To paraphrase Dawkins: "agnosticism is flawed because it assumes that the probability that God exists is equal to the probability that God does not exist". I think you would rather say that right now you cannot rule out the existence or the non-existence of "God" (provably soon). But to say that they are equally likely (probability) is incredibly naive, since you presumably have to tell me which God you are talking about, which history has shown to be ever-changing (Zeus, Thor, etc.). Therefore you are neither atheist nor agnostic.

Woah woah woah. Stop right there. No.

Sorry sir but you are wrong. I'll reiterate my limited econ 101 experience: we assume perfect information for markets to be perfectly efficient, so having the price across all offerings is a good thing. What you should decide is if the extra cost at the given store is worth the added benefits (customer service, locality, other factors). This is commonplace today, for example when choosing eco-friendly dry cleaning, products without lead etc. Obviously people choosing Walmart are making the choice that the added services are not worth the extra price. Not everyone has the same values (which determine price) as you.

Considering current sequencing technology generates terabytes of data per day (see the Sanger center), then wouldn't it be efficient to maximize the amount of information per pixel (i.e. per byte)? This method is actually is much worse (orders of magnitude) than the current method. There are many other problems with what they do, but hopefully the cash infusion can last them another 2 years until the write a paper like this. BTW, the say that appropriate camera tech. will be available in 2-5 years, but they're ready now! They might be buying time...

It should be "It was hard to sequence the whole thing, so we quit after 90%"

I am saying if you claim to that you have the genome, you should probably have the genome. They don't. I said nothing about cures for cancer. Again my point stands, since they only have the differences between the tumor genome and a "reference genome" (same for the normal genome of that person). They then compare the two to see the differences in the differences. The have a 10% data missing problem.

I call shenanigans, since at least 7% of the genome is repetitive elements, centromeres, cnvs etc. etc. Also, remember that they use a reference genome, which itself is not complete. What happens if the cancer/person has a sequence not found in the reference genome. I know, it is not reported. It is more informative to say 90% of the tumor was sequenced. Probably the last 10% was the important part anyways (cnvs and the number of repeats are very important), so this is just anther "first post" in Science and Nature. Can they start publishing proper papers rather than "hot" papers?