Any time you are trying to tell someone what not to think, or what not to believe, you are entering dangerous territory. This is even more important when state sponsored - aka the public educational system. If schools do their job right, then students will be able to make their own informed choices on what to believe or what not to believe, and even if a student does not adhere to what the school "wants" them to believe, that is okay - the school has done their job either way. Direct comparisons against things schools do not espouse is not necessary or appropriate in any shape or form.

To be perfectly clear, let me explain what I'm NOT talking about. Take cigarette smoking for example. There are hard scientific studies showing that smoking causes specific health problems, so it is appropriate for a school to teach that smoking is bad and then provide the evidence. Now on the other hand, suppose there are people in the world who believe smoking is beneficial (and certainly those people are out there). Is it the school's job to incorporate that into their anti-smoking teaching and attempt to specifically discredit or call out the opposite viewpoint? No. That isn't necessary or even feasible. What this story is talking about crosses far into this kind of territory.

The other problem is lack of correlation for this hypothesis. There are large numbers of people whose work shifts that have them awakening at night to work during the night. If this study's conclusion is correct then the vast majority of these people should have a very high BMI, and the effects of working such shifts would have been noticed decades ago.

Then there are people at the high latitudes who have months of very reduced sunlight, and thus wake up in the dark for weeks on end. Again, do we see the same correlation there? This type of thing should be easy to study in places like the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, where those that stay over winter experience little sunlight for a few months non-stop.

Nah, they're just lumping April 1 and April 20 into one event: an Easter Egg hunt for April Fool's jokes.

Your logic is not sound. The profit margin to be lost over one shipment of peanut butter is small change. Even if they made a 50 cents profit per jar, we're only talking about $475,000 in profit to be lost. But let's look further. The peanut butter would be donated to food banks and the like, for people who can't afford enough food. Did you know that Costco, like Sam's club, requires membership to shop there? So are you suggesting that these people with such a low income that they cannot afford food actually have a Costco membership, and that's where they purchase their peanut butter, and so that's why Costco would not accept the peanut butter? In other words, giving the peanut butter away would have Costco's competitors (Walmart, grocery store chains, etc) far more than it would have hurt Costco. That $475,000 in potential profit would have come out of the pockets of regular grocery stores, and not Costco.

Although it's fun to always beat up on corporate America, the evil motive you suggest is laughable in this case.

You know things are really screwy when Japanese cars are being imported from Britain to Japan.

I've said this in the past in regards to Glass, but I feel the watch is the ultimate form factor for wearable electronics. I feel that it should be the core of the mobile computing paradigm, once the technology has matured enough for that kind of miniaturization (mainly battery and WLAN). Then devices like Google Glass, and even the cell phone / tablet form factor, would all just be display and input / sensor peripherals for the core system (the watch). So in other words, I hope Apple gets it right (but most likely they won't - they'll probably go the same route as Samsung and make the device dependent upon an iPhone to do anything non-trivial).

The rendering frame rate of their system leaves a lot to be desired. The VR hardware looks good for their needs and usage, but that frame rate totally kills the immersion. That's inexcusable in this day and age - people have better gaming rigs than that. My guess is they have a very poorly optimized modeling system that has to pull data from whatever CAD systems they use.

What a terribly written article. What did the later deaths in the early 1900s have to do with the medieval plague? Did they find DNA on the victims from the 1900s or from the actual plague outbreak? What does DNA on the teeth have to do with and what does it indicate? Totally worthless crap article, through and through.

There was at least one really awful episode involving Beverly Crusher too. So you could say both female leads had some zingers.

This system isn't designed for general or widespread use. The article specifically mentions industrial and construction use, and the artist's rendition shows them in use at a bridge construction site. So it would be in place of diesel generators and the like, and launched only when needed daily as weather permits to save money over using expensive diesel.

Followed by the researchers demonstrating how to try and relieve a headache by massaging their temples with their thumbs.

This is a very stupid and misleading statistic. I've seen statements like this on Slashdot before, and in my local paper, so I did look up the numbers, and the accident and fatality rates have both been dropping steadily since before handheld cell phones even existed. Almost 100% of the population has cell phones, and they are being used in some manner or another off and on continuously throughout the day. So of course they are being used during a significant number of accidents, because they're being used during a significant number of miles driven.

If cell phones are a significant cause of accidents, the numbers would very clearly show it, yet they don't. So the best anyone can come up to throw at us is this kind of misleading garbage. 100% of all the accidents I have ever been in involved contacts to correct eye vision. Obviously my contacts are a major problem then?

Why do you think that HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and Starz (a latecomer, relatively speaking) have all been in existence since the popularity of cable television exploded in the 70s? Because that fragmentation (only allowing one of them rights to a given movie) allows the industry to milk as much money out of consumers as possible. How many people could pay $50 a month back in the 80s for a single channel that carries all movies? Not many. So in essence it was split up into multiple channels, so people could at least subscribe to as little or as much as they could afford.

So of course that backwards, entrenched industry is going to try their hardest to bring that concept to streaming as well.

Redbox is a perfect example of this. Entire brick and mortar establishments replaced by a single automated box. Granted, a Redbox doesn't have the selection an entire video store did, but it could if they wanted it to make it bigger, but the market and real estate simply isn't there to justify a larger selection

Speakers can be used as microphones.
LEDs can be used to detect light.
Motors can be used as generators.
Now some solar cells can emit light.

Problem is it's matter of efficiency, which is always more of a one way street.