Time to move to Forvik.

@#25
I don't think this is really political bashing. Just because boingboing links to a picture making fun of a politicians logo doesn't mean that they are making a statement about the politician. Of course I also make fun of my good friends more than anyone else, so maybe I just have warped sensibilities.

Also, @15, I assure you that Aaron (the artist) is not a republican operative.

Okay, so maybe you can call it nanotech, but I still think the word is overused. There are already plenty of materials with nanometer pores (mostly silica and zeolites), where the pore size can be controlled. Does the nanoness of this material really improve the properties? (obviously I haven't actually read the article).
If having nanometer dimensions are all that's required then the polymers and dendrimers I make are nanotechnology (and I might try to sell them that way, but really the nano-ness is of secondary importance).
As far as nano not always being good, I was thinking of using quantum dots for solar cells. People keep doing it, but I think it is doomed to fail (maybe nanometer sized particles will work, but probably not if they are small enough to exhibit quantum confinement). For one thing quantum dots have band gaps larger than the bulk materials, and solar calls almost always suffer from too large a band gap.

The previous couple posters are right, definitely not nano. Although I'm not sure why you want this material as nanocrystals anyway. Being nanoscale isn't always good.

This was by far my favorite thing on the playa this past year. Thanks to everyone who made it happen.

The most famous oscillating reaction is the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, which also produces some nice colors. When the reaction isn't stirred you get interesting waves of color moving through the solution. Search youtube, there are a bunch of videos of varying quality.

Hmm, I may have spoken a little too quickly on the meat NEVER being efficient. After reading a little it appears that for some people in some places at some times it was competitive with plant sources. The !kung have traditionally been heavy on the meat side. What I had heard about before were the societies where meat was less than 20% of the caloric intake. In any case this doesn't change my argument that I don't think these societies were evil for eating meat, but now we do have a choice. And now that we know more about nutrition and sources of hard to find nutrients in plants, it would be possible to live in an agrarian, or possibly even gatherer society without meat. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster though there might be a period where this was not reasonable. The more I think about it though, the more I think I could not get myself to eat meat under even these circumstances. Not out of morality though. I still think that killing another animal, or human, for your own survival, if it really comes to that, is okay. Just as it is okay for animals to kill each other or us for their survival.

@Mujadaddy

My veganism is a moral choice. However, everyone has the right to survive. I do not think poorly of people in hunter gatherer societies that eat the meat they catch. In our society we can live perfectly healthy lives without having to use animals. So I choose to do my best to minimize the harm my diet does. About the cars and airplanes in my example, I don't suggest we give them up, but I try to minimize their use.
Also while meat is a concentrated source of calories it takes a lot more energy to catch it than it does to gather plants. It is inefficient any way you analyze it. And where did you get that the colries from meat were what allowed agrarian society?
So in the disaster situation I would do what I needed to do for a short time to survive. There are very few realistic scenarios in which we could not fairly quickly reestablish some kind of an agrarian society, in which case vegetarianism and/or veganism would be a perfectly reasonable choice.

@ mujadaddy (#10)

"It's not nice to FuXX0r Mother Nature."

Your argument is one of the silliest I have ever heard. It could also be argued that driving a car, flying in a plane and even using a computer are not natural and it would be even easier to argue that they "FuXX0r Mother Nature." I don't propose that we stop doing any of those things. Although maybe we should try to be more intelligent about all of them.
Also linking to a sketch showing that we have an omnivore's tooth structure doesn't really prove that it dangerous to be vegan. In hunter-gatherer societies meat was a rarity. We ate it, but not a lot of it.
In the kind of disaster being discussed here I would probably have to abandon a strict vegan diet, and I would probably eat meat if I really had to (although I'm not sure I would really have to). I certainly wouldn't worry about a little whey in bread found in the remains of a grocery store.

Oh, of course, re-engineering cattle makes so much more sense than not eating beef.

I think it observed in some other mammals. For instance elephants live in matriachal societies. The members of the heard are the daugthers of the matriach and their young (although sometimes also sisters of the matriach and their young as well). Maybe this doesn't quite fit the definition of grandparenting, but it sounds like it to me.

For the US it would have to be DJ Spooky.