This should have happened to the United States Congress.

I would agree, and go on to suggest that this is intentional. Even after applying "corrective" measures, one has to pick a preference: false negative or false positive, and then show your work (just like in math class). When it comes to drugs, the control methods are never *really* enough. If you're doing an in silico screen, depending on the algorithms used, you may want false positives, because you're just going to throw everything into a high-throughput screen and let the robots do the rest of the work.

But further on down the pipeline, you want to bias towards false negatives, because you're looking for chemicals that have a strong interaction with their target and a week interaction with other targets. The statistics become a tool for making a decision, but never provide 100% assurance.

This study apparently seeks to show the possibilities of side effects, and then let patients/doctors decide if they apply. It's better than not saying anything at all. ...and serotonin reuptake inhibitors? You really want to know even the false positives for those!

Finally, it's likely that the methods of Tatonetti et al. require further refinement, but the rush to publish is an ugly spectre we all have to deal with in science.

Politicians can be called a lot of things, but "lazy" is not one of them (Usually... Sometimes, they have too little competition to worry about being voted out).

Instead, I might spring for the term, "promiscuous". I'm sure they exert copious amounts of effort on behalf of their own survival. But politicians know that the masses could turn on them any day, so they make friends in high places. They exchange their votes for favor and support. (Now, with SuperPACs, they can get a lot more...)

Chris Dodd shouldn't be investigated for bribery -- he should be investigated for prostitution.

So, you've retroactively qualified your dumb-ass statement - it now only applies to people sweating too much. (And I would suggest that this really applies mostly to athletes, those with medical conditions, and people that clock a lot of gym time.)

You did. Twice...

In fact, you posted twice consecutively on the matter, as if driven by a frenzy...

Who the fuck is this? ...Gatorade? You're being completely sarcastic, right? Otherwise, quit shilling and fuck off.

We've (organisms) made it 3-something billion years without a marketed sports drink (with too much sugar), and look at us... just fine. As you noted, organisms have a complex method of homeostasis. And... miraculously (!), we get our salts from a plethora of sources; not just from liquids. And where the hell is anyone getting water without electrolytes? Unless you're in a laboratory, you will not likely find pure H2O around - I think that was your logical fallacy right there: the assumption that available water is often devoid of electrolytes/ salts. I assure you, most natural water sources are sufficiently salty, and some commercial suppliers actually add sodium.

I think it's important to point out why research is getting the cold shoulder:

There it is. Investors of greater means have come to believe that they are entitled to greater than 6% interest. They don't expect to take risks anymore, so they turn their money towards market hacking, and essentially producing shit products that are just shiny enough for the masses to buy.

You're freaking out about the abuse of phosphate resources, and farm runoff. However, this is something that can be fixed. And we can (as a population) easily find methods to reclaim phosphates from waste and overflow. Phosphorus doesn't disappear - it doesn't sublime and float into space after a farmer dumps fertilizer on a corn field. Somewhere down the road, a biological population uses it. ...Couldn't we take advantage of that?

The global population is not a real problem. The real problem is changing industry and global economy to be more efficient, produce less waste, reclaim valuable resources that are lost, and to take more risks regarding emerging economies. If we are still capable of producing fifty-inch plasma screen televisions, then I'm sure we have the resources (including Phosphorus) available to tackle future population growth.

All federal and state employees should be video monitored during work hours, with executive employees (e.g. governors and representatives) video monitored 24-7. Records should be kept for 5 years, and accessible to the public on demand.

This is necessary to prevent government employees from raping children. Please, let's think of the children.

Bartle is probably a little biased, but he is definitely right... about more than just gaming. The marketing department tends to be in control of to much. Marketing has a simple goal: make products more desirable to the target consumer. This is supposed to involve pre-design data, and post-design constructive criticism.

However, many companies let the marketing department control the entire design process. The accountants tend to have their way with the product as well. In the end, the consumers only get choices between poor-quality products with a shiny vernier. I have no data for the following statement, but personal observation is that this process has made a few people dumber as well...

Designers are important, not only because they aim to produce a creative and unique product, but because they find ways to challenge customers in one way or another. Believe it or not, surmounting challenges are what keep us coming back for more.

...People need to accept that they don't have absolute control over other people. Seriously, stop bitching about people who are seeking compensation for a loss. If your house burns down, are you going to stand outside and say, "Well, guess I had that one coming... now time to buy a new house..." NO. You answer the evolutionary call, and seek any and every avenue by which you can recoup the value of your loss. Dishonesty might be a morally appropriate red line, but there is nothing wrong with seeking help that you might be entitled to.

Sadly, this may be true, though not empirical. There will likely be situations for this kind of platform in which a symptom is left out, or not observed; or situations in which a symptom is registered though it is not really a symptom. Furthermore, if a group of doctors or a hospital come to rely on such a platform, there may be group-think catastrophes just waiting to happen.

Don't get me wrong - this technology will help a lot of people in the long run... But then, let's consider the paradigms of your "bad human": Your statement assumes "doctor", but insert "programmer". Now add "...receiving unreported benefits from large pharmaceutical company."

You see where this is going.

I see how the charts indicate a strong trend of the devaluation of employed persons in America. It only proves my point: The wealthy have persisted in devaluing the average worker, and overvaluing themselves.

"...because you don't want to [pay taxes]"

Nobody wants to pay taxes; you're right. But that doesn't make my point mute. Maybe you're bitter because you couldn't buy both a boat and a benz last month. Most people in America become bitter after having to choose between a new mattress or an air conditioner. And that scenario likely exists around the sixtieth percentile of earners. There are plenty of people around here that have to compromise a few weeks of healthy, filling meals for a decent pair of shoes. You might say that they're lazy and they can't keep a job. But I've seen how they do fine work, but don't get paid fairly for it.

You've got a choice: either start valuing people fairly yourself, or get ready for the government to do it for you. Everyone understands that the government sucks at it, but at least they're actually trying to help people out.

Thanks for your amazing math skills, Rush. Let's apply this logic to a scenario: One person in the U.S. earns a few trillion dollars a year. Everyone else earns a few thousand. The government taxes anyone earning over a million at %60. Who's paying most of the taxes? That one guy. Oh... but who SHOULD be paying most of the taxes? That one guy. Yes, the wealthy are paying for the bulk of government operations, but they should, because nobody else can.

Now, why can't the rest of us carry the fiscal burden of this government? Well, we really don't earn enough to do so. And why's that? Because the people who own and run businesses distribute profits at the top instead of all around.

Greed has its cost, eventually.

The National Geographic ran an article a few years back about the comparatively long average life span of islanders (e.g. Okinawa, Sicily, etc.). We can at least produce strong hypotheses about the components that contribute to longevity. A diet composed of significant amounts of fish and vegetables is likely. A high incident rate of walking between destinations is also likely.

Coding for 18 hours in an adjustable office chair... not likely.

Wow, I'm sure everyone gets excited with bluetooth when the pad crashes. And it does. And bluetooth doesn't work so great when the equipment won't boot. Just like my Macbook and Mac Pro.

Apple sells glamorous products, but their operability is no better than anyone else's. They go catatonic from time to time after updating - so you have to either reinstall or take it to the store. The iPod crashes frequently too, or won't be recognized by OSX. (But Ubuntu figured it out, and even allowed me to repair the damn thing while OSX couldn't even mount it.) And don't get me started on their hardware, because as of late half of what's under the hood is shit.

Now, I wouldn't even bother with Windows, but then again, I'm not inclined to pay Apple's steep prices for their bull crap. And what's the deal with their steep prices anyway? It used to be, you paid more money for something that had a quality build. Now, you just pay more money for the looks, I guess. It's marketing, pure and simple.

I know a lot of people don't want to believe it, but Apple has been ignoring quality for a while.