I apologise for being unclear.
I was assuming that the API was sufficient to allow banking apps to do this.
So, for example, both existing banks apps could support other banks, and new providers, or open-source apps could be used.
In other words - a choice rather than 'pick bank, get app'.

Funding.
Assuming for the moment that the reproducers were not particularly more skilled than the original scientists, you can't go from '60% not reproduced' to '60% wrong'.

Assuming there is some actual effect being investigated, one reproduction will not get you to 'good' levels of surety about the effect. To hit '95%' - you're going to need likely over ten reproductions.

Imagine that instead of having your shitty bank app or website, or in many cases, several shitty bank apps or websites, you had one unified app that accessed that consistent API across banks, and presented a nice interface.

Transfer from bank 1s savings account on the right day to pay your incoming card bill from bank 2. ...
Unified balance and tracking of upcoming bills - warning you if you're about to go into the red with a hypothetical purchase in a week and your forecast income, ...

And yes - security is an obvious issue, and there need to be strict permissions.

Let's be optimistic, and assume the battery lasts 10 years - 3000 cycles from full-empty.
This is perhaps optimistic.

I am using the numbers for my electricity costs.
These are $.28 or so.
If it's 10kWh, and lasts 3000 cycles, that's 30000kWh.
Or close on $10K worth of electricity stored.

Even with free electricity - it will never break even against grid cost.
Actually having to buy solar panels makes the numbers much worse.

Is it great for off-grid - perhaps. It's a _lot_ more expensive than even spendy lead-acid batteries.

That doesn't mean it wasn't flawed.
Bees don't drink sugar water in nature.
The checking of the 'taste' of neonics is only one aspect that needs tested.
Is this masked by non-taste responses to normal nectar?

It doesn't work the same as holding your breath.
When you breath a gas containing no oxygen, oxygen streams out of your blood, as it is lower oxygen than the blood, and that is how the blood 'knows' to dump oxygen.
This means that what's coming out of the lungs is largely deoxygenated blood, not oxygenated.
This rapidly causes unconsciousness - much faster than just holding your breath.
It's a not uncommon industrial accident.
You don't really notice it - there is no shortness of breath, you simply feel a bit woozy one breath, and then are unconscious the next, and the next breath may not happen.

The components used to make a DAB reciever, while they have come down lots in price and power use recently - still use a _LOT_ of power - from the point of view of something running on small batteries.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Robert... - for example.
4-5 hours on two AA cells.
FM radios (at modest volume on headphones) can last over 200, with the same cells.

And say that availability of alcohol has a vastly higher effect than 5%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... - would seem to have come to the other conclusion in a somewhat similar case.
Was this under a different section of the ADA - or is this discriminated from in some manner.

mW= 1/1000th of a watt.
mW=W = parts per 1000 efficiency.

480mW/W = 0.48W of light out for every watt of electricity in.
This is a deep blue LED.
It is very bad if you measure it in lumens per watt because the eye is quite insensitive to blue light.

Whatever the answer - 30%/44% (and you can't do it that way, you've got to integrate over the spectral response of the eye and see if you actually care about colour - green light at 600lm/W is not a functional white light) - is still vastly higher than 10%.

You cannot get the highest efficiency per watt LED bulbs, simply because they would require more LEDs than are absolutely required, and cost more, for no consumer visible benefit other than the watts.

Err - no.
Look at the URL, there is a clue why you're spectacularly wrong.

Current LEDs (blue ones, which white is based on) exceed 50% quantum efficiency.

http://www.digikey.com/product... - for example - does 48% electricity to light.

http://optics.org/news/6/2/6
http://www.nature.com/nmat/jou...

The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.

It is riddled with so many inaccuracies that it's meaningless.
'10%' - yes - 10% is mentioned ' Our first devices already exhibit an extrinsic quantum efficiency of nearly 10% and the emission can be tuned over a wide range of frequencies by appropriately choosing and combining 2D semiconductors'
But going from that to LED efficiency is ridiculous.

It is comedically ridiculous to claim that it's going to result in products this year.

It's worth noting that the best existing 'warm white' LEDs bulbs can already produce about twice as much light per watt as compact florescent.
(if they are made with around double the normal number of LEDs and a more efficient power supply).

This perfectly answers the question of where to get emergency housing in a place easily accessible by trucks for people who have wifi to
entertain themselves and are in areas secure enough that going to the external toilet is not dangerous.

It's called an autobiography.

Is the mill in question over $50/lb?