Agreed. Most of his short stories are great. The Screamers movie is typical of other PKD adaptations, though. If you can put that aside it's actually decently entertaining early-90's SF schlock.

Also missed Screamers, based loosely on the short story "Second Variety".

If you use a Mac and are in a Latex-centric field, I find Bibdesk (http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/) really great for managing reference pdfs and use cvs or svn if I really want to manage a document I'm working on. There's no annotation in Bibdesk but you can record notes and it generates bibtex for you.

Accuracy, to an experimentalist, is a quantitative measure of closeness to the "correct" value (i.e. accuracy vs. precision).

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.

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. /pedantic

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.

Having pissed-off employees who feel chained to their workstation (and consequently horribly unmotivated) can also be a pretty big cost.