The few times that I have needed to read an ACM or IEEE article for something, I have visited my alma mater's library.
I have usually found the article using a web search engine or in some article database.

Bullshit. Planned Obsolescence is an invented, artificial concept, not an observation of the market.

Actually, what you tout as two points of contention are really not. The science is clear, but there are people who have their own agendas for questioning these issues.

The UN founded the IPCC. It is the authority on climate change science. They do not do science as a group on their own, they condense what science has already been done.

1. The IPCC report released in September last year answers this question with a large YES: Humanity is responsible for climate change. The probability is 95%, and that is still considered a conservative estimate.

2. The IPCC released a working draft in April of this year for the predictions on what will happen if carbon emissions continue as they do. There is a lot to read. I can sum it up for you: We would be screwed.
Even if we cut carbon emissions completely right now, the climate will still warm from the gases that are already there. Sea levels are already rising and will rise even more.
Global warming does not mean that it will be warmer everywhere, it means that the weather becomes more extreme: dry areas can expect to be more dry, wet areas will be more wet, storms are going to be stronger, etc.

As to #3, there will be a summit next year about what to do.
It is clear that carbon emissions need to be cut substantially and that there needs to be global agreements that are tough enough to do any effect.
Personally, I think the best thing would be to couple a treaty with trade: if you don't sign the treaty, those who do will add high tariffs for goods to and from your country. (And no, there is not just one economist who thought that up a few weeks ago, that idea has been debated a long time.)
In the EU, countries have had carbon allotments that could be bought and sold, but they have failed because they have been too cheap. Several countries, and the EU itself has goals for cutting emissions by certain amounts by a certain year, but there has been too little progress and it looks as if the goals won't be met if things progress as they have.
If carbon allotments are going to be highly valued and countries are going to change, then emission limits need to be tightened every year.

From what I have gathered when talking with people the big point of getting a x86 tablet is to be able to connect peripherals and devices when you need them but avoid the space when you don't.
Some people I know prefer to use better external small keyboards and don't want to lug around on a laptop keyboard they don't use. The "keyboard covers" that have been offered are worse than most laptop keyboards.
People also want to connect devices such as their DSLR camera for doing some light image editing on the go, and that requires also a good pointing device such as a mouse or light-pen.

The x86 tablets from Microsoft have only one single USB port making the use of non-bluetooth peripherals difficult. The 8" Lenovo tablets have no USB ports on the tablets themselves. The Miix 2 has one only on the keyboard dock which is not made to be carrying around.
And no 8" windows tablet that I have seen so far has had a digitizer pen included - on the form factor where it makes the most sense, as evidenced by the popularity of the Samsung Galaxy Note.

There are lots of gas pockets in Siberian and under the polar seas that are locked by cold temperatures only. As warming increases, more and more of these will burst, accelerating climate change.

Scientists have been warning of these for many years. There has been lots of talks about a "tipping point" after which no reduction in man's greenhouse gas emissions would have any effect, when carbon levels in the atmosphere could increase because of cascading natural gas eruptions alone.
This is why it is so important to reduce carbon emissions.

Chefs prefer gas over electric stoves because it heats the cookwares fast, directly - not indirectly through a cooking plate that has to get warm first and stays warm afterwards.

Induction stoves are just as fast as gas burners, and has better thermal efficiency, plus being safer.
The drawback is that the cookware has to be of iron and have a flat bottom. Cast-iron pots and pans used to be very heavy, but there is cookware today where the iron layer is sandwiched with ceramic or aluminium which are much lighter. You can't use a round-bottomed wok, though.

I have used and made software for a device precisely such as this one, with position and direction in space, only that it was not worn but handheld and called a "wand". This was fifteen years ago, '98/'99.

It was used for control in a CAVE environment where you are enclosed in a cube of six computer screens with the perspective adjusted to the position and direction of your 3D glasses.

I would say that cockpit windows are a solved problem.

The structural problems of the windows that the De Havilland Comet had did not have to do with the cockpit windows but with the passenger windows. It was solved by making the windows round instead of square.

The tutorial shows cutting a PCB from a SNES controller into three parts.
When cutting PCBs (and other things of fiberglass), it is important not to inhale the dust - in the worst case, fiberglass dust can cause lung cancer.

The tutorial recommends a dust mask, but does not mention how important it is.
I always use a dust mask and a vacuum cleaner with HEPA filter running with the nozzle right next to the workpiece when I cut PCBs.
Also, don't do it where you live, and do collect the dust that settles.

Yeah... It could be in the "Internet" category for some. "One-handed websurfing".

A good wank.

Don't mod me down, I'm serious. A lot of people do it every evening to settle down and relax before going to bed, but they don't talk about it. Just ask a sexologist.
Some are blessed with having a willing significant other, and some don't have any, and some do have one that is not willing to do it every night.

I don't think that this is a ban on this particular product model but rather about banning a category of products.

I think that for many people it is about availability. Movies are released at different dates in different parts of the world, or in some places not at all. A movie may be released in cinemas six months later somewhere, but by then the hype about it on the Internet is already long over.

You could also see it this way:
You would be taxing away the competitive advantage that companies in a polluting country would have against companies in those who restricts its carbon emissions.

In the short term, it would promote domestic business. In the long term, the polluting country is supposed to lower its emissions and get back in the game, and then both foreign and domestic companies should be able to compete on the same terms - creating more competition and again lower prices.