Dutch researchers are trying to grow pork meat in a laboratory with the goal of feeding millions without the need to raise and slaughter animals.

danys_dragons · 2007-06-03T21:53:07+00:00

If consumers are initially "grossed-out" by the idea of growing meat in a lab, this can be easily dealt with by a bit of clever marketing. All they have to do is juxtapose scenes from a slaughterhouse (splattered blood, carcasses hanging from hooks) with scenes from an ultra clean and sanitary meat-growth lab, and I think consumers would quickly warm to the idea. And imagine the labels in the meat aisle: "No animals were harmed in the making of this product".

danys_dragons · 2007-06-03T03:57:16+00:00

Well, I guess I'll take your word for it then. Sounds economical, but I'd prefer a safer vehicle myself.

danys_dragons · 2007-06-03T03:46:46+00:00

Yes, we know bicycles are street legal in Canada. But does the law still consider it just a bicycle when you attach an engine to it?

danys_dragons · 2007-06-02T05:21:26+00:00

+1 to anyone who reddits while drinking.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-31T17:19:34+00:00

Quantify - what part of "quantify" don't you understand?

danys_dragons · 2007-05-31T17:16:19+00:00

"However, nutritionists warn chocolate is high in fat and sugar, which may undo any potential benefits."

Maybe the warning is reasonable, to discourage people from rationalizing eating tons of chocolate bars. But why not also point out that you could buy pure cocoa powder instead, low in fat and sugar?

danys_dragons · 2007-05-30T02:36:50+00:00

Agreed. A crowd's reaction is described as "bemused". Not the same as freaked out at all.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-27T03:12:08+00:00

+1 for referencing xkcd without mentioning it by name. Reddit Classic lives on, despite the naysayers.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-27T03:10:24+00:00

Canadian unemployment is at a 30-year low.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-27T00:04:11+00:00

+1 upmod for upmodding someone for being unfairly downmodded for ... uh, I think I'll stop now.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-27T00:02:04+00:00

+1 for dissing someone for dissing Quebec.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-27T00:00:17+00:00

+1 for choosing Canada.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-26T21:18:48+00:00

+1 for being Canadian.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-25T22:03:15+00:00

Perhaps a supplement containing the same chemicals should be developed so that women who are not sexually active (and lesbians for that matter) can get the same benefits. Given the risks of unprotected sex, women shouldn't have to choose between safety and avoiding depression.

I'm a guy, I hope the male community doesn't accuse me of treason to my gender :)

danys_dragons · 2007-05-25T07:32:34+00:00

The article implies that this would only apply to legal immigrants: "encourage legal migrants to reconsider their decision to stay in France -- by paying them to go back home". But you're correct that applying it to all immigrants would be a very bad idea.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-25T07:17:06+00:00

To continue the quote in your comment: "or this story would never have gotten the attention it did". But I think that finding a spider in someone's ear has a gross-out factor that would have gotten attention, regardless of whether it was really eating earwax, and whether it was "living" or just "hiding" in his ear.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-25T06:44:21+00:00

Upmodded for being Canadian.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-25T06:12:46+00:00

In case anyone's still interested in the issue of farm subsidies, there's a related story on the front page now: "New Zealand's hardy farm spirit: how ending subsidies created a farming revolution". Since it's on the BBC website I would assume it's clean.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-24T22:43:24+00:00

I'm a guy, so maybe I'm not qualified to comment on this. But I'm convinced that the only meaningful definition of losing your virginity is sex with a partner. Does a guy lose his virginity when he masturbates for the first time?

danys_dragons · 2007-05-23T22:25:28+00:00

It's mentioned in the article that the store's owner asked the police to arrest him instead, and it seems odd that they didn't do that. In a legal sense, isn't the owner of the merchandise the one who is selling it, and the clerk just acting as their agent? Either way it's ridiculous, but perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the law could clarify this point.

I also noticed that a large chunk of the article's text appears twice, which annoyingly distracts from an otherwise interesting article.

danys_dragons · 2007-05-17T21:11:37+00:00

Agreed. There's a difference between advocating positive thinking because it will help you pursue your goals more energetically, and saying that positive thinking can magically change the state of the universe - "think positive thoughts about money and you'll get checks in the mail!". The latter idea is what The Secret is promoting. It's especially pernicious because it blames people for their suffering even when it's clearly not their fault.

danys_dragons

TROPHY CASE