On a very cursory view it looks more like an anti-Muslim blog, possibly with an Israel-apologist, possibly Zionist bent.
I hope i'm wrong, as i really don't have time to read further ATM, but this definitely should get more investigation before it makes it to the front page.

KOSS Sparkplugs just had a memory foam earbud cone. Much like moldable foam earplugs. You just roll/squeeze them between your fingers and it takes several seconds for them to plump back to regular size. Put them in the ear before they plump up and they hold themselves perfectly snug with only VERY slight pressure on the inside of the earhole. Great noise isolation and very comfortable and they were KOSS so they actually had decent sound as well. Nearly all other earbud-type apparati make my ears hurt. Unfortunately they seem to be discontinued, and i've not seen any similar products out there; though mine are still good so i've not spent much time looking.

Anyway: i feel like the memory foam solution is actually better than the semi-permanent moldables from TFA.

Researchers find 'Mind-Control' gaming headsets can be used like a glorified POLYGRAPH, and may some day be about as usefull. ...There. Fixed it for ya.

WhyTF are browsers still being written to allow this sort of behavior. And more specifically, why is Microsoft whining about this instead of writing their browser with actual privacy precautions. The ball is in the web apps' court on this. Write your damn software with security in mind. The real bad guys aren't just going to agree to stop abusing your loopholes.

This is not even a little bit new. Not the hypothesis, nor even a lot of the data.
The research and the related papers/reports are solid steps for the scientific method... hypothesis testing and refining, etc.
But this stuff often gets reported as if it's some kind of new scientific revelation, which confuses thing significantly for the public.

Wow that was a shitty article, with very little real info; and i couldn't be bothered to search the actual journal's obtuse listings.
But just for the sake of argument i'm assuming that the sun that normal trees already get their UV from will induce the red emissions. I'm also assuming that the red glow is delayed in some way and happens after nightfall. Like, it's brought about by some reaction during the trees' dark phase of photosynthesis... what is it, i can't remember, respiration?
Or maybe the energy is somehow stored between the gold/chlorophyl interface and takes al night to dissipate as red light...

In any case my point is that the requirement for UV energy input isn't a deal breaker all by itself.
However there is no substantial info here with which to make a determination.
Did anyone who tracked down the actual article have any insight?

BTW did ya'll like how the crappy, crappy "magazine" that TFA was in just dug up some random false-color, infrared pics of completely unrelated trees and posted them with the article. Nice!. ;)

You mean like the sun, where trees already get their outside energy from? ;)
(To be fair: shitty article, very little real info, i'm just assuming, based on essentially nothing, there might be some kind of delayed reaction/stored energy that causes the red glow to continue after nightfall.)

I hate to be pedantic when you're obviously just setting up a joke, but...
while the natural history and habitat range of recluses(loxosceles) are not well defined or understood, central California is within the accepted natural range of at least one loxosceles spider, and at least one more is thought to have been introduced and naturalized into that range as well. Also, Manteca is nowhere near the Sutter Buttes, it's actually closer to Yosemite, and closer still to the San Fransico Bay. The Buttes are a hundred-miles-or-so north of Manteca.

Sorry... close to home ...

No, no it doesn't.
Wikipedia makes no such claim. =)

Why fuck around with half-assed shit like that when you could just do four 10-hour shifts per week, and get THREE DAYS OFF every week?!

Wrong. That is not the definition of species.
PART of the definition is that they DON'T interbreed, not that the biologically can't.
See my above reply to your parent, or just try looking in a dictionary or even wikipedia while using reading comprehension. Most definitions or explanations of species and speciation specifically don't say that populations can't interbreed. They simply indicate that they DON'T.

Neanderthal would quite possibly be more accurately described as a 'race'.
The jury is very much still out on this one, with no sign of clearing up soon. It is a pretty controversial topic in the field of physical anthropology. Science are a long way from consensus or overwhelming evidence one way or the other on whether neanderthal was: 1)essentially a highly adapted and isolated racial/ethnic variation of Homo sapiens; 2)a subspecies --which, at any rate, is not well defined as being different from an isolated racial/ethnic variation-- for example Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, as opposed to modern huans, Homo sapiens sapiens; 3)possibly a separate species. Even if it can legitimately be characterized as a separate species there is, yet again, no consensus, nor overwhelming evidence as to whether they died off or just reassimilated/interbred with archaic modern human populations.

And yes contrary to popular myth some distinct 'species' can, and do, interbread and produce viable offspring. This is due to many factors. Taxonomy is a human classification system for information, and does not necessarily reflect biological realities. Accepted taxonomies are constantly in flux due to availability of new data, as well new interpretations of data. The definition of species itself as not yet stable, and is still somewhat controversial. Some distinct 'species' don't interbreed because they... haven't. This can be due to geographical or even 'social' isolation from other populations, and is not necessarily an indication of biological inability to produce viable offspring. BTW, in evolutionary biology 'viable offspring' means they can go on to produce and rear new generations of offspring who are also viable. The ability to interbread as a defining characteristic for speciation is fairly antiquated. It's a handy item to have at the top of the checklist: if populations biologically can't interbreed then obviously they are different species; it doesn't work the other way around though.

BTW, Tolkiens FICTIONS (as much as i love them) have zero bearing on the realities of evolutionary biology, or social sciences, other than the fact that they are an interesting reflection of the endmic racism of his culture at the time.

Disclaimer: i'm niether an anthropologist nor a biologist by trade nor training.