There's actually some truth to this. Originally it was called soft x-ray projection lithography. The other type of x-ray lithography was a near contact shadow technique using shorter (near 1nm) x-rays. To distinguish the two techniques they changed the name from soft x-ray to EUV.

This was also done for marketing reasons. X-ray lithography had failed (after sinking a lot of $$ into it), while optical lithography had successful moved from visible to UV, to DUV. By calling it EUV it sounds like the next logical step, instead of being associated with the failure that was x-ray lithography.

(Actually, x-ray lithography didn't really truly fail. It does work, but optical surpassed it before it was ready, so it became pointless)

I don't think that's the same. If the label said that GM foods were bad for your health or the environment, then you'd have a point. If all the label says is that the food is GM then it's up to the consumer to decide what that means to him/her. I don't see anything wrong with this. If the consumer wants to vote with his/her wallet to avoid GM foods, then great - companies will respond to the desires of the people by producing less GM food. If people would rather buy GM food, well, then I can't really blame the companies for giving people what they want. (In the absence of evidence of harm to health and environment).

I really think the current schedule has a number of reasons: Sharing the buses between high school, middle school, and elementary school. High school students want to get out early for sports or jobs. Teachers probably also appreciate being done with classes earlier. I don't think Puritan culture has anything to do with it, at this point.
 

Those cases are always heartbreaking. It's a mistake anyone of us could make. You multiply the large number of kids in child seats times the small likelihood of someone making this mistake and you are going to get a finite number of deaths a year. Most of the time the parents aren't being neglectful, they're just being human.

To some extent one could say the same about this case involving the gun. However, I don't think anything involving a gun (especially in a house with kids around) should ever be as routine as driving a kid around.

I suspect that the liquid is not actually silicon dioxide, but is a silicone that cures to silicon dioxide. Such flowable oxides (such as hydrogen silsesquioxane or HSQ) are often used in the semiconductor industry for a convienent planarizing layer.

This is the same basic result as a previous article:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/1856230/New-Optomechanical-Crystal-Allows-Confinement-of-Light-and-Sound

The structure in the current article is a ring resonator in this article. In the previous article the structure was a grating based resonator.

I found an article with better information:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=optical-force-gradient

My guess is it's Michal Lipson's group:

http://nanophotonics.ece.cornell.edu/

This is different than acousto-optics. There is no outside force here; all the movement is generated by the light itself. The miniscule amount of force from the light is enough to excite a resonance in the mechanical structure. The structure is both resonant to light and to acoustics. The two resonances are coupled because as the structure moves, the optical resonance shifts a little bit.

It is really cool work, but I haven't figured out what it'll be useful for.

The standard fixture CFL's (A19 replacements) I've bought have all been pretty good. They start up fast (except in cold weather) with enough light output that I don't mind that it's not 100%. However, I've tried flood light replacements, and they all stink. I might as well light a candle for all the light they output when I turn them on. It takes a good couple minutes before they reach a reasonable light level, and another few minutes before they reach close to the advertised amount of light.

Use the right tool for the job.

I agree -
2-D Platformers and most classic games -> d-pad, joystick, or keyboard (my preference is joystick, but I'm an old-timer)
3-D Platformers -> modern console (except Wii)
First person shooter -> mouse and keyboard
Real time strategy -> mouse and keyboard
Flight simulator -> joystick and keyboard (unless you spring for a more involved setup)
Driving -> steering wheel and pedals.
Rhythm -> unique controllers - here the controller basically is the game, and the games are differentiated primarily by the controller.
Wii -> Motion controllers like these are still in their infancy. Wii Sports, etc., hints at what's to come.

I second another post that comments that modern console controllers (Wii, not withstanding) are jacks of all trades, masters of none. They work reasonable well for a huge gamete of game types, but I think 3-D platformer is the only game type that I think they are the best choice for.

I also think that for most games, simpler controls are better. Fewer buttons, less complicated maneuvers all allow the game to picked up quickly by a large number of people. Some people really enjoy mastering complicated controls, and that's fine. I just don't think that complicated controls make games fun for the majority of people.

"They" say being slightly overweight leads to a longer life than "normal" weight. Perhaps the reality is "they've" defined normal a little too low.

There's definitely some truth to that statement. In addition, there's a natural tendency for people to gain weight as they get older. In our youth obsessed culture thin=young=good, which may not actually be true.

I think the real reason having a little extra weight is beneficial is that it helps if you get seriously ill. If you are very sick, you might not be able to eat for weeks. Having that extra storage of energy is essential to fight off the illness and get better.

If you are seriously overweight, the added complications of carrying that weight outweigh (no pun intended) any benefit.

Show some evidence even for an effect in the brain which can't possibly be accounted for by everything we currently understand about it, and people might be more willing to believe your ludicrous claims.

Simple. The fact that I (and you, too) am aware of our existence. We can argue about free will, but perhaps more important is the perception of free will, or indeed any will at all.

(Not that I necessarily agree with the grandparent's ludicrous claims, either).

I generally agree with you. This is absolutely the fairest solution. However, I think those who oppose gay marriage will then say "Why do I need to give up anything?" I don't agree with them, but that's what you'll hear.

One of the strongest arguments for gay marriage is "who is it hurting?" By causing a change in traditional marriage people can then actually point to something. (People point to something now, but most of those arguments are, quite frankly, bogus).