Why do people buy big brand name pc's (IBM/Dell/Compaq/other) anyway? Are there no small shops that sell their own generic brands in the US? I would not think about buying a Dell or whatever simply because generic machines with equivalent specs are available typically for ~30% less (in Australia) - it just seems strange that people (especially those reading a 'news for nerds' site) would care about brand name computers.
The statement is open to interpretation - in the context of the article, you interpreted it incorrectly.
What the archaeologist is not saying: 'We are rewriting history to better reflect what we think George W. would like the populace to believe'.
What the archaeologist is saying: 'As a result of improved relations between Russia and the US, areas that were formerly inaccessible to US archaeologists are now acessible and evidence of a previously onknown civilization has subsequently come to light'.
You were not totally wrong about the history books; your interpretation of the quote you are so concerned about is totally wrong.
The first thing I thought when I read your post was, 'My ass - I'll bet the engine is in the back'. Turns out I would have won.
Can't be bothered looking at the web site? I quote 'The rear-mounted bivalent 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine (16V) produces 120 hp at 5,500 rpm and delivers its maximum torque of 165
Nm at 3,000 rpm.
This kind of rapid prototyping has indeed been around for a while. One common form is, as described in the parent post, stereolithography, where a laser photocures resin in a vat slice by slice. A similar prototyping process involves sintering of a ceramic powder - also using a laser.
While both of these methods are useless for making tasty ice snacks, they are preferrable for real engineering applications.
I hate it when people try rewriting history. Well done Captain Nitpick.
Roy Plunkett had a cylinder of tetrafluoroethylene (gas, expensive). When he opened the valve, nothing came out. He weighted the cylinder and found that it was the same weight as a full cylinder - ie. the gas wasn't lost due to a leak. The cylinder was cut open (Dr. Plunkett probably wanted to know what was going on because it was so expensive) and a white, insoluble, high melting point material was found inside (PTFE - Teflon).
Diamond IS a molecule - essentially an 'infinitely large' molecule. It is not a crystal - it does not melt. It irreversibly thermally decomposes. Each carbon atom is covalently bonded to four other carbon atoms. This is what makes it extremely hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Never again. Fuck this site and its divergence from 'News for Nerds' and 'Stuff that Matters'.
No, they didn't.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Chitosan is a polysaccharide, not a protein.
Why do people buy big brand name pc's (IBM/Dell/Compaq/other) anyway? Are there no small shops that sell their own generic brands in the US? I would not think about buying a Dell or whatever simply because generic machines with equivalent specs are available typically for ~30% less (in Australia) - it just seems strange that people (especially those reading a 'news for nerds' site) would care about brand name computers.
The second point is that is Zewail had actually found a violation, or even a slight deviation from HUR, he would win massive instant fame.
More than when he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1999?
The statement is open to interpretation - in the context of the article, you interpreted it incorrectly.
What the archaeologist is not saying: 'We are rewriting history to better reflect what we think George W. would like the populace to believe'.
What the archaeologist is saying: 'As a result of improved relations between Russia and the US, areas that were formerly inaccessible to US archaeologists are now acessible and evidence of a previously onknown civilization has subsequently come to light'.
You were not totally wrong about the history books; your interpretation of the quote you are so concerned about is totally wrong.
The first thing I thought when I read your post was, 'My ass - I'll bet the engine is in the back'. Turns out I would have won.
Can't be bothered looking at the web site? I quote 'The rear-mounted bivalent 1.8-liter four-cylinder engine (16V) produces 120 hp at 5,500 rpm and delivers its maximum torque of 165 Nm at 3,000 rpm.
Read the 'Caveats' section on this page.
Moderate the parent post up.
This kind of rapid prototyping has indeed been around for a while. One common form is, as described in the parent post, stereolithography, where a laser photocures resin in a vat slice by slice. A similar prototyping process involves sintering of a ceramic powder - also using a laser.
While both of these methods are useless for making tasty ice snacks, they are preferrable for real engineering applications.
I hate it when people try rewriting history. Well done Captain Nitpick.
Roy Plunkett had a cylinder of tetrafluoroethylene (gas, expensive). When he opened the valve, nothing came out. He weighted the cylinder and found that it was the same weight as a full cylinder - ie. the gas wasn't lost due to a leak. The cylinder was cut open (Dr. Plunkett probably wanted to know what was going on because it was so expensive) and a white, insoluble, high melting point material was found inside (PTFE - Teflon).
Diamond IS a molecule - essentially an 'infinitely large' molecule. It is not a crystal - it does not melt. It irreversibly thermally decomposes. Each carbon atom is covalently bonded to four other carbon atoms. This is what makes it extremely hard.