What it means to be a planet seems to be up there with what it means to be human, or at least the debate has drawn just as much philosophical banter and passionate personas.

One reason for the tug-of-war between differing views is our beloved Pluto. One definition would keep the tiny world in the planet line-up and another boots it out. That’s what happened in 2006 when the organization that names celestial bodies, the International Astronomical Union (IAU), voted in a new definition of planet that demoted Pluto to “dwarf planet.” (Under a more recent IAU decision, Pluto and similar objects are classified as “plutoids.”)

Many astronomers were disgruntled over the 2006 IAU decision, which they said involved a vote of just 424 astronomers out of some 10,000 professional astronomers and many other planetary scientists around the globe.

Possibly to rectify the vote or just as a scientific discussion of the puzzling planet question, astronomers are gathering for “The Great Planet Debate: Science as Process” conference from Aug. 14-16 at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Md.

As part of the conference, an open-to-the-public debate between Mark Sykes of the Planetary Science Institute and Neil deGrasse Tyson of the American Museum of Natural History will start at 4:30 pm EDT on August 14th. The debate, which will be moderated by Ira Flatow, the host of Science Friday on National Public Radio, is free to everyone and will be streamed live on the web.

Whether or not the debate is fruitful in producing a consensus, there is sure to be some heated back and forth.

• Great Planet Debate: Scientists Could Overturn Official Definition
• The History of the Pluto Controversy
• Gallery: Our New Solar System

Text messaging and walking at the same time, it turns out, can be hazardous to both the Blackberry-wielding pedestrians and passersby.

An article in The Wall Street Journal today describes several mobile mishaps. For instance, Mike Munoz, a 44-year-old car-dealership manager in suburban Portland, Ore., describes walking smack into the bride at a wedding while he’s texting.

“Who would miss someone wearing a white dress and an 8-foot train?” Munoz tells the newspaper. “She didn’t get hurt or tear her dress, and I didn’t get kicked out of the wedding for almost killing the bride.”

Then, there’s Bryan Fuhr, who was walking his dog in Manhattan last summer (while tapping away on a mobile device) when he stepped into a road in the path of a biker, who ran over Fuhr’s foot, knocking him to the ground and leaving him with scrapes, bruises and two broken toes, the newspaper reports.

The texting injuries have landed several in the emergency room, according to James Adams, Northwestern Memorial Hospital’s chairman of emergency medicine.

Portable this-and-that’s have helped businesspeople and teens alike to not only ditch excess baggage, but also to carry a technological tether wherever they go. The wireless connection can be a positive (the ability to call for help in an emergency and keep in touch with friends) to a negative, as bosses expect employees to be reachable 24-7, come hell or high water, vacation or staycation. Plus, work productivity can decrease as we all stay oh-so-connected, and technological addictions abound.

To counter the injuries, however, Blackberry enthusiasts have come up with some prevention tips. For instance, the WSJ article notes an Internet forum called crackberry.com, in which Blackberry users trade tips on how to safely navigate busy streets while texting.

“U gotta walk with ur chin @ about 45 degree angle, n u won’t bump into nothing,” reads one post from a user named JBEL. “Trust me it works.”

And in London, a directory-services company called 118 118, operated by The Number UK Ltd., started placing padded bumpers on lampposts in the East End to cut down on injuries to texters. (The padding was also a publicity campaign.)

With cell phones and PDA’s becoming an everyday accessory, many people will not stand for even a short walk without the ability to reach out to others wherever they may be (yeah, public restrooms are not off limits!).

Finding love has become a corporate, and scientific, endeavor.

As reported in this New York Times article:

“Once upon a time, finding a mate was considered too important to be entrusted to people under the influence of raging hormones. … But now some social scientists have rediscovered the appeal of adult supervision — provided the adults have doctorates and vast caches of psychometric data. Online matchmaking has become a boom industry as rival scientists test their algorithms for finding love.”

The first company, the article mentions, to breach the “don’t-try-this-yourself” science of online matchmaking, eHarmony, relies on 29 “core traits,” such as emotional temperament, to match people.

As expected on the capitalist playing field, the companies with the help of scientists are duking it out in an effort to draw customers to their match-making sites.

For instance, an anthropologist parlayed her research into the neural chemistry of people in love into the site Chemistry.com, which was set up by Match.com. Another algorithm-based site is Perfectmatch.com.

Just because scientists and equations are involved, does that make for more than a love potion?

Past research, reported here at LiveScience, revealed that online dating suffers from the same pitfalls as meeting up in real life: Finding the perfect match is difficult and can involve “blood, sweat and tears.” Often, online daters are expecting sparks to fly when they come face-to-face with whom they’ve associated with a person’s profile. In fact, about 10 million people (64 percent of online daters) think online dating helps people find a better match because of access to a larger pool of potential dates.

But when they realize the real-life date is exactly that — real — their expectations get deflated.

In the larger picture, looking back at strings of lousy relationships, one has to wonder whether computer or human is better equipped to choose that perfect mate.

For the millions of Americans who work from home, does the teleconference-in-your-slippers lifestyle equal a stress-free, productive one?

Research published in a recent issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, reported by LiveScience, suggests this alternative work arrangement is a win-win set-up. But today in this New York Times article, home-workers relay the troubles involved, including distractions from children, the short trip from the bedroom to the office (which can mean a beckoning computer or a beckoning bed) and feelings of isolation.

“There are no cigarette breaks,” said Sid Holt, a media senior vice president who set up his office in a barn a few steps from his house, in the Times article. “You’re either working too hard or not hard enough,” he said.

Also in the Times article, Holt gives a tip for balancing work hours: Schedule your home-office time similar to a nine-to-five one with a structured daily routine.