This attitude doesn't help. If lots of people steal a game, it tells publishers a market for the product exists but it's too easy to acquire said product without paying. This leads business-types to require the implementation of even more draconian measures, which leads to more problems for users and thus more stealing... you can see where this is going.

The best strategy is to not play the game at all. Yes, this idea 'sucks' in many ways, especially if it's a really good game. But boycotts only work if people eliminate the product or service from their lives completely, or at least give all the market share - both mental and monetary - to a worthy competitor.

While it's impressive that the bacteria can endure 553 days in space, the real question is whether they can also sort tiny screws in space.

Because as soon as you argue yourself into complying, it gets easier and easier for you manager to ask you to do it again. And then it gets easier and easier to ask for such effort for tasks that are less and less worth the effort. Then other departments see how projects still manage to get done within ridiculous time frames, and thus some idiot in a boardroom start assuming that the aforementioned ridiculous time frames are actually quite reasonable. That's when the de rigueur late nights now become de facto late nights.

The worst part, though, is that you'll find yourself starting to hate pizza.

Won't this problem be solved by an inevitable lawsuit? I'm hardly a lawyer, but this kind of thing sounds like libel to me. Even if the victim can't find out the identity of the bully, can't they at least go after the people who provided the public forum for the bullying? I'm not just asking rhetorically; I'm genuinely interested in an answer.

On the other hand, the 'meaningless' work done by those 'mediocre' scientists could very well be setting the foundation for the next Einstein to do something truly marvelous. Science is not a series of disconnected "Eureka!" moments; it's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories.

And what about all those potential superstars being lost, because they can't get the work experience they need to develop their potential? How many of those next Einsteins have gone off to work in something totally unrelated because of financial concerns? Sometimes it takes a lifetime for someone to produce that truly meaningful work. By narrowing our focus to people doing 'useful' work, we kill a lot of long-term potential that could arise from the research being done for the sake of research.

That 'free' bit is a great selling point but is probably one of the site's biggest flaws. The comment in the summary about 'a site with the least riff-raff' isn't just a silly notion. When I used OKCupid regularly, I encountered a large number of women I would classify as crazy. That's not to say the other sites manage to filter out 100% of the crazies but personal experience has shown a connection between 'Cheap' and 'Crazy,' thus a free site is going to have a higher proportion of 'riff-raff.'

'We found his humor delightfully nerdy, and he fitted right in,' said Kevin Grazier, who is a planetary scientist and author.

Ugh, really? It's hard to keep feeling superior to the artsies when other scientists are using words like 'fitted' in this context.

Immortal strikes me as the wrong choice of wording here, as these cells can still die quite easily. Aggressive would be a better fit, as the mutated cells have their suppression mechanisms deactivated, leading to proliferation of mutated cells which then spawn further mutations, and the cycle goes on until the cancer cells start invading surrounding tissue and/or metastasizing throughout the body.