Slashdot Mirror

You're right, I did mean 1Hz. I was thinking in terms of Minutes.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=not-just-a-pump
Visionaries were seduced by the simplicity of the natural organâ(TM)s designâ"which really is just a four-chambered pumpâ"and somewhat naive about its dynamic complexity. Says Alfred Bove, vice president of the American College of Cardiology: "The God-given heart is a dynamically balanced, finely tuned organ, with the capacity to generate force, raise and lower pulse. Itâ(TM)s not possible to get that in an artificial heart."

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/ozpage1.php
One of the big challenges we are going to have with these axial flow pumps is trying to figure out what happens to the human body when you loose the heartbeat. ... The study of the heart has focused on this internal cadence or metronome.

And Define "fine". Breast feeding has been linked to IQ in numerous studies. Some studies show an increase in intelligence for each additional month the child was breastfed. (With additional sources linked). There are plenty of people who lead perfectly 'fine' lives with an IQ of 90. But if it came to a point where everyone had an IQ of today's 90. Well go watch Idiocracy.

transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb ...

I was replying to the person that I hit 'Reply' to. If you look at the legislation, it states 'non-human womb'. That probably includes artificial ones.

What makes you think there's something special about a chemical process that we'll never be able to replicate it?

HFCS. Chemically it should be the same, but there have been more than a few links with obesity. It's just a corn sweetener right? I mean how hard could getting around sugar tariffs be?

but is able to survive without feeding off the bloodstream of another

Yeah! Or the mammary duct!! [/sarcasm type="dark, dark"]

Honestly, haven't we been through this already, does anyone really buy that argument? Have you ever even seen a child?

How about marketing infant formula to rural poor in developing countries who don't have access to the clean water they'd need to actually use the stuff responsibly. It's pretty clear cut that Nestle is doing significant overt harm to exactly those communities the foundation is trying to help.

Every bit of publicity helps. Please don't belittle educational programs. Grass-roots education for regular screening arguably helps as much as the latest whiz-bang chemotherapeutic agent. If you catch it early, you markedly improve survival rates.

No, every little bit doesn't help. But here is something that does: encourage women to breastfeed their children. The longer she breastfeeds the lower her risk goes, and by large proportions. A women who breastfeeds for a total of 6 years reduces her risk by two-thirds. Even short-term such as 6 months to two years reduces it by 11-25% For no money, with no drugs. Regular screening will catch it, but it is better to reduce/eliminate the risk. The majority of those women who are not already getting screenings are precisely those who can not afford treatments or screenings (yes some places do it for free).

But if today's women were encouraged and (cue teenage-boy jokes here) aided in breastfeeding, they would not only lower their risk, but save more than enough money to get themselves checked out. Furthermore, if their child is female, they reduce her risk as well. While certainly not conclusive evidence in it's own right, the increase in breast cancer rates in developed contouries, particularly the US, coincides with the decrease in breast feeding. We don't yet understand all of the reasons why breastfeeding plays such a significant role. Realistically we don't have to. We do know it works, and works very well with no deleterious side effects to mother or baby, and a cornucopia of positive effects to both.

You can also help out by fighting laws that disadvantage breastfeeding women. No amount of pink websites will make a difference. But if you put the information about how breastfeeding dramatically reduces the risk of breast cancer, you may actually teach someone something of value, and make a difference. If you follow it up with breastfeeding links such as http://www.breastfeeding.com/ and http://www.lalecheleague.com/ you will be doing an even better service.

Breast cancer strikes one in eight women. Yet if every woman who could breastfeed did so, that number could drop to 1 in 16 in the first generation and 1 in 20 or better in the second.

If Google has such an impact on business, can it affect U.S. policy? Is anyone else fed up with the hypocrisy of the FCC outrage over Janet Jackson during the superbowl while dozens of murders are shown on prime-time tv each night? What is morally wrong about a woman's breast?

Please link 'FCC policy' to http://www.breastfeeding.com on your website. Such as:

FCC policy (because I'm fed up with the hypocrisy)

It is interesting to note that Nestle happens to be one corporation that is (possibly) even more evil than M$. And I am not talking about candy here. It would be unfortunate if I had to boycott Google! I guess I would have to retract this post, too...