I find it very interesting that a discussion about creating weapons that are 3D printed turn into a discussion of whether or not Obama is doing his job or is a liberal or not. People think the next revolution is going to happen in their own back yard. It's totally ridiculous to think that even a million people armed with hand guns that are 3D printed out of ABS plastic are going to take on the United States Army, Air Force, and Marines. A million people like that would have the same speed bump equivalent of our solders in South Korea stopping North Korea from invading South Korea. By the way I 3D print models in ABS plastic and trust me they are brittle, you don't want to have an explosion happening inside a piece of ABS plastic. The thing would have to have 1/2 inch thick plastic to withstand even a few shots. In the future the materials may be better suited for the purpose. In fact I have a material that may be up to the task, but further research is necessary. Practical guns are still 5 years away from 3D printing. Which is a good thing after reading the comments here. The revolution people really need to get bigger weapons, munitions like bazookas and things before they become any deterrent to the US government. (I suppose people feel it would be a great thing for everyone to carry around their very own bazooka?) I for one think that taking weapons home from the shooting range shouldn't be allowed till the age of thirty and not then until their is a thorough background check and psychological evaluation. It's a fact brains are not fully developed until the age of 30. I wonder if the Boston bombers would have been able to pass a psychological evaluation? My guess is NO! As for a background check, the US Government failed in that respect the Russians told us they were dangerous and we ignored them.

I am more worried about the survival over the next 50 to 100 years. Our ability to destroy ourselves is coming to a point where we will likely not make it another 100 years and we will take half of all species with us. http://rawcell.com.

Without raising some investment so that Google doesn't spend all their funds in one place, Google would need outside investment to roll Google fiber over the whole USA. I think what they are doing effectively as the article points out is putting pressure on the ISP's to roll out more at less. If they strategies well enough, we might all be running over 1GB connections. There has been a new development in fiber which is able to carry the entire worlds data over one piece of fiber over long 200 mile distances. This has never been achieved before. This makes it ever more possible that the cable companies could provide high speed service to everyone for cheap cost. http://rawcell.com.

There is several captcha plugins available, wont help with the DDOS but will help with machines trying to guess passwords. http://rawcell.com

“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” Richard Dawkins That just about sums up the probability anything will come to this.http://rawcell.com

oops meant to say instead of "Apple desktops with PC's", I meant Apple desktops with cell phones which is all the majority of people need to get their work done, that and Apple ipad's and Google nexus tablets.

What's killing PC sales is the phone not Windows 8, what's killing Apple is the competition in the phone markets and the fact that people are buying phones instead of PC's. In the case with Apple they are replacing their Apple desktops with PC's. Oh, if anyone is interested in Previewing Windows 8 on VirtualBox you can see a video on it here without buying anything. You can use Windows 8 BEFORE starting to buy and BEFORE you overwrite Windows Windows Vista or Windows 7. Only thing I warn people about is Windows 8 is best used with a touch screen and most PC's from those era's didn't have touch screens. This is a big short term problem with Windows 8 and a bad miscalculation on Microsoft's part.

That's it we have no choice but to develop quantum entaggled particle chips that violate the causality principle that way we can have remote connections to a central server that is un-hackable and can also use energy at very high efficiency, and at speed of light speeds. http://rawcell.com

I wanted to read the article to find out information about the method, but there website ain't working. Too much traffic.

I was happy to read last week that the Obama administration seems to have been reading the blogs about the mass deployment of modular generation IV reactors. I hope it was brought to their attention by my "We the People" petition to study the efficacy of a plan to convert all coal plants to LFTR Nuclear Reactors but that is probably just wishful thinking. They said that they would be deploying 50 300 MW reactors every year starting in 2050 maybe sooner if they can get the technology right. Unfortunately this is far short of the 5 year start time that I feel we could do with a Manhattan style effort. I came to a capital cost figure of 1.6 Trillion for the conversion process but have recently learned that this figure could be over costly by a factor of two which would bring the figure to 800 billion in capital costs if the new data is right. I believe it is totally worth the 23 Billion dollar effort to make it happen and will try again with another "We the People" petition when they integrate my suggested "Facebook Authentication" into their site. Hopefully with enough signatures we can make this study happen and make the results fully public in all aspects of it's execution and findings.

I wrote an article on the Ulterior Motives: That killed the best nuclear solution to date for the US for nearly seventy years. That solution is LFTR Nuclear Reactors, If it hadn't been for the Oil industry, Nuclear Bombs, and Other Alternative Energy Movements, we would have a nearly endless supply of safe and cheap power. It goes to show you spreading FUD does pay off. Every time I post a message about LFTR reactors someone inevitable says something that is unfounded. Being as impartial a write as possible, I always entertain the arguments by giving them counter arguments which takes a lot of time from research for the defense. Nuclear is a solution and a good one. One the US would be smart to invest in. It would kill the Global Warming problem in 10 years with the right effort with the least environmental impact of any solution that can be deployed to date.

With sugar, water, and enzymes in your tank, you have a fuel kit for a PEM (proton electrolyte membrane) fuel cell vehicle. An onboard battery provides the instant energy for starting the vehicle while the enzymes get to work on their sugary snack. The fuel cell will recharge the battery later from excess sugar energy. According to Zhang, "Low-temperature PEM fuel cells are used primarily for transportation applications due to their fast startup time, high energy conversion efficiency, low operating temperature (below 180 F), and favorable power-to-weight ratio." Zhang and Mielenz wrote in a review in the Jan. 28, 2011, issue of the journal Energies, "When polysaccharides and water are mixed, no reaction occurs ... When the enzyme cocktail is added, hydrogen and carbon dioxide are generated spontaneously. Our research showed that the gas produced by (synthetic cell-free enzyme pathway biotransformation) contains 67 percent hydrogen and 33 percent carbon dioxide. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide can be separated by membrane technology (or the) mixture can be directly used by PEM fuel cells with approximately 1 percent loss in fuel cell efficiency." The efficiency statement is based on a study by Zhang's lab published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science in 2011. Zhang wrote in a Perspective column in Energy & Environmental Sciences that the process provides a number of special features suitable for mobile PEM fuel cells: high energy efficiency as a result of extracting all the chemical energy stored in the substrate sugars and some of the low-temperature thermal energy from the fuel cell; high hydrogen storage density; mild reaction conditions, at the same range of those of PEM fuel cells; nearly no costs for product separation; clean products for PEM fuel cells and easy power system configuration; and simple and safe distribution and storage of solid sugars. "Carbohydrates as a hydrogen carrier would meet the U.S. Department of Energy's ultimate target for useful energy based on the mass of the entire onboard system in a light-duty vehicle (7.5 percent hydrogen by weight or 2.5 kilowatt hour per kilogram)," Zhang says. Stationary energy sites, such as large fuel cell stacks, can also take delivery of carbohydrate powder from local or distant biorefineries and generate hydrogen by using an enzyme cocktail, says Zhang. It is also possible that satellite hydrogen generation stations could produce hydrogen to refill hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles. The use of renewable carbohydrate as a hydrogen storage carrier addresses the challenges associated with storage, safety, distribution, and infrastructure, Zhang and Mielenz conclude in the review. What about miracle four – better fuel cells? It's not his field, but he believes most fuel cell problems, such as cost and lifetime, have been solved. "In the long term, improving energy utilization efficiency through hydrogen-fuel cell electricity systems will be vital for sustainable transportation," he says. In the meantime, there are still a number of process engineering challenges to overcome to implement sugar-powered cars, says Zhang – such as warm-up of the onboard bioreformer where the sugar and water are converted to gas, shut-down of the bioreformer, temperature control for the coupled bioreformer and fuel cells, mixing and gas release control for the bioreformer, and re-generation of used enzymes in the bioreformer. "But such technical challenges can be solved based on available engineering know-how if the great potential is widely realized," he says. http://rawcell.com