Let me get this straight:

The fact that organic produce looks, smells, and tastes so much better than conventional is just BS marketing.
It's also just BS marketing that those foods that look, smell and taste better also have been found to contain more nutrients (despite the Stanford study's conclusions).

And therefore I'm a sucker for buying into that BS marketing hype and paying more for food that tastes better and is better for me. Gotcha.

no, a well publicized Stanford study by people working outside of their fields of expertise is found to have obvious mistakes and draws sweeping conclusions from a curiously limited examination. Those conclusions also contradict other published studies.

But you know, calling organic food "snake oil" is certainly a tip that your opinion has solidified regardless of any actual research.

what if the Standford researchers chose the nutrients they did because they were the ones least effected by organic. The Newcastle research suggests that their are nutritional benefits to organic produce. The Stanford research says there aren't, mainly by excluding or mis-spelling the nutrients from the Newcastle study.

hmm, missing the link to the article from which I got the Brandt quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/stanford-organics-study-public-health_n_1880441.html

which links to the summary of Brandt's research, which says:

Organic food is more nutritious. Along with tasting better and having fewer chemicals and being better for the environment in general, organic food is healthier and contains more nutrients than conventional food. And it says as much in the linked article:

The Stanford study was flawed and their conclusions were just flat-out wrong.

So you're saying you'd need someone to make the bomb and another completely different person to carry it to the airport? There's no way a terrorist organization could pull off that kind of complex operation! I feel safer already.

the problem is that U6 is not what most people use when discussing unemployment. while 14% is a bigger number, it's not more informative than the U3 number. as similar_name points out, both numbers tell a very similar story.

open secrets, maybe? though it's more like 10-to-1, so you're only off by a factor of 10.

and while union donations are down 50%, I'm failing to see any evidence that Obama is having trouble raising money this cycle.

Cloud computing a little more than 1960s timesharing services. Some miniscule differences such as being accessible from anywhere in the world, providing enormously more power and exponentially more capacity, and priced by they penny, but those are tiny differences that matter. Not to mention that as other commenters have mentioned, the Amazon Cloud does provide more redundancy, the people using it just didn't want to pay for it.

The parent is the single stupidest comment possible for this thread and it's modded +5 insightful.

The cord blood banking industry is right on the border between speculative medicine and outright scam. It's insanely profitable, which is why every doctor's office is littered with pamphlets for competing cord blood banks.

There's a vanishingly small likelihood that your child will have some otherwise untreatable disease that the cord blood will help with. Most of the things they say cord blood can help with (like genetic defects) actually wont help your child, since the cord blood has the same faulty genetics. The banks also tout the potential for cord blood use in future therapies. However, it's likely that any treatment that uses cord blood would be just as effective using stem cells.

So what are you banking, in this case? I have no idea. The cord blood might be helpful for your next child, I guess.

Another thing to keep in mind is in order to harvest the cord blood, you have to cut the cord before it stops pulsating (that is, before all the blood in the cord has reached the baby). There's a growing body of evidence that your baby benefits from this blood, and the cord should be left intact. So banking your baby's cord blood may actually harm your child. Of course, whatever the effect it's unlikely life threatening, but it does seem unnecessary.

This isn't a study.

This is a press release declaring that everyone who is not already their client has a desperate need for Veracode's services. No different than when Norton sends out a "study" that shows how terribly dangerous the internet is or how much malware exists for smartphones.

This just sounds like they're angling to get themselves some more government business. And you know, kudos for them.

Google is currently holding 43.3 Billion dollars in cash. They make 95% of their profits from search and ads because search and ads are insanely profitable. It's doubtful that any other Google project could bite into that percentage of revenue over the any near term timeframe.

And that $16B number is suspect.

$12.5B is the acquisition of Motorola. So being honest, the entirety of this guy's complaint about Google's "failed projects" is that Google shouldn't have bought Motorola. Which, by itself, can't be a failed project since it happened last August and Google's interest in Android is clear.

customer device huge already!

don't blame me i voted for kodos

What your analysis misses is that Gmail actually addressed a pressing need in the free email marketplace: space. On top of offering an order of magnitude more storage than its competitors, GMail also brought distinct improvements to the email paradigm (tagging, search, spam filtering). That allowed it to attract users from Hotmail/Yahoo and even private web hosts.

If I knew what the pressing need of the social networking marketplace was, I wouldn't post it on Slashdot. Facebook was weak in terms of privacy and controlling the spread of your information, but G+'s circles weren't a killer app. And everything else on G+ is just a Facebook clone.

I wouldn't count G+ out just yet. It's Google after all. Those millions of inactive users could quickly become active if G+ somehow jumps ahead of the curve.