backtop

Print 61 comment(s) - last by johnsmith9875.. on May 31 at 10:19 AM

  (Source: VaranasiGroup)
LiquiGlide is a coating that can be applied to the inside of glass, plastic and metal bottles

For anyone who has ever sat in a restaurant shaking the glass ketchup bottle for what felt like hours only to receive little globs at a time, an MIT professor has finally created a solution that allows us to get every last drop -- faster.

Kripa Varanasi, head of Varanasi Research Group and a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, has created a coating that allows thick condiments like ketchup, honey, and mayonnaise to rush quickly and completely out of the bottle.

Current bottles, such as the glass ketchup bottle, requires a bit of work to get the ketchup to come out. It's not uncommon to see someone shake the bottle upside down for long periods of time to try and get just a little bit of ketchup out. Also, it's difficult to get each drop of ketchup from the bottom when the bottle is near empty.

But now, Varanasi has created LiquiGlide, which is a coating that can be applied to the inside of glass, plastic and metal bottles. LiquiGlide is made of FDA-approved food materials, and allows thick condiments to slide right out without having to shake the bottle.

"The real idea for this came from honey," said Varanasi. "I was thinking about honey and how hard it is to scrape honey out of the bottom of the jar. At the end it is very difficult to get anything out."

Varanasi said he has already talked to equipment makers, food companies and bottle makers about using his new product. Apparently the idea has really grabbed their attention, since LiquiGlide can be applied inexpensively with techniques already in use to coat bottles.

Varanasi said he plans to use LiquiGlide in other types of containers where the contents are hard to obtain, like cosmetic bottles.

"Now we're thinking about bottled cosmetics," said Varanasi. "You buy this expensive lotion and half of it is in the bottle and doesn't want to come out. All of us have been there. At least my wife has been there."

The video below offers a quick demonstration of LiquiGlide's effectiveness:

Source: The Los Angeles Times


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
great
By kleinma on 5/28/2012 12:39:11 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds cool, but I would like to see some longer term studies to see if any of the chemicals used do end up in the food. FDA approval doesn't mean all that much these days. They can still make plastic bottles with BPA in it, even though the FDA has "concerns" that it is probably bad for both the human body, and the environment.




RE: great
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/28/2012 12:44:05 PM , Rating: 5
A little Astroglide never hurt anyone ;)


RE: great
By jvillaro on 5/28/2012 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 5
Would we have to start using diapers just in case it slips out easier? Maybe if you sneeze?


RE: great
By MrBlastman on 5/29/2012 12:09:03 PM , Rating: 1
He probably will (the inventor). After this, he'll be rich as shite and set for life.


RE: great
By Souka on 5/29/2012 2:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
If it keeps FDA approval, they should consider making it a pill form... as a laxative :)

It just slides right on out! :)


RE: great
By chromal on 5/28/2012 12:53:54 PM , Rating: 3
I was thinking the same thing:

dateline May 28 2031-- the popular food packaging 'LiquidGlide,' has been confirmed to cause seven forms of cancer as well as chronic hormonal imbalance in the bodies of consumers who frequently use products packaged with the chemical. Studies have determined foods of a certain pH coupled with shelf time of the product cause LiquiGuide to shear off the packaging surface and into the food product being dispensed. Once ingested, it wreaks nine kinds of havok...


RE: great
By Justin Time on 5/28/2012 6:22:00 PM , Rating: 3
I'd be more concerned with what's in the so-called food I'm pouring said condiments onto.


RE: great
By MrBlastman on 5/29/2012 12:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
cause LiquiGuide to shear off the packaging surface and into the food product being dispensed. Once ingested, it wreaks nine kinds of havok...


It might actually help fight the sickening amounts of obesity in America right now. :)

The one thing I wonder about is what is the shelf-life of the coating? i.e. will it last weeks or months? Some condiments like ketchup can sit around in people's fridge for many months or longer.


RE: great
By freedom4556 on 5/29/2012 4:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
Anybody else eerily reminded of the blue 'repulsion gel' from Portal 2???


RE: great
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2012 1:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yes just like plastic food containers were the next health crisis? Meah. I've been hearing about "harmful" chemicals and preservatives in our food all my life. It's mostly just a scare tactic for farming news ratings.

Your comment about BPA proves how effective this unscientific fear-mongering is. BPA has been used for over 50 years and has been studied intensively world-wide. You would have to ingest something like 1,000 pounds a DAY of food and drinks in contact with BPA just to reach the SAFE intake level set by the FDA. The amount of BPA that we actually absorb is absurdly minute, and even that get's eliminated from the body after 24 hours.


RE: great
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2012 3:34:00 PM , Rating: 1
Okay guys don't let facts and the FDA, American Chemistry Council, the Center for Disease Control, National Toxicology Program, Science Board committee, British Heart Foundation, the entire European Union, and the European Food Safety Authority get in the way of your downrating...


RE: great
By Paj on 5/28/2012 3:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
What about all the places that ban it for use in baby products?

Can't be that harmless.


RE: great
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2012 3:56:53 PM , Rating: 3
Legislatures and law makers are not scientific bodies. Political policies are not indicative of scientific facts, and they are not regulatory review agencies who actually understand the chemistry of BPA.

I'm sure soon somewhere, probably in California, there will be a public places cell phone ban because there's enough idiots who believe wireless transitions are harmful. Making a law doesn't actually affirm this belief, however. It's just a pandering reactionary policy.


RE: great
By Lugaidster on 5/28/2012 7:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to have to agree with you on this one, even though I usually don't agree with the things you usually say. The world is filled with so many stupid idiots with voting rights that politicians just cater to them with those kinds of measures. Nothing scientific about that.


RE: great
By Solandri on 5/29/2012 12:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think BPA is a risk in regular use. But I still think the ban is prudent.

I'm very picky about the water I drink. I can tell tap water from (most) spring water from filtered water from reverse osmosis filtered water just by taste/smell. I can even recognize several of the brands of bottled water with a sip (Evian is dry - I hate it, Sparkletts is tangy/slightly metallic, Arrowhead used to be good but now is almost like tap water, Poland Springs is the best among the American brands I've tried, Crystal Geyser a close second). And while I'm normally fine with bottled water, if that bottle has been sitting for an afternoon in the car in the sun, it's completely obvious to me when I take a swig that material from the plastic has leeched into the water.

I'd agree the way the BPA ban came about was political. But the amounts of stuff in plastics which can leech into your food and drink is highly temperature-dependent. Just because under normal use the quantities are minute does not mean that they're minute (safe) under all circumstances. I can make sure I don't leave my water bottle in a hot car, but I can't control how that bottle was shipped and stored before I bought it. IMHO the safe limits for these materials in plastics need to be evaluated under worst-case temperature conditions of shipping and storage, not assuming average daytime temperatures.

quote:
The world is filled with so many stupid idiots with voting rights that politicians just cater to them with those kinds of measures. Nothing scientific about that.

That's one of the unfortunate drawbacks of democracy. If you try to filter out the input of these idiots, you end up with a government which is easier to corrupt. So on the whole I think we're better off just living with the occasional stupidity.


RE: great
By JediJeb on 5/29/2012 11:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
I work in a lab that test among other things drinking water. You definitely do get leaching of phthalates (plasticizers that make the plastic flexible) into the water. Also it is interesting to note that the regulations on how well bottled water is treated for micro-organisms is far less stringent than the regulations on tap water.

You will also be interested to find that most bottled water comes directly from a normal tap. There are a few of the much more expensive brands that may be taken from springs and deep wells, but the mainstream bottled water products are merely repackaged tap water. That is what makes me laugh at some people I know who completely reuse to drink water from a tap or water fountain, but will guzzle down bottles of cheap water, which are tap water plus what leaches out from the plastics, and they think that is somehow more healthy for them.

All water sold for consumption has to be chemically treated to reduce bacteria whether it is treated with chlorine, ozone, ultra violet light or other chemicals, it is a requirement, therefore you are not avoiding this by using bottled water. Even UV treatment is not completely without problems in that it kills bacteria by breaking down their cell membranes which leaves behind all the organic molecules contained within the cell. Doubly distilled water is probably the most pure you could get, but that has very little taste at all and is not that healthy to drink since it lacks minerals and can work to dilute your electrolytes faster.

Except for convenience, bottle water really has no benefits over tap water unless there is some sort of malfunction at your local water treatment plant.


RE: great
By johnsmith9875 on 5/29/2012 11:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason I buy bottled water is for my survival box. I'm not a doomsday prepper but its prudent to keep a box or two of supplies in case of disaster that you can toss into a vehicle or carry on your back.
I just use filtered water which is much cheaper per gallon. My only gripe is manufacturers seem to make it a point to NOT filter out fluoride, as if thats a good thing.


RE: great
By ShaolinSoccer on 5/29/2012 3:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My only gripe is manufacturers seem to make it a point to NOT filter out fluoride, as if thats a good thing.


Except dentists are saying there is a huge spike in children's cavities because of drinking bottled water that has less fluoride than tap water...

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/960045/...


RE: great
By JediJeb on 5/30/2012 2:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
The regulations on Fluoride say it has to be between 0.5 and 2.0 parts per million to be safe and effective. When you get up to the 10 parts per million range you can begin to have negative health effects if you drink a lot of water at that level. A concern now is combining fluoridated water with fluoridated tooth paste and fluoridated mouthwash. Each has their limits set to be safe if used individually, but not in combination, and the additive effect can end up being worse than not using them if you are not careful.


RE: great
By johnsmith9875 on 5/31/2012 9:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
A huge spike in cavities has nothing to do with the corn syrup and sugar laden sodas, snack foods, gum, and nutrition bars the industry has pushed on our children.

Yes its all because we aren't infusing our bodies with enough flouride.

Did you know children get exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride from toothpaste? See the problem is what they have known for a long time but have never admitted....many children SWALLOW the toothpaste rather than spit it out when they brush. The label specifically says to not do that, but they haven't done much to warn parents about it, nor to parents sit there and watch their kids brush.


RE: great
By Solandri on 5/29/2012 4:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
I buy bottled water for the bottles. They're convenient to carry as a portable water source. I refill them with reverse osmosis filtered water until the bottle gets too crunchy, or starts to smell from bacteria transferred from my mouth. I've tried carrying more permanent bottles, but they're heavier, they break, get lost, and aren't as convenient. With refills, a bottled water plastic bottle lasts me 2-3 weeks, provided I don't leave it in a hot car. So my trash footprint isn't that much worse than a permanent bottle.

quote:
I just use filtered water which is much cheaper per gallon. My only gripe is manufacturers seem to make it a point to NOT filter out fluoride, as if thats a good thing.

I think it's a good thing that they don't filter out fluoride. The data on the protection it provides for tooth enamel is quite compelling. But if you insist on removing fluoride, a RO filter will remove most of it.


RE: great
By JediJeb on 5/30/2012 2:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I refill them with reverse osmosis filtered water until the bottle gets too crunchy, or starts to smell from bacteria transferred from my mouth.


The bottles become "crunchy" because the phthlates have been leached out of them and are no longer there to make the plastic soft.


RE: great
By johnsmith9875 on 5/31/2012 9:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
I've tried water from a RO filter system. Its wonderful, I'm going to get one installed at home.

For those mineral freaks, well lets just say to get the same amount of minerals in bottled water as you get from one multivitamin tablet, you would have to drink 600 gallons.

I've heard some rather crazy assertions about the "dangers" of reverse osmosis water. Just ignore the fact the US Navy has been giving their sailors RO water for decades. Where else are you going to get water in a submarine that has been underwater for 6 months. They use reverse osmosis filtering systems for the water supply.


RE: great
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2012 11:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah my tap water ran through my Brita pitcher tastes just as good, if not better, than bottled water to me.

My girlfriend is one of those people who buy tons of bottled water, so annoying. She could just use the Brita water and put it one of those stainless steel water bottles I bought for her (that she NEVER uses), but noooooo, bottled water is "better"...


RE: great
By johnsmith9875 on 5/29/2012 11:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
All that I know is that if I leave a plastic bottle with water in a hot car, it does acquire a rather distinctive taste.

Leave it in a glass bottle and its taste does not change, other than being hot.

Something's going on there, its not in my head.


RE: great
By JediJeb on 5/30/2012 2:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
It is definitely not in your head. Purified water has absolutely no taste at all, it is the impurities that give water its taste. Whether they are good impurities like minerals such as sodium, calcium and potassium or the bad ones like phthalates and adipates that leach from the plastic.


RE: great
By Paj on 5/29/2012 9:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
Legislators are not scientific bodies, true enough. But decisions are not made in a vacuum. They are made on the basis of studies (some of which may or may not be flawed, peer reviewed etc).

The wikipedia page on BPA seems to indicate mixed results at best. I know you can trust wikipedia yada yada, but the studies they reference are legitimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Health_ef...

Putting it another way, I'm glad they banned Thalidomide, despite the protests of the industry saying it was also "harmless".


RE: great
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2012 10:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't understand why what I'm saying is so controversial here to the point that simple discussion warrants downvotes, but whatever, never been deterred by that in the past.

All I'm saying is BPA has been used for 50 something years, and it's been studied intensively. While some researchers have brought up concerns, the simple fact is not enough BPA can accumulate in our bodies to cause health problems. I cannot find any information to state otherwise. And I think if it was going to cause some kind of health crisis, it would have done so already at some point in the past 50 years.

Yes, Thalidomide was truly a medical tragedy. But it's harm was scientifically provable and obvious despite what anyone said otherwise. We've had several whole generations exposed to BPA with no apparent or quantifiable health risks.

It's not just companies who have a stake in BPA. Opponents have a stake too.

http://www.junksciencemom.com/2010/05/bpa-scare-ca...


RE: great
By johnsmith9875 on 5/31/2012 9:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
Private industry also gave us the cocaine-infused medicinal tonics, mercury-laced health rubdown balms, radioactive health water urns, and electric prostate warmers you plugged into your 115v wall socket.

Thank god for government, otherwise private industry hucksters would be preying on the public like wolves.


RE: great
By FaaR on 5/29/2012 7:59:25 AM , Rating: 1
In your eagerness to appeal to authority, why not see what some of those two, three and four-letter agencies have to say about your favorite topic - the gasoline-powered automobile?

...No? LOL. Thought as much. ;)

Anyhow, the biggest dangers from environmental toxins typically aren't from said toxins themselves, but rather the combined effect hundreds or even thousands of them have when entering the ecosystem and our bodies.


RE: great
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2012 8:18:05 AM , Rating: 1
Nice trolling.


RE: great
By FaaR on 5/29/2012 8:15:37 AM , Rating: 3
Not trolling, just pointing out your hypocrisy.


RE: great
By Reclaimer77 on 5/29/2012 9:56:17 AM , Rating: 2
Those are two entirely separate issues and you know it. So yes, you're trolling, and using straw men to back it up.


RE: great
By inperfectdarkness on 5/29/2012 3:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
i want to know how this is different from teflon.


RE: great
By icemansims on 5/29/2012 8:50:44 AM , Rating: 2
Quite a bit, actually. Teflon has a high "curing" point at which it sets. It's about the same temperature as the melting point of lead (~600 deg F, I think). That makes it not compatible to any container except high temp metals like steel. Teflon is generally safe (arguably and at operating temperatures, it starts evolving toxic gas above 500 deg), but is not, strictly speaking, food grade, being a fluoridated hydrocarbon polymer (you really don't want to eat it). My guess this is more like a hydrophobic wax than anything else.


RE: great
By aliasfox on 5/29/2012 12:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
As long as your pan is filled with water, you're right. The inner surface of the pan shouldn't get above 100C (212F) because the energy is taken up by the fluid.

However, some oils (olive oil comes to mind) have smoke points pretty close to 500F, so you may want to be careful which pans you cook/fry in.


Meanwhile....
By loganSLC on 5/28/2012 7:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Researchers have put other projects on the back burner; malaria, HIV, cancer...




RE: Meanwhile....
By retrospooty on 5/28/2012 8:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Researchers have put other projects on the back burner; malaria, HIV, cancer..."

It's not like there is one team of researchers on the entire planet that put researching diseases on hold to make this FFS. Now think about your household and everyone else you know's households... What percentage of people you know have HIV, malaria or cancer? Of all the people I know 2 have HIV, 0 malaria and 1 cancer and all 3 are perfectly healthy.

I would say that way less than 1% of everyone I know has any of these issues... However 100% of them use condiments and other bottled products that benefit from this tech.


RE: Meanwhile....
By Motoman on 5/28/2012 8:11:26 PM , Rating: 4
...and nobody that would be doing this sort of materials research would be of any help on HIV or cancer anyway. Which is why when your toilet leaks you call a plumber, not an electrician.


RE: Meanwhile....
By testerguy on 5/29/2012 4:21:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would say that way less than 1% of everyone I know has any of these issues... However 100% of them use condiments and other bottled products that benefit from this tech.


What a ridiculously absurd argument.

Oh right, so only 68 million people (1%) have a potentially fatal disease, how trivial? Yet all those people having to pound and pound on their ketchup bottle? What a living hell!!!

You complete moron, lol, I've never had any family members suffer from these diseases either but to trivialise it in the way you did just shows your lack of intelligence and would be massively offensive to anyone who has.

Furthermore, cancer alone affects 1 in 3 people, when you combine it with HIV & Malaria we're talking a massive, massive number of people - not 1%. It's a real problem, don't be so ignorant.

The real argument you SHOULD have made to argue the same case, was what the guy who replied to you said - in that the scientists aren't making a choice between the two so the discussion on diseases and cures is irrelevant. Your argument which essentially trivialises the disease just backs up by already very low opinion of you.


RE: Meanwhile....
By retrospooty on 5/29/2012 8:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
"Oh right, so only 68 million people (1%) have a potentially fatal disease, how trivial? Yet all those people having to pound and pound on their ketchup bottle? What a living hell!!!"

So you are saying what? All of the scientists on Earth should only be working on diseases, even if medical science isnt their background? Idiot.


RE: Meanwhile....
By retrospooty on 5/29/2012 9:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
"You complete moron, lol, I've never had any family members suffer from these diseases either but to trivialise it in the way you did just shows your lack of intelligence and would be massively offensive to anyone who has.

Leave it to you to take an off the cuff remark and inflate it to mean more than it does (kind of like you do with Apple's importance). I was responding to the OP who had implied that they shouldn't be working on tech like this because some diseases aren't cured yet, as if the whole of science should stop all research because disease exists. You know, braniac, research like this makes money which in turn drive the worlds economy which in turn funds research into diseases. Good to see you're still an asshat though.


RE: Meanwhile....
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/29/2012 8:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
What part "I know" does your pea brain not understand? You are missing some serious thinking skills. My lord.


RE: Meanwhile....
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/29/2012 8:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
of*


Cool
By Ammohunt on 5/28/2012 1:11:42 PM , Rating: 5
Need to coat my colon in this stuff.




RE: Cool
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/28/2012 4:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Need to coat my colon in this stuff.
Hey do what you want for pleasure, I'm not judging. :)


Cars.
By drycrust3 on 5/28/2012 6:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Varanasi has created LiquiGlide, which is a coating that can be applied to the inside of glass, plastic and metal bottles.

I wonder if this would be any good as an alternative to using the windscreen wipers on a car.




RE: Cars.
By chemist1 on 5/28/2012 7:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
From http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679878/mits-freaky-non...

"Originally, Smith’s team, which has been working for years now on developing various types of surface coatings, was pursuing different aims. 'We were really interested in--and still are--using this coating for anti-icing, or for preventing clogs that form in oil and gas lines, or for non-wetting applications like, say, on windshields,' Smith says. 'Somehow this sparked the idea of putting it in food bottles. It could be great just for its slippery properties. Plus, most of these other applications have a much longer time to market; we realized we could make this coating for bottles that is pretty much ready. I mean, it is ready.' "

I don't know what's in it but, just based on the precautionary principle, I suspect I'd prefer seeing it on my windshield to in my food.


RE: Cars.
By FaaR on 5/29/2012 8:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
Car windscreens are a much more hostile environment compared to food containers. There's abrasive dust to contend with (which would damage any surface coating on a windshield), as well as chemical solvents and UV rays that can break down chemical bonds, oxidizing by-products from engine exhaust (including ozone etc) and so on. Not to mention the wear the windshield wipers themselves would add.

Creating a coat that would last for any significant period of time is likely to be extremely difficult, at least while keeping it safe to humans and the environment.


RE: Cars.
By JediJeb on 5/30/2012 2:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
What they have demonstrated though is pretty much the same thing as coating the ketchup bottle with RainX. They both have the same effect of reducing the surface tension of the water and making the surface hydrophobic. RainX though wouldn't work for the ketchup bottle because it isn't good to mix Siloxanes with food.


Just be careful...
By FaceMaster on 5/28/2012 12:41:06 PM , Rating: 3
...not to knock it over.




RE: Just be careful...
By Camikazi on 5/28/2012 1:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yep you replace the annoyance of not being able to get the ketchup out of the bottle with the annoyance of it all streaming out quickly if tipped over.


RE: Just be careful...
By FaaR on 5/29/2012 8:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ketchup for instance wouldn't neccessarily flow any faster just because it doesn't stick to the walls of its container. It's still a thick liquid whose flow-rate will be limited by the throat of the container.


Now what they need to do is...
By Motoman on 5/28/2012 4:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
...incorporate it into a douche. World's best birth control - when you're done, just have the girl stand up.




RE: Now what they need to do is...
By Camikazi on 5/28/2012 8:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about a new type of natural selection, the ones that did get through would have to be crazy strong.


By johnsmith9875 on 5/31/2012 10:19:19 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a new fetish in the making, dribbling.


Ketchup, huh?
By deathwombat on 5/28/2012 3:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, say, that's great about solving the ketchup problem. Frankly, I'm more interested in whether or not this stuff is better than KY.




YOU'RE HOLDING IT WRONG!
By SatchBoogie1 on 5/28/2012 3:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
....no really.

quote:
For anyone who has ever sat in a restaurant shaking the glass ketchup bottle for what felt like hours only to receive little globs at a time,


New bottles you have to tilt them at an angle (not straight down) and just tap it near the top (for ketchup where the 57 is). Works every time for me.




By Qapa on 5/29/2012 9:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
... solved this years ago!!




Why not glass bottles?
By johnsmith9875 on 5/29/2012 10:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
After seeing tons of newfangled ketchup bottles, such as the upside down ones with the caps on the bottom, the squeezables, the mustard jar shaped ones, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that the skinny glass ketchup bottle is still superior. All you need to know is technique. To get ketchup out of the bottle you don't bang the bottom, you slap the SIDE, it comes right out with no spurt or mess.

Education yet again is a simple solution to a dubious problem that is way over-analyzed.




#firstworldproblems
By mindless1 on 5/30/2012 4:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
If you can't use a ketchup container it might be time to rethink your goals in life.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki