Two things missed by the electrek piece:

- The article is CC-BY and downloable without scribd horrible UI:
  http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/1...
    PDF direct http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/1...
    HTML direct http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/1...

- In the conclusion the authors mention:
Full details of these cells including electrode compositions, electrode loadings, electrolyte compositions, additives used, etc. have been provided in contrast to literature reports using commercial cells. This has been done so that others can re-create these cells and use them as benchmarks for their own R+D efforts be they in the spaces of Li-ion cells or “beyond Li-ion cells”.

So it's science as it should be!

"the drug was a painkiller containing cannabinoids" the french ministry of health says no cannabinoids was involved:

http://www.liberation.fr/franc...

The drug is about treating anxiety.

Available every 6 monthes : http://www.hardware.fr/article...

http://musescore.org/ Curiously missing in the article

There's a net neutrality conference organised by french regulators with people from google and FTC, video stream is available RIGHT NOW with real time english translation here: http://video.arcep.fr/arcep_13042010_en.html

Red Hat also has patents and the wording of the promise is nearly identical to the one of MS, I'm quoting RH:

http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html

"""
Our Promise with Respect to Software Patents We Hold ...
Our Promise:

Subject to any qualifications or limitations stated herein, to the extent any party exercises a Patent Right with respect to Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claim of any patent held by Red Hat, Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such exercise ("Our Promise"). Our Promise does not extend to any software which is not Open Source/Free Software, and any party exercising a Patent Right with respect to non-Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claims of any patent held by Red Hat must obtain a license for the exercise of such rights from Red Hat. Our Promise does not extend to any party who institutes patent litigation against Red Hat with respect to a patent applicable to software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim to a lawsuit). No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.

Each party relying on Our Promise acknowledges that Our Promise is not an assurance that Red Hat's patents are enforceable or that the exercise of rights under Red Hat's patents does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Red Hat disclaims any liability to any party relying on Our Promise for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the Patent Rights permitted by Our Promise hereunder, each relying party hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any.
"""

They promise not to sue you just like Microsoft. I guess it's perfectly standard legalese then if two companies as far away as MS and RH use the same wording.

Now the RH promise is limited to software with a limited set of licence (they can add to it) while MS one is limited to some implementations of a standard.

I'd say that if a patent troll buys MS we're safe, but if a patent troll buy RH and the FSF needs to publish GPL 3.1 or 4.0 we're screwed since RH promise does not cover future licence.

IANAL

5 years cancer survival rate is well-known to be biased:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/dissent-of-th-1.html

"""
        Cancer survival rates are based on the time from diagnosis to future point in time - say, 1 year, 5 years or 10 years, etc. Because of this, they are subject to what researchers call "lead time bias." Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_time_bias

has a much better explanation here than I can ever give, but in short it means that advances in cancer screening can artificially inflate the "cancer survival time."

        Here's an example, involving prostate cancer. U.S. male patients usually get screened for prostate cancer starting at around age 50. Many European countries don't bother screening for prostate cancer at all, since many studies don't show any survival benefit (meaning people's lives aren't extended) to screening. A hypothetical American male may find out at age 52 that he has prostate cancer - which is often a slow growing cancer. Say he lives for another 20 years - which is not uncommon - before dying of something else, such as a heart attack. His "cancer survival time" is now 20 years. A hypothetical European man isn't screened for prostate cancer, but it is discovered when he is 65 during routine lab work. He lives another 7 years before dying of a heart attack. His "cancer survival time" is now only 7 years. And so on, and so on.

        As you can see, cancer survival rates can be inaccurate for measuring the quality of health care.
        """

That's pathetic to point out those rates to support USA health care system ...