Tethered balloons (blimps), and quite legal to use for commercial use.

Untethered blimps don't have much control for commercial use, and have other legal issues.

Right, I'm saying that as a taxpayer I'm not going to get angry over that mistake because in the end NASA got a good deal.

Eh, I was ready to be outraged but after glancing through the OIG report it doesn't look that bad. Apparently the Google dudes paid a market rate for the hangar space, and let NASA use one of their planes for free (that would otherwise cost thousands of dollars per flight hour). I would suspect that even taking into account the discounted fuel NASA came out ahead.

The FDA disagrees, and so does the evidence. And there are a whole lot of areas where pharmacogenetics is starting to have an impact on treatment. In any case, pharmacogenetics is a subset of pharmacogenomics; for example, as I mentioned in another comment, the lab where I work is working on expression-based tests for prediction of altitude sickness and setting up drug trials.

The clinical trials framework that's evolved over the decades isn't really equipped to deal with personalized medicine, but that's starting to change. Where I work, we're starting to understand the genomic basis of altitude sickness and putting together treatment trials on that basis. This is an area where the potential market is pretty large, of course, and for rare diseases that affect small numbers of people it's going to be harder, but if we can develop a generally accepted body of protocols for individualized trials then it should be possible to apply this to smaller groups as time goes by.

Do I need a NOTAM to throw a frisbee, or fly a kite? And what magically happens to turn a 5 foot wide foam glider from an unregulated toy into a regulated "aircraft" because it was used commercially. Did it suddenly become more dangerous because the footage was going to be sold commercially, and if so... how did it know?/I

Because money, so you don't have any right to self-determination or a making a living.

#iamsatoshi

Urgh. Good point.

I'll bet there's a model that could take all stuff this into account, and sufficient data to estimate the parameters. But trying to figure out what that would be feels too much like work.

So we have records of about, what, eight thousand mass extinctions? Wow, I had no idea. ;)

Okay, makes sense. So we probably already have the data available to do a pretty good analysis of impact periodicity.

I understand why they're getting a weak signal here on Earth, where most craters will have long since been erased by erosion and surface remodeling. But I'll bet we could get a much stronger signal from the Moon, particularly the far side. Do we have the ability to get dates for craters there from orbiting probes, or is that something we'd have to collect physical samples to do?

Depending on the CPU and RAM configuration for the PC in question (if you are not getting a new one), then either Xubuntu or Kubuntu, with Firefox, Chromium, and LibreOffice. Works like a charm ...

Which phones with 128MB or 256MB of RAM run a modern version of Android?

Theorems and theories are two different things. You're quite right, that proving a theorem requires a well-defined set of axioms; the natural world, unfortunately, doesn't provide us with such axioms*, which is why we have to use theories to describe it.

*Well, maybe. "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" argues that maybe there is some axiomatic Truth at the basis of reality. But if so, we have no idea what it is yet, and anyone who tells you they know is lying.