where exactly did you get the idea that there were an infinite number of stars?
It's one of the basic assumptions of Olbers' paradox, a.k.a. the dark night sky paradox. I suppose that assumption does not work well with the Big Bang model, however.
The actual distortion is similar to the ripples of light you see on the bottom of a swimming pool due to ripples in the surface of the water. So, instead of even lighting across the bottom of the pool, you see a pattern of light and dark areas.
I'll admit up front that my knowledge of astronomy is severely limited, so please excuse in advance what may be a stupid question. But could this distortion be part of the reason why the night sky is dark rather than filled with light from the infinite amount of stars that exist?
The Straight Dope tackled this question a few years ago here, with the response that "there just aren't enough stars in the observable universe to fill up the night sky," but I'm wondering if this discovery changes things at all.
Meaning that if you're a record exec who doesn't know how to adapt to the evolving music scene, you're going to be out of a job soon. So update your resume (LinkedIn page) and start buying cheaper food (Ramen) because you're going to need to save up some money while you're unemployed.
Or something like that.
Just as a warning to anyone else who's at work and is curious about scroogle, do not try going directly to scroogle.com! Not safe for work, to say the least.
"If it carries on, we'll have electronics small enough that sheets of paper will start being compatible with specific printers..."
Actually, that technology is almost here, at least if you believe the press releases. A company called Zink claims that it will soon start selling paper that contains "ink" already in it. So it would only work with specific printers (the printers themselves don't contain any ink, they just apply heat to the paper).
Here's a writeup on it: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9682333-1.html
Weekend, where are you?