The Sahara is a rather large heat-sink, absorbing the sun's energy by day and releasing it by night. This helps drive weather systems to its east. Covering it with solar panels would change that dynamic, as the sands of the Sahara would no longer be able to soak up the heat -- now blocked by solar panels.
In small regions, this isn't enough of an issue to become an actual problem. But the Sahara is a big enough region for that to happen. .. not to mention the ecology of the Sahara; after all there IS life there, and this would affect them as well.
The Sahara isn't just empty, wasted space.

Exactly!! This has always bugged me. Why the hell are we "saving" daylight during the time of year when we (in the Northern Hemisphere, at least) have the MOST daylight? That makes zero sense.

Indeed!!! The length of the day is the length of the day. PERIOD! No clock change alters that. What gets me is that people don't seem to understand that Noon is when the sun passes the meridian, i.e.-the sun is due south (local noon, not by time zones of course) Daylight "Savings" Time alters this such that noon on the clock is actually 11am by the sun ... This throws off our circadian rhythms and attunement to nature.

I think an in-depth audit needs to happen to find out who's taking money from NASA to line their own pockets. This screams of typical governmental embezzlement.

One thing that bothers me and other model aircraft hobbyists and enthusiasts is the insistence on calling model aircraft "drones".
This post at one point says, "..... policy on drones, or what the agency calls "model aircraft." " .....
You know what? They've been model aircraft for over 50 years now. Why have we started calling them "drones"? .. To inflate fear, that's why.
So call them what they are. Model aircraft. They are NOT drones. Knock it off. Seriously.

The way you say it you make it sound like loopholes are part of the INTENT of any given law. That is not the case. Finding loopholes is finding ways to legally break a law .. not "obeying the actual law as written" ... there's a distinction there.

This write-up is misleading.
It states, "But as astronomers watched on the evening of 28 November, the brightly flaring Ison moved behind the Sun but never emerged."
That is wrong. ISON DID in fact emerge. Just not as a cohesive comet. What emerged was a "fan" of dust and debris.
It's not like ISON simply disappeared with no trace and no one saw it.

I have started this page. Please like it, post it, and encourage people to sound off against the making of a Blade Runner sequel.
Thanks!
https://www.facebook.com/StopBladeRunnerSequel [facebook.com]

I have started this page. Please like it, post it, and encourage people to sound off against the making of a Blade Runner sequel.
Thanks!
https://www.facebook.com/StopBladeRunnerSequel [facebook.com]

I have started this page. Please like it, post it, and encourage people to sound off against the making of a Blade Runner sequel.
Thanks!
https://www.facebook.com/StopBladeRunnerSequel [facebook.com]

I have started this page. Please like it, post it, and encourage people to sound off against the making of a Blade Runner sequel.
Thanks!
https://www.facebook.com/StopBladeRunnerSequel

This should not be happening. With any luck, this abomination-train can be derailed. Hollywood has gone too far this time. Blade Runner is sacrosanct. There is NO room for a 'sequel', and I sure hope there is no market for one either. Blade Runner is. That is enough. No more is needed or wanted. Let's get together and send a message to Hollywood that enough is enough. Let's put a STOP to this abomination.

So it's NOT releasing unused monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide into the upper atmosphere? .. My thoughts was that this glow could be caused by the combustion of the released fuel, being hypergolic and all.

This was not a nuke. The missle was unarmed. It was a flight and systems test. One thing the article fails to point out is the the fuel in the third stage is hypergolic. It is two parts, monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, which ignite upon contact. SO!! One can only assume that upon a fuel dump, there would be ignition which, it seems to me, would fully and totally explain this expanding cloud of glow.

Exactly. This scientist is simply seeking publicity. Making such statements based on current data is irresponsible.