Perhaps it suggests that the sense of smell is sensitive to even extremely small concentration gradients, in which case a close spacing would enable greater positional accuracy.
It may be possible to draw parallels between communist ideologies and open source anything, but does censorship coincide with the idealistic form of communism that you are speaking of?
I'm sure a political scientist could do a better job of categorizing the authoritarian state that China exists in, but the word "communist" seems insufficient and probably inappropriate. If anything, the Chinese government uses the word "communism" to propagandize the necessity of their oppressive tactics (i.e., it's not so bad because we get this perfect, moral society in the end!).
Well your "published sources" might not think a diamond is single molecule, but does that mean they also think a carbon nanotube isn't a single molecule or a graphite sheet isn't a single molecule? You are implying that the number of atoms is a factor in calling something a molecule. This is completely wrong. The naming of a collection of atoms as a molecule provides information regarding the connectivity of the atoms... it's a topological description (hence, the crystallinity of the structure has nothing to do whether or not it is a molecule).
As for a crosslinked polymer, or any polymer chain (linear, branched, crosslinked... whatever!), it is a molecule. (Here's a reference to get you started... "Introduction to Polymers" by R.J. Young and P.A. Lovell.) I'll say it again, there is no (realistic... neglecting gravitational effects) upper limit to the number of atoms in a molecule.
I don't know that/. is the best place to discuss the true definition of a molecule. There are grad-level chemistry courses discussing the details of molecular topology for those really interested.
effectively it is - it is a single crystal - the word "molecule" makes no sense whatsoever in the context of crystaline materials - you don't have a molecule of iron or steel just as you don't have a beer atom.
It is probably true that doesn't make sense to call a metallic crystal (e.g., iron, aluminum, etc.) or an ionic crystal (e.g., any salt) a molecule, but I think it's pretty safe to call a single-crystal diamond a molecule. All the carbon atoms in the diamond are connected with covalent bonds, like in a "normal" molecule. This isn't true in metallic and ionic crystals. That is, the crystallinity of the atoms in the molecule doesn't influence the classification as a molecule, while the type of bonding does.
To me, it will always be very cool that a large crosslinked polymer, like, say, a bowling ball, is a single molecule.
If you read the first post in the thread, you'll see this was about the inhalation danger of carbon nanoparticles, not drug delivery. Using nanoparticles for drug delivery is A LOT different than unintentionally inhaling them.
I also never said that soot is harmless (remember the bit about emphysema?), there is all kinds of legislation to reduce carbon emissions from factories and, yes, even fireplaces. So, maybe the point is that the government has already started regulating carbon nanoparticles without even realizing it. Also, there is a ton of data on the effects of soot inhalation that could help us predict the effects of inhaling pure CNTs or buckyballs.
Plus, carbon nanoparticles are just this tiny little part of all the kinds of nanotech that'll be happening anyway... and inhaling them is obviously only a part of the danger.
This kind of legislation is not about freaking out about key words; it's about understanding the issues and problems and addressing them in a responsible way.
Relating to regulating buckyballs and carbon nanotubes, I'm totally serious. They really are just special pure forms of soot. We inhale soot all the time... in large amounts it'll lead to emphysema and fun stuff like that. I'm just suggesting that there may already be legislation in place that covers the carbon fullerence-type nanostuff.
The cyanide argument makes no sense. Except there really are low concentrations of cyanide in apricots and other fruits (just not enough to kill you).
CNTs and buckyballs are just forms of soot. You can find them in any fireplace. So whatever regulations are on soot emissions to the atmosphere, they should be applied to CNTs as well.
And photons do not exist because they contradict the double-slit experiment?
The double-slit experiment isn't a theory, and photons don't contradict it. The experiment shows that the behavior of photons is consistent with quantum mechanics.
What I'd like to know is what happens to a black hole when you send it through the double-slit?;)
When customers buy songs from Apple's iTunes music store, they pay 99 a tune. But Apple only gets about 4 of that, after paying the record company and others, says researcher Strategy Analytics. Apple says iTunes is only a breakeven business.
Seems like the 39 cent margin estimate may be off by an order of magnitude.
It's not clear how this new technology is different from the IBM Millipede project, but Millipede took a heated atomic froce microscope (AFM) tip and stuck it into a polymer substrate to form the hole. The holes are erased by heating the surface surrounding the hole until melting happens and the hole just fills in as surface tension makes it flat again. This hole punching and erasing using heating happens really fast since the size scales are so small. Although I'd imagine the write speed is slower than a hard drive or flash memory.
The IBM Millipede project doesn't use tunneling microscope technology (ATM, or usually STM). It uses a modified AFM tip that can be resistively heated. The hot tip pushes into a polymer surface and creates a hole. The hole can be "erased" by heating close to the surface and the region around the hole melts and fills it in. The reading is done with cold tips using regular AFM technology.
There was an article written (I believe by researchers from IBM) in Scientific American about two years ago regarding Millipede that said they expected technology to come to market in 3 years. Now the article from the post suggests the project is all but dead. What happened?
I'm too lazy to actually look at the patents, but it isn't clear at all how this new technology actually differs from Millipede. I'd guess the write and erase mechanisms are different.
It's the same thing Neil Cornish had a problem with:
But Neil Cornish, an astrophysicist at the University of Montana, wonders whether an exploding star could shed enough entropy to become a gravastar. "I don't think that is a likely scenario," he told New Scientist.
But even if the B-E condensate could form, they are also saying that we're all a B-E condensate, since they suggest the whole universe is inside a gravastar. Maybe they should take back last year's Nobel physics prize for discovering the condenstate too... I mean they just had to look in the mirror!
You know... that mid-80s flick where the kids make a spaceship.
It kind of reminds me of that funky really hard sphere that River Phoenix made using his Apple IIc.
Actually, I don't believe it's a hoax. It was more a comment on the government controlled media in China... it's funny how they think the rest of the world will simply believe all of their statements without backing anything up with real proof or allowing independent observers to act as witness. The level of paranoia is extraordinary.
And of course he did more orbits than Gagarin or Shepard... that's nationaliostic drivel for you. Technologically, in the current millenium, the difference between 3 orbits and 14 orbits isn't that big. I'm more surprised they didn't send up two taikonauts and make one of them do a spacewalk all on the first mission, just so they could talk it up to their own citizens.
Considering that the wording of the quote is a clumsy English translation of something originally said in Chinese, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Problems with translation are a source of much of the confusion the U.S. currently faces with North Korea... I mean, think of the poor translator trying to convert some of the Bushisms into understandable Korean.
I wonder if any amateur astronomers have verified the launch? The media on this is so controlled by the Chinese gov't, skepticism is definitely in order (really for any story coming out of the Chinese media). It's all about independent sources. Unfortunately, NASA would never say, "We checked it out; they weren't lying!" Not a great thing for international relations.
What I love is the report that the taikonaut was reading a flight manual during flight... "Now was I supposed to push the green button or the red button?"
This program is clearly part of the NanoKids project at Rice University which is intended to develop new ways to educate children about nanotechnology and chemistry. Kids get interested when they find out that you can play with molecules just like tinkertoys. There's a difference between telling a kid, "You know you could make a molecule shaped like a human being if you wanted" and actually doing it.
Not to mention some poor organic chemistry student learned a hell of a lot about synthesis by making those molecules.
Those screens are all using ito-coated glass substrates from what I can tell. Just like the twisted nematic displays in current LCD screens, but you don't need to supply continous voltage, which is the real benefit of a bistable system... huge power savings.
A ferroelectric LC display has switching times in the microsecond regime (that's thousands of Hz). You can drive an FLC cell at 440 Hz and listen to it hum an A for you.
Slashdot Mirror
The next thing you know they'll be releasing a towel with an embedded electronic thumb... the future is now.
Perhaps it suggests that the sense of smell is sensitive to even extremely small concentration gradients, in which case a close spacing would enable greater positional accuracy.
Word.
http://cohesion.rice.edu/naturalsciences/nanokids/ cast.cfm
It may be possible to draw parallels between communist ideologies and open source anything, but does censorship coincide with the idealistic form of communism that you are speaking of?
I'm sure a political scientist could do a better job of categorizing the authoritarian state that China exists in, but the word "communist" seems insufficient and probably inappropriate. If anything, the Chinese government uses the word "communism" to propagandize the necessity of their oppressive tactics (i.e., it's not so bad because we get this perfect, moral society in the end!).
As for a crosslinked polymer, or any polymer chain (linear, branched, crosslinked... whatever!), it is a molecule. (Here's a reference to get you started... "Introduction to Polymers" by R.J. Young and P.A. Lovell.) I'll say it again, there is no (realistic... neglecting gravitational effects) upper limit to the number of atoms in a molecule.
I don't know that /. is the best place to discuss the true definition of a molecule. There are grad-level chemistry courses discussing the details of molecular topology for those really interested.
It is probably true that doesn't make sense to call a metallic crystal (e.g., iron, aluminum, etc.) or an ionic crystal (e.g., any salt) a molecule, but I think it's pretty safe to call a single-crystal diamond a molecule. All the carbon atoms in the diamond are connected with covalent bonds, like in a "normal" molecule. This isn't true in metallic and ionic crystals. That is, the crystallinity of the atoms in the molecule doesn't influence the classification as a molecule, while the type of bonding does.
To me, it will always be very cool that a large crosslinked polymer, like, say, a bowling ball, is a single molecule.
If you read the first post in the thread, you'll see this was about the inhalation danger of carbon nanoparticles, not drug delivery. Using nanoparticles for drug delivery is A LOT different than unintentionally inhaling them.
I also never said that soot is harmless (remember the bit about emphysema?), there is all kinds of legislation to reduce carbon emissions from factories and, yes, even fireplaces. So, maybe the point is that the government has already started regulating carbon nanoparticles without even realizing it. Also, there is a ton of data on the effects of soot inhalation that could help us predict the effects of inhaling pure CNTs or buckyballs.
Plus, carbon nanoparticles are just this tiny little part of all the kinds of nanotech that'll be happening anyway... and inhaling them is obviously only a part of the danger.
This kind of legislation is not about freaking out about key words; it's about understanding the issues and problems and addressing them in a responsible way.
Relating to regulating buckyballs and carbon nanotubes, I'm totally serious. They really are just special pure forms of soot. We inhale soot all the time... in large amounts it'll lead to emphysema and fun stuff like that. I'm just suggesting that there may already be legislation in place that covers the carbon fullerence-type nanostuff. The cyanide argument makes no sense. Except there really are low concentrations of cyanide in apricots and other fruits (just not enough to kill you).
CNTs and buckyballs are just forms of soot. You can find them in any fireplace. So whatever regulations are on soot emissions to the atmosphere, they should be applied to CNTs as well.
Man, I type way too fucking slow!
/. community.
I apologize to the great
The double-slit experiment isn't a theory, and photons don't contradict it. The experiment shows that the behavior of photons is consistent with quantum mechanics.
What I'd like to know is what happens to a black hole when you send it through the double-slit? ;)
When customers buy songs from Apple's iTunes music store, they pay 99 a tune. But Apple only gets about 4 of that, after paying the record company and others, says researcher Strategy Analytics. Apple says iTunes is only a breakeven business.
Seems like the 39 cent margin estimate may be off by an order of magnitude.
It's not clear how this new technology is different from the IBM Millipede project, but Millipede took a heated atomic froce microscope (AFM) tip and stuck it into a polymer substrate to form the hole. The holes are erased by heating the surface surrounding the hole until melting happens and the hole just fills in as surface tension makes it flat again. This hole punching and erasing using heating happens really fast since the size scales are so small. Although I'd imagine the write speed is slower than a hard drive or flash memory.
The IBM Millipede project doesn't use tunneling microscope technology (ATM, or usually STM). It uses a modified AFM tip that can be resistively heated. The hot tip pushes into a polymer surface and creates a hole. The hole can be "erased" by heating close to the surface and the region around the hole melts and fills it in. The reading is done with cold tips using regular AFM technology.
There was an article written (I believe by researchers from IBM) in Scientific American about two years ago regarding Millipede that said they expected technology to come to market in 3 years. Now the article from the post suggests the project is all but dead. What happened? I'm too lazy to actually look at the patents, but it isn't clear at all how this new technology actually differs from Millipede. I'd guess the write and erase mechanisms are different.
I think I see my dad.
Will the HP iPod use reverse polish notation?
It's the same thing Neil Cornish had a problem with:
But Neil Cornish, an astrophysicist at the University of Montana, wonders whether an exploding star could shed enough entropy to become a gravastar. "I don't think that is a likely scenario," he told New Scientist.
But even if the B-E condensate could form, they are also saying that we're all a B-E condensate, since they suggest the whole universe is inside a gravastar. Maybe they should take back last year's Nobel physics prize for discovering the condenstate too... I mean they just had to look in the mirror!
You know... that mid-80s flick where the kids make a spaceship. It kind of reminds me of that funky really hard sphere that River Phoenix made using his Apple IIc.
Actually, I don't believe it's a hoax. It was more a comment on the government controlled media in China... it's funny how they think the rest of the world will simply believe all of their statements without backing anything up with real proof or allowing independent observers to act as witness. The level of paranoia is extraordinary.
And of course he did more orbits than Gagarin or Shepard... that's nationaliostic drivel for you. Technologically, in the current millenium, the difference between 3 orbits and 14 orbits isn't that big. I'm more surprised they didn't send up two taikonauts and make one of them do a spacewalk all on the first mission, just so they could talk it up to their own citizens.
Considering that the wording of the quote is a clumsy English translation of something originally said in Chinese, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Problems with translation are a source of much of the confusion the U.S. currently faces with North Korea... I mean, think of the poor translator trying to convert some of the Bushisms into understandable Korean.
I wonder if any amateur astronomers have verified the launch? The media on this is so controlled by the Chinese gov't, skepticism is definitely in order (really for any story coming out of the Chinese media). It's all about independent sources. Unfortunately, NASA would never say, "We checked it out; they weren't lying!" Not a great thing for international relations.
What I love is the report that the taikonaut was reading a flight manual during flight... "Now was I supposed to push the green button or the red button?"
Or is that not good enough a reason?
This program is clearly part of the NanoKids project at Rice University which is intended to develop new ways to educate children about nanotechnology and chemistry. Kids get interested when they find out that you can play with molecules just like tinkertoys. There's a difference between telling a kid, "You know you could make a molecule shaped like a human being if you wanted" and actually doing it.
Not to mention some poor organic chemistry student learned a hell of a lot about synthesis by making those molecules.
Yeah... what's that line supposed to be anyway?
What I really want to know is why I don't see my eyeball in the reflection when I put my face up to the screen...
Those screens are all using ito-coated glass substrates from what I can tell. Just like the twisted nematic displays in current LCD screens, but you don't need to supply continous voltage, which is the real benefit of a bistable system... huge power savings.
A ferroelectric LC display has switching times in the microsecond regime (that's thousands of Hz). You can drive an FLC cell at 440 Hz and listen to it hum an A for you.