Anyways, as the pp said, this is really just an example of poor reporting. The actual article doesn't really make this kind of claim, in fact the word "accuracy" doesn't even appear in TFA. They'd never get published in Nature (it's actually Nature Nanotechnology) saying something was "100% accurate" because it doesn't make any sense formally.
"100% Accuracy" implies a positional error of zero meters (to infinite decimal places), which is obviously not what they're talking about.
I caught that, too. But really "percent" doesn't even make sense as a unit of accuracy, does it? Unless it's fractional, in which case I'd take it to mean that if you want to make a relative move of x, you'll get something in the range (0,2x) or maybe (0.5x, 1.5x)? I mean, on the nano scale that's still kind of remarkable, but as you've pointed out it's just not what they mean.
Having pissed-off employees who feel chained to their workstation (and consequently horribly unmotivated) can also be a pretty big cost.IT is part of a business. Making IT's job harder in that business costs money. The article is making the point that there are some pretty serious cons about using laptops, and these need to be considered as part of their cost.