Guy786
06-10 10:28 PM
My I-485 is pending with EB3 Feb 2006 priority date. Invoked AC21 and currently working for a different employer. Have Masters degree and 9+ years of experience.
Is there a way to re-apply for Green Card under EB2 category thru a 3rd employer and retain the old EB3 priority date?
Thanks in advance.
Is there a way to re-apply for Green Card under EB2 category thru a 3rd employer and retain the old EB3 priority date?
Thanks in advance.
wallpaper Google 1337 Pictures
Macaca
06-14 08:33 PM
For Democratic Leaders, a Fear That the Focus on the War Has Blurred (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By JEFF ZELENY (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html), June 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 13 � President Bush had barely left the Capitol after immigration talks there on Tuesday when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, walked onto the Senate floor to call for a moment of silence. It was time, Mr. Reid said, to pay tribute to American soldiers in Iraq as their death toll reached 3,500.
A short time earlier, Mr. Reid convened a conference call with liberal bloggers, offering assurances that Democrats would revive debate over the Iraq war. And he pledged to revive it soon, ending the silence that followed the White House�s outmaneuvering of Democrats last month to win more money for the war without a timeline to end it.
�They�ve been driving this debate very well,� Mr. Reid said later, speaking of the bloggers who have been pushing for Congress to end the war. �I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high.�
It has been nearly three weeks since Democrats have held a formal Iraq debate or voted on an Iraq proposal in the House or Senate. Not since they assumed the majority in January has there been such a lull. During the three weeks, Congressional approval ratings have fallen, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she knew why.
�It�s the war, I believe so, it�s the war,� Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview on Wednesday. �In terms of the issue that the American people want to have resolved, the war is three or four times higher than any other issue.�
Some Democrats argue that it is high time for the party to turn its attention to domestic issues � energy legislation, immigration overhaul and lobbying reform � to allay concerns that Democrats have not achieved enough significant accomplishments during the first six months of their majority. But other Democrats are demanding a return to the Iraq debate, which Mr. Reid has now pledged to do this month.
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. �On Iraq,� Mr. Reid said, �we�re going to hold the president�s feet to the fire.�
Democratic Congressional leaders have been stung by the decline in Congressional job approval ratings.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg nationwide telephone poll released this week found that 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 65 percent disapprove. And 29 percent of the more than 1,100 poll respondents, all registered voters, said Democrats were working to change how government is run, compared to 63 percent who said Democrats are governing in a business-as-usual manner. The margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.
Ms. Pelosi said it had been difficult to convince some Democrats that despite their majority, they are limited in how they can change the president�s Iraq policy.
�Some Democrats understand that we don�t have the signature and we can only do so much,� she said. �Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them, being very unhappy that we have not been able to bring the war to an end.�
With September being highlighted as a critical review period for Iraq policy � Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander, is to report to Congress on the progress of the current troop buildup � Democratic leaders had initially hoped to tackle their domestic priorities in late spring and early summer. But on Wednesday, Democratic leaders said they would not wait.
�The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy,� Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote Wednesday in a letter to the White House.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic conference, said Democrats could not be drawn into focusing solely on Iraq. �We have to do Iraq and change the priorities of Washington,� he said. �You can�t become a one-trick pony.�
The war has been the underlying theme of the new Democratic Congress, with barely a week going by without legislators embroiling themselves in committee hearings, a floor debate or symbolic resolutions for and against the war. Democrats have walked a careful line, trying to keep their criticism alive, but lowering expectations that they alone can influence war policy.
The month of June, though, has so far unfolded with barely a word being uttered about Iraq. And lawmakers said they were hearing about it.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected last fall, said constituents were seeking reassurance that Democratic efforts to challenge the administration have not fallen off. She said voters had little interest in being schooled in the intricate rules of the Senate, where 60 votes are required for debate to proceed on legislation.
�I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, �Well, we need 60 votes,� � she said. �People are dying over there, so that isn�t always helpful.�
While Congress must accomplish domestic priorities, she said, Iraq remains the chief issue for most voters. �I think that�s one of the things we�ve struggled with, is finding that balance,� she said, welcoming the news that the Senate intends to revive the debate before month�s end. �It�s very important to me. I don�t want to go home until we do it.�
WASHINGTON, June 13 � President Bush had barely left the Capitol after immigration talks there on Tuesday when Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, walked onto the Senate floor to call for a moment of silence. It was time, Mr. Reid said, to pay tribute to American soldiers in Iraq as their death toll reached 3,500.
A short time earlier, Mr. Reid convened a conference call with liberal bloggers, offering assurances that Democrats would revive debate over the Iraq war. And he pledged to revive it soon, ending the silence that followed the White House�s outmaneuvering of Democrats last month to win more money for the war without a timeline to end it.
�They�ve been driving this debate very well,� Mr. Reid said later, speaking of the bloggers who have been pushing for Congress to end the war. �I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high.�
It has been nearly three weeks since Democrats have held a formal Iraq debate or voted on an Iraq proposal in the House or Senate. Not since they assumed the majority in January has there been such a lull. During the three weeks, Congressional approval ratings have fallen, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she knew why.
�It�s the war, I believe so, it�s the war,� Ms. Pelosi said in a brief interview on Wednesday. �In terms of the issue that the American people want to have resolved, the war is three or four times higher than any other issue.�
Some Democrats argue that it is high time for the party to turn its attention to domestic issues � energy legislation, immigration overhaul and lobbying reform � to allay concerns that Democrats have not achieved enough significant accomplishments during the first six months of their majority. But other Democrats are demanding a return to the Iraq debate, which Mr. Reid has now pledged to do this month.
The proposals will not be new. Rather, Democrats intend to reprise at least four ideas when the Senate considers the Defense Department policy bill: a measure to reverse the authorization for the Iraq war, set a deadline for troop withdrawal, block money for major combat operations after March 31, 2008, and increase readiness requirements for troops to be sent back to Iraq. �On Iraq,� Mr. Reid said, �we�re going to hold the president�s feet to the fire.�
Democratic Congressional leaders have been stung by the decline in Congressional job approval ratings.
A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg nationwide telephone poll released this week found that 27 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 65 percent disapprove. And 29 percent of the more than 1,100 poll respondents, all registered voters, said Democrats were working to change how government is run, compared to 63 percent who said Democrats are governing in a business-as-usual manner. The margin of error was plus or minus four percentage points.
Ms. Pelosi said it had been difficult to convince some Democrats that despite their majority, they are limited in how they can change the president�s Iraq policy.
�Some Democrats understand that we don�t have the signature and we can only do so much,� she said. �Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them, being very unhappy that we have not been able to bring the war to an end.�
With September being highlighted as a critical review period for Iraq policy � Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander, is to report to Congress on the progress of the current troop buildup � Democratic leaders had initially hoped to tackle their domestic priorities in late spring and early summer. But on Wednesday, Democratic leaders said they would not wait.
�The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy,� Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid wrote Wednesday in a letter to the White House.
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the Democratic conference, said Democrats could not be drawn into focusing solely on Iraq. �We have to do Iraq and change the priorities of Washington,� he said. �You can�t become a one-trick pony.�
The war has been the underlying theme of the new Democratic Congress, with barely a week going by without legislators embroiling themselves in committee hearings, a floor debate or symbolic resolutions for and against the war. Democrats have walked a careful line, trying to keep their criticism alive, but lowering expectations that they alone can influence war policy.
The month of June, though, has so far unfolded with barely a word being uttered about Iraq. And lawmakers said they were hearing about it.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat who was elected last fall, said constituents were seeking reassurance that Democratic efforts to challenge the administration have not fallen off. She said voters had little interest in being schooled in the intricate rules of the Senate, where 60 votes are required for debate to proceed on legislation.
�I share their frustration, answering them with procedural answers, �Well, we need 60 votes,� � she said. �People are dying over there, so that isn�t always helpful.�
While Congress must accomplish domestic priorities, she said, Iraq remains the chief issue for most voters. �I think that�s one of the things we�ve struggled with, is finding that balance,� she said, welcoming the news that the Senate intends to revive the debate before month�s end. �It�s very important to me. I don�t want to go home until we do it.�
Blog Feeds
04-27 11:00 AM
From the Miami Herald: Huge surges among Hispanic populations in the Deep South could mean a political sea change over the next two decades, as immigrants become naturalized and they and their American-born children register to vote, political and demographics experts say. The states with some of the largest percentages in Hispanic population growth make up a large swath of the Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, according to an analysis of the most recent census figures by the Pew Hispanic Center. In all those Republican-dominated states, the percentage of Hispanics nearly doubled. Given the...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/pew-hispanic-voters-will-turn-south-purple.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/04/pew-hispanic-voters-will-turn-south-purple.html)
2011 1337 Google
kirupa
07-03 04:17 PM
Added :P
more...
altatension
03-15 02:37 PM
My I-485 has been denied based on the fact that I entered the country illegally in 1985.
My last USA entry was in 1998. It was a legal exit and entry. I was given a permit to make a trip to South America. Can the fact that my last entry was legal be enough to reopen the petition? Can I used my last entry as basis for my I-485 adjustment?
My last USA entry was in 1998. It was a legal exit and entry. I was given a permit to make a trip to South America. Can the fact that my last entry was legal be enough to reopen the petition? Can I used my last entry as basis for my I-485 adjustment?
das0
12-09 02:39 AM
can anyone pls help?
more...
suchiram
12-19 10:53 PM
I have been on q job with a client since October. The setup is like this. Me->my employer->Vendor-.Client.
The work order my employer has states that my work with the client ends June end, with a possibility of extension. if i file my h1b now, will i be a good candidate for rejection , considering that I do not have a long term project? Also, how true is it that the USCIS is giving visas out only for 1 year under such circumstances, as opposed to the regular 3 years term, and if true, how do I avoid it
Lastly, what is your take on how H1 filings on Apr 1 2010 will be? Is it expected to the same as last year, or will companies file left right and center on day 1 itself?
The work order my employer has states that my work with the client ends June end, with a possibility of extension. if i file my h1b now, will i be a good candidate for rejection , considering that I do not have a long term project? Also, how true is it that the USCIS is giving visas out only for 1 year under such circumstances, as opposed to the regular 3 years term, and if true, how do I avoid it
Lastly, what is your take on how H1 filings on Apr 1 2010 will be? Is it expected to the same as last year, or will companies file left right and center on day 1 itself?
2010 Google is giving $1337
Blog Feeds
12-29 10:30 AM
USCIS has announced that it is working on a rule to create an electronic registration system for H-1B employers subject to the annual cap. Employers would first register an application and be allocated an H-1B cap number and then would file the case. The idea is that employers would need to register to claim an H-1B cap number first and then if they are selected, they then would prepare and file the case. Right now, employers have to go to all the trouble of preparing a case that may be rejected simply because the visa allocation is filled. I think...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/uscis-planning-to-move-to-pre-registration-process-for-h-1b-cap-cases.html)
more...
gevgelija50
07-07 10:51 AM
I sent my I-485 application to USCIS on July 31, 2007. On their website they logged the following message:
"Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On September 24, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case....."
Why is the received date Sep 24, 2007 when the application was most likely received on Aug 1, 2007?
"Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Case received and pending.
On September 24, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case....."
Why is the received date Sep 24, 2007 when the application was most likely received on Aug 1, 2007?
hair 1337 speak is a language that
skp71
02-17 08:39 PM
I meant my pd was 09/2002. Do I have to wait until worldwide date to become current?? Thanks.
more...
gccovet
06-25 03:17 PM
Is there any way to know if 140 revoked after approval.is there any change in LUD ?
Put the reciept # in the USCIS online case status, if you see a LUD, check the case status, you might be able to see the "new text/info"
GCCovet
Put the reciept # in the USCIS online case status, if you see a LUD, check the case status, you might be able to see the "new text/info"
GCCovet
hot Google Earth Pro 5.0.1337
Macaca
08-05 08:12 AM
A Bad Deal Gets Worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun2.html) August 5, 2007
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
more...
house 1 in google for my name.
deardar
06-28 10:08 AM
Folks,
One of my friend needs to get her Educational evaluation done for her H1-transfer. Do you know any one local to Boston ?
any other place is also fine.
thanks
One of my friend needs to get her Educational evaluation done for her H1-transfer. Do you know any one local to Boston ?
any other place is also fine.
thanks
tattoo Google 1337 Pictures
apahilaj
07-22 07:06 PM
Hello All,
I've been reading a lot on these forums about guys asking where to send 485 applications to. While my I-140 got approved from Texas center (originally filed at Nebraska center) , my lawyer still sent my 485 application to Nebraska center. I think, he has made a correct decision since, 485 form mentions that all employment based applications should be sent to Nebraska center. Please correct me If I am mistaken.
Secondly, the application fee can be in the form of personal check made payable to USCIS or Department of Homeland security. I've made checks payable to USCIS - does any one know if the check has to say "USCIS" or should it say "United States Citizenship and Immigration Services"? I would think just "USCIS" would suffice.
Any light shed on these two points would be greatly appreciated...
I've been reading a lot on these forums about guys asking where to send 485 applications to. While my I-140 got approved from Texas center (originally filed at Nebraska center) , my lawyer still sent my 485 application to Nebraska center. I think, he has made a correct decision since, 485 form mentions that all employment based applications should be sent to Nebraska center. Please correct me If I am mistaken.
Secondly, the application fee can be in the form of personal check made payable to USCIS or Department of Homeland security. I've made checks payable to USCIS - does any one know if the check has to say "USCIS" or should it say "United States Citizenship and Immigration Services"? I would think just "USCIS" would suffice.
Any light shed on these two points would be greatly appreciated...
more...
pictures In June, Google raised its
quizzer
02-19 04:25 PM
My approved PERM and I140 (in process) were applied using the old cancelled pp.
I got a new passport last week.
Is there anything I need to do since i have the new PP now?
Gurus pls advice.
Regards
I got a new passport last week.
Is there anything I need to do since i have the new PP now?
Gurus pls advice.
Regards
dresses OH: waarom zit er geen Google
tonyHK12
03-24 08:46 AM
6 users are maybe same person owner/employee of others sites? They lose money for IV success. So hate IV.
Yes exactly. one of them is most likely the moderator of the forum. The rest are likely paid by someone, I won't be surprised it they're from other immigration forums or competing lawyer websites. Out of tens of thousands only these 6 consistently speak against IV.
I don't care them but they are influencing others to believe in them.
I believe same. Those minds are not only selfish but they are really really cruel, cunning and they don't deserve to be part of american dream.. All they care is their green card...
Yes I feel no one can be that cruel consistently, they have to be pros in bad PR. Its just a joke - I have been tracking :) one user create 5 IDs and use the same broken english over 3 months. Its also highly likely some of them are paid by that website itself
.
Yes exactly. one of them is most likely the moderator of the forum. The rest are likely paid by someone, I won't be surprised it they're from other immigration forums or competing lawyer websites. Out of tens of thousands only these 6 consistently speak against IV.
I don't care them but they are influencing others to believe in them.
I believe same. Those minds are not only selfish but they are really really cruel, cunning and they don't deserve to be part of american dream.. All they care is their green card...
Yes I feel no one can be that cruel consistently, they have to be pros in bad PR. Its just a joke - I have been tracking :) one user create 5 IDs and use the same broken english over 3 months. Its also highly likely some of them are paid by that website itself
.
more...
makeup Technorati Google
albnfsjia
10-04 11:37 AM
hi
i want to learn expression blend more!
i did not know some source that will help me in blend
i mean some source that teach by deeply .
i want to learn expression blend more!
i did not know some source that will help me in blend
i mean some source that teach by deeply .
girlfriend Google Earth Pro 5.0.1337
gc_wow
07-25 12:42 AM
E. APPLICABILITY OF INA SECTION 202(a)(5)(A)AS IT RELATES TO THE ALLOCATION OF “OTHERWISE UNUSED” NUMBERS
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
If spill over has to happen every quarter as per the detail in above statement, why USCIS is not doing quarterly spill over, it looks like they are still doing annual spill over in to EB2 I and C. My question is am I interpreting the law correctly.Thanks for your help.
INA Section 202(a)(5)(A), added by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21), provides that if total demand will be insufficient to use all available numbers in a particular Employment preference category in a calendar quarter then the otherwise unused numbers may be made available without regard to the annual per-country limits. This provision helps to assure that all available Employment preference numbers may be used. In recent years, the application of Section 202(a)(5)(A) has occasionally allowed oversubscribed countries such as China-mainland born and India to utilize large quantities of Employment First and Second preference numbers that would have otherwise gone unused.
If spill over has to happen every quarter as per the detail in above statement, why USCIS is not doing quarterly spill over, it looks like they are still doing annual spill over in to EB2 I and C. My question is am I interpreting the law correctly.Thanks for your help.
hairstyles Google 1337 Pictures
uumapathi
08-06 12:06 PM
My company uses Maiona and Maiona PC in Boston, they are great.
paragpujara
04-11 02:41 PM
I have been working for Everest Business Solutions, Inc since 09/2005. They are very professional. So far i am happy with them and they filed my GC as they promised. Regular in Pay and help you out whenever needed. My wife is also working for the same company.
Let me know if you need further information.
Let me know if you need further information.
Blog Feeds
01-12 02:50 PM
Popular Science recently ran its 8th Annual Brilliant 10 list of the nation's most promising young scientists. And once again, several of them are immigrants helping to keep America in the forefront of innovation. Once is Ting Xu, a China native, who is transforming molecules into mini hard drives with massive storage capacity. Here's how Pop Sci describes her work: Earlier this year she co-authored a paper describing a new technique for coaxing tiny polymer strands to self-assemble into 10 trillion cylinders with precise patterns. The method could lead to discs the size of a quarter that store 175 DVDs��7...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/immigrant-of-the-day-ting-xu-materials-scientist.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/immigrant-of-the-day-ting-xu-materials-scientist.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment