The road to hell is paved with good intentions, the substrate is made from inattention and ignorance.

Clearcoating this stuff would remove its blacker-than-black properties. It would then start to reflect light. At which point, why would you favor this expensive shit over regular paint? I haven't seen details on how the sprayable Vantablack is applied, but if it were mixed into a liquid for application, it would have the same problem, unless, somehow, the surface of the hardened material were burnt away, evaporated off, or chemically reduced so that the carbon material could protrude from the substrate, that may allow the light absorption properties to persist. But I don't know how they accomplish that, other than they say it's a complex process that requires a specialist. I still wouldn't try brushing up against it, just like I wouldn't try sitting there inhaling paint fumes after painting a car. There's a reason precautions are taken in that process as well. I just know that something small and damaging enough to burst cell membranes sounds like something I wouldn't want in a product I'm handling with direct contact with my skin, or with any remote possibility of it rubbing off and getting into the air.

If these are polyethylene or polypropylene, they are both highly hydrophobic in their pure form and water will not wet the surface of these materials. Given their color these are obviously not from pure polyolefin streams, so could perhaps be more hydrophilic, but it's very hard to get a PE or PP substrate to totally wet out even with high loadings of traditional fillers and reinforcements. Some folks have asked why they are black... which is indeed odd and perhaps not conducive to minimizing evaporation... and I can only imagine that the source of the polymer used to make these could be a scrap stream as they would be wanting to keep costs low, and in comingled streams the ultimate color is often dark - black, deep blue, browns etc. - when the stream is extruded and pelletized. If money was no object and they had to go with balls, then black would likely be the last choice, not the first (white - well loaded with inexpensive TiO2, or in some future universe... reflective silver!) Have fun.

It's Florida. Simple as that. That's all the story you need. This happens, a lot. And hopefully the stupid conspiracy theorists I've seen on YouTube claiming this is fake don't show up here.

Florida's substrate is mostly limestone, which is also why we have such a huge aquifer. However, as more and more people move here and more developers continue to build without any other thought than profit margins, we'll see this more and more. Add tons of weight, then pump out all the water holding a fragile strata together, and then surprise, sinkhole.

In this case, it's the same as the others. People are at home, sinkhole forms, and people get killed. In this case there are 6 dead, and this guy was the only one willing to go on camera.

Check out his gallery, lots more bird action: http://timlaman.com/#/photo-galleries/birds-of-paradise/BOP-100921-152---Version-2

You can buy the print in the video: http://national-geographic.cafepress.com/art.726046526?substrate=Poster&size=Medium

I started with an 80 gallon that now has 8 discus, 1 endlicheri and 1 senegal bichir, and a synodontis eupterus "featherfin squeaker" catfish.

Now I've got 2 additional 50 gallons that I set up with a Diana Walstad / NPT configuration with a layer of topsoil for substrate topped with small gravel in one tank and sand in the other. Danois and neons in the gravel and tiger barbs and corydoras in the sand. Those tanks work great for strong, heavy planting, and can go for months without any water changes or other maintenance -- quite the opposite of the picky discus!

Always fun to hear about another aquarium lover.

I don't know if could work or not but I like the idea.

And here is a little something from wiki that I read about earlier on yahoo.



Gorilla™ Glass

Corning’s Gorilla™ Glass is a high-strength alkali-aluminosilicate thin sheet glass used as a protective cover glass for high-end display devices such as notebook PCs, televisions, and mobile phones.[2] Originally invented in 1962, it did not find commercial applications until 2008.[3]
In October 2009, Motion’s C5 and F5 line of Rugged Tablet PCs became the first to feature the Gorilla™ Glass.[4] Later in March 2010, Corning announced that Gorilla™ Glass' use in the Japanese cell phone market.[5] Corning's next leap was a few days later, March 15, 2010 was incorporating the Gorilla Glass into the LG x300 Ultra-thin Mobile PC; which unveiled at the 2010 CES Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada [6][7]
Corning attributes the choice of Gorilla™ Glass superiority not only for "unparalleled damage resistance and protection" but:
"Thinner form factor: Gorilla™ Glass retains its performance advantage over standard chemically strengthened substrates even when used in thin form factors. Currently, Gorilla™ Glass is available as-drawn in thicknesses ranging from .5 mm – 2.0 mm.
Pristine surface quality: Because it is formed using Corning’s proprietary fusion process, Gorilla™ Glass offers the same high-quality pristine surface available with all of our high-technology display substrates. This feature offers the ability to use the glass “as drawn,” eliminating lapping and polishing processes which can introduce surface damage.
Compliance with environmental standards: Gorilla™ Glass is compliant with the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS). It contains no heavy metals, making it an ideal component for devices engineered to meet environmental standards.
Compatibility with touch screen devices: Gorilla™ Glass can be used as a protective cover sheet for touch screen devices without impeding the functionality of the device. Reliable strength is important for these types of devices that function in response to pressure being applied to the glass.
Available with an easy-to-clean, wear-resistant coating: Customers can specify a version of Gorilla™ Glass with a special coating, making it easier to clean than other cover glasses. This is especially useful for devices that function by touch."[8]
In addition to its uses for mobile phones such as the Motorola Droidx[9], Corning expect increasing usage in television screens starting in 2011, with a projected market of $1 billion in 2011.[10][11]

>> ^BansheeX:

God, this site just has the same uneducated people spewing socialist nonsense and even going so far as to smear mostly agreeable libertarians like Friedman. The Shock Doctrine is complete poop, there is no other way to say it. Anyone who recommends that book has probably read absolutely nothing from any libertarian ever. Here's a crash course on how utterly illogical and distorted that book is:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/26/defaming-milton-friedman/2
GeeSussFreeK: People whom desire power to rule over others are usually of the type that are corruptible; even Obama is a professed pragmatist (as opposed to an idealist). It isn't a new problem either.
Looks like someone is dangerously close to understanding the best political system. We're not supposed to be a democracy, because there are some things that no one should be able to vote on. 99 people shouldn't be able to vote away 1 guy's property because they don't like him. That basic truth gives way to the realization that we need to be ruled in some form by a benevolent dictator that can't easily be corrupted. That is the idea behind a republic: the constitution is nothing more than a paper dictator. Our dictators were highly intelligent people for their time, battled tyranny, and debated lengthily about how much power the Federal government should have over the states. Read the Federalist Papers, sometime. I don't think our schools bother to assign it anymore. People and judges still have to obey the paper dictator, however, and it's largely been subverted over time because it isn't clear enough in places. You can spend years studying how and why and dream of a replacement knowing what we know today. That most of the people on this forum still don't understand anything I've said in this paragraph is just flipping amazing. I would pay money to watch Friedman's zombie corpse debate the likes of anyone on this forum, because you're clearly not even 1% as capable of rational thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMb_72hgkJk
It's fucking scary how people on this forum associate neocons and libertarians. Modern day liberals and neocons are practically the same, it's the libertarians who are different. It's the libertarians who are saying "no, we don't think corporations should influence elections, but it's THIS unconstitutional power being exercised that's enabling that kind of influence." We understand that the market largely self-regulates because greed is offset by fear of loss. But when the government tries to eliminate fear by bailing out failed management with money appropriated from healthy businesses, insuring deposits on every bank, price fixing interest rates, and guaranteeing loans, rampant fraud and speculation ensues. DUH. Certain groups are always trying to offload their risk to someone else through the government, including debt to a future generation that hasn't been born yet. DISABLE IT ALREADY. FUCK. Politicians aren't efficient with money because they have no fear of losing what they didn't have to work to obtain. Again, DUH.


ya know.
you made some great points too bad they got buried under your presumption and seeming bitterness.
word of advice:
if you wish people to take you seriously and consider any points you may make try to avoid calling people names before you begin your rant.
so you read the federalist papers,what do you want? a cookie?a pat on the back? a young polynesian prostitute?
so you are a libertarian and evidenced by your post you feel you have enough credible information to back up why.
are you going for the cookie again?
have you even considered that political ideology may..just MAY..be a very diverse substrate and that many with differing views can ALSO back up why they feel the way they do and can do it just as succinctly and competently as YOU did?
come on man!
you act like you are the only one who ever read a book,watched a lecture and came to a conclusion,everybody else is just retarded.
we have pretty simple rules here on the sift:
DON'T BE A WANKER.

The point is that feature size in silicon is getting to be as small as it possible can. (when a gate is only a few atoms wide, it cannot withstand manufacturing variability, and so the process is unreliable).

So when you can't shrink any smaller, the performance of the transistors will reach a maximum limit, which is determined by the material properties of the substrate and doping elements. (which is why SiGe is faster than Si).

Artificial diamond substrates (replacing silicon) promise the next "leap" in integrated circuit performance. It's just a matter of making the manufacturing process cheap and the product reliable. When I say cheap, I mean on the same order of magnitude of a 32nm process fab ($3-$7 billion). It might not happen anytime soon (20+ years from now).

Theres your answer joe.
You can dope diamonds and make them semi-conductors.

You are also right, this would make a fantastic substrate if they could grow Si. on them in the mean time.

Um, except all modern electronics are based on semi-conductors.. which diamonds are not. Can you dope diamond wafers with III-V? Can you grow Si on diamond? Otherwise the heat dissipation is useless. Plus the whole point is growing one 12" diameter silicon slug...

The only possible application would be to take s fully processed silicon wafer and then thin the back of the wafer to insanely thin, then CVD the synthetic diamond to act as the substrate then package it in something that takes heat out better.

Both of the girls that where asked a question/gave comment where un educated on the subject.. " un natural " stfu the substrate which the roots are in is water instead of soil. allowing for ease of root growth and more energy can be put into the fruit allowing quicker crops and more bountiful. It really is a good idea and Im all for it. Although my question is with the HID lights that would be needed how are they going to get all that electricity without burning a fossil fuel.

My favourite:

You should contact me if you are a skinny woman. If your words are a meaningful progression of concepts rather than a series of vocalizations induced by your spinal cord for the purpose of complementing my tone of voice. If you’ve seen the meatbot, the walking automaton, the pod-people, the dense, glazy-eyed substrate through which living organisms such as myself must escape to reach air and sunlight. If you’ve realized that if speech is to be regarded as a cognitive function, technically they aren’t speaking, and you don’t have to listen.

As a trained hypnotist, I know for a fact that it's possible to evoke the VERY SAME reactions using nothing but the power of suggestion..

(You can also do it with mild psychoanaleptic substrate.)

MRI Industry:
Reflecting the fundamental importance and applicability of MRI in the medical field, Paul Lauterbur of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Sir Peter Mansfield of the University of Nottingham were awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging".

Microwave Industry & Cellular Communication Industry:
Maxwell, Hertz, and nearly half of all microwave parts that I can think of were first introduced at NIST... These two I am not going post supporting evidence for.


Nuclear Energy Industry:
Err... Quantum Mechanics- Hello?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld
He created it at the University of Leipzig. Funded by the German government.

Genetic Engineering Industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction

Your claim is that without government incentives, these industries would not exist, or would have progressed slower? Can you prove that?

How can I prove something wouldn't exist if people hadn't invented it? The best I can say is it would not have been invented when it was. And scientist wouldn't research whatever they wanted without funding, which companies wouldn't and don't pay for because it is to financially risky. How do I know this? I am a scientist.

Another good example is your IPod and the colossal magnetoresistor in it's hard drive.