I agree with your intention but your reasoning is wrong. It's like saying "Why make a law against homicide if most people wouldn't kill someone anyway"

One caveman to the other: if fire was such a great idea the other cavemen would have thought of it already!

...a few days off

I'm sorry but that is just the biggest load of nonsense ever encountered. First and foremost, there is no such thing as complete redundancy in genomic information. THe simplest explanation is that there is exactly zero evolutionary benefit of it, as destruction of a redundant copy does not reduce fitness but in fact increases it due to reduced energy requirement to copy the redundant pair in mitosis. In other words, the redundant copy is removed from the genepool very quickly. There are more elaborate reasons but that would make me repeat a few hunderd scientific manuscripts on the topic from the last 10 years or so. Also, there is no point in having redundant pairs of genes to shield from radiation. It is much better to have an improved DNA repair system and remove individuals from the gene pool that fail to stabilize their genome.

Seeing this being +5 insightful is something I'd expect from 4chan, not /.

If you need to ask slashdot you're in over your head

If i'd eat an infected USB disk, id get the same result?

If I'd cough some influenza on my keyboard id get the same (yet reciprocal) result?

Idle is indeed the word.

it can be done simpler though.

I don't like internet explorer

I usually try to find the physical and virtual address of their own company and enter that. They can send stuff to their own mailbox that way. I've never seen a checker that found this out.

The difference is that the Times main revenue is the paper edition, whereas Slate mainly existed as a website. As mentioned above, the Times doesn't make any money from the site, but in fact loses money as it makes their paper edition worthless. So for them less online popularity may actually increase revenue.

Ubi