The simplest solution could come from SCOTUS deciding that software patents not fitting the machine or transformation test are invalid in the Bilski case.

Except he doesn't need to lose weight, but to perform rehabilitation exercises. Have you even read the title?

From the source paper:

Phylogenetic analyses show that these aphid genes are derived from fungal genes, which have been integrated into the genome and duplicated.

Until you observe the process happening, all you've got is correlation. Even if it is gene transfer, how do you know the transfer wasn't the other direction? I call XKCD on that.

They state with authority the gene came from a fungi but they have not shown where they have observed this happening. The fact that the genes are identical does not mean they're of the same origin.

You know, people keep saying that, and yet, they hit 1 billion+ downloads so far in nine months (if their numbers are to be trusted). So, in a way, I'm finding it harder and harder to agree that their formula isn't viable. It seems to be doing fine. Is that because ($JOE_END_USER.cares() == false)? Yeah probably. But I'm not worried for their success. It seems unavoidable.

My thoughts exactly. And to have the audacity to use it as grounds for accusations of "improper activity"? Outrageous. I would chuckle at the irony were it not so reprehensible.
I hope they have the book thrown at them.

What kind of connectivity? My crystal ball being a little cloudy at the moment, I'd say PVC PIPE! Then you can put anything in it you want, any time.

Capricorn 1. There is a significent percentage of the prople that believe the Earth is flat, and that the moon landings were faked on a soundstage.

TV's are like computers. They run on magic, the data flows through tubes, and you can catch a computers virus.

They believe that psychics are real, and those that are caught cheating were just covering for a bad day. Scientists are just geeks who use funny words. Psychics solve crimes and save people in trouble, and scientists read books while wearing coke-bottle glasses.

The media have no clue about how science is supposed to work. If a group of clueless busybodies get together to condemn all our favorite foods just to get in the spotlight, the media will happily follow them, since it fills air time and makes them seem more important when they report the horrors of our food supply.

The media doesn't understand technology, and they follow whoever gives them the most impressive show. They're interested in getting an audience and winning awards, they aren't interested in the truth which gets them neither.

Why does every discussion on this site end up in black-and-white? Is it so difficult to see the shades of grey?

Social networking sites, like real-world socialising, should support different social groups. People have different circles, and they interact with them differently. Why must a social networking site mean you have to say and show to the exact same degree to *everyone*? You don't do that in real life so why view a website that way?

I have family, friends, work colleagues as Facebook 'friends'. Do you really believe that I should only put on the lowest-common-denominator information?

It's only a matter of time.

"Choose your breast size" could've been seen as some impossibly expensive operation in the past; right now there are girls getting tits as their 16th birthday present in non-rich countries.

Because the group of individuals known as a government can't protect your "right" to health-care, basic food, shelter or a job without taking those things from other individuals under threat of imprisonment if they don't cough up. So a "right" to food means someone else has to grow it on their land and hand it over, either being paid with money that been taken from *other* productive members of the village or point blank stolen and handed over to the person asserting their "right". Some right ey?

The right to "basic food" means the right to take something that someone else has put a lot of effort in, what or who gives *you* that right just by virtue of being born? And what if ther people growing their food stop growing it and demand their rights too? Property rights are the core of all rights, without being "allowed" to own any singular item or piece of land how can one be at all free? Given the track record of societies that don't recognise property rights but *do* recognise the "right" to strike, housing, healthcare and food *cough*Eastern Bloc*cough* there's an extremely strong historical argument for the basis of what the libertarians are saying.

I'm not even nearly a "lie-bertarian" and even I understand that....

On the other hand, the more extreme claims of anthropogenic global warming _proponents_ are not backed up with sufficient observation and are extrapolated from very small datasets.

It's irrelevant how much bad data there is (there is plenty of bad and faked data in every scientific discipline). What matters is how much good data there is, and there is more than enough.

Given all of this, to say the "science is settled" is a travesty,

The science is settled as far as it matters: whether anthropogenic warming exists or not really has little bearing on the question of whether we need to stop emitting carbon into the atmosphere. We need to to stop costly oil imports, we need to because oil itself is a finite resource, we need to to make our cities more livable, and people need to get off their lazy butts and walk more.

People opposing reductions in carbon emissions are people who don't give a shit about the future of mankind or the planet. Many of them think their invisible fairy god is going to shuttle them to another realm when they have screwed this one. And while they're here, they like to maximize their profits and maximize their waistline.

See, people who claim that global warming is happening only need to make a plausible argument that it is possible. Given the risks involved, people who claim that global warming is not happening need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Erm... they DO have and actual business in those countries: they sell ads. And being able to keep selling ads is what makes Google obey local laws.

Maybe not many full blown wars, but there's still a whole lot of prejudice and the "war on terror" creating a climate of unnecessary fear and negative stereotypes.

How do you compare an actual shipping product with what amounts to conceptualizations a person can't even get their hands on unless they happen to work for Microsoft Research (and even then they're not fully functional mice)?

This is just unbelievably silly.