I'd significantly disagree on this - speed reading as the norm to ascertain value and then, re-reading especially on the internet worlds and with randomness of shared links.

It's sensible to read in depth for when we know / establish value, but in general, better to skim and identify / perceive value or added knowledge, then take the plunge.

There are un-fun things to work on in life and if you are going to hire a "non-superstar" and have them work on a non-critical part of your company, it's not that bad.

If someone has a outside passion - say sailing and wants to just get a job to help them pursue it, more power to them if you can adequately utilize the talents in 30-40 hours versus a powerhouse 90 hr die-hard talent.

Personally, I find fulfillment in my 40-80 hr "day" job and then go pursue other fun activities; a lot of my (especially engineering - non-cs/ee) friends want a 30-40 hr job and some play power, others trade stocks, others play sports rabidly every evening - you must respect the personal motivations and find a way to align it with your organization / startup, if you cannot, then yeah, it's done.

This begs the question, if you can magnetically polarize light, can you bend a beam of light with a strong enough magnetic field? and if so, there is tremendous potential beyond just energy storage.

This discovery doesn't have to do with magnets 'polarizing' light. Rather it's using light's magnetic component to setup a charge separation. You also can't "steer" light by polarizing it. Polarization is just the 'angle' that EM makes with its direction of travel. Polarizing light just means selecting which angle you want your light to have.

I recommend a look at "circular polarization" for anyone that thought they understood polarization as the direction the light vibrates.

Take two pair of Real-3d glasses from the movie theater and try the different orientations (including front-front, front-back permutations). The vertical/horizontal model will not explain your observations. Hence, I know about circular polarization and had a confusing pre-movie experience at Iron Man 2.

I missed the first 3 or 4 minutes of Avatar because I was playing with the glasses and a laser pen pointer :-)

On one level I agree with you that this seems, at least initially, as tidy bit of theoretical physics. Most people 'get' that light is an electromagnetic wave, and of course Maxwell tied the two together quite elegantly.

The clever bits will be these two:

1) Is there a material, either natural or 'meta' in which the structure can convert a fraction of the light passing through it into a magnetic field. If so, and the light is modulated, you can induce a current in a conductor. Could be useful, could be a parlor trick.

2) Can you run it backwards? Which is to say if you generate a magnetic field of the proper type and orientation in the presence of such a material, can you convert the magnetic field into light? If so what frequency? What coherence? Does this paper provide the foundation for a LAAMR (Light Amplification by Amplified Magnetic Resonance) (no, its not a pun on 'lamer' :-)

I expect if you can create the latter you could probably get a Nobel prize (or at least share it).

Am I the only one who enjoys finding out we're wrong about some long held scientific beliefs (in this case the magnetic influence of light)

As a complete aside from most of the conversation happening here..

The ISS uses mainly circular polarisation in their radio communications because horizontal flips to vertical in a range of 15 minutes, relative to position over the Earth (90 minute period).

A horizontal antenna _can_ receive a vertically transmitted signal, with a 22 dBi loss. The reverse is also true. However, if a vertical or horizontal antenna receives a circularly polarised radio signal, the loss is only 3 dBi.*

Spoken as a user and experimenter of amateur radio.

* And I also found a link showing experimental loss when one receives a wrong "handedness" of circular polarisation. There is a clockwise and counter-clockwise polarisation as well. Theoretical maximum loss is also around 22 dBi, the same if you used a vertical to receive a horizontal.

So far, the types are: Horizontal, Vertical, CW circular, CCW circular, CW elliptical, CCW elliptical. Admittedly, I have never done anything with elliptical, but is noted here for completeness.