It’s much worse than this. The burden of proof on people attempting to publish studies showing that work cannot be replicated is extremely high. Often many-fold more experiments and controls are required to show that it isn’t simply a failure on the part of the group attempting to repeat the experiment. Frequently these sorts of papers must offer an alternative hypothesis to explain both the original and new results as well. These sorts of studies are very difficult and time consuming, and can’t be given to junior graduate students who haven’t already proven themselves to be capable experimentalists. Thus to do something like this you need to assign one or more very capable senior students/postdoctoral workers, which costs money and time and takes away from original research.

Their market share was in free-fall well before the Microsoft deal. Their own OS wasn't selling smartphones.

My 3 year old 15" Dell M4400 has a really nice 1http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/06/11/1757240/apple-news-from-wwdc-and-iphone-5-rumors#900x1200 display, but looking at their lineup now I don't think you can get anything bigger than 1080p, which means you lose out on a fair bit of vertical resolution. 1366x768 in the same size really doesn't cut it.

Not to mention that home X-ray sources have improved dramatically over the last few decades. I think if you've got enough cash Rigaku or Bruker will sell you single or dual wavelength rotating anode sources that would be totally fine for routine protein x-ray crystallography on nicely diffracting samples. Not all protein crystallography needs a synchrotron, since a lot of times people are just doing ligand soaks to try to find small molecule binding modes in protein active sites.

Let's be serious. Google/Motorola is not innocent: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17825580 The atmosphere in mobile patents is terrible. Apple, Google/Motorola, and Microsoft are going to fight over this for years to come. Until there is some sanity and these companies start cross-licensing for reasonable costs this is going to continue, and it's pretty silly to claim that one of these companies is just the victim. They all have large enough legal departments to know how this game works.

See this discussion of the same paper on In the Pipeline, a blog devoted to organic chemistry and drug discovery. http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/03/29/sloppy_science.php

Also, windows phone runs really really well on middling hardware. The Nokia 710 is sold periodically by T-mobile for as little at $250 without a contract, and it is a vastly superior phone to most andriod phones in the same price range. Windows Phone is not a perfect OS but a generation of MS hate has really clouded people's ability to look at their products objectively. And lets be honest, Nokia wasn't going to survive by going the way they were going. They made a bet that they could team up with MS and produce phones people wanted to buy because if they hadn't they'd still be on the RIM path. This is very clearly visible in the bets that Nokia is making on inexpensive phones (Lumia 610) for developing markets. Not everyone wants to pay $800 for a phone off-contract.

Yes. Clearly Amazon is trying to compete with Apple by stripping out some of the features and specs of the iPad to deliver a less expensive device. It's not intended to be a perfect facsimile of the iPad, just a device which can offer a somewhat similar experience for substantially less money. People will expect less out of a $200 device than they do out of a $500 device, and Amazon is hoping that they cut costs in the right places to make a device that people will buy.

Well more accurately, it is both expensive and inefficient. The best catalysts (the ones which operate at the lowest overpotential) are often expensive iridium oxides. Catalysts made from more abundant elements tend to require a higher applied voltage, which reduces the efficiency of the system. That said, if you're burning natural gas to make electricity to split hydrogen from water, you're much better off steam reforming the methane directly to hydrogen in terms of efficiency.

Yes, H2+O2 -> H20 But in your engine, you're going to have more then that. H2+O2+N2+CO2+bits of lubricant -> H20 + NO + CO + CO2 + etc