@zuzu: "When has Derren Brown endangered anyone? The worst I've seen him do is make someone miss their subway stop."

This may not be totally endangering anyone, but it's a bit worse than making someone miss their subway stop:

(one-minute segments:)

1) http://youtube.com/watch?v=j27Cs-OJFTg
2) http://youtube.com/watch?v=OXJ2xe0ivdI
3) http://youtube.com/watch?v=gIshS97mM-g
4) http://youtube.com/watch?v=sxEDjsgPKMM
5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pl6RAf-YWAQ
6) http://youtube.com/watch?v=xYZAZCB9kQU
7) http://youtube.com/watch?v=a1g0WhMMrHE
8) http://youtube.com/watch?v=OwzcSUfHNfY
9) http://youtube.com/watch?v=3qSITY8YT-I

@JSG

"Pardon my stupidity, but is there a freedom of information act in Great Britain?"

Yes.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1

(for England and Wales (and Northern Ireland))

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2002/asp_20020013_en_1

(for Scotland)

Daily Mail, sigh.

The Times:
General Overview
Airline bomb plotters made martyrdom videos, court hears
Airline terror suspects 'converted empty flat into bomb factory'

The Guardian
Details of the plot
Details of the bombs

The Independent
Overview

...

I mean, it's really not that hard. Why not try bookmarking timesonline.co.uk or guardian.co.uk? Your own life will be significantly better for it, and by helping to reduce The Mail's source of oxygen, you'll be helping to improve the quality of life for everyone else as well.

Lubos Motl's analysis of the LHC risk:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/02/lhc-alarmists.html

A typical C-C bond is 1.54 angstroms or 0.154 nm.

So, you're saying that the lattice constant of something like diamond is on the order of a few tens of angstroms. Right, so diamond, as an example, isn't a nanostructure. ("picostructure"? :/ )

These crystals have lattice constants on the order of a few nanometres. Therefore, they are nanostructures. This large lattice constant is a result of the internal voids ('pores') which have sizes on the order of nanometres.

The pores (and the bulk crystals) are constructed by designing a novel chemical process that takes pre-constructed molecules (containing a few dozen atoms) and which assembles them together (without destroying them) to form the bulk macrostructure. It is that ability to design and engineer nano-scale structures that defines this work as 'nanotechnology'.

The Wired article has only one image of these crystals (excluding the one of Yaghi holding a model); it is, in fact, an article about the laboratory and the nanotechnology research that is performed there.

The Boing Boing article does not say that these are nano-crystals, it says that they are an example of nano-technology... Which, as I've explained, they are. In fact, Boing Boing only really uses the construct 'Nanotech Lab'.

I think you really need to look more into it.

The work is published in Science 316 268 (2007).

They are described as 'nano-scaled' (or, should be) because the crystals contain structure which is on the nano-scale, not that the bulk crystals are themselves nanoscaled. As far as I can tell from my quick scan of that Science paper, these crystals are constructed from a network of molecular chain structures, which create voids within the bulk crystal (between the atomic chains) with dimensions on the order of 0.5--2.0 nm.

Although I'm not sure why you want this material as nanocrystals anyway. Being nanoscale isn't always good.

Nanoscale houses aren't good, because people are several orders of magnitude larger than the nanoscale. Nanoscale telephone handsets aren't good, for similar reasons. But if you have a substance that you are using for gas absorption, building it out of 'nano-particles' (ie, powder) might be good since that means it will have a much higher surface (ie, chemically active) area than a bulk crystal a metre along each side.

Ecobore:

I hope that Buckingham Palace is coloured black - the royal family has always been the biggest draw on the British economy - worst thieves of the lot!

You're right! In financial year 2005-06, for example, they cost the taxpayer minus £182.9 million!

Charlie Brooker's take on reality TV:

Editing techniques: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI

Make your own elimination reality tv show: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BdxHRuBRLYE ; http://youtube.com/watch?v=uktwoY3lk7g ; http://youtube.com/watch?v=GCWSQ3axHC4