http://www.passionato.com/ It's an online classical music store offering a nice catalog in both mp3 and flac. Lots of 25% off sales. But seriously, what.cd ftw.

Here's an executive summary as it seems few people read the article before posting:
1. Gene therapy increases muscle development
2. It is speculated that this will decrease life span because lung capacity is not increased to match the heightened oxygen requirements.
3. As such it will probably not be commercially available.
4. It will be used mainly to treat kids with MD and old people with degenerative muscle disorder (read: people who would die without it).
5. It also has use in the livestock industry as the animals are not only super-meaty but also super-lean.
6. Whether or not the military will use it to make super soldiers ala Fallout even though it might kill them early depends on your particular political leanings.

I hope this is helpful.

I didn't really see any grovelling, but that really is what they should be doing. The headlines microsoft got out of this were terrible. It was a major PR fiasco for them. Prevx should consider themselves lucky MS isn't suing for libel.

That's more or less it. That of course combined with a massive ego so the guy probably believes that nobody could really disagree with him, so if it seems like a lot of people they all must be the same moron. Of course this admin didn't bother telling me I was being investigated either. The investigation was closed after two weeks with the option to reopen for lack of evidence. So I'm still partially presumed guilty.

If you look at the currently-active administrators of Wikipedia, they all have their little fiefdoms of "owned" articles, they all know how to play the system (and all protect each other when questions are raised about their behavior), and so the chance of needed change happening has a statistical probability rapidly approaching zero, and likely today so small today as to be inexpressible in 32-bit floating point math.
That the admins have little protected fiefdoms is very true. On the page for Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" there's a long psycho-sexual interpretation of the song that is, at best, tendentious. Somebody in the talk page a few months before had suggested removing it, and I agreed in the talk page, without changing the article. The guy who added it immediately accused me of being a sock-puppet and tried to get me banned from editing. This guy is an admin. There are plenty of other examples of this.