No it's not "solid gold", it's mixed with ceramics to make it harder http://www.businessinsider.com...
Try and sell that to your local pawn shop as gold see what they offer you.
FWIW, I think the apple stuff is basically the same as Magic Gold (from Hublot). Unfortunately, the Magic Gold version is relatively new so there isn't much of a resale market on it yet...
Anyone know how some animals get the golden yellow colour? That would be cool.
Actually, wikipedia has a pretty good explanation...
Unfortunately, the appearance of yellow in the iris can sometimes be associated with macular degeneration in humans... That is definitely not cool...
AFAIK, FDTS is already used to coat MEMS-like devices (e..g, microfluid channels and nano-lithography stamps) because it chemically forms a monolayer coating that is lubricating and moisture resistant. Unfortunately, it is a bit nasty as it is highly corrosive, flammable chemical that smells a bit like hydrochloric acid.
The interesting thing with this is that they found a way to coat titanium dioxide nanoparticles (the same stuff in sunblock and some white paints) with it and create a suspension in ethanol so you can apply it like paint over an adhesive and it drys in a way that sticks to the adhesive in a way that they claim to be somewhat robust against damage. Here's the video and some supplementary material...
I'm not exactly sure how the adhesive (basically claimed to use "evo-stick" apparently some ethyl-acetate based adhesive like superglue available in the UK) sticks to the coated nanoparticles, but still is lubricating on the other side though (a similar problem with non-stick frying pans). There doesn't appear to be much discussion about this and my chemistry-fu is a bit rusty... Maybe some kind of covalent layer bonding or something...
As she is Canadian, I'm surprised she didn't start out flat apologizing for having to ask people to kindly stop Spock-ing the bills so that others can continue to enjoy using the bills in the future...
On the other hand, when Shatner dies, I'm sure they'll have a bill printed with his picture, so they probably just don't want an image of an American defacing their currency... And they're probably sorry about feeling this way...
if this were reversed, and he was a Russian citizen disclosing the abuse of Russian spy agencies, do you think he would even be alive for a trial? Now, what makes you think that our spies are any less evil?
Well, I'm not sure "our" spies ever did this... But I don't know for sure...
I think Snowden already thinks he has a trump card.
* He requires release of some sensitive information as evidence.
* Request denied.
* Trial not fair. Evidence suppressed.
* Repeat as necessary.
Basically this is a probe to see how stupid the US government is...
I wish physicists would stop using the word "measurement" when talking about quantum mechanics. To detect fundamental particles we have to interact with them in an intrusive or destructive way. It's not like putting a rock on a scale to measure its weight or putting a ruler to a golf ball. We don't get to keep the original particle after we're done. It's more like colliding snowballs with other snowballs to probe their properties. You destroy or transform them in the process. If this was how we conveyed the concepts, the quantum ideas would become a lot more understandable.
Well, except for that QM entanglement thing...
It's a bit difficult to explain QM entanglement except in reference to a conserved property (say spin) and a subsequent measurement (to deduce the partial QM state in an entangled system).
Also, I don't know if it's really possible to "understand" QM in a way that is intuitive...
I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘but how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain,’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.
-- Richard Feynman
I would venture to guess most of us on
But the speed of light is finite, so it has to travel through time to go between two points. But because from the photon's perspective it's travel is instantaneous, it can't experience that time. So a photon doesn't know where it's going to land, until it does. And so until it does land, it could have landed anywhere. So when a photon is created, it travels out in all directions, like a wave, until it lands somewhere and the wave collapses.
Yes, and no... another way to think of it is that from the frame of reference of the photon, it doesn't really need to "travel" at all (with infinite time dilation, comes infinite length contraction).
It sort of brings new way to think about the phrase, no matter where you go, there you are... (Buckaroo Banzai paraphrasing Confucius)...
Another thing to think about it is that a photon really is never really a particle or wave but simply an artifact of book-keeping energy in an electromagnetic field (or perhaps a virtual electron-positron Dirac field in the QM limit)....
Only the vessel for him carried by Leonard Nimoy has passed on, but as long as he's remembered he's not truly dead.
On the other hand, if you aren't royalty and your picture appears on money, you are likely truly dead...
Let me see... Looney, Tooney, Spooney? Nah...
Now I don't pretend to tell you how to find happiness and love when every day is just a struggle to survive, but I do insist that you do survive because the days and the years ahead are worth living for. One day soon man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, maybe even the atom. Energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in some sort of spaceship. And the men that reach out into space will be able to find ways to feed the hungry millions of the world and to cure their diseases. They will be able to find a way to give each man hope and a common future, and those are the days worth living for....
--Edith Keeler in The City on the Edge of Forever
I don't think the issue is that "if everyone thinks about the issues the same way", it is if somehow we figure out how to lift the burdens of survival and give people hope for a better future, people won't be happy, but they will be able to find their own happiness.
Of course if your version of happiness depends on the subjugation or thought control of others, well, I suppose you will never be happy...
FWIW, the reason it's outdated is that among the "radical" set today is a backlash against exploration for discovery and novelty in favor of a local movement (e.g., local food, local business, rediscovery of history, rejection of modernism, etc).
The animated episode of Fringe...
I'd ask yourselves the same question
But February made me shiver
With every paper I'd deliver
Bad news on the doorstep
I couldn't take one more step...
While we're at it, there is no such thing as the tooth fairy either.
Well, for an imaginary entity, it must be rich, because it is paying out a record amount of cash for those baby teeth...
...These little instruments of correction, these gentle aids to the power and honour of families, these slight favours that might so incommode you, are only to be obtained now by interest and importunity. They are sought by so many, and they are granted (comparatively) to so few! It used not to be so, but France in all such things is changed for the worse. Our not remote ancestors held the right of life and death over the surrounding vulgar...
Or something totally different, but like that...
(kinda makes you wonder if they *really* paraphrased this from dickens or not)
they also need to put in a requirement that if you accept the prize money, then you give up the patent, allowing generic drugs.
Otherwise I foresee a case where they take the $2 billion profit, then go ahead and charge $10,000 a pill, just like cancer drugs.
In that situation where they cannot actually manufacture the drug in commercially viable situation, mostly likely they will never commercially manufacture the drug and there will only be generics. This will severely complicate the regulatory process as generics are generally licensed relative to their non-generic counterparts. Since there won't be any non-generics, there will little to benchmark the purity and efficacy of the generic drugs against. For some things this may not be a problem, but it seems that in general it will lead to only sub-optimal drugs being available.
I think what most people forget is that the delivery system is often as important as the active chemical in many drug treatments. Sure there are many common delivery mechanisms like pills that dissolve in the stomach and deliver the drug at certain pre-determined rate (commonly known as time-release), but many generic manufacturers attempt to move up the generic food chain by offering customized delivery systems that aren't part of the original study (e.g., time release instead of 2 doses a day, or multi-valent) or are incapable of producing the original tested delivery system (e.g., transdermal, to avoid stomach acid and intestinal absorption issues, etc) and simply produce chemically equivalent pill formulations that have off-the-shelf inactive compounding ingredients that involve little testing under the assumption of bio-equivalence or bio-availablity. Conversely, they might not be chemically equivalent (e.g., have more or less active ingredients), but in conjunction with the delivery system have similar bio-availablity (on average, but not necessarily for different individuals) or be "juiced" to counter chemical shelf life degradation (to improve profit margin on the generics).
Most likely simple broad-spectrum antibiotic drugs in generic pill form probably won't suffer many of these issues, but the issue of generics isn't as simple as most people make it out to be...
I think it's easy to argue that things should be available to the masses as soon as possible, but the initial availability is also an important part of the drug release process. Having this as standard as possible helps to make sure that the drug can be fine-tuned before it gets to the generic stage. You might also argue of the length of the initial availability period, but it's arguable that if a patent is 20 years, and it takes 10 years for approval, that 5-10 years of widespread availability in a standard form for a drug with potential short and long term side effects might not be totally unreasonable. But I guess that all depends on risk tolerance (f thousands of people are dying of a resistant bacterial infection, the relative risk of less testing might be lower)...
Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall
