Parent beat me to this, but has score zero. Trees are great. But trees (and plants) are not carbon sinks. To be a carbon sink, you got to cut it down and bury it so deep that it'll never come out again in geological timescales. Like the abyssal ocean. Into a subduction fault. Turn it into limestone. Clathrate.
Some dead plants turn into peat. This is a great carbon sink, for millions of years, until some humans find out you can burn it. Or global warming melts the permafrost and it starts to rot. Most plants don't keep for millions of years, they just rot right away.
Plants are carbon neutral. That's why bio-fuels are a (marginally) good idea, if you can, grow, harvest, and transform the plants into biofuel using only biofuel and renewable sources.
Any story where the Majorana fermion is "inside" something isn't the earthshattering discovery these mis-representing stories say it is. It's just a bunch of electrons moving around as a group. It's interesting to people interested in such things. It doesn't redefine our understanding of the universe as the discovery of THE Majorana fermion would be. Which probably doesn't even exist, so you should already be looked at these submissions with a skeptical eye.
Everytime you post one of these, it's like seeing "RSA BROKEN" and then reading the article to find the footnote "for 64 bit keys". Just stop.
This issue was described far better than I can in William Kahan's essay, How Java's floating point hurts everyone everywhere
2) the NSA is spying on everybody and recruiting by injecting banner ads into TCP streams to recruit TechCrunch readers?
4) That Dan Tynan, a TechCrunch writer and O'Reilly author, doesn't understand how ad distributors do business?
Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.