) is in the 2nd world as
> well.
... judging from the Wikipedia articles, that's exactly what it is
/not/, even though at least the term "third world" is commonly used in
Germany synonymously for "developing world" (which is how I have alway
percieved it).
Instead, according to the 'pedia, it is indeed a political division,
more or less precisely defined as capitalist-democratic countries,
communist countries, and all the rest.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:15:00 +0100, clipka wrote:
> ... judging from the Wikipedia articles, that's exactly what it is
> /not/, even though at least the term "third world" is commonly used in
> Germany synonymously for "developing world" (which is how I have alway
> percieved it).
>
> Instead, according to the 'pedia, it is indeed a political division,
> more or less precisely defined as capitalist-democratic countries,
> communist countries, and all the rest.
I was thinking more of the "Three Worlds Theory", which cited it as a
politico-economic division. Under that theory, though, the USSR would
(I'd think) count as a first world country (as one of the superpowers).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> I'm wondering... All those absurdly fat people? Would they even *need*
>>>> to eat?
>>> Brains don't work from fat. They *need* sugar.
>> ...which is why the liver metabolises fat into sugar?
>
> Hmm... I recalled that if sugar was high, the liver converted sugar into
> fat, but if sugar was low, it didn't convert fat back into the same kind of
> sugar, and neurones notably couldn't use that.
>
> I must be mixing it up with something else...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_metabolism
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> The first one always has some bugs in it, often for its entire service
>> life. Children are a good example of this.
>
> ...WTF?! o_O
You clearly don't have children.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
