Apparently, their naming policy is still very much geared toward individual users. Upon trying to create a page for my non-profit, we were first required to update our profile, and then warned that our name was not consistent with their naming policy, so I had to update it. After doing so, it allowed me to create a page, but the profile has a warning saying that it has been disabled because our name was flagged as being inconsistent with their policy. I understand that this is in an alpha stage, but the process needs to be significantly simpler, without imposing unnecessary restrictions on names and such.

The software download itself is free, although upon running the tool, it brings up the following message on one of the dialog screens, "During the upgrade process, you will enter the PIN number from the upgrade card you purchased," which suggests that they are charging for it. Sadly, my computer is not upgradeable by this method.

In my field, I have noticed that the grant writing cycle often drives researchers to propose doing things that are inherently difficult to do outside a particular setting (e.g. an academic medical center), but which is helpful in getting funding for research. One of the undesirable consequences of such research then is that it is either difficult to reproduce the exact setting (and consequently the results) elsewhere, and it can lead to findings that have limited external validity.

I have serious doubts about how they came up with that number. Data captured once can be stored in a data warehouse and analyzed and reused in many different ways for analytics and reporting, so I am not sure how they estimate that 90% of data is never used again (unless, of course they meant that it is not pulled up again on the frontend application side, which would still make no sense at all).

At our hospital, they have replaced the inpatient electronic medical records system at least 3 times in the last 20 years, and our data warehouse, which has been around for more than 15 years, contains a large percentage of that clinical data from the different (current & historical) systems. A lot of this data is still used pretty actively for retrospective research, recruitment of patients for clinical trials, operational and financial resource planning, forecasting, cost-accounting, etc. In other words, at our institution, most of our data is used all the time, but for different purposes.

Google's PDF plugin:
C:\Users\#########\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application\6.0.437.3\pdf.dll (MIME type: application/pdf)

Adobe's PDF plugin:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Acrobat 9.0\Acrobat\Browser\nppdf32.dll (MIME types: application/pdf, application/vnd.adobe.pdfxml, application/vnd.adobe.x-mars, application/vnd.fdf, application/vnd.adobe.xfdf, application/vnd.adobe.xdp+xml, application/vnd.adobe.xfd+xml)

The files themselves appear to be quite different, and handle different MIME types, so hopefully this is not simply Adobe's stuff packaged within Chrome.

The question of what might happen to research in the absence of patents or without the prospect of commercialization is an interesting one by itself, and many slashdot readers have noted the pros and cons of patents in the posts above. As is evident from the publications describing the evidence for these genes--and arguably also the publications that preceded these specific discoveries--a large body of this research was supported by pubic funding.
Therefore if there were any serious argument in favor of the patentability of genes, then I would argue that the taxpayers that bore the burden of supporting such research are also entitled to a stake in the returns from the patents. In the very least, they could start by paying the NIH and other sponsors of their research in the same way that they pay the Universities where the research is typically conducted, so that these funding agencies may then invest in other researchers.

FTA, the author conducted his 'tests' on a Mac Pro with a two Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 3 GHz processors (8 cores), with 12 MB L2 Cache, 8GB RAM. Needless to say, this is not the average user's computer, and any differences in performance between flash on Windows on Mac will become less obvious due to the sheer computational power available. The tests would be more convincing if they were run on lesser hardware such as a Mac mini, where the differences in performance are far more noticeable (typing this on a Mac mini), so I dispute one of the main conclusions in the article: 'From these tests, Flash content does not perform consistently worse on Mac than on Windows.'

FTA:

Surveillance is only the start, however. Military drones quickly moved from reconnaissance to strike, and if the British police follow suit, their drones could be armed -- but with non-lethal weapons rather than Hellfire missiles.

The article suggests that they could potentially go the same way as the military, although the title/summary makes it appear as if it were a certainty.

If the data-set has been completely de-identified (with the actual dates of all events truncated/obfuscated), or otherwise meets the criteria defined under the HIPAA Safe Harbor de-identification method, then it is not considered to be a HIPAA violation.

The network's budget -- $1.5 million a year -- is a pittance even compared with certain programs on National Public Radio, he said, and NASA TV's full-time staff of 18 people, based in Washington, D.C., cannot hope to create the sort of polished productions that grace "Nova" and the Discovery Channel.

That about explains it all for me. Given their budget, does it really surprise anyone that their programming isn't as 'lively' as some of the other networks? In addition, there are people like myself who simply prefer getting the facts, and find more recent programming from networks like Discovery to be somewhat sensational and lightweight in content.