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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:COME ON! (Score 4, Informative) 305

From TFA:

"Yet even within its narrow framework it appears the Stanford study was incorrect. Last year Kirsten Brandt, a researcher from Newcastle University, published a similar analysis of existing studies and wound up with the opposite result, concluding that organic foods are actually more nutritious. In combing through the Stanford study she’s not only noticed a critical error in properly identifying a class of nutrients, a spelling error indicative of biochemical incompetence (or at least an egregious oversight) that skewed one important result, but also that the researchers curiously excluded evaluating many nutrients that she found to be considerably higher in organic foods."

So, no, he doesn't have the wrong definition of nutritious. You just read the first two paragraphs or so.

Comment Re:Cows eat Grass (Score 4, Insightful) 432

The pleasure center of the brain is a notoriously unreliable guide to decision making. Look at compulsive gamblers, crack addicts, and people with massive consumer debt - not to mention those who are obese for dietary reasons - as an indication. You may want to try to get some executive function over that shit.

Comment Re:What happened to freedom of speech (Score 1) 484

No, but since when does Indian or Malaysian law apply to a US company?

When they opened offices to do business in those countries. As long as they're interested in selling ads from Indian and Malaysian companies to Indian and Malaysian markets, and getting paid in Indian and Malaysian currency, they'll abide by Indian and Malaysian laws.

Comment Re:There are no Facts (Score 1) 1469

Oh, I thought I was talking to someone smart, not someone who would make such a reflexive and unthinking statement like:

Ethics are meaningless because there is no way of establishing that one ethical system is better than another.

Because a smart person would realize that the most important discussions are those which may not result in simple "establishment" of the superiority of one claim, concept or valuation over another.

Also, Heidegger's viewpoint isn't an "opinion." There are more categories of utterance than just "fact" and "opinion," by a multitude. And clearly, if I refer to Heidegger, it implies that I find his viewpoint compelling.

But I'm sorry for wasting our time. Please, go back to your world of simple formulaic thinking.

Comment Re:There are no Facts (Score 1) 1469

A "human being" - hate to say this, but read Heidegger's "Being and Time" for an understanding of what the human mode of "being" is. (There are also definitions of "child" that distinguish them from "infant," and definitions of "infant" which distinguish them from neonates. We're talking about neonates here.)

The point is that a two-month old baby is more like an eight-month old fetus that it is like a four-month old baby. There is a sense of human self-hood in the latter; there is inter-relationality and inter-subjectivity, there is communication, there is an awareness of social contingencies.

Philosophical, rather than biological, definitions of humanity are necessary here, because we're talking ultimately about ethics.

Comment Re:There are no Facts (Score 1) 1469

It's clearly an organism, and alive, and I loved mine very much when he was newborn. But it wasn't a "child," it wasn't anymore aware and learning than most lower-order mammals, and it didn't demonstrate anything of a sense of self. The difference between a 4 month old and a newborn is an immense gap of development.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.

Working...