The New Science article says, "Horava's theory alters the physics of black holes - especially microscopic black holes, which may form at the very highest energies. What this means for the formation of these black holes, and whether they are what they seem to be in general relativity 'is a very big question', says Pujolas, and one that researchers are now addressing." There has been speculation that the CERN accelerator might create microscopic black holes, and while some feared that these might swallow up the Earth, the scientists assured us that this could not happen, because such small black holes would evaporate. Should Horava's theory be right, do these two predictions (that black holes might form in the accelerator, and that they will evaporate harmlessly) still hold? Could be the answer for Fermi's paradox...

There is a comment in the New Science article about the Bullet Cluster being surrounded by anti-mater.

It is believed that the universe is composed of vast amounts of dark matter that can not be defined. It is also believed that the universe, at its creation, had equal amounts of mater and anti-mater; but, the anti mater is missing. I have to think of Sherlock Holmes dictum that if all other possibilities are eliminated, whatever remains, not mater how unlikely, is the truth.

So, how could anti mater exist and not be visible and not react with normal mater... Just for fun.