Come on. The article is a joke. " A chess facilitator brain implant would be wired between perception and cognition. You would just look at the board and know if it is checkmate." Did the original poster not realize this?
I would like to name it Sodom. The people that live there are Sodomizers.
I believe they would actually be called Sodomites, which is already funny enough.
But then you have to pay hundreds of USD for an iPhone (or maybe one hundred for a compatible Android phone) and hundreds of USD per year to upgrade from voice-only cellular service to smartphone service. Or what am I missing?
That most people already have a smartphone.
The data plan issue is a bigger one, I think.
But it'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.
In fact the GIGN is a part of the armed forces not the police.
Oh, so the French regularly use their armed forces against their own populace? That's even better.
Most criminals would no longer be able to transact business, as they operate in a cash system.
The biggest criminals run banks... or governments
I didn't research so forgive my ignorance
It gets this property from its fine surface structure, which is a forest of tubes. Incoming light has to be reflected many times before it gets back out, so a black material is effectively made even less reflective. It's the optical-scale version of the pointed absorbers used in anechoic chambers.
It probably is not going to retain its blackness when exposed to water, dirt, or wear. Superhydrophobic coatings such as Never Wet have the same problem - they work because they're composed of tiny points, so droplets of liquid don't have a surface they can grab. But after some wear, the effect stops working. (See any of the many "NeverWet fails" videos on YouTube.)
This is likely to be great for protected environments, such as inside optical systems. It should be useful for optical sensors in space, too. But it's probably an inherently fragile surface. That limits its uses. (The "stronger than steel" probably refers to the individual carbon nanotubes, not the bulk material.)
This s a problem with a lot of surface chemistry stuff touted as "nanomaterials". They have interesting surface properties, but the surfaces are fragile, because they're some very thin surface layer with an unusual structure. If you protect that structure with some coating, you lose the effect.
What's the problem with being good at what you do? So there are 1% of researchers who are really fucking good at what they do. They aren't just good, they are REALLY FUCKING GOOD. They are top 1% good. They are THE BEST IN THE WORLD. So why should we be surprised that they have such an impact?
They are getting 99% of the academic tail, too.
1% Elitism is EVERYWHERE.
If they can grow it on Aluminum foil, perhaps they can grow it on an Aluminum block, with cooling passages.
This is going to be useful for the insides of optical systems, lens hoods, and such. Other than that, probably not that significant.
That I actually have done
But yes, it's not exactly a very practical solution for Iceland. I'd really prefer something more designed for both roles, hanging and on the ground.
Since when have protective tariffs been "efficient"?
If we required accounting of emissions, and not simply of currency units, then there would be no need for tariffs to address the issue of the hidden environmental costs. They can eventually be translated into economic costs, but they also affect quality of life — you can assign economic costs to that as well, but you'll hardly tell the whole story.
When you buy goods made somewhere with inadequate pollution controls, many others have to pay part of your bill. My only problem with the whole idea is that any tariffs should be used specifically for bioremediation, and my prediction is that they largely won't be.
Yeah, throw out the random bit of EPA FUD there! Everybody hates having clean drinkable water and clean breathable air. FUCK THE WORLD! LET'S KILL IT AND MAKE OUR OWN DAMN SPECIES GO EXTINCT!
Considering that the Supreme Court just got done slapping down the EPA, for exactly the reason I was discussing here, I don't think either "random" or "FUD" are accurate descriptions of my comment. In your dreams, maybe. It's sad that they're turning into nightmares for you. But be reassured that the reasons for that are good.