I know sleep loss and/or sleeping for unregular length and time can lead to all kinds of problems, but since I can't even remember when I've slept more than 6 hours at a time, and I have to pull all-nighters from time to time, and I'm still alive and kicking, I have to say I believe that eating habits (type and quantity) and regular exercising can help a lot in balancing the scale. Of course, people having circulatory, blood pressure or heart problems might have a different story to tell.

They can demand all they want. What I demand is, that if a show is supposed to present scientific results about what we know about the universe at this point, then it should not feed religious issues into the topic. Make a different show, name it differently, and talk about religious issues all you want. But demanding all scientific publications (tv or not) also include all kinds of religious and creativist ideas as well is plainly idiotic. If you feel offended by that view, then at least you know how other people feel when you demand them to be fed religious issues everywhere they turn. And that comes from a person (yes, me) who has been regularly going to church since early childhood. Religion has its place, and I don't believe Cosmos is that. Neither is our children's biology class for that matter.

>Can anyone who believes that it really isn't getting hotter explain why, if its not getting hotter all the world's glaciers and ice shields are simultaneously melting faster than at any time in geological history?

Carbon black. If you maintained the same level of CO2 in the atmosphere and increased the soot you would see a slight amount of atmospheric cooling but a much larger warm up in bright surfaces such as ice and snow. That is from the IPCC themselves. Somewhere close to half of black carbon sources are from fossil fuel sources. That said, the other half are from burning biomass and bio-fuels, which are considered carbon neutral sources, therefore the reduction of fossil sources and an increase of bio sources can still leave us in a situation that melts all the glacers.

Do I agree? I've been using AStudio since the first preview came out after I/O, and after using it for 5 minutes it became clear to me that I'll never go back to frustrate myself with eclipse, ever. I don't mean to offend to good people who develop eclipse, but the damn thing gave me so many headaches over the time I had to use it, that dropping it felt like recovering from a long illness, honestly. Of course, there are lots of people who like it, obviously I'm not one of them. Regarding AStudio, if you didn't try it up to now, I think it's time, since it really matured from its first preview release, and while there can be some big changes between updates causing some minor trouble, it's already pretty good, and I think it's pretty clear it'll be the best IDE for android development.

It'll take you some time to switch from eclipse though, getting used to doing things a bit differently, so don't plan to do it overnight. First I kept using eclipse for existing projects, and using AS for new ones, then at some point I moved everything to AS and never looked back.

Panels, panels are useless. Batteries and power storage is the question. Not very many is the answer.

There are many things that won't move on. Metallurgical coal for example. You'll drive up the price of other goods associated with the products made with it. That is ignoring that the power companies own many of the coal mines. You not only have to pay for the coal mine, but the loss of power generation directly.

TL;DR: Article is ignorant of how the coal industry works.

That's why many suggest the plea bargain should be abolished.

It's just as likely that many cases that this technology was used in where never brought to court but settled in a plea agreement so discovery never occurred.

No, the police never claimed if what they were doing was illegal or legal. THEY DIDN'T TELL THE COURT ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

What's even worse, until this case the lawyers didn't find out how the case got to that point.

This is as bad or worse then the parallel construction we hear about the FBI/NSA doing. You cannot defend against what you do not know exists.

But the police didn't use the 'Phind my Fon' app. They used a fucking microcell that intercepted signals from everybodys cellphone in the area. If this where only about intercepting signals from that one particular phone there would be no issue here.

Add to that, the average semi drives 125,000 miles per year, 10 times the average car driver.

>Since soda cans can be returned for 5 cents each at the grocery stores

Only if you pay that 5 cents to the store in the first place. In the majority of the states there is no can/bottle fee.

J.I.T.

Larger modern business are very price selective on how they ship. But shipping costs alone are only one part of that cost algebra. It is generally far cheaper per pound to ship via rail, but for many products it is cheaper over all to use a just in time inventory system to reduce warehousing space. Quick turn around trucking fits in with JIT systems very well.

>Because they originally turned iMessage on.

Completely erase your iphone and set it back up.

Setting up iMessage is one of the first 'default' screens that you come to in the processes. As in put your user and pass here with a little skip option on the bottom of the screen. They didn't explicitly find the setting and turn it on. It presents itself in a manner that leads the user to believe that it must be turned on.

"This is good news for replicating experiments, building on past results, and science in general."

It is, unless the data can't be made "publicly available, without restriction" (very important emph. added), in which case you can't publish there. Yes, there are others, but demanding dropping all restrictions in all cases is simply an approach blind to reality. Also, if they demand so, they must provide free storage, which in some cases could range to multiple gb of data - and you won't want to pay for indefinite storage of large datasets, for certain.

Also, I wish to repeat my hatred towards the kind of open access publication methods most (if not all) major sci outlets use, namely charging the author many thousands of USD/EUR for publication, costs which most grants don't cover (e.g. my institute mandates open access publications, but of course they don't provide the financial resources to do so). This in turn shifts the focus, since now it's in the best interest of a publisher to accept as many as they can (keep the money flowing), instead of accepting the best ones and get the money from interested readers (and yes, if it's good, they come). Of course politician-scientists like the publicity they get from folks for trying to 'set science free'. I just wish they'd do a bit more thinking, they are scientists after all (or so they claim to be).