Any evidence of that?
Example evidence: https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069/figures
I think it is enough,no need of mind control if you could "discipline" anybody with just clicking a button and freezing this person/making it feeling terrible pains etc.
I mean, if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies, hoo-wee, there’s going to be an order of magnitude more rejects if we’re talking nano-scale constructs like this.
Yes and no. It depends on the purpose of use. Direct mind control - very hard and complicated,making many problems unless they have much more advanced secret technologies. Something less however,for example catastrophic headache or paralysing people - 100% available. Or just neuromodulation, causing uncontrollable rage/anger/fury for everybody affected on demand. Or just the opposite maybe: making people apathetic and calm on demand
No need for so strong fields even if there are nanoparticles in planned places.
if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies
Funny thing I notice dual meaning and irony here as I am not english native speaker.
But if you mean mass production - while those graphene oxide nanoelements would be hard and not so cheap - still total control on a person is worth more than microprocessor price, the rest is not the problem at all. Self-replication, DNA or even RNA is the key.
Any evidence of that?
Example evidence: https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069/figures
I think it is enough,no need of mind control if you could "discipline" anybody with just clicking a button and freezing this person/making it feeling terrible pains etc.
I mean, if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies, hoo-wee, there’s going to be an order of magnitude more rejects if we’re talking nano-scale constructs like this.
Yes and no. It depends on the purpose of use. Direct mind control - very hard and complicated,making many problems unless they have much more advanced secret technologies. Something less however,for example catastrophic headache or paralysing people - 100% available. Or just neuromodulation, causing uncontrollable rage/anger/fury for everybody affected on demand. Or just the opposite maybe: making people apathetic and calm on demand
No need for so strong fields even if there are nanoparticles in planned places.
if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies
Funny thing I notice dual meaning and irony here as I am not english native speaker.
But if you mean mass production - while those graphene oxide nanoelements would be hard, the rest is not. Self-replication, DNA or even RNA is the key.
Any evidence of that?
Example evidence: https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069/figures
I think it is enough,no need of mind control if you could "discipline" anybody with just clicking a button and freezing this person/making it feeling terrible pains etc.
I mean, if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies, hoo-wee, there’s going to be an order of magnitude more rejects if we’re talking nano-scale constructs like this.
Yes and no. It depends on the purpose of use. Direct mind control - very hard and complicated,making many problems. Something less however,for example catastrophic headache or paralysing people - available. Or just neuromodulation, causing uncontrollable rage/anger/fury for everybody affected on demand. Or just the opposite maybe.
No need for so strong fields even if there are nanoparticles in planned places.
if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies
Funny thing I notice dual meaning and irony here as I am not english native speaker.
But if you mean mass production - while those graphene oxide nanoelements would be hard, the rest is not. Self-replication, DNA or even RNA is the key.
Any evidence of that?
Example evidence: https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069/figures
I think it is enough,no need of mind control if you could "discipline" anybody with just clicking a button and freezing this person/making it feeling terrible pains etc.
I mean, if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies, hoo-wee, there’s going to be an order of magnitude more rejects if we’re talking nano-scale constructs like this.
Yes and no. It depends on the purpose of use. Direct mind control - very hard and complicated,making many problems. Something less however,for example catastrophic headache or paralysing people - available. Or just neuromodulation, causing uncontrollable rage/anger/fury for everybody affected on demand. Or just the opposite maybe.
No need for so strong fields even if there are nanoparticles in planned places.
if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies
Funny thing I notice dual meaning and irony here as I am not english native speaker.
Any evidence of that?
Example evidence: https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069/figures
I think it is enough,no need of mind control if you could "discipline" anybody with just clicking a button and freezing this person/making it feeling terrible pains etc.
I mean, if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies, hoo-wee, there’s going to be an order of magnitude more rejects if we’re talking nano-scale constructs like this.
Yes and no. It depends on the purpose of use. Direct mind control - very hard and complicated,making many problems. Something less however,for example catastrophic headache or paralysing people - available.
if you think standard chip manufacturing has a lot of rejected dies
Funny thing I notice dual meaning and irony here as I am not english native speaker.