It's not about clicking the ads, it's about the impressions. Oftentimes the ads are about increasing awareness of a brand's existence.
Free hint - If you use such aggressive ads that they make it through my filters and I actually see them, I intentionally won't buy your product.
Your move.
Start migrating the web to a micropayment system? Sure there's always great stuff that will come out for free, but for a lot of the best content on the web there has to be some sort of revenue stream. Webcomics might survive on merch, but Youtube has huge bandwidth costs and a lot of the best blogs wouldn't be around without ad revenue. The fact is that you're bragging about leeching off the current system so I hope you have a way to replace it.
I don't think it's considered a breakthrough but I suspect there's a couple important aspects.
I don't believe it's fully known why people yawn, but if babies are yawning in the womb than that could shed some light on the question.
The authors suggest it could be used as an indicator of foetal health, it may not happen enough to be observed reliably, but there's always some value in an additional piece of data.
I have to agree. I don't really know whether on average a psychopath banker is better or worse than a normal banker, but I know the system provides a lot of incentives for the normal banker to work like a psychopath. The only suggestion the abstract seems to give is that psychopaths may be good at getting jobs, but underachieve when they get the job.
Weirdly I recently read that surgeons tend to be psychopaths, and it may be a good thing since they need to cut people up to do their job.
Besides, I'm nervous about tests being used to exclude a psychopath from a job as it wouldn't be hard to describe it as a disability, though being aware of the potential problem is a good idea so companies can see how they might try to game the system.
This is also different than jury nullification because jury nullification is decided by the whole jury. The accusation here is that one man mislead the rest of the jury, this wasn't 12 people coming to a decision that conflicted with the usual law, this was one person manipulating 11 other people so that his version of the law would be the one enforced.
I'm sure Apple is aware of the Streisand effect and doesn't think this will be a way to dodge publicity, in fact they may be trying to draw publicity.
I think from Samsung's perspective the situation is awkward, having the court tell Apple they have to apologize has some of the optics of a parent telling an older sibling they must apologize to a younger sibling. While people are aware Apple has done something wrong to Samsung, there's also a subtext of Samsung acting spoiled and complaining to Mom & Dad, while Apple is playing the rebellious child and sticking it to authority.
Apple knows marketing and I think their play here is to cement their position above Samsung on the social hierarchy, and I'm guessing they feel whatever legal consequences they eventually face will be worth it.
If you are going to pull a stunt like this, you are supposed to wait until AFTER the elections!
This "stunt" was pulled back in September as a run-of-the-mill decision. Three guesses as to why it was publicized THIS week?
Well it was September 28th, so only about a month ago, and we don't know how well the retraction was published, so it could be all the political junkies got their copy in the 2 weeks it was available and it took a while for people to notice it was missing.
Or it's also possible that whatever political operatives did notice immediately, but decided to sit on it while waiting for a more opportune time, rather than cause an early October bump that would dissipate before the election.
I think two critical questions are a) does the agency have an explanation for the retraction, and b) how common are retractions.
Mann is a top scientist, the only thing he would have gained with climate science that he couldn't get in other fields is the fame
And the money. And tenure. You might be sure someone of his caliber would get tenure. I'm not so confident.
Dude, regardless of whether you think Mann and the rest of the pro-AGW researchers are frauds you at least have to admit that among them he's pretty damn good. I'm sorry but if you're so biased that you can't even admit Mann is a very talented scientist then you've reached the point where you're creating your own realities to back up your views and there's not much point discussing.
Mann is a top scientist, the only thing he would have gained with climate science that he couldn't get in other fields is the fame, but he may not consider that a positive, and he certainly doesn't consider the witch hunt a positive. (and I'm sure someone of his calibre would have got tenure in whatever research he pursued)
If the email is intended for only 1 person he trusts, then something fishy is going on. Did the email say "Lets just make up numbers to show AGW exists and delete anything that proves otherwise". Don't you think that would fit in your 1 person you trust and should be shown to everyone?
Thats basically what Phil Jones at the CRU was doing before someone released his emails. And now instead of reading what was going on there AGW people ignore facts because their idea of growing government by taxing based on false science is more important than the truth.
WTF?? It's easier to write an email for only one person you trust because you know that person isn't going to bend over backwards to interpret your words as "Lets just make up numbers to show AGW exists and delete anything that proves otherwise". You are exactly the reason these emails should be private!
I get the feeling you wouldn't feel as strongly about that principal if your project was funded by the government and suddenly a bunch of people wanted to look through all your emails with the sole purpose of discrediting you.
I don't have this feeling. IMHO, there are certain sacrifices you make when you take public funding. This sort of thing is one of the strings attached.
I just think that sacrifice is larger than you realize while the benefits are smaller than you realize (maybe even negative since actual wrong-doers will use other methods of communication to do their ill deeds).
Should those records be made available if there is a real cause for investigation? Of course. But currently it's just a witch hunt and a blatant attempt to intimidate scientists, this is exactly one of the scenarios for which we have innocent until proven guilty.
Then that'll come out in court. The "intimidation" goes both ways. Mann and his legal team will be able to subpoena financial records and see who is paying for what.
So? Knowing who is intimidating you doesn't stop them from doing so, nor does it give you the right to go digging through their emails to intimidate back (assuming you too lacked scruples).
I get the feeling you wouldn't feel as strongly about that principal if your project was funded by the government and suddenly a bunch of people wanted to look through all your emails with the sole purpose of discrediting you.
Should those records be made available if there is a real cause for investigation? Of course. But currently it's just a witch hunt and a blatant attempt to intimidate scientists, this is exactly one of the scenarios for which we have innocent until proven guilty.
It's the same reason why, if a law enforcement officer showed up at my house and demanded to rifle through all of my blongings looking for anything that might be illegal I would tell him to go pound sand. Not because I'm guilty, not because I hate the police but because he has no right to without a warrant!
Dr. Mann and his university accept public funds from the federal government and that subjects him to FOIA requests. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with examining relevant email communications from Dr. Mann on that basis. If he doesn't like it, then he can always refuse federal funding for his research projects.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - reportedly said by Cardinal Richelieu
There's good reason to want to keep your communications private, personal relationships you don't want cross examined in public, small mistakes that could be mischaracterized, or things you can't even imagine. Just consider writing an email that you know will be seen only by 1 person you trust, or writing an email that will probably be seen by a thousand people who are out to get you. Don't you think that's going to harm your work?
If you want to convince people to change why not spend your protest vote at the State or local level where it might matter?
In the event that a 3rd party did win a presidential election under the current conditions it would be because an already famous person became their candidate and won on the basis of their own fame, not because you voted for a Libertarian candidate most people never heard of in 2012.
If on the other hand you focus on the local or state level, capture the state legislature in a friendly state, then get some people in congress, then the senate, then as governor, well now you actually have a credible vehicle from which to launch a national campaign. But starting off as a Presidential campaign? That's not going to change anything.
Why didn't they protest the taliban for trying to kill a 14 year old girl?
The Taliban doesn't have a London embassy
Why didn't they protest when a Christian girl was set up and charged with blasphemy? And that imam who set her up is now free on bail, why aren't they angry about that?
There was a small protest but I don't know if there was anything more, I agree they should have stepped up then.
Sorry their silly protest has no credibility, they didn't protest when it really mattered.
It has no credibility because they're protesting their right not to be offended, and that's not a right you have in the west. The fact that they didn't protest other causes we feel are important doesn't mean they lose their right to protest something they care about.
The film is available in London and google has a presence in London, while the girl was shot in Pakistan and there's no reason to think that the Taleban in Pakistan would even hear of protests in London.
I'm glad youtube is keeping the video up in most places, Muslim's in the west are mature enough to be able to handle it without widescale bloodshed and keeping it up can only be a positive learning experience for them. But I don't see any horrendous double standard in no protests over the shooting in Pakistan, they're protesting the film in London because they feel it affects them in a way a girl being shot in another country doesn't.
Churches form a of counter-government in Western society. Thus in a time of revolution they are one of the few organizations that have the ability to resist. That is not so much an argument for churches as an argument for spreading out the concentration of power in a society. The news media and Universities have both grown stronger since Hitler, but neither really has the ability to act as an independent and alternate government to the same degree.
Its because they want a serious debate, the viewers watching are generally interested in a choice between R and D, if there's a 3rd party candidate they have no interest in than viewers will just be annoyed with the distraction. Now it could be the affiliate misgauged the interest but I think this is an issue of the network trying to give the viewers what they want.
But the slogan originated from before the recession, so didn't refer to it.
As for taking the money out of politics, it's hard to say what's going on inside the administration with the ACTA, but he has reduced the number of lobbyists in his administration and has been less accessible to big doners than other presidents.
He could have done a lot better, but really, you shouldn't be surprised that a change you can believe would be a bit underwhelming. It's not like a movie, even if he wanted to completely change how politics is done there's a ton of institutional inertia that's really hard to change, notwithstanding the fact that he had a number of major issues to deal with. The question isn't whether he lived up to his promise, it's whether he's better than the alternative.
I'm not sure how "change we can believe in" relates to being better off than 4 years ago. It's a slogan developed before the recession, and besides, the change in question didn't refer to the economy which is what Biden was likely talking about.
Besides, on the slogan I'd say Obama has delivered about as well as could be expected, he got through Health Care reform, ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and has endorsed gay marriage. The only places I really feel he's failed to act is in continuing to abuse state secrets provisions to quash lawsuits, leaving Guantanamo open, and not scaling down the war on drugs.
The thing with change is it's bound to be less spectacular once it happens, and he's still only a single person operating in a highly dysfunctional political system. If you really can't stomach him than leave it blank, but I still see a vote for the slightly less worse candidate to be a mild nudge in the proper direction.
If this is true it's a pretty critical difference. Not that he should have been arrested even if he posted it to the April Jones page, but there's a massive difference between posting to hurt the feelings of grieving relatives and being an idiot telling a bad joke to your friends.
Well if you want actual unethical behaviour from Romney at Bain look at how he bailed out Bain & Company (where Bain Capital spun off from). The basic deal was Romney took out big loans from the banks (and the FDIC) to try and save the company and avoid bankruptcy. But they were still losing money and the creditors wanted Bain & Company to declare bankruptcy so the remaining money would go back to the creditors. Instead Romney stated that instead of declaring bankruptcy he would pay out all the assets as loans to the top executives (though not the other employees), unless the creditors agreed to only get back 35% of the loan they'd get nothing at all. After one such round of bonuses the creditors agreed.
I think my two main issues with Romney are ethics and uncertainty. You can see the reputation for Romney's dishonesty at politifact as compared to Obama. As well there's a huge uncertainty about how he will govern. He's gone from very moderate in Massachusetts, to far right wing in the primaries and early as last week, and back to moderate in the debates, and not just in tone, but policy as well. I think there is a real outstanding question about how he will govern.
So far, Obama's supporters have only convinced me that voting for him would be a bad idea. Especially his running mate Joe Biden who effectively announced that we're worse off now than we were four years ago.
This actually makes me doubt your sincerity, who cares if we're better off than four years ago? That's just a talking point.
We were at point X in a massive economic collapse, shift X a couple months and you get a completely different answer. The question is about what will happen in the next 4 year.
There were two issues, the trust issue which I addressed and pretty much anyone had the expertise to evaluate, and the one nutrient counting issue, which probably only nutrition researchers have the ability to research, and so I didn't discuss.
The fact you can't evaluate the entire article doesn't mean you can't comment on the parts you do understand.
You missed some important points when you draw your conclusion:
That's a feature, not a bug. The role of a research paper isn't to make some broad sweeping conclusion, it's to carefully explore a narrow question, were the organics more nutritious, and on that question the answer was no.
This very important section of the article (emphasis mine) is conspicuously absent from your post: 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.
At this point that given that two research institutions have published metastudies with opposite conclusions, and that errors and oversights have been identified in the Stanford study, I'd have to say that the jury is out on this topic.
Sorry, I did notice that section of the article but forgot to address it. Partly that's a bit of scientific he-said she-said that I don't have the expertise to evaluate, but the other part is I don't really trust the reporter.
The reporter has both shown a strong bias towards organics, and a willingness to bend facts (the tortured definition of nutritious) to unfairly attack the author's integrity. So I don't know if the Kirsten Brandt study was a good one, or if the excluded nutrients were important ones, or if there's any one of a dozen other reasons that those sentences could be misleading. The Standford study could be wrong, but this NY times article won't be the one to convince me, this reporter already lost my trust and I'm not going to take him at his word.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about clicking the ads, it's about the impressions. Oftentimes the ads are about increasing awareness of a brand's existence.
Free hint - If you use such aggressive ads that they make it through my filters and I actually see them, I intentionally won't buy your product.
Your move.
Start migrating the web to a micropayment system? Sure there's always great stuff that will come out for free, but for a lot of the best content on the web there has to be some sort of revenue stream. Webcomics might survive on merch, but Youtube has huge bandwidth costs and a lot of the best blogs wouldn't be around without ad revenue. The fact is that you're bragging about leeching off the current system so I hope you have a way to replace it.
I don't think it's considered a breakthrough but I suspect there's a couple important aspects.
I don't believe it's fully known why people yawn, but if babies are yawning in the womb than that could shed some light on the question.
The authors suggest it could be used as an indicator of foetal health, it may not happen enough to be observed reliably, but there's always some value in an additional piece of data.
I have to agree. I don't really know whether on average a psychopath banker is better or worse than a normal banker, but I know the system provides a lot of incentives for the normal banker to work like a psychopath. The only suggestion the abstract seems to give is that psychopaths may be good at getting jobs, but underachieve when they get the job.
Weirdly I recently read that surgeons tend to be psychopaths, and it may be a good thing since they need to cut people up to do their job.
Besides, I'm nervous about tests being used to exclude a psychopath from a job as it wouldn't be hard to describe it as a disability, though being aware of the potential problem is a good idea so companies can see how they might try to game the system.
This is also different than jury nullification because jury nullification is decided by the whole jury. The accusation here is that one man mislead the rest of the jury, this wasn't 12 people coming to a decision that conflicted with the usual law, this was one person manipulating 11 other people so that his version of the law would be the one enforced.
I've heard the researcher interviewed, and while they've considered this question they're not ready to ask it.
Even assuming you can ensure the answer is reliable, and the patient is competent (he's still brain damaged), euthanasia is a very delicate subject.
That may not be the case.
I'm sure Apple is aware of the Streisand effect and doesn't think this will be a way to dodge publicity, in fact they may be trying to draw publicity.
I think from Samsung's perspective the situation is awkward, having the court tell Apple they have to apologize has some of the optics of a parent telling an older sibling they must apologize to a younger sibling. While people are aware Apple has done something wrong to Samsung, there's also a subtext of Samsung acting spoiled and complaining to Mom & Dad, while Apple is playing the rebellious child and sticking it to authority.
Apple knows marketing and I think their play here is to cement their position above Samsung on the social hierarchy, and I'm guessing they feel whatever legal consequences they eventually face will be worth it.
If you are going to pull a stunt like this, you are supposed to wait until AFTER the elections!
This "stunt" was pulled back in September as a run-of-the-mill decision. Three guesses as to why it was publicized THIS week?
Well it was September 28th, so only about a month ago, and we don't know how well the retraction was published, so it could be all the political junkies got their copy in the 2 weeks it was available and it took a while for people to notice it was missing.
Or it's also possible that whatever political operatives did notice immediately, but decided to sit on it while waiting for a more opportune time, rather than cause an early October bump that would dissipate before the election.
I think two critical questions are a) does the agency have an explanation for the retraction, and b) how common are retractions.
Mann is a top scientist, the only thing he would have gained with climate science that he couldn't get in other fields is the fame
And the money. And tenure. You might be sure someone of his caliber would get tenure. I'm not so confident.
Dude, regardless of whether you think Mann and the rest of the pro-AGW researchers are frauds you at least have to admit that among them he's pretty damn good. I'm sorry but if you're so biased that you can't even admit Mann is a very talented scientist then you've reached the point where you're creating your own realities to back up your views and there's not much point discussing.
Mann is a top scientist, the only thing he would have gained with climate science that he couldn't get in other fields is the fame, but he may not consider that a positive, and he certainly doesn't consider the witch hunt a positive. (and I'm sure someone of his calibre would have got tenure in whatever research he pursued)
As for my concerns it's one facet of a larger pattern of political intimidation.
I'm sorry but I honestly have no idea what point or argument you're trying to make.
If the email is intended for only 1 person he trusts, then something fishy is going on. Did the email say "Lets just make up numbers to show AGW exists and delete anything that proves otherwise". Don't you think that would fit in your 1 person you trust and should be shown to everyone?
Thats basically what Phil Jones at the CRU was doing before someone released his emails. And now instead of reading what was going on there AGW people ignore facts because their idea of growing government by taxing based on false science is more important than the truth.
WTF?? It's easier to write an email for only one person you trust because you know that person isn't going to bend over backwards to interpret your words as "Lets just make up numbers to show AGW exists and delete anything that proves otherwise". You are exactly the reason these emails should be private!
I get the feeling you wouldn't feel as strongly about that principal if your project was funded by the government and suddenly a bunch of people wanted to look through all your emails with the sole purpose of discrediting you.
I don't have this feeling. IMHO, there are certain sacrifices you make when you take public funding. This sort of thing is one of the strings attached.
I just think that sacrifice is larger than you realize while the benefits are smaller than you realize (maybe even negative since actual wrong-doers will use other methods of communication to do their ill deeds).
Should those records be made available if there is a real cause for investigation? Of course. But currently it's just a witch hunt and a blatant attempt to intimidate scientists, this is exactly one of the scenarios for which we have innocent until proven guilty.
Then that'll come out in court. The "intimidation" goes both ways. Mann and his legal team will be able to subpoena financial records and see who is paying for what.
So? Knowing who is intimidating you doesn't stop them from doing so, nor does it give you the right to go digging through their emails to intimidate back (assuming you too lacked scruples).
I get the feeling you wouldn't feel as strongly about that principal if your project was funded by the government and suddenly a bunch of people wanted to look through all your emails with the sole purpose of discrediting you.
Should those records be made available if there is a real cause for investigation? Of course. But currently it's just a witch hunt and a blatant attempt to intimidate scientists, this is exactly one of the scenarios for which we have innocent until proven guilty.
It's the same reason why, if a law enforcement officer showed up at my house and demanded to rifle through all of my blongings looking for anything that might be illegal I would tell him to go pound sand. Not because I'm guilty, not because I hate the police but because he has no right to without a warrant!
Dr. Mann and his university accept public funds from the federal government and that subjects him to FOIA requests. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with examining relevant email communications from Dr. Mann on that basis. If he doesn't like it, then he can always refuse federal funding for his research projects.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
- reportedly said by Cardinal Richelieu
There's good reason to want to keep your communications private, personal relationships you don't want cross examined in public, small mistakes that could be mischaracterized, or things you can't even imagine. Just consider writing an email that you know will be seen only by 1 person you trust, or writing an email that will probably be seen by a thousand people who are out to get you. Don't you think that's going to harm your work?
If you want to convince people to change why not spend your protest vote at the State or local level where it might matter?
In the event that a 3rd party did win a presidential election under the current conditions it would be because an already famous person became their candidate and won on the basis of their own fame, not because you voted for a Libertarian candidate most people never heard of in 2012.
If on the other hand you focus on the local or state level, capture the state legislature in a friendly state, then get some people in congress, then the senate, then as governor, well now you actually have a credible vehicle from which to launch a national campaign. But starting off as a Presidential campaign? That's not going to change anything.
Why didn't they protest the taliban for trying to kill a 14 year old girl?
The Taliban doesn't have a London embassy
Why didn't they protest when a Christian girl was set up and charged with blasphemy? And that imam who set her up is now free on bail, why aren't they angry about that?
There was a small protest but I don't know if there was anything more, I agree they should have stepped up then.
Sorry their silly protest has no credibility, they didn't protest when it really mattered.
It has no credibility because they're protesting their right not to be offended, and that's not a right you have in the west. The fact that they didn't protest other causes we feel are important doesn't mean they lose their right to protest something they care about.
The film is available in London and google has a presence in London, while the girl was shot in Pakistan and there's no reason to think that the Taleban in Pakistan would even hear of protests in London.
I'm glad youtube is keeping the video up in most places, Muslim's in the west are mature enough to be able to handle it without widescale bloodshed and keeping it up can only be a positive learning experience for them. But I don't see any horrendous double standard in no protests over the shooting in Pakistan, they're protesting the film in London because they feel it affects them in a way a girl being shot in another country doesn't.
Churches form a of counter-government in Western society. Thus in a time of revolution they are one of the few organizations that have the ability to resist. That is not so much an argument for churches as an argument for spreading out the concentration of power in a society. The news media and Universities have both grown stronger since Hitler, but neither really has the ability to act as an independent and alternate government to the same degree.
Its because they want a serious debate, the viewers watching are generally interested in a choice between R and D, if there's a 3rd party candidate they have no interest in than viewers will just be annoyed with the distraction. Now it could be the affiliate misgauged the interest but I think this is an issue of the network trying to give the viewers what they want.
But the slogan originated from before the recession, so didn't refer to it.
As for taking the money out of politics, it's hard to say what's going on inside the administration with the ACTA, but he has reduced the number of lobbyists in his administration and has been less accessible to big doners than other presidents.
He could have done a lot better, but really, you shouldn't be surprised that a change you can believe would be a bit underwhelming. It's not like a movie, even if he wanted to completely change how politics is done there's a ton of institutional inertia that's really hard to change, notwithstanding the fact that he had a number of major issues to deal with. The question isn't whether he lived up to his promise, it's whether he's better than the alternative.
I'm not sure how "change we can believe in" relates to being better off than 4 years ago. It's a slogan developed before the recession, and besides, the change in question didn't refer to the economy which is what Biden was likely talking about.
Besides, on the slogan I'd say Obama has delivered about as well as could be expected, he got through Health Care reform, ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and has endorsed gay marriage. The only places I really feel he's failed to act is in continuing to abuse state secrets provisions to quash lawsuits, leaving Guantanamo open, and not scaling down the war on drugs.
The thing with change is it's bound to be less spectacular once it happens, and he's still only a single person operating in a highly dysfunctional political system. If you really can't stomach him than leave it blank, but I still see a vote for the slightly less worse candidate to be a mild nudge in the proper direction.
If this is true it's a pretty critical difference. Not that he should have been arrested even if he posted it to the April Jones page, but there's a massive difference between posting to hurt the feelings of grieving relatives and being an idiot telling a bad joke to your friends.
Well if you want actual unethical behaviour from Romney at Bain look at how he bailed out Bain & Company (where Bain Capital spun off from). The basic deal was Romney took out big loans from the banks (and the FDIC) to try and save the company and avoid bankruptcy. But they were still losing money and the creditors wanted Bain & Company to declare bankruptcy so the remaining money would go back to the creditors. Instead Romney stated that instead of declaring bankruptcy he would pay out all the assets as loans to the top executives (though not the other employees), unless the creditors agreed to only get back 35% of the loan they'd get nothing at all. After one such round of bonuses the creditors agreed.
I think my two main issues with Romney are ethics and uncertainty. You can see the reputation for Romney's dishonesty at politifact as compared to Obama. As well there's a huge uncertainty about how he will govern. He's gone from very moderate in Massachusetts, to far right wing in the primaries and early as last week, and back to moderate in the debates, and not just in tone, but policy as well. I think there is a real outstanding question about how he will govern.
This actually makes me doubt your sincerity, who cares if we're better off than four years ago? That's just a talking point.
We were at point X in a massive economic collapse, shift X a couple months and you get a completely different answer. The question is about what will happen in the next 4 year.
There were two issues, the trust issue which I addressed and pretty much anyone had the expertise to evaluate, and the one nutrient counting issue, which probably only nutrition researchers have the ability to research, and so I didn't discuss.
The fact you can't evaluate the entire article doesn't mean you can't comment on the parts you do understand.
You missed some important points when you draw your conclusion:
That's a feature, not a bug. The role of a research paper isn't to make some broad sweeping conclusion, it's to carefully explore a narrow question, were the organics more nutritious, and on that question the answer was no.
This very important section of the article (emphasis mine) is conspicuously absent from your post:
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.
At this point that given that two research institutions have published metastudies with opposite conclusions, and that errors and oversights have been identified in the Stanford study, I'd have to say that the jury is out on this topic.
Sorry, I did notice that section of the article but forgot to address it. Partly that's a bit of scientific he-said she-said that I don't have the expertise to evaluate, but the other part is I don't really trust the reporter.
The reporter has both shown a strong bias towards organics, and a willingness to bend facts (the tortured definition of nutritious) to unfairly attack the author's integrity. So I don't know if the Kirsten Brandt study was a good one, or if the excluded nutrients were important ones, or if there's any one of a dozen other reasons that those sentences could be misleading. The Standford study could be wrong, but this NY times article won't be the one to convince me, this reporter already lost my trust and I'm not going to take him at his word.