Oh, yeah,umm A.D.D. stands for attention deffecet dissorder……… NOT: a dumb dumb.

[...] two rovers, Mars Explorer Rovers Opportunity and Spirit. Although recent findings suggest the water may have been poisonous to life on early Mars, reducing the likelihood of finding ancient microbial life, the nature and mechanics of water [...]

Life on Mars seems to be growing further and further away as a real probability. But, as yael say, how much of the surface have we analised?

Yeah, sure. These last revelations are a hard blow on our hopes for finding life but it seems to me very, very, very premature to close the shop and give up on Mars.

Moreover, would Mars be a disapointing planet if no Life was there to be found? If that so, why did we go to the moon? To search for the 'old man'?

In response to John Guhn's comment "and if it did it doesn't always adapt to changing conditions. If that were always true dinosaurs would still be walking the Earth." This would be true for natural and slowly changing contitions. However, being hit by a massive comet (or asteroid) does not count as either natural or slow. The climate radically shifted so fast that life on Earth couldn't change fast enough, and most of the plants died. After that, most of the dinosaurs went with them.

Oddly, that reaction I also share is based on what evidence I could gather on my neighbors house by remote. How startlingly different his household is from mine. Mars is just one house away…..reach further, expand the researh database.

Or, conclude based on just your neighbors house.

Since there is evidence of streams and rivers on Mars it is logical to conclude that there would be areas with less than fatal amount of salts.

Regarding the comments that current salt would obviously be far more concentrated than in the past, and therefore the scientists are too pessimistic: DUH!

Given that that's a point so obvious that a high schooler would notice it, I cannot believe that the authors did not take that into account. It is unfortunate that the report above doesn't give us more details, but I would be willing to bet that the original authors did one of the following: (a) based on current evidence, estimated the total salts/minerals that would have been dissolved in past, and the total water that would have been present, and derived an estimate for concentrations from that, or (b) used more subtle evidence from the nature and abundances of the minerals present today to estimate at what concentration they must have been before forming deposits.
But in any case, I am sure they did NOT simply base it on CURRENT concentrations, when there is no appreciable water present.

Firstly, it seems to indicate the scientists working on the field are both professional and honest enough to quell hype. This should be the key trait for all those referring themselves as scientists.

Secondly, if the overall setting on Mars would have had been very similar to a that of early Earth, would the possible discovery of Martinian fossils or organisms be that interesting? Finding a similar or related set of extremophiles on Mars than what we have here on the Earth would not to be that groundbreaking, actually. (Read; contamination between the planets at some stage in the long history of our Solar system)

At least it seems quite possible that chemical and biological evolution would have had to adapt entirely or at least somewhat different course on Mars than on the Earth.

And that's exiting!

However it is always good to have confirmation from another source.

Saying that the water on Mars was too salty and acidic to support life assumes that it was always that salty and acidic, a significant error in logic.