If they were all wrong in the same way, it is possible you were just reading slightly edited versions of the same account provided by a news feed like the Associated Press.

From the second link:

This is based on WebRTC which is a W3C draft that both Safari and Internet Explorer have committed to implement. There has to be a first browser to implement any proposed standard.

If you look at the absorption and efficiency plots in the linked nature abstract, the improvement is pretty broad spectrum as it is. Based on the Fourier analysis plots, it does seem like a slightly wider pit spacing would better concentrate the energy in their desired sweet spot, but CDs and DVDs would be too wide. HD-DVD actually looks like it might have the most ideal pit spacings.

Actually, that already happened. As the abstract of the paper notes, previous research has already identified how to theoretically optimize patterns, but arbitrary patterns require expensive photo lithography equipment to create. This research shows that an existing inexpensive mass production technique generates results that are almost as good as the optimized patterns, but not quite as good because the spacing of the pits is a bit too periodic (especially across tracks rather than along them).

Next up, Halo light bridges!

Ironically, the MPAA you cite possesses no power that the public doesn't give it voluntarily. The MPAA puts ratings on its movies. Movie theaters show these movies to the public. These theaters are under no obligation to ban unrated movies. That they have collectively decided to do so is a social phenomenon, not a regulatory one.

In this sense, the MPAA has no more power than, say, Consumer Reports Magazine. If I decide to open a theater chain showing any movie, regardless of rating, nobody can stop me. But my success will depend upon the public's willingness to ignore that lack of rating. Honestly, it might make a fun social experiment to see what would happen, but I lack the funds and time to do it. I suspect the results would surprise the MPAA, as social and moral attitudes have changed markedly in the last several decades. I don't think many people really care all that much about ratings anymore. It should be enough to note if a movie contains "adult content" or is "suitable for children" and that's about it.

Consider that any successful experience in cloning anything adds to our knowledge base about cloning. By perfecting cloning, we can do a lot more than just bring back extinct species. We could, for example, grow entirely new organs cloned from your body to replace damaged or failing ones, organs that could be transplanted into you without fear of tissue rejection. Further, the practice of being able to reliably modify cells at the genetic level can lead to all sorts of other benefits in medicine, biology, and even far-flung fields as nanotechnology when you consider the scale you have to work in.

The whole "can't you spend your time/money better" argument is pretty short-sighted when you consider the enormous ancillary benefits. It's like saying why bother going to the moon when you can spend money on Earth. But without that impetus, we might not have the very computers and Internet you're currently using to read this post, or lasers to correct your vision, or lightweight, strong materials used to make the planes you fly on, or the fuel cells used to power zero-emission vehicles, or...you get the idea.

Stop thinking in checkers. Think chess. It's not the current move that matters; it's the move you make three moves from now that wins the game.

If your view is anything other than "it's a shirt" then you're the one with the problem, not me.

This is grown-up stuff. The thoughts you had as a fifteen year-old don't cut it when you're discussing with grown ups.

If SJWs were only expressing their ideas, that would be one thing. They're actively harassing the scientist to the point where he had to issue a public apology to try and get them to back off.

You can read my views on the shirt. Just don't misrepresent them, child.

And you're going to solve this by destroying a man's career over his SHIRT?!! And I'm the childish one?!!!

Nice strawman. You can read my views on the shirt. No offence but trying to argue like this makes you look like an imbecile.

Freedom of expression is objectively right

And yet you argue by pretending that one person's expression of their ideas does not exist and attempting impose something else so that you can attack it.

But the SJW mindset IS damaging. It IS destroying things. It's dangerous and it needs to be stopped.

This is just hyperbole. Grow up.

I'm sure you understand that I am not wrong. I have an opinion. So do you. My opinion is different from yours. Neither of us is "wrong" or "right". We might gauge whether one of us is more in line with social mores at a particular point in time. At the moment, my observations are correct. That is why he came under so much pressure. You never know; people like you might be able to convert sufficient other people so that your view becomes the majority. We will still neither of us be "right" or "wrong". We'll just be more or less in line with social mores at a particular point in time.

Crap like this demonstrates exactly how the world is being destroyed by SJWs. Their whining is potentially going to be career ruining to a guy who's only crime is wearing a shirt that was given to him as a gift. A shirt. All because it hurt some SJW's feelings, because they can't stand the thought of people looking at pretty women.

You can be a child if you want to, but society has a view of itself, just as it always has. At the moment, one of the big issues for society is the imbalance in career choices between girls and boys. Remember, there's no "right" or "wrong" about this; it's just one of the many issues that (our Western) society is debating at the moment. That is why this guy is taking heat for his shirt. This is grown-up stuff, and it takes thinking about. You and the other piss-baby can join the debate like a grown up and take your chance at convincing society that your POV is correct. Saying that "the world is being destroyed by SJWs" can be your opening argument in this debate, if you like, but I don't think it is going to convince anyone. There's no organisation called "SJWs". There's people like you and then there's lots of grown-ups in our societies who are trying to think hard about this stuff. These issues are important. Either think about them and join the debate like an adult, or fuck off.

Most people can think about more than one thing at a time. So in my head at the moment we have: It's an amazing achievement for the ESA and the team and for humanity at large. AND putting on that shirt was a bit thoughtless if he knew he was going to be on TV. AND if he didn't know he'd be asked to talk on TV and his bosses made him do it, that was a bit stupid on their part. AND if the TV people picked him to be on TV because of his shirt, that was pretty dickish of them.

See? You can think of more than one thing at a time and none of the other thing detract from the defining achievement of the mission. Unless you're a piss-baby who thinks your world is being ruined by SJWs. Then you can only keep one thing in your head at a time I guess.

Exactly how are they going to ban them? Short of banning them completely from stores -- a heavy-handed move that would likely meet significant legal obstacles -- they're going to be out there. You can't control where people fly these things, either. You could try jamming commonly-used RC frequencies to stop people from manually flying them here or there, but you can't stop someone who might pre-program a GPS-guided drone to deliberately go into controlled airspace without also jamming GPS -- and that would piss off too many people. And if that fails, really determined bad guy/idiot could put together an inertial guidance setup and *still* get into your airspace.

The only way to be sure is to shoot them down, but that's also impractical. These things are here to stay. I'm not saying I like it anymore than you because, I agree, some fool is going to fly their shiny quadcopter into the intake of a plane during takeoff and kill a bunch of people. I just don't see a way to stop them that's both legal (i.e. respects the safe, legal use of drones for legitimate purposes) and practical (you can't just shoot them all down).

You really need to qualify that statement. You get 1 watt of heat for each watt you use... for resistive heating. Many places that need both cooling and heating don't run an A/C and an electric heater, they run a heat pump, which pumps heat either into or out of the house. Because of the heat differential, one direction may be more efficient than the other, but it is still much better than a resistive heating element

In one minute of research, comparing a 2.5 ton 13 SEER A/C to an equivalent heat pump, the ability to both heat and cool adds a little less than %20 to the price at Home Depot. Installation costs are likely identical, as they both consist of the same components. With that cost differential, an A/C + resistive heat solution is only smart for a place that only needs heat a few nights per year.