Yeah. OK.

@rathat: A poster above claimed they each cost $0.12. That would put the total cost at $132M. Averaging over the population (and not correcting for income variation) that's about $.45 per citizen.

@BigDragon: I think this is still misleading. Maybe 1.5% of computers in the world have a pirated copy of Avast!, but how many total computers in the world have a copy of it? I don't know, but I suspect it's less than "billions." This number, while still not truly satisfying, would at least tell me a little about how…

@tyler.derden: Aside from the obvious absurdity of the topic in and of itself, these particular bacteria, if you have read any other article discussing this discovery, thrive even more on Phosphorus. There are obvious implications for your argument; on the other hand, I suspect that emmetation was speaking in jest.

@AqueousBeef: This was my reading as well. It is still worth noting, however, that such lifeforms could still exist naturally. Still, my first instinct is to question what kind of planetary environment would provide Arsenic but not Phosphorus, for example.

@Dallifornia: Not to be needlessly belligerent, but you really contradict yourself when you suggest that a blog with a "science-y, tech-ish tinge" need not actually present accurate views of science or technology.

@metronome49: It is, at the same time, quite the same, but with an important difference.

@Aneurhythmia: Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Now that I give it a think, there's no way it would work in the way that I claimed.

This seems just a little bit suspicious.

Really? From what I have read (from sources who have actually been provided with the papers) this is bacteria that was coaxed into switching from phosphorus to arsenic. I think this is a small, but important distinction. Furthermore, this is still a preliminary finding, and requires some analysis.

Seriously, this is one of the sleaziest articles I've seen around here, and probably the most ineffective.

@Lite: an adventurer is me!:

@Celtic1888: I am willing to accept your position on b. and c. because I honestly am not sure how I feel about either. But...

Interesting....I really like music, but I find that many times it's best experienced in a somewhat controlled environment. Don't get me wrong, being able to stream the same music throughout my house would be really cool, but I don't think I could justify the cost for something that would quickly bother me.

@Celtic1888: On the other hand,

"The US Transportation Security Administration admits that the scanners have the ability to store and print images. But it says this capability is used only when the machines are tested and is switched off at all other times."

@Hobolicious: Well, OK, but that also means that he's been on over 700 flights. If I understand the claims about this technology the radiation exposure from these machines is about the same as 2 minutes of flight, so I if he's been flying this much I don't think he (or really anyone) should be seriously concerned…

To be clear here, unless I fundamentally misunderstand the new scanners, this pilot could have made it through one.

"Why won't the TSA tell us why their estimates of your x-ray exposure are 1/10 of that of a dental x-ray instead of 1/200 like they say? Clearly Yahoo News is a reliable source..."

So I know that this goes against everything this site (and most others) have been saying for some time, but maybe the solution, instead of deleting Facebook, or deleting friends, is to use Facebook differently.