Did you consider that the call can actually be more important than "your meeting"? Personally, I assume that if during "my" meeting someone texts or answers a call, then there is a reason for that. And I believe that because I respect the people I am having the meeting with, as they -I assume in good faith- respect me, and they would not divert their attention elsewhere, if it was not for a reason.

If you are not confident in your leadership skills, it is natural to put a grumpy sour face when someone is audacious enough to fiddle with their phone during "your" meeting.

Bottomline, don't be a fucking Nazi.

What?? You mean to say that journalists do NOT know everything??

Sodium light is a kind of light that the eye is very responsive to, and it is perfect for illuminating roads and freeways: any one of you that has done some nocturnal driving will agree that the difference between driving with your vehicle's headlights only on an otherwise pitch black road, with driving under sodium lights is huge.

Other technologies that produce bright light (Xenon, Halogen, all those 'energy saving' graded ones etc) are IMO are to bright to be of such use. Notice this: they are very bright, shine on things with wavelengths that make them look confusing and are in all good lights if you want to be seen, but not if you want to see. In the above example, imagine that you are driving headlights only, and then you enter a patch of that country road where the community thought would save money by replacing the sodiums with the bright white new energy saving ones, that watt-for-lumen are great. Then, all that happens is that the light blinds you, and since it is not really reflected back from the road that well not only you still cannot really see (like when you were driving in pitch black) but now you have a bright light on your face dazzling you

So, bright new tech lights: are bright? Yes. Make your vehicle look like some sort of inter-dimensional fearsome invader? Yes. Are effective? No. So please leave the sodium lights where they are and, if you do not hate other drivers, ban xenon lights from cars.

LEDs are good for trafic lights, as they are (kind of) directional and quite bright: however, if anyone has driven in underdeveloped countries where LEDs are now out of control and used a lot in advertising billboards (gasstations etc), will agree that it is very easy to confuse a, say, green or red light from said billboards with the real traffic light- so IMHO at least the red, green and orange leds should be regulated, especially on areas with traffic and traffic lights. Do not get me wrong, I am all into how they cyberpunk up the place, but bear in mind that you do not want some senior driver misinterpreting the local fish market's daily discounts shined on green LED letters for a green traffic light, and driving just ahead simply not registering the true traffic light and running you over (or worse). Not to mention problems in computer driving.

Finally, since there has been some progress in 'naturalizing' the 'white' LED color, it will be interesting to see if this progress is to the point where light reflect back from the street is in a manner that makes the surroundings look crisp, and aids the driver in being aware of them, which is the whole point.

Not quite.

An awesome question. And, basically, an awesome idea. I would think that if you can set up a numeric experiment that virtually represents fundamental particles and their interactions, and you already know more or less the trajectories in some n-dimensional space (through this new discovery), then you can probably greatly optimize your algorithms since you will a priori know whereabouts to look for solutions: you would not need to sweep everything.

Or, you can accept this manifold as truth, and further constrain your experiment: interactions will only be "allowed" on this manifold, and many of the previously free parameters will not be free anymore. And of course, once done, one can compare to observations.

Forgive me if I made a serious error here, my QCD is a bit rusty.

HAHAHHAHHAHA

This, even in the slim chance that is the truth, is absolutely no excuse. They should at least try to act responsible by cleaning after their own mess.

Then Michael Byers is not quite the expert: when the ice cap in the North Pole shrinks or disappears completely, a whole new theater will come into play. Claims have already been filed for integration of the North Arctic Ocean into their exclusive economic zones from several countries, including Canada.

The website where this article is hosted at, 'buzzfeed', has probably more than 30,000 track/ad crapsite partners, driving my firewall crazy. Why on earth do I need to allow a dozen such sites and their javascript and flash, sites with names similar to ad1.trackadexperts-r-us.com to be shoved down my browser's throat, in order to read this article?

The NSA at their worst day are way more moral that those shitty advertrackers and their sneaky ways.

I do not think that it is just that. Some years back when Facebook started, one could have an account by providing a VALID ACADEMIC email address ONLY- that, implied that one had to do with a serious social academic tool that allowed to connect with other academics, and not yet another place to post pictures of cats and sandwiches. So many people bited and just gave away their personal information. Of course, Facebook turned a couple of years later, showing its real face and bringing chat to the masses, and it was only then that people started not giving away their real names.

Indirectly, all the time: do you seriously think that there is no backdoor for the authorities in Facebook?

Fair assumption, I believe. They do snoop on all their other stuff, why not on this one as well.

The goal is not to get geeks interested: it is to hit the news' headlines and make the research more 'hot', so the chances of it being funded increase.

As an example, astrophysics, astronomy and planetary science these days is all "exoplanets this, exoplanets that": exoplanet research is something the public likes and can relate to (as is gold) and, until it gets bored of it, it is guaranteed to enjoy more funding than other disciplines.

This often leads 'science journalists' to come up with a catchy title, sometimes stretching it really far: a while back ago some did so regarding the methane emissions from Mars, spamming the headlines with 'life on Mars'-- whereas all there was about that on the publication was _one_ sentence toward the end saying something like "at this point, a biological origin for the detected methane emission cannot be ruled out."

Furthermore, the ones administering the funds, mostly politicians and not scientists themselves, are more prone to allow money to flow towards the direction of a 'hot topic' project, and this is because they cover their bases for their own careers: money thrown towards research that had citizens excited means that those politicians "did a good job" allocating that money, which looks good in their CVs.

Scientists are well aware of this and, unfortunately, lots of them play along and often "peacock up" their publications and come up with some very annoying and embarrassing publication titles, acronyms and catch phrases.

But they do. They are looking for illegal aliens, mind you.