Please help me with that:

Google pays apple to be default search engine on iOS; Google does not pay Google to be the default search engine on Android --> Google (the one that doesn't get paid by Google) must be such a looser. Once we have proven that we bravely conclude:

Is this an MBA degree speaking here?

Some of you may have reservations about the use of live concrete. Don't worry, just give it some time. It will grow on you.

And you can provide testable evidence to support your statement?? I don't thin so, but than again its me trying to reason with yet another conspiracy theory nuthead.

May be he is not a dingo after all.

Whoever put together their web site forgot the <Irony> tag. Otherwise it is hard to explain how a site calling itself "Reason" so blatantly demonstrates complete lack of the stuff.

First of all, this is an amazing study. How surprising is that we can live without certain genes? Not that surprising. We have done numerous experiments where we have knocked out genes in mice and other organisms and they do just fine. There is no reason why it should be any different in humans. Keep in mind that these variations in the sequence are predicted to disable the gene, but not verified to do so. For example variants that introduce stop codons in the middle of a gene are typically predicted to disable the gene. However this is not always the case. Sometimes the piece of the gene that has the stop codon gets spliced out and the gene can still produce a functional albeit shorter protein. What is needed now is some experimental evidence showing what fraction of these genes are fully disabled.

I second this. Put 50% of any political contribution into a fund and then distribute it to those who vote. That will raise voter participation and reduce the influence of money in politics.

Pass mandatory voting law, and you can be guaranteed that nobody who voted for the law in congress will ever be reelected again. This could be fresh start.

How about you read the entire article and not quote selectively. One major issue is the raw data from clinical studies. In these studies the data identifying the patients is protected to preserve the privacy. The reason for this is that publishing data that identifies the subjects of the study will deter participation, particularly from people with severe conditions. This will ultimately bias the results and will make the studies irrelevant. There is also the existing legislation protecting the patient privacy which prohibits publishing personally identifiable information without explicit consent from the patients. The law that is being proposed will make it impossible to use epidemiological data from medical records. It is pretty obvious that the goal of this legislature is not to enforce "common sense". The goal is to make EPA powerless by preventing it from backing its decisions with real data. The most telling part is that the legislature will quote: "bar academic scientists on the panels from talking about matters related to research they’re doing." WTF? How is EPA supposed to make decisions? By ignoring the advice of scientist who work on the matter and taking advice from people who are completely clueless?

Used to be that in a democracy we will weight the facts and then vote on a decision. Now it seems we live in a Yakov Smirnoff joke were we make the decision and then vote on the facts. Except it is not Soviet Russia...

That's what is known as "get in jail free card".

I switched to them couple of years back when Intuit decided that it will not allow web browsers running linux to the online version of TurboTax. Beats me why they did it. It worked perfectly the previous years. Anyway, TaxAct is cheaper and does the job just as well.

You are making a very good point. Currently antibiotic resistance is a serious problem, mostly because we are very slow in discovering new antibiotics. What is very exciting about this research is that it significantly shifts the odds in our favor by allowing very large scale screens for new antibiotics. It will allow us to outpace the rate of resistance development. The probability that a particular infection will be resistant to multiple different antibiotics drops exponentially with the number of antibiotics you have. If you have a tool chest of 5-6 antibiotics sooner or later you will have pathogens that are resistant to a significant proportion of these antibiotics. Make the tool chest 10 times larger, and you will have a lot less to worry about.