These LEDs don't appear to be organic at all. We (I did my master's growing inorganic semiconductor crystals) say the crystals are "grown" because they are assembled typically atomic-layer by atomic-layer.

That said, this is a pretty terrible article. It doesn't say what method of growth they used, what they SAW from the growth, or really much about their experiments at all.

Mediocre summary as usual, but TFA was really well written and interesting!

This was very similar to my question: how many people, out of the 100,000 downloads, actually have a 3D printer or access to one? They're not cheap - it's probably more cost effective (not to mention more reliable) to just buy a regular gun. I understand the argument that this raises concerns about proliferation of firearms (and I share some of those same concerns) but I feel as if 3D printing of guns will probably be a relatively small issue. I think it's most likely a fad that will be relegated to nothing more than a novelty as time goes on... but who knows.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkchips/4254681996/

I believe those are actually a visualization of the atoms' electrons moving across the copper surface... you can see constructive and destructive destruction of the waves around the boy. If you look at this stm image ( http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-flinte/stm16.jpg ), the bottom right image shows the wave function of electrons completely trapped inside the circle of atoms.

Remember, this is scanning tunneling microscopy, so the electrons are not actually going in and out of the plane... what we're seeing is their potential to tunnel into the tip of the microscope.

Here: http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html

"Until today, hacking and hijacking planes by pressing a few buttons on an Android mobile app has been the stuff of over-the-top blockbuster movies."

I... don't think I've ever seen a movie where that happens (planes getting hijacked that way). Maybe I just don't see enough movies.

I wasn't sure myself, so I did a little research: you can get 300 minutes (there's typically no difference between local and long distance minutes in the U.S.) and unlimited SMS and data on Virgin Mobile for $35/month (although they throttle your data after 2.5gb/month). That's about $10/month less than I'm paying right now - I'm on a shared minute plan which comes out to roughly the same amount, except my data never gets throttled. In addition, the phones available on prepaid plans typically aren't subsidized at all, so you'll be paying anywhere between $200-600 for a phone.

I just checked my data usage and I apparently average about 330mb/month. So, for me it might make sense to switch providers after my contract is over, but we'll see how my data/calling usage changes over time.

But I got off topic and didn't really answer your question: looking at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375644,00.asp, most plans are going to be around $30 for 1000 minutes and 1000 sms, although a lot of the plans either have very little data included or have high prices if you want more data. I didn't realize you could customize your cell phone plan this much - if you only use two of the three (calling, texting, data), you can get a pretty cheap prepaid deal.

Although, to be fair, so am I. I used to think texting was stupid and I wasn't going to pay the outrageous rates for it. Now, however, I'm on a plan that has unlimited texting included so there's no harm in it, and I (like plenty of other people, I'm sure) HATE talking on the phone. If I can send someone a text message telling them something quick, why spend the time calling them and actually having to talk?

I was with you until you had to add the "First Post."

I noticed that too, and it bothered me enough to comment. From the synopsis, "pressing tiny metallic pyramids into the surfaces" makes it sound as if they're doing hardness testing. I took a quick look at the actual scientific article and yes, they're doing micro- and nanohardness tests.

and I'm sure I speak for more than just myself when I say that. The first year or two of Digg's existence were actually alright, when interesting articles were actually posted on the front page. It degraded rather quickly, however, into a reeeeeally shitty aggregator. When I finally stopped going, it was almost completely top-ten lists and links to "funny" pictures.

Good to know, thanks. I'll take a look if I can't find my original version anywhere.