In welding, the two (or more) separate pieces of metal need to become one. "Cold Welding" is effectively impossible, though an adhesive bond could conceivably work well enough for some purposes. Heat needs to be applied to a level that at least softens the metal and allows for a modicum of "flow" between molecules and/or atoms of the two pieces... which means either heating both pieces up and pressing them together (commonly used for welding the ends of pipes and tubes together) or clamping them together tightly and applying heat to force the pieces to merge (often seen in the sheet metal industry--automotive, for instance--as "spot welding"). Both are essentially inductive welding, but they wouldn't necessarily be sufficient for assembling an atmosphere-tight vessel meant for human occupation...

I question that even a laser would really be able to work effectively without some means of flowing new metal into the joint to be bonded, as compared to the inductive methods above.

As for the heating and cooling you describe... you really wouldn't want a rapid cooling effect if you can help it; you're more likely to shatter the weld if it cools too quickly and honestly a slower cooling period would help to relieve stress in the bond on larger pieces. The complete lack of oxygen in space would eliminate the oxidation process which is what weakens most welds.

Having been a welder myself, there are questions that occur suggesting a re-think. Has anyone actively attempted welding in a vacuum? The low-G factor is almost irrelevant (up to a point) but the no-atmosphere welding could be a major factor that could make the welding much easier. Most welding is performed with either a gas jet or other "flux" intended to drive oxygen in particular out of the weld area in order to reduce or eliminate the risk of corrosion at the weld point (seam, etc.). These fluxes can actually create a spattering effect as metal tends to get blown out of the weld during the welding process...most obviously with electric arc welding but also with different gas welding methods. The laser will obviously minimize that spattering but is it really necessary when the arc welder simply doesn't need the flux?

Additionally, speaking on the low-G factor... how can we be sure the metal will flow INTO the joint if no gas or 'flux' is used? On the Moon or any reasonably measurable gravity a flat weld would be pretty effective in the direction of gravity, but vertical or even overhead welds could result in 'drips' and 'runs' which may or may not affect the strength of the weld. I noted the ballistic flight experiments, which were mostly successful, but has anyone, yet, attempted BOTH microgravity/zero atmosphere welding combined?

I noted one statement in particular that doesn't 'fit' the hype... They claim a higher "Power density", which is NOT the same as "Energy Density." Is this intentional?

These artists claiming AI will take their jobs do so because they want to own creativity--suppressing the the creativity of those who do not have the skills or talent to create a unique piece of art with their own hands. I am one such person who does not have the ability to sketch, draw or paint my creations, but I have the visions in my mind and can create the characters with prose. BUT... I want to see those creations with my own eyes, to every detail... which not even the BEST artists I've used have been able to develop. I've paid thousands for artworks based on my descriptions, but what they see is NOT what I'm visualizing... and that is the problem.

Yes, I do understand PART of their complaints...they don't want their artistic STYLE stolen, and I agree with that. But if they can't create MY vision, what good are they to me? By preventing me from using an AI to create the image to MY satisfaction, they are suppressing MY creativity.

Why does everybody believe that solar arrays HAVE to cover unoccupied land? How many thousands of square miles of land are ALREADY covered by human constructions? Why can't the solar arrays be built ON TOP of those constructions? No wild land needs to be touched. No agricultural land needs to be covered. Homes, barns, stables, gas stations, stores, parking lots, parking garages... literally ANY structure already in place can hold an array of solar panels AND not only generate electricity but ALSO shade the building from direct sunlight, helping to keep it cool and using LESS electricity in the process.

Why “ban” data caps when it would be much easier to simply declare the Internet to be a public utility, requiring maximum availability at all times and subject to industry-wide regulation?

How do I give this comment a 'thumbs up'

This Adobe thing sounds like a come-on in that they intend to hook users into using the web services and, as they clearly stated, move critical and extended features back behind their subscription paywall. I used to use Photoshop when it was a standalone client, but when they went subscription, I quit using it. I don't use it enough to warrant paying a monthly fee when when I do use it, it's extensive enough that I want all of its abilities at hand without having to pay extra just to access it. In other words, a buy and forget client that works when you need it, without requiring an internet connection just to use it.

It's more than powerful enough to handle even HD video, and ElGato's EyeTV package does all the work of capturing it for you. If I can use a G4 Mac Mini for that purpose, a G5 should scream.

While the 'problem' itself may be universal with the model, I would expect that the higher percentage of people 'affected' by the issue as intimated by the researchers may also be people who have intentionally confirmed the possibility and enabled a workaround. Were these researchers allegations true as stated, Apple would have seen more than the 0.55% of 'calls' and AT&T would have seen more than the 1.7% of returns than the two companies have so far reported. Many people have reported confirming the issue, but almost as many have said, "It's not a problem for me."

While you make some good points, you overlook some obvious errors.

There are only 3 ways to solve the problem
1) Use only in a dark room
2) Use a higher brightness backlight
3) Get rid of the reflected light
(or 4, get a transflective display like the pixel-qi, but at the cost of poor color graphics reproduction)

Solution 1 does not apply to the original poster.
Solution 2 works fine for desktop screens and TVs where you have electrical power available. A high luminosity screen on a laptop will drain your batteries like crazy and will need a fan to cool the display.

Now to solution 3. There are actually 2 kinds of reflection: Specular and diffuse.
To reduce the diffuse reflection you use an AR (Anti Reflection) treatment. That is commonly applied to eyeglasses and binoculars.
To reduce the specular reflection you use an AG (Anti Glare) treatment

Solution 2 in particular is in serious error since at least one company uses ONLY glossy screens on battery-powered devices and gets up to 10 hours and even more of HD quality video and graphics per charge. Interestingly, they also work remarkably well even in full, direct sunlight outdoors, though admittedly any LCD that isn't backed by a reflective surface is necessarily less clear than with one. The interesting thing here, however, is that the Glossy LCD works better in direct sunlight than a diffused or matte display. Which brings up your 'solution 3.'

At least some displays are given the treatments you describe, though no coating can be 100% and still let the glass perform as it's meant. While they do reduce the intensity of glare and reflection, they cannot completely eliminate it without adversely affecting the image quality, no matter if you're talking camera lenses, eyeglasses or computer displays. Most anti-glare treatments work by diffusing the ambient light to the point that only a tiny fraction of the original glare reaches the viewer's eyes. However, they also tend to catch far more of the ambient light, giving the display a lower contrast ratio under normal lighting conditions. One of the tricks used on CRTs to reduce glare was to add a black screen to help separate the pixels; Sony called it Trinitron and once the patent expired nearly everyone was using the same technology--but your resolution was now limited to the size of the screening.
LCDs don't have that advantage--not fully, anyway. In most displays, the gap between pixels is microscopic, which makes the image look more realistic than CRTs but also sacrifices some of that contrast. By putting any kind of diffuser over the LCD, you degrade that contrast even more. You're forced to use an even brighter backlight as a result. All you have to do is compare the first LCD computer displays to today's models to see a significant difference. But when you put a glossy display next to a matte one even now, the difference can be quite noticeable. Some people harp about the reflections off the glass, totally ignoring the fact that under normal circumstances, the reflections aren't even noticeable in use.

On the average I've found the colors to be brighter and more accurate on a high-gloss screen as compared to the diffused screens of most other displays. Black really becomes black as the display doesn't catch and reflect the ambient glow, which turns it to a dark grey while contrast and sharpness are enhanced as well.

Yes, I realize there are issues as well. If you have a bright light or bright reflections behind you, or you happen to wear a brightly-colored shirt (including white) those reflections will make dark images harder to see. But by using subdued lighting throughout the workspace and eliminating any direct reflections, the glossy display is a much better one to use.

In my own case, I sit right beside an east-facing window and all I need to do is simply angle the display enough away that I don't get any direct reflection out of the window or off of my clothing.

The iPad, or any real mobility device, could make a great game manual browser. Download as ePub or PDF and go for it. No more printing costs; no more shipping costs; just pure profit.

Some of those glaciers have retreated more than 16 miles! If you want my opinion, it's very possible some of those glaciers could disappear by 2035.

... you don't 'think' the letters as you type, you 'think' the words. Every time you 'think' the letters, your typing speed slows down significantly, but by 'thinking' the words, you can type at 120wpm or faster. In my own case, when copying text, my typing speed is approximately 70wpm, and I am not a trained clerk/typist, but merely an amateur author trying to get his stories published. What's really interesting is that I know of clerk/typists from the time of the IBM Selectric and even older, manual typewriters who could push 140 and even higher word counts. They all told me the same thing: "Don't try to spell the words, just think the word and let your fingers spell it."