which is why there are methods such as double-blind tests and placebos.

oh yes, like pieces of paper on my desk never ever overlap.

You are clueless.

Are you freaking serious? Do you even know who Turing was? Do you know what he did in WWII? I don't know if he started any companies, but he was head of the crypto division in Bletchley Park. And that's only a part of what he contributed to the field of computer science. J H C, you kids don't know a thing these days.

You've got to be joking if you think Jobs was in the same league as Turing.

You meant _ineffectively_ run by Russia, right?

In case you've never come across this before, it can also be used to point out when something is ridiculously low or worthless, as I believe is the intention of the original post, that at least in his/her opinions MS points are worthless, specifically that even though they are technically worth $1.2 million, there's very little you can buy with them.

hah, that's the point. a single person's experience doesn't mean a lot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jan/15/steve-jobs-apple-future

I guess you were just too lazy to look things up and still wanted to disagree.

I don't like his personality, nor the cult of Mac that has built up around it. But I do hope he'll recover soon, and perhaps finally realises that homeopathy does not work.

Seriously, for someone so intelligent and rich, how could he possibly even consider homeopathy could cure his cancer? All it has done is delay proper treatment, and likely allowed further damages to occur.

First, if you think that ignoring presence of sexual needs, and how to properly defuse or redirect the tension stemming from it, is "professionalism", you are amazingly naive.

Second, you are also incredibly naive if you think that the world "generally" don't need negotiation skills. Modern society (i.e. post-cave men) runs on diplomacy and negotiation. Only the childish would think that pointing out mistakes only serves to satisfy some sort of personal gratification. As another poster pointed out, clarification is very useful and productive.

And often in life there are situations where "right" and "wrong" are not so clear, especially seen from different points of view. And that is where negotiations are important. People who don't see any need for negotiations are probably either narcissists who think they are always right, or someone so meek and uncertain that they think they are always wrong.

Third, in one post you try to portray yourself as subjective and clear thinking, and won't make judgments based on unrelated information. And yet, in the next post, you became so prickly with nomadic's post on what seems like a rather valid rebuttal to one of your points. For someone who supposedly doesn't care about pointing out right or wrong, you seem to take offence at such a reasonable argument, and that seems to show that despite what you claim, your arguments do seem to be colored by your personal biases.

Last, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is homophobic because it bars anyone who is openly homosexual from serving in the military. So soldier A (heterosexual male) can talk to other soldiers about his wife and kids or his girlfriend, but soldier B (homosexual male) is unable to do so because if he does, he can be expelled. And you don't think this is homophobic?

It's because the Gizmodo write-up is a hyperbolic piece of crap.

Bullshit. That's not what's claimed, and the DNA structure is still essentially the same, except that phosphorus has been replaced by arsenic. And it has been theorized, just not found until now.

but at least they have now removed the stupid sentence which said:

It's like they were practicing writing script for some crappy sci-fi B movie.

Not to mention TFA is one of the most garbled up piece of hyperbolic shit written about the news.

Not really, the structure is still most the same, except phosphorus is very likely swapped out for arsenic. They don't have a direct proof that phosphorus is used in DNA yet, but it's very likely. It has been a theoretical possibiltiy, and now they very likely have found the example.

Err.... no, it changes some concepts, but a lot of what we know about biology is still the same. Eating arsenic is still going to kill people.

I am not disputing the importance of this finding, but as NASA scientist said, it expands what we know about biology, rather than "change(s) everything we know".

Why not just link to NASA? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html

Even NY Times has a better write up: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/science/03arsenic.html?src=mv&pagewanted=all

Not to mention that a whole bunch of stuff happens between transcription (DNA -> RNA) and translation (RNA -> protein).
The ends have to be capped and modified, in eukaryotes the transcript is only a precursor and has to be spliced into the mature sequence, then the whole thing is exported from the nucleus to the cytoplasm.
Plus there's a whole bunch of stuff happening that we don't really know about, like pseudouridylation and methylation of specific sites.
Not to mention, there's always the good old mutation that occurs. We only know about mutations that get passed on, but these are blood cells (made by bone marrow), not germline cells.

I see, rather than check with some statistician yourself, you'd rather just stick your guns and pretend other people are wrong.

Very open-minded and knowledge-seeking.