The first application turned into a patent 7,490,296. The claims are a bit different from the application you cited. The second one is, however, abandoned.

Here is the bill. It explains (in their term) what you are asking for.

I don't understand why any write up doesn't give a direct link to the source. It is unacceptable.

Reviews or critics are to give expectation regardless who wrote them. They all are subjective. Once you read one, the opinion has already been put into your head, and you would expect certain things to happen in/from the movie. Liking a movie is an individual taste. The feeling toward a movie has already established when a person receives any information about the movie from any sources (e.g. friends, families, trailers, advertising, reviews, etc.). It is a type of confirmation bias. If the person hates it in the first place already, the person will NOT go to watch the movie by his/her own will unless certain conditions are met (e.g. being dragged to go with friends/families).

If you are really a movie fan, you don't need to read any critics or reviews but rather go and watch it yourself. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, then it is still your subjective opinion.

Your reply still doesn't make what he did correct. You just troll by pulling something else into the discussion.

You are more stupid than I thought. Besides, you like to jump the gun too. The parent said one thing, you spin it and try to make it as an individual issue which is not the case at all. Trolling much? Or lack of education?

The parent was talking about the density of the particle in the air. There is a scale of how dangerous it is regarding its volume in the air. Little to no risk doesn't mean it is 100% safe. Smoke from house hold or individual has little to no effect but doesn't mean you should be breathing it for hours everyday. That is not a real concern. Factories, however, are the major concern because they keep pumping out the particles into the air almost 24/7.

Have you ever been to a country where PM2.5 value is really high? Try that. You just need to be there for a week or so, and you should see the different.

Well, why don't you just do some research before attempting to push your bias through your post? Do you really want to know or you just want to pretend you want to know?

Here is the original paper which explains the methodology of the study in Obama era (2015). And here is what they proposed last December which should be in their new model. People should read both and make their own decision by themselves instead of accepting those who posted their opinion WITHOUT even reading anything but rather use their own bias to reply.

Do you think expert in environmental law doesn't have anything to do with environmental case law that relates to a lot of scientific evidence?

How lazy are you? Can't you simply google his studies?

An idiot trolling AC.

The word "subset" is NOT THE SAME as "small number"! Do you know what subset mean? It mean there exists at least one member up to all members of the group but one. In other words, a set of 1 (only one member) or n-1 (one less member) is still a subset of n (the whole group). If they are using the word "subset", then I would see that the substituted word of "small number" is inappropriate.

From my understanding, the testing should occur BEFORE the distribution. I don't see why would they do the test after a drug has already gone to distribution channel because it doesn't make sense...

Yes, but that is still NOT a generic drug per TFA. You misunderstood the word 'generic' (expired patents) and 'original' (active patents) drug.

If you look at the company on WikiPedia, you should see that the company is specialized in "generic" drug. Also, the number on the stock link in you post is not detail enough. In other words, the marketing money can go in different areas for different drugs. And according to WikiPedia, the money might have gone to promoting generic drugs more than their own development. Thus, I am not so sure that you should use the stock page to determine what you are trying to do.

Do you mean this BITS? Are you sure about BITS not related to HTTP???

A good question would be -- why wouldn't there exist in nature in the first place if the sequence of the DNA doesn't make any differences? There must be a reason for it. If we don't know the reason but attempt to make guesses, then your "the end justifies the mean" is still not acceptable. We still need to be cautious and not whole heatedly accept it. Besides, your analogy is too oversimplified. Mechanical shouldn't be used to explain biological matter.

You miss the point of the parent. How could you give a (clear) level of danger when you don't clearly know what you are dealing with in the first place per your post? Instead of attempting to give any level of danger, cautiousness should be given, and that's what the parent post is saying. "What if" is something to beware for any danger from the unknown. Cautiousness is not the same as rejection. Your attitude is too optimistic and don't expect for the worse; thus, no preparation for any down side of the situation.

Everything that humans invent and not created by nature needs to carefully control and look/test for the worse. There is always risks of anything especially from any unknown. This GMO bacteria is one of them -- unknown. If we don't prepare for the worse, then it could be a catastrophe even though the chance may be slim but not zero.

No, what you are saying is what people believe from "politic" and "marketing" that have been going on a long time. Education could help, but the source of education is a problem in the Internet world. Too many hidden messages and that are not helping, sadly.

Then block the number by default? A legit VOIP phone would provide infos. Those that are robocall or scam or ill intention would try to hide such the infos.