Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NIF Compresses Diamonds With 50 Million Atmospheres of Pressure

Unknown Lamer posted about a month ago | from the memories-bring-diamonds-and-lasers dept.

Shark 81

sciencehabit (1205606) writes The world's largest laser [the National Ignition Facility], a machine that appeared as the warp core in 'Star Trek into Darkness', has attained a powerful result: It's squeezed diamond, the least compressible substance known, 50 million times harder than Earth's atmosphere presses down on us. ... As the researchers report online today in Nature, the x-ray assault nearly quadrupled the diamond's density. "That's a record," Smith [one of the researchers] says. "No one's compressed diamond to that extent before." The blast pulverized the diamond into dust, but before the mineral's destruction the scientists successfully measured its density ... For a billionth of a second, the diamond, which is normally 3.25 times denser than water, became ... 12.03 times denser than water. ... Scientists have speculated that diamond worlds may exist elsewhere. If a solar system arises with more carbon than oxygen, then carbon should soak up the oxygen by forming carbon monoxide, leaving excess carbon to create carbon planets—which, under pressure, become diamond worlds. Thus, Smith says, the new experiment will probe the nature of such planets. They are performing similar experiments with iron in an attempt to understand the properties of super-Earth cores.

cancel ×

81 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Million robort toad (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a month ago | (#47477917)

The winning comnbination of toads and the robotes wiil the strakeopoport pf popoe! vDUCK WONN!

Car analogy? (1)

sinij (911942) | about a month ago | (#47477957)

Can someone explain this with a car analogy?

Re:Car analogy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47477985)

In automotive terms, they dropped a Hummer from the SpaceX reusable rocket at the peak of a test-launch and for an infinitesimaly small period of time during the impact, it was compressed to the size of a Pinto, before shattering into a pile of scrap metal.

Except this was done with diamond and a laser instead of a Hummer and a rocket.

Re:Car analogy? (3, Funny)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a month ago | (#47478021)

In automotive terms, they dropped a Hummer from the SpaceX reusable rocket at the peak of a test-launch and for an infinitesimaly[sic] small period of time before the impact, it got almost the same MPG of a Pinto, before shattering into a pile of scrap metal.

Re:Car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478629)

I owned a Pinto. The mileage of that POS was in the same ballpark as the Hummer.

Re:Car analogy? (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a month ago | (#47478769)

I owned a Pinto. The mileage of that POS was in the same ballpark as the Hummer.

Either it was very old by the time you got it, or something was really wrong with it. Pinto's were advertised to get 34 MPG, and many did better than that. The worst mileage I've ever heard of a stock Pinto getting was 22 MPG, but that was pulling a trailer with the AC on.

The Hummer H1 was 9 MPG city and 12 highway. The H2 was around 14 combined, and the H3 was 14 city, 18 highway. So no, not really in the same ball park at all.

Re:Car analogy? (1)

amalcolm (1838434) | about 2 months ago | (#47481325)

So you needed a trailer to talke the air conditioning plant along - awesome!

Re:Car analogy? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 months ago | (#47482381)

So you needed a trailer to talke the air conditioning plant along - awesome!

Yes, and even towing an air conditioning plant the Pinto managed to get better mileage than a Hummer.

Re:Car analogy? (1)

idji (984038) | about a month ago | (#47478631)

during the impact.

Re:Car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47477995)

Its like hitting a rock cliff with a car going at 50 million times the recommended speed limit. Before exploding, your car will be 4 times denser than normal (due to loss of volume).

Re: Car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47480261)

Wow that's almost as dense as a house representative from a thoroughly red state.

Re: Car analogy? (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 2 months ago | (#47480799)

Yet only a small fraction as dense as a red state rep.

Re:Car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478025)

Here you go. [nocookie.net]

Re:Car analogy? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478087)

Basically they used lasers to stuff 99 people into a VW bug for about a nanosecond. Then the entire thing exploded violently into sand-grain-sized chunks of metal and meat.

Re:Car analogy? (4, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | about a month ago | (#47478091)

Can someone explain this with a car analogy?

Star Trek Into Darkness:Star Trek The Wrath of Khan :: Ford Pinto : Ford Mustang (1969 Boss version)

No idea about the laser.

Re:Car analogy? (1)

GrandCow (229565) | about a month ago | (#47478225)

Think of a monster truck show.

All those junk cars lined up in a row, that's the diamond. Then out comes Gravedigger. The driver revs the engine and hits the ramp, landing on the cars and crushing them. Bam, denser diamonds.

Then Truckasaurus comes stomping out into the arena and starts grabbing the smashed cars and eating them. Flames and sparks are shooting everywhere and the cars (diamonds) explode into little pieces half a second later.

Re:Car analogy? (1)

mjm1231 (751545) | about a month ago | (#47478255)

Homer: Here are your messages: "You have 30 minutes to move your car," "You have 10 minutes," "Your car has been impounded," "Your car has been crushed into a cube," "You have 30 minutes to move your cube."
[phone rings]
Homer: [answering] Hello, Mr. Burns' office.
Mr. Burns: Is it about my cube?

yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47480381)

The taxpayers bought a bunch of scientists some incredible equipment to help them develop the most amazing car ever. The new car the scientists promised would be faster than any rocketcar to cross the salt flats, more rugged than an MRAP, have more luxury than a Maybach, and be nearly free to operate because it would run on sea water.

As the decades slipped by and people asked these scientists "where's our shiny new ultimate car?" the scientists always gave the same answer: "We just got the first cough of ignition from the new motor and tha dashboard lit up, but we need a few more years (and more money) to complete it"

Now we got a press release that they have been using the super-car building machine to destroy diamonds, which they apparently found to be more interesting than making the super car they kept promising.

For "super car" substitute "fusion reactor", then get angry and demand that all involved be fired immediately for spending ANY time and ANY money at the National Ignition Facility doing ANYTHING not DIRECTLY involved in creating a working nuclear fusion reactor which is the whole reason their paychecks and that damned facility exist in the first place.

Re: yes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47481019)

Are libertarians always angry about everything, or does it just seem that way here?

Re:yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47481555)

for spending ANY time and ANY money at the National Ignition Facility doing ANYTHING not DIRECTLY involved in creating a working nuclear fusion reactor which is the whole reason their paychecks and that damned facility exist in the first place.

If you wanted them to spend 100% of the time working on fusion, that would mean they would need even more money and even higher budget. Some of the larger experiments scale the number of operating days to their budget, because budgets don't cover for operation 24/7 (plus maintenance and servicing takes up some of that time). People with other funding can come along though and use some of that down time for other experiments. To most people this seems far more reasonable, that if you buy an expensive piece of equipment, you try to get as much stuff done with it for a given amount of money, instead of saying damn the costs, we need to do one and only one thing with it.

Re:yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47483969)

It seems kind of stupid to suggest people should get angry over an expensive facility finding additional uses, especially considering the fusion research is a secondary goal for the facility. Often it can take a bit of analysis and planning for each step taken, so there will be down time between when previous data is being looked at and when there is a good idea of what to do next. Or sometimes part of the system could be working (e.g. diagnostics important to one goal are down for maintenance, but the rest of the system is capable of running).

To stick with car analogies, what you're advocating is that important employees should be assigned a work car exclusive to each employee, even if they don't use it every day and will have head notice of when they will need it. Instead, the facility is run more like how various states and local governments handle vehicles via a fleet that pools cars. It is easy enough to ensure important and priority employees get it when they needed it, but now they get higher utilization from fewer cars. Yet you don't see people complaining "We bought a car so the health inspector could visit restaurants around town, anyone involved in letting building inspector or park supervisor from using it to do approved location visits should be fired."

Been there, done that. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47477961)

I compress turds into diamonds every morning before work...

Re:Been there, done that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478067)

If you want to get technical, you compress excrements into turds.

There is only one "Solar system" (3, Informative)

adric22 (413850) | about a month ago | (#47477973)

I see that mistake so often. It should be "star system" because only our star system is called "Solar system" because our star is called Sol.

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (4, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a month ago | (#47478043)

"Solar System" in this case would be a specific noun, and as such warrants the capitalization. Sol, our Star, is also a specific noun, hence its warrant of capitalization, just as we would capitalize a person's name. If one is referring to "a solar system" in a generic sense rather than an unknown but implied specific Star and it's surrounding Planets, then lower case is appropriate.

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a month ago | (#47478055)

Further, Solar System is implying Star + Planets, or "like Sol System".

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (2)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about a month ago | (#47479075)

"Solar System" in this case would be a specific noun, and as such warrants the capitalization. Sol, our Star, is also a specific noun, hence its warrant of capitalization, just as we would capitalize a person's name. If one is referring to "a solar system" in a generic sense rather than an unknown but implied specific Star and it's surrounding Planets, then lower case is appropriate.

Can you please explain to me why this actually matters?

Since somebody spent the time to write out a detailed explanation about capitalisation of the phrase "solar system", this must be of some importance.

Again, why does this matter?

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47480723)

some people can't live without syntax highlighting

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (2)

fellip_nectar (777092) | about 2 months ago | (#47480877)

Capitalization is the difference between...

helping your Uncle Jack off a horse.

and

helping your uncle jack off a horse.

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47480927)

That's a kludge. How are you going to express that with an ALL CAPS font?

Re: There is only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47481773)

That's something between you, your uncle and the horse

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | about 2 months ago | (#47482015)

Again, why does this matter?

Because, technically correct is the best kind of correct!

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (2)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 2 months ago | (#47480505)

I come into the comments looking for someone modded up for actually explaining things, and THIS is the only thing modded +5?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Re:There is only one "Solar system" (0)

pslytely psycho (1699190) | about a month ago | (#47478151)

And you will see its usage increase as it becomes part of the common lexicon.
A very frequent place to find this misused is the pseudo-science programs on Science and History channels. And I'm sure the Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boos out their wouldn't understand the difference if you hit them in the head with a Star Encyclopedia, it would however, be enjoyable.

Sigh, I had such great hopes for those types of channels when they first appeared. Now they live off of Ancient Aliens and Blob People From The Depths (actually I'm writing that one, it will be on right after the Ancient Egyptian Flying Taxis episode, don't miss it!).

When I see those shows popularity ratings, then I fear George was giving the average person way too much credit when he said:
"Just think how stupid the average person is - and then realize that half of them are even stupider"

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47480281)

George must have meant "the median", not "the average"...

Re: There is only one "Solar system" (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 2 months ago | (#47480811)

I'm not sure George ever gave his opinion about which side of that particular line he was on.

Re:There is only one "Solar system" (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47479165)

I see that mistake so often. It should be "star system" because only our star system is called "Solar system" because our star is called Sol.

Funny thing is, often words have multiple meanings:

Solar system
noun
1.the sun together with all the planets and other bodies that revolve around it.
2.a similar system with celestial bodies revolving around a star other than the sun.

http://dictionary.reference.co... [reference.com]

Re:There is only one "Solar system" (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 2 months ago | (#47480157)

Furthermore we also refer to other stars as "suns" when we feel like it or the context makes it useful.

Shark? (0)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about a month ago | (#47478003)

So, if we can mount a NIF-like laser onto a shark, we can use it to transform diamonds into dust?

Black Hole? (0)

karstdiver (541054) | about a month ago | (#47478069)

How close did this come to creating a black hole?

Re:Black Hole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478123)

If it didn't even manage to crunch the diamond into neutrons? Nowhere near...

Fusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478077)

Still quite short of actual fusion though... What I always wonder when I look at places like grand canyon (you see a mile of rock pushing down on other rock...) is just how much pressure is out there in everyday life happily existing all around us... and yet even the immense pressure of Jupiter's core is not enough to start fusion...

And here we are attempting to generate *more* pressure than the core of Jupiter in a device at NIF... enough to rival the pressure at the center of the SUN... If we succeed in generating and controlling that plasma, that will be one amazing trick we play on nature.

Also.... Jupiter... there be diamonds in there... Arthur C. Clark said so!

Re:Fusion? (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about a month ago | (#47478109)

By the time we're able to harvest diamonds from other planetary bodies we'll have perfected laboratory synthethis. Actually, we'll perfect that LONG before we start mining other planetary bodies.

Re:Fusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478233)

We can already synthesize isotopically pure diamonds...

Re:Fusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478277)

We can already synthesize isotopically pure diamonds...

If it isn't dug out of a wound on Mother Gaia's body by child slaves and shipped across the planet, then it's not a real diamond and means you don't "love" her.

Re:Fusion? (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about a month ago | (#47478323)

Because I'm mildly insane or something, I bought a lab made sapphire online, and when it came in the mail, I promptly took it around to the local jeweler, and asked him to take a look at this stone I had. He sits down, looks at it for a bit, goes "Huh." and moves to a more powerful microscope, looks for a bit longer, and finally says,
"I don't see any flaws or inclusions, but I also don't see and bubbles, so its not glass.... I guess we can send it to a lab in New York and find out what it is if you want?"
At that point, I said that it was not that important, and took my rock and left, because I was not really sure how he would react to being told I already knew what it was.
The point is, we can manufacture perfect gemstones, better than nature makes them.

Re:Fusion? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a month ago | (#47478461)

Yep. The main selling point of "natural" gemstones these days is that the lab-made ones are "too perfect!"

Re:Fusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478589)

Yep. The main selling point of "natural" gemstones these days is that the lab-made ones are "too perfect!"

Strictly speaking it's because they're "more unique" and therefore "rarer". But yeah. The whole jewelry gig is more about how much it costs than any rational justification and mass produced industrial stones are too inexpensive to contribute to the value of high end jewelry.

Re:Fusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47479275)

We've already had this discussion in a bitcoin thread. Essentially the value of gold an gemstones are overly inflated and based mostly on peoples perception of their value, just like the currencies we use.

Re:Fusion? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | about 2 months ago | (#47483793)

as opposed to bitcoin itself.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Re:Fusion? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47479283)

Strictly speaking, there is only "unique" and "non unique", but there's no "more unique."

Re:Fusion? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 2 months ago | (#47483577)

Strictly speaking, there is only "unique" and "non unique", but there's no "more unique."

True, but sadly, due to rampant misuse, there's no more "unique." :-)

Re:Fusion? (1)

careysub (976506) | about 2 months ago | (#47486149)

Yep. The main selling point of "natural" gemstones these days is that the lab-made ones are "too perfect!"

Strictly speaking it's because they're "more unique" and therefore "rarer"....

Yet, oddly, the market for natural pearls - by which I mean ones that aren't "cultured", but are formed naturally - collapsed when farmed cultured pearls were introduced, and has never really recovered -- even though they are easily identifiable, far rarer, and "more unique" (I am quoting the misconstruction). Natural pearl production is lower today than it was a century ago. This is a good thing, since it takes pressure off of living communities of organisms, but it is also inconsistent behavior of the market/industry compared to other gemstones.

(I have an explanation for why this occurred for pearls - that "cultured" pearls are considered "real" pearls by the market - but laboratory diamonds are not considered "real" diamonds. Pearls were really, truly rare before culturing made them something everyone could buy -- thus cultured ones were accepted because they expanded the market into a mass market. Diamonds on the other hand were really, truly rare once, but that ended with the discovery of the African diamond deposits in the mid 19th century. After that time they were something everyone could buy, and required an international cartel to manage the supply to keep the price up (in addition to restricting the supply it began an unflagging sales efforts - "diamonds are girl's best friend" - to drive up demand). Artificial diamonds did not change the supply-demand situation, there was already a surplus of natural diamond, but the cartel does not wish for there to be "real" diamonds produced outside of cartel price control. Thus no one who deals in diamonds, and is thus dependent on cartel favor for their supply, will agree that an artificial one is "real".)

Re:Fusion? (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about a month ago | (#47478993)

which translates to 'No one had to bleed in a mine for seven cents a day to get this lab made gem, and as you know, bleeding in a mine is the definition of romantic."

Re:Fusion? (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a month ago | (#47478977)

Many years ago I had a friend who was a gemologist. He told me once that it's not at all hard to tell that a stone's synthetic once you have it under the microscope. Synthetic gemstones (Not diamonds; they're done differently.) are built up little by little on a rod, then cut, shaped and polished. No matter how well done they are, you can see the layers. Either the technique has gotten much better over the last several decades or the jeweler didn't know what to look for.

Re:Fusion? (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about a month ago | (#47479003)

I'm going to assume a 30/70 split, where 30% is better technique, and 70% my local jeweler not knowing to look for it.

Re:Fusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478283)

By the time we're able to harvest diamonds from other planetary bodies we'll have perfected laboratory synthethis. Actually, we'll perfect that LONG before we start mining other planetary bodies.

What's wrong with laboratory synthetics today?

Re:Fusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478161)

This wasn't part of the fusion campaign, but a side test for material science. So it mostly likely will be quite short of fusion not being optimized for that direction. A lot of big plasma and fusion experiments have side projects using the experiments in one way or another for astrophysics.

Diamond monopoly.... (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | about a month ago | (#47478097)

So that's how De Beers keeps their monopoly, they dispose of extra diamonds... by crushing them with a really expensive laser...

Re:Diamond monopoly.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478185)

It is far easier and cheaper to just burn them, literally, by heating with a torch then dropping into liquid oxygen.

Re:Diamond monopoly.... (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a month ago | (#47478285)

It is far easier and cheaper to just burn them, literally, by heating with a torch then dropping into liquid oxygen.

Why bother with the liquid oxygen? You can shovel them into a coal burning furnace. Diamonds usually completely burn up in house fires. It doesn't take any more heat/oxygen to burn a diamond than it does to burn coal.

Re:Diamond monopoly.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478799)

It doesn't take any more heat/oxygen to burn a diamond than it does to burn coal.

Coal will ignite around 400-600 C and will continue to burn. Diamonds don't tend to oxidize in air until around 700-800 C (some artificial types not until 1000 C), and won't actually ignite and sustain burning until 900-1000 C, even then only when smaller pieces or thin films. You either have to continually apply a lot of external heat, or add a lot of oxygen (with a bad enough case of the former, getting graphite instead).

Re:Diamond monopoly.... (1)

careysub (976506) | about 2 months ago | (#47486191)

De Beers never destroyed diamonds to maintain scarcity - they just stockpiled them, and then worked to create new markets in emerging economies (the United States, later Japan, then Eastern Europe, now China) and eventually sold them. At one point they had a stockpile equal to several years of sales.

A Political anlogy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478115)

Obama's butcheeks after every negative review exert 200 million atmospheres of pressure.

he stopped caring by July 2nd, 2013 (-1, Offtopic)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month ago | (#47478273)

He, like all presidential candidates, WAS profoundly egotistical and had a pathological need for approval, but that he seems to have given up on the approval part, going the way of "nobody understands but me". That sometimes happens when somebody becomes "the most powerful man in the world", of course.

His July, 2013 decision to start blatantly rewriting law, unilaterally, is ample evidence of that. Ev Almost everyone, the people who voted for him, congress members from his own party, his largest donors - all say what he's doing is unconstitutional and wrong, but he doesn't seem to care anymore.

Re:he stopped caring by July 2nd, 2013 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478359)

What are you babbling about? Are you so deranged by wingnut media that you're posting wingnut comments in random threads?

Democrat Senators are right wing? (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month ago | (#47478839)

While Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, and the longest serving Democrat in any national office, he wrote scathing commentary about Obama ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the oval office. Nobody is more democrat than Byrd. More recently, the distinguished Senator from Ohio wrote that Obama's handling of Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional.

I understand you're probably infatuated with the guy, but peek around the blinders once in a while.

The missing link (3, Informative)

scdeimos (632778) | about a month ago | (#47478371)

Disappointing that the Star Trek tie-in was mentioned but the link was omitted...

National Ignition Facility provides backdrop for "Star Trek: Into Darkness" [llnl.gov]

Re:The missing link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47479531)

Is that where Star Trek goes into Africa?

Is this a spin-off from "Will It Blend" ? (3, Funny)

slincolne (1111555) | about a month ago | (#47478375)

Can't sustain fusion, so let's use the nice shiny laser to zap things and pretend its science :-)

Re:Is this a spin-off from "Will It Blend" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47479051)

Honey, where's my ring? Did you clean it like I asked? Honey?

The atmosphere does not press "down" on us (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month ago | (#47478641)

It presses us from all sides with the same force (except for a minuscule difference due to different height of things). This is a real stupid beginner's mistake.

Re:The atmosphere does not press "down" on us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47481885)

Yep, P=rho*g*h

Why will the Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478761)

not allow them to sell these diamonds? They could fund their own research if the Republicans didn't suck the DeBeer's dicks so hard. That is the way of their kind. Instead of giving us diamonds that have so many industrial uses, the Republicans require them to be destroyed. They hate us and want us to waste money on rings and on drill bits and saw blades that dull in a matter of minutes. They are so hateful.

all the carbons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47478779)

Oh man, we would be so rich ....

Fraud To Impress Congress Budget Committee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47479705)

The budget of the NIF is slated to be zeroed-out, i.e. killed, in the current U.S. Congressional Budget Negotiations.

Unless "God" Intervenes, you are allowed to choose your "God", NIF is dead.

Mining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47479811)

All I get out of this is that greedy guts are looking to mine other planets for diamonds.

I welcome our new overlords.

The only real question remaining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47480467)

How long until Beyoncé is spotted wearing an ultra-dense diamond at <insert music/film award night of your choice> ?

Obsolete measurement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47483707)

A standard atmosphere (atm) is an obsolete non-SI international unit of pressure defined as 101.325 kPa. For practical purposes it has been replaced by the bar, which is 100 kPa.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>