nvasilak

You could also do pick your price via Anjuno.com

You should read some of Weston Price's research: http://www.westonaprice.org/Ancient-Dietary-Wisdom-for-Tomor...

Another one here. But I'd love to have a cofounder that could bring something else to the table.

Maybe we should start a list of companies interested in finding cofounders?

We're doing pick your price music on http://anjuno.com and for some reason no one is paying $22,500 per song. I wish those RIAA lawyers would start using Anjuno, it would really help our bottom line.

Check out http://anjuno.com

Good catch, and a good move by Cameron. Otherwise those giant fireballs from the human missiles wouldn't be very plausible.

> I liked Avatar, but to me the obvious science fail was the telepathic connection between the Na'vi and the animals. Evolution doesn't work like that! Rattlesnakes do not grow rattles for your benefit! I'm afraid that yon astrophysicist knows rather a bit more about physics than about evolutionary biology if the inter-species universal complex adaptations didn't jump out at him.

You should check this out: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/paris.php The latest science suggests that evolution is less random than we thought, and that unrelated species often swap genetic information. Inter-species universal complex adaptations may be a bit more plausible than we think.

Lawsuits? Who wouldn't want a nice, insulating layer of fat to protect their heart? I use a Pepsi IV daily and haven't gotten sick in at least a week and a half.

On a more serious note, the food industry has an immense amount of power in Washington and I think change in just a few years is highly optimistic, but I hope you're right.

Crunchpad was a far superior name. Unless theyre hoping religious puns bring it more press.

This scares me to death.

There is no way that humanity has figured out all the complexity that billions of years of evolution has created when it comes to animals eating each other.

Corporations are now coming up with new types of 'food' that they can sell for much more profit than the things our species have been surviving on for thousands of years. Take margarine for example - no cows to raise and milk, therefore a much bigger profit margin than butter. They also tell us it's much healthier too. But then studies like this come along http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/05/us/study-links-heart-disea... , and the whole french paradox, which indicate the opposite may be true.

"When In-Vitro Meat (IVM) is cheaper than meat-on-the-hoof-or-claw, no one will buy the undercut opponent." I seriously doubt it. Even though a grass fed, dry aged steak is quite expensive, many people splurge because they are delicious. Has the author heard of the organic movement growing 20% a year over the past decade? People buying more expensive food because it's healthier and tastes better, that defies logic.

The article claims that this IVM is also healthier for the planet, but it neglects to mention where all the raw ingredients for the IVM will come from. Mother nature already created the perfect way to stay healthy - plants get energy from the sun to grow, animals eat plants, and excrete fertilizer to grow new plants. This happened for millions of years before humans came along. Unfortunately, our farms are no longer run using this perfect natural solution (another issue entirely), but I don't see how IVM would solve this.

My favorite quote from the article: "We won't even choke to death because IVM contains no malicious bones or gristle." It's amazing our species has survived so long with so many malicious bones and evil gristle after us. Malicious bones - I cant stop picturing zombies, haha.

It's unbelievably sad that that many people died, and so much collective knowledge was lost. But, it excites me to think that there are still probably a good number of hidden secrets throughout North and South America just waiting to be discovered.

" According to the company they get to keep 80% of the money, leaving 20% for the copyright holders."

Yup, they really have the bands best interest in mind.

I don't understand how all of these companies who blatantly rob the money that should be going to artists think they are any better than the pirates.

If you’re saying that Spotify is ”open” because they openly share their thoughts than I would agree with you.

However, if you consider limiting a user’s access to music to simply an online flash player unless they pay a subscription fee “open” than I strongly disagree.

The subscription business model is very 20th century. It is already failing for magazines and newspapers, so where is the evidence that it will succeed for music?

Subscriptions are just not effective when there are free (legal or illegal) alternatives to be had.

The answer to piracy is even more openness, not less.