As cool as this is, I don't see it solving the real issue with solar panels - the expense of retrofitting them to a house/office tower. You'll still need to invest in all the inverters etc, and probably a professional electrician (assuming you like your building not on fire) to use these in any large-scale application, even if they do allow a few more locations to be used. Of course, I'd still love to just whack a couple on my packpack to charge my laptop while at uni...

While you're correct in the second half of your comment, you are ignoring the very good reasons that are driving our search for a room-temperature superconductor. Without doing the calculations, I very much doubt that there is enough fuel on Earth to lift the entire population into a near-Earth orbit, not to mention the massive amounts of infrastructure required to keep them there, (and breathing).

Therefore, a superconductor which would allow us to eliminate the massive amounts of wastage in our electrical infrastructure is certainly useful. Conveniently, most of Earth is at a "room temperature" or similar, making it a far less arbitrary concept. In terms of effect on everyday life, I like to think that in the long run it'll be beneficial, hopefully removing some of the lack of resources which drives most conflicts. Of course, most of human history is against me on that one, technological leaps like these tend to trigger conflicts in the short term, before providing net benefit to the populations, hopefully we survive the next one.

Yes and no.

Just as important as it being built, is that there are sufficient protocols and resources in place to ensure that: a) It continues to operate for a long period of time and b) The information transmitted can be quickly and efficiently analysed and distributed.

The South African bid consists of the telescope scattered across several countries, all of them far less politically stable than Australia and New Zealand, an issue which could potentially cause problems later. In addition, Australia and New Zealand are both well-industrialised, providing both a strong economic base to support the program, and also reducing the likelihood that 10 years from now there will be a massive centre of EM interference next to some of the dishes.

While I'd prefer the South African bid to none at all, I think that the Aus/NZ bid is the better option. And I'm hoping the judges don't vote against it simply as a political manoeuvre. Having said that, I'm both West Australian and Not-An-Astronomer, so I am biased, and also not fully informed of any scientific advantages/disadvantages to the bids.

TFA says that

, but I can't see how it could actually be detecting anything inside the smartphone as the waves emitted by the little electrons zipping around are hardly going to be detected, not to mention identifying those particular disturbances amongst everything else would be impossible. Is it actually detecting the stuff as the cellphone transmits/receives if then? I'm far from an expert in this, so any explanation would be great.

Correct, you don't have an obligation to solve America's problems, you do however have an obligation to ensure fair working conditions and above-starvation wages for your workers. I wonder whether those 8000 workers who were raised from the company dormitories were paid overtime rates? And how much of their wage is docked for the "privelege" of living in said dormitories. Globalisation of manufacturing is a necessary and logical step forward, but it does need to be accompanied by fair working conditions, a matter on which Apple's manufacturers have a poor record.

I feel safe in saying that in most countries, if you're at risk of having a seizure, then your license is automatically suspended. However, driving is rarely a physically demanding activity, and there is no reason why a severe asthmatic, a paraplegic, or an excessively sweaty person cannot drive, even if they cannot then "walk a short distance with breaking sweat". Considering that we regularly allow people with raised levels of visual and cognitive impairment to drive home from the pub, there is no reason why those whose physical disability impacts to no extent of their ability to control a car should not be allowed to drive.

That's based on the incorrect assumption that the businesses will attempt to match the customer base demographics. Regardless of whether the business has 10% handicapped or 50% handicapped patrons, if they fill their parking areas regularly, the best option for them economically will be to have no handicapped bays. At their smallest a handicapped bay will take up a space equivalent to 1.5 regular bays, and will often be larger. Therefore, if they regularly run out of parking, then a way for the business to increase revenue would be to remove all disabled bays, and replace them with regular bays, thus increasing customer numbers. Sure, they'll lose a demographic, but they'll be replaced with other customers who'd normally bypass the store due to parking. Heck, depending on competition they may not even lose any business, if they're the only store offering a certain commodity, they'll retain the handicapped business, but they'll be forced to go outside peak times in order to get spaces that meet their needs.

Economically, in most cases the best situation for a store is no handicapped bays, which is why government regulation is necessary.