Perhaps that any modern car already has stability control to stop the car from drifting around a corner? If you turn off the stability control, no doubt you'll turn off the limiter as well. So you can still Tokyo Drift your way of as many cliffs as you like.

That's a shame. In the Audis they let you set the distance in seconds and it will automatically increase the distance automatically during wet weather.

Meanwhile here in AU, this technology is already available and works perfectly works fine as is. I have it in my own car. Both Mercedes and Audi offer speed sign recognition that feeds in to the adaptive cruise control. Mercedes have been offering it for over 5 years now. If it ever did recognise the wrong sign, you can easily override it, either via the pressing the brake, the accelerator or manually adjusting the limit from a control on the steering wheel.

No. The theoretical lower limit on a star's mass in 13 Jupiter masses. source

I know it's too much to expect people to RTFA, but as others have pointed out it would take much more than 1 mutation. The main point the "doom and gloomers" are missing is that these modifications are designed to complement existing containment techniques.

Think of it as a potential way for researchers to more safely work with deadly bacterium such as anthrax. They would still use all of the traditional containment methods, but have an additional fail-safe built in. Ultimately these researchers hope to come up with multiple overlapping safeguards to provide even better safety.

It's beyond me, how anyone could object to making it harder for bacteria to escape from the lab!!

Dark matter *is* the simplest explanation for the data. Every proposal to modify gravity introduces one or more new fields. And every time you add a new field, guess what? You are adding a new particle as well. Dark matter models not only generally fit well with observation, but also with out existing understanding of gravity. They have exactly the same downside as gravity modifying alternatives, i.e. introducing one or more new particles.

Besides, I've never understood this objection. We already know about neutrinos which have mass and are weakly interacting (they only interact via the weak force and gravity) . A dark matter particle could be very similar to a neutrino, except it would not interact via the weak force and would likely be more massive.

Yet we've been eating both crop DNA and jelly fish DNA for thousands of years with no ill effects. Please be specific about what risks are introduced by mixing the two. And please provide evidence that we've actually been doing this for food crops.

Perhaps you could use your obviously epic google skills to look up the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet. You know the one the article is actually talking about? The one that is shrinking and unstable and could cause sea levels to rise by 1.2 metres? I think that's worth at least keeping an eye on. Don't you?

So your response after making an outlandish claim is basically to tell me to buy a book? By a journalist.. One who frequently quote-mines paranormal skeptics to push his own agenda? I don't think I'll bother then.

OK. I'm happy to look unto it. Please provide details, because I can only find negative replications e.g Richie, Wiseman and French. http://www.plosone.org/article...

Museum specimens were commonly preserved with formaldehyde, which damages DNA.

Plenty of other countries have a higher minimum wage and low unemployment. e.g. Australia's minimum wage is AUD 16.37/h or AUD 20.30/h for causals. Unemployment is around 5% and unemployment benefits start at about AUD 250p/w. Which means you'd probably be better of living in Australia and looking for work than being employed on minimum wage in the USA.

No one will ever need more than 3 quarks.

And we don't just see this effect in stars. But also in galaxies, quasars, basically every distant object we can observe.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser says that:

"He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998"

So perhaps you could use your superior search engine skills to find an actual, real example of a farmer being sued by Monsanto that did not intentionally harvest and plant patented seeds?