[HN Gopher] Flying microchips size of a sand grain could be used...
___________________________________________________________________
Flying microchips size of a sand grain could be used for population
surveilance
Author : rolph
Score : 76 points
Date : 2021-09-23 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| betwixthewires wrote:
| This reminds me of the nanoparticle smog from The Diamond Age. If
| these things come into heavy use they're going to be the new
| microplastics and we can all see it coming.
| noindiecred wrote:
| We will monitor pollution by (checks notes) dispersing a huge
| swarm of tiny robots, themselves made of heavy metals, that are
| infeasibly difficult to recover or recycle.
| [deleted]
| toper-centage wrote:
| We have covered the earth with nanobits to track air quality
| and the results are astonishing. The atmosphere is full of
| nanobots.
| ronsor wrote:
| "Nanobots Used to Track Air Quality Ironically Make Air
| Quality Much Worse"
|
| Sounds like an Onion headline honestly.
| jnsie wrote:
| How many nanobits in a nanobot?
| matrixcubed wrote:
| Depends on whether the last nanobit is used for parity or
| data.
| tonmoy wrote:
| Neither the researchers nor the media outlet said anything
| about pollution
| monocasa wrote:
| FTA
|
| > It's neither a bird nor a plane, but a winged microchip as
| small as a grain of sand that can be carried by the wind as
| it monitors such things as pollution levels or the spread of
| airborne diseases.
| hinkley wrote:
| Someone is going to aspirate these things.
| embedded_hiker wrote:
| Including frogs and birds.
| farisjarrah wrote:
| There is a video that demonstrates and explains the nano bots
| in the article and near the end of the video they stated that
| the bots are made out of biodegradable materials that will
| degrade with time/rain
| EarthLaunch wrote:
| No, it says "Some of the microfliers are built" with such a
| material.
| titzer wrote:
| Everything degrades over a long enough timescale, even
| plastics and metals. The question is what damage they do to
| ecosystems on their long cycle to be atomized and recycled.
| aomobile wrote:
| What about magnets for collection?
| lambdasquirrel wrote:
| Pretty sure any magnet strong enough to attract one of these
| from the distances required would also induce a voltage on
| any sufficiently long wire that's moving through the flux
| lines. i.e. might cause problems for your car, for airplanes,
| etc.
| pulse7 wrote:
| Imagine getting one of these flying microchips into your eye...
| fabian2k wrote:
| Well, maybe dystopian SciFi turns out to be not as much fiction
| as we had hoped ;-).
|
| Ubiquitous surveillance together with artificial intelligence are
| probably one of the most powerful tools for authoritarian regimes
| you can imagine. They already have the physical power to hurt
| their opponents, now they also know exactly where they need to
| apply this power to keep themselves at the helm and quash any
| resistance before it can get too organized. And the artificial
| intelligence doesn't need to be all that intelligent if you have
| enough data, it's not as if authoritarian regimes would care if
| they locked up a few more people than required.
| e40 wrote:
| Not only that, more fuel for the "microchips in vaccines"...
| ugh.
| akomtu wrote:
| You don't need microchips. Just some metallic dust that
| dissolves into poison when radiated with proper frequency.
| That's cheap and enough for crowd control. Just trying to be
| pragmatic.
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| No inside information, but from what I glean reading between the
| lines in various podcasts, books, etc. this tech has been used
| already in Afghanistan & Iraq by US special assets. I would
| expect it is in use elsewhere in the intelligence community. If
| so, that's all fine with me provided it doesn't become a
| warrantless tracking method employed by DHS/FBI either directly
| or indirectly.
| [deleted]
| humaniania wrote:
| They can only be defeated by... A STRONG BREEZE!
| theshadowknows wrote:
| Wouldn't it just be easier to dust food sources with tiny probes
| and then scavenge them from the sewers? That way they don't need
| to fly and I'm sure you could build them in such a way that for
| specific foods no one would notice.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| These devices don't even have space for an antenna (limited by
| physical size). The power required by the sensors is dwarfed by
| RF transmit.
|
| The current challenges of powering a radio device with an MPU at
| this size are far too great for this to be useful. Unless there
| is a breakthrough in radio physics, drones need to be a certain
| size that is much larger than this.
|
| Unless they plan to release a billion of these, sweep them up,
| and then have interns/grad students probe each one to extract the
| collected data.
| jmwilson wrote:
| > Unless they plan to release a billion of these, sweep them
| up, and then have interns/grad students probe each one to
| extract the collected data.
|
| After reading the article and watching the video, I think
| that's what they are aiming for. The coil can couple data and
| power through near-field interaction, so they'll release a
| large number, hope to recover a sample of them, and extract the
| data through field or lab instruments. I could see this being
| useful for recording environmental data and forensic tracing,
| but they look closer to RFID tags than a computing platform.
| zokier wrote:
| The whole article is massively misleading. The team used same
| basic design at three different scales: micro, meso, and macro
| (their terminology). They are 0.4mm, 2mm, 40mm in diameter
| respectively. The "IoT flier" used the macro scale design; in
| 40mm you definitely can already fit all sorts of antenna,
| although power is still an issue. All the other, smaller fliers
| did not have any microchips in them.
|
| So the title "Flying microchips size of sand grain" is just
| plain wrong here :(
| rthomas6 wrote:
| Or just, you know, use a high frequency. There are tiny
| antennas. You can just power it via induction (like RFID) and
| you're set. It still couldn't transmit super far but I bet it
| would work.
| joshuajill wrote:
| 6G communications is being prepared to use very high
| frequencies.
|
| Also, plans are to use directed energy, not classical wave
| like RF.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6G_(network)
| twofornone wrote:
| The downside to high frequencies is that they generally
| experience much more severe attenuation, which limits their
| range in atmosphere. Now, if you could get these flying
| microchips to simply reflect (with encoded data) a high power
| input signal from a base station, you might be onto
| something...
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| High frequency = high power. Energy harvesting is in the
| femptoWatt range.
| wyager wrote:
| > High frequency = high power
|
| This isn't true in any sense applicable to this discussion.
| For example a near-optical laser transmitter can be as or
| more efficient in joules per bit than an RF transmitter,
| depending on the situation.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| > A near-optical laser transmitter
|
| Do you have to aim that laser transmitter?
| wyager wrote:
| Depends on the application, but if you do, it won't pose
| a problem:
|
| * you have more options than with RF (optics or phased
| array)
|
| * you'll get better angular precision at a given
| transmitter size
| joshuajill wrote:
| "Frequencies from 100 GHz to 3 THz are promising bands for
| the next generation of wireless communication systems
| because of the wide swaths of unused and unexplored
| spectrum."
|
| "Also, new results that give insights into power efficient
| beam steering algorithms".
|
| From "Wireless Communications and Applications Above 100
| GHz: Opportunities and Challenges for 6G and Beyond"
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| Doesn't that ring-like structure in the center look like an
| antenna? I suppose it could just be traces between the 'lobes'
| of the circuit on each wing. That said, it does seem like a
| tall order to pack in useful sensors and some way to transmit
| into tiny particles like these.
| zokier wrote:
| The ring is a NFC coil.
| snek_case wrote:
| All you need to transmit data is one LED.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Yes. In a nice confined lab. Now do it in daylight with
| millions of these things all pointing different directions.
|
| EDIT: Unless you meant for downloading after retrieval. That
| could work...
| squarefoot wrote:
| With the power available and in sunlight that would be
| impossible. I'd put a mini mirror behind a mini old-style b&w
| LCD screen and use the LCD to modulate reflections on the
| mirror, making it purely passive except for driving the LCD,
| which however would draw 3 orders of magnitude less power
| than a LED.
| rolph wrote:
| full title == [Flying Microchips The Size Of A Sand Grain Could
| Be Used For Population Surveillance]
| happytoexplain wrote:
| How about "Flying Microchips Size of Sand Grain Could Be Used
| For Population Surveillance"
| onemoresoop wrote:
| How about falling (or gliding) microchips could be used for
| such and such niche.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Obligatory plug for Diamond Age, in which wealthy aristocracy
| used clouds of smart pollution ( oops I mean dust ) to protect
| citizens and wage war.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| With noted consequences like nano-scale warefare among the
| bots, and wasting diseases caused by chronic exposure to
| "toner".
| mike_d wrote:
| Remember when HN collectively lost their minds and questioned
| journalists integrity for suggesting that the Chinese government
| could have put a backdoor chip _gasp_ the size of a grain of rice
| on Supermicro motherboards?
| wmf wrote:
| Everyone agrees that they could; the question is whether they
| did.
| dragontamer wrote:
| This.
|
| Those Bloomberg reporters showing pictures of lol capacitors
| did them no favors.
|
| We know the difference between processors and capacitors
| around here.
|
| -------
|
| The picture in this article is actually plausible. It's not
| just a capacitor that is getting hyped up by ignorant
| reporters.
| monocasa wrote:
| The picture in the Bloomberg article was obviously thrown
| together by some graphic designer because they didn't have
| actual pictures, and modern journalism wants many forms of
| media for a front page article. That doesn't take away from
| the claims the article made.
| danellis wrote:
| > We know the difference between processors and capacitors
| around here.
|
| Maybe for a two-legged device like a capacitor, but for
| something in, say, a SOT-23 package, you can't be sure what
| it is from the outside.
|
| Then again, maybe even something in a capacitor-like
| package could both communicate and be powered.
| dragontamer wrote:
| But Bloomberg didn't show an SOT-23 package. They showed
| something like an 0402 or maybe 0201 capacitor on the tip
| of a pencil.
|
| Could China be hacking motherboards and then shipping
| them to the USA? Maybe. I'm certain that they're trying
| to figure out a plan at least. But the Bloomberg article
| was fully bunk and just FUD from the start.
|
| And I think we all know how we'd hack Supermicro
| motherboards anyway: those BMCs are well known to be
| poorly updated, proprietary chips with full access to the
| keyboard / mouse / display of every single Supermicro
| motherboard ever made.
|
| One would _assume_ that a Supermicro motherboard hack
| would involve a BMC attack, if it were to exist at all.
| If there's news that some hacker is using some other
| means than the "obvious" BMC, it'd be news, but you gotta
| be really, really technical and explain just how it
| works... so that you know, it'd be useful to IT
| departments to know how to defend against? (Ex: put BMC
| on its own VLAN at least)
| mike_d wrote:
| It sounds like you are having difficulty drawing a
| distinction in your mind between the journalist who did
| the reporting on the story and the art department that
| had to come up with something that conveys "small chip"
| to an average reader without having actual photos.
|
| Most stories about COVID include inaccurate artistic
| renditions of the virus, but that does not discredit the
| reporting.
| dragontamer wrote:
| There's a big difference between a physical hardware
| attack (that is fully unspecified and fully FUD), and an
| actual threat to IT departments (ex: insecure BMC that
| needs to be isolated into its own VLAN).
|
| The minute you start thinking about "how do I protect my
| company's computers from this attack?" is the minute the
| Bloomberg article falls apart. Asking for further details
| just resulted in Bloomberg clamming up and remaining
| silent on any additional details.
|
| Bloomberg has had multiple years at this point to provide
| the details needed to be useful to IT departments
| everywhere about their purported attack. At some point,
| we just gotta assume that they were making things up.
|
| -----
|
| Lets say Bloomberg is correct about these hypothetical
| chips being placed into ill-specified motherboards. No
| attack is perfect: this is all computer equipment after
| all. It needs to be powered, it needs to have
| communications to the outside world, it needs to have
| spy-information (aka: taking information from the
| motherboard).
|
| Its unlikely that a small chip with low-power could
| interface with high-speed components (ie: RAM, PCIe,
| Southbridge, SATA), it wouldn't have enough power. Etc.
| etc. Whatever the hypothetical attack is, there would be
| physical requirements it needs to satisfy.
|
| All point back to the BMC: a low-bandwidth interface with
| huge amounts of information, with highly proprietary /
| likely insecure code running. So we think about how
| hardware could be used to hack this interface.
|
| At which point, we immediately enter the realm of
| ridiculousness, because BMCs are CPUs in their own rights
| and simply run software to do their job. For a "zero-
| hardware" attack, China could just be rewriting BMC
| firmware or something way, way, waaaaay easier than what
| was described in the Bloomberg article.
|
| Now China doesn't have to worry about replacing chips at
| all, and they still get all their spy-craft working.
|
| ------
|
| But guess what? I think most IT departments are well
| aware of the proprietary and possibly insecure BMC
| interface. That's why there's a lot of discussions online
| about how to protect that interface.
| monocasa wrote:
| Right, so a small chip sitting on the SPI bus for the
| flash would fit all of what you said and give attackers
| another capability: persistency in the face of replacing
| the flash itself. And yes, it'd probably be something
| small, like rewriting one of the keys stored in flash.
|
| And BMC networks are extremely high value targets. Tons
| of exploits from running ancient code, and DMA access to
| the the rest of the system, often without even an IOMMU
| in the way.
| dragontamer wrote:
| The Bloomberg article doesn't talk about BMCs however.
| That's __me__ talking about BMCs.
|
| I don't need the Bloomberg article distracting the
| discussion. Its clear that the Bloomberg article was just
| fully and completely useless. It contributed no useful,
| technical details to the discussion.
|
| We're sitting here arguing about how Bloomberg might have
| written the article better. At some point, we just gotta
| realize that Bloomberg wasn't helpful at the discussion
| at all.
|
| Which is fine: Bloomberg is primarily a trading /
| commodities / financial newspaper. To expect expertise in
| technical issues (better than typical Hacker News
| discussion) is probably expecting too much from that
| group of journalists. But lets not pretend that the
| article under discussion was useful to any of us here.
| monocasa wrote:
| > The Bloomberg article doesn't talk about BMCs however.
| That's __me__ talking about BMCs.
|
| You are not the only one talking about BMCs. The entire
| discussion has centered on that since the beginning. I'm
| not sure how you thought that you invented that line of
| discussion.
|
| > We're sitting here arguing about how Bloomberg might
| have written the article better. At some point, we just
| gotta realize that Bloomberg wasn't helpful at the
| discussion at all.
|
| > Which is fine: Bloomberg is primarily a trading /
| commodities / financial newspaper. To expect expertise in
| technical issues (better than typical Hacker News
| discussion) is probably expecting too much from that
| group of journalists. But lets not pretend that the
| article under discussion was useful to any of us here.
|
| People coming forward about a successful foreign state
| sponsored attack on AWS and Apple server infra is a
| pretty big story for HN, even if it doesn't have all the
| details you'd like.
| dragontamer wrote:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-supermicro/
|
| Bloomberg's followup article (and probably the original
| article) doesn't seem to discuss BMCs at all.
|
| I'm not saying that I invented the line of argument. I'm
| saying that Hacker News, the community, brought up BMCs.
| Its not a talking point of the Bloomberg article at all.
|
| The fact remains: we're already in a fully tangential
| point compared to Bloomberg's "facts" (of which there are
| very few. Its largely just allegations and FUD).
|
| --------
|
| The most frustrating thing is that Bloomberg very well
| could be correct. But the articles they wrote are
| absolute crap on this subject.
|
| > People coming forward about a successful foreign state
| sponsored attack on AWS and Apple server infra is a
| pretty big story for HN, even if it doesn't have all the
| details you'd like.
|
| Without the details of how it happened or the mechanism,
| then it doesn't matter.
|
| We exist in a zero-day world: there are attacks I will
| never understand in my lifetime, happening today. Welcome
| to modern computer security.
|
| What's important is understanding as many of these
| attacks as possible, so that we can build the proper
| security mechanisms and policies to defend ourselves
| correctly. Without an action plan, the news is basically
| null and void. It doesn't matter if China hacks us per
| se, it could be Russia or Iran tomorrow. There's always
| state actors trying to do things.
| monocasa wrote:
| No, everyone did not agree with that. Phrases like "against
| the laws of physics" were being thrown around.
|
| And for nearly every other computer security issue, simply
| the presence of the possibility is enough to take action.
| kgc wrote:
| Where "flying" actually just means falling slowly.
| zokier wrote:
| Before jumping to conclusions, note that the microcontroller
| equipped flyer is reported to be about 5cm in diameter. Not
| exactly size of sand grain.
|
| From the article:
|
| > Mechanical simulation results and photograph of a 3D IoT
| macroflier with a circuit to measure fine dust pollution through
| the light dosimetry method. The weight of the IoT flier is 19.7mg
| (d[?]5cm), with payload 198mg (Supplementary Fig.23
| zokier wrote:
| Looking at the supplementary material, the "IoT macroflier" is
| pretty close to https://www.ti.com/tool/TIDM-RF430-TEMPSENSE
| with some wings stuck to it.. The scale is pretty similar too,
| that patch is about 35mm maybe. The sensor is different
| (photodiode vs temperature) but that doesn't really change the
| overall design much.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Amazing! Your comment renders a couple of train emoji on my
| device!
|
| Edit: screenshot https://ibb.co/sKw7tqt
|
| I thought posting emoji wasnt possible on hn?! This one seems
| acceptable:
| zokier wrote:
| Fun. Apparently HN does not filter private area unicode, and
| nature.com reader for some reason includes those in
| copypaste...
| isoprophlex wrote:
| If I search for that train in the emoji keyboard on my
| phone and post that, it doesn't stick... weird.
| ghuin wrote:
| This is not news - some vaccines are known to contain these.
| mfer wrote:
| Side thought...
|
| I know numerous people who are concerned about nanobots in
| vaccines. When I see stories like this I expect it will reinforce
| their concerns.
| rolph wrote:
| there is a paywalled article submitted to nature
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03847-y
|
| the abstract and its references are visible for examination.
|
| theres a lot of links to follow up on if anyone wants to thumb
| through the background.
| cryptoz wrote:
| Been wondering when this kind of thing will exist and be
| normalized.
|
| Idle thoughts, what happens if you swallow one? Seems possible
| and not good.
| wila wrote:
| How about breathing one in?
| Filligree wrote:
| Lithium ion battery toxicity is...
|
| _Why_ is this a thing? I shouldn't need to worry about
| swallowing gnat-sized batteries! But it's Not Good, yes.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Doesn't lithium have antidepressant properties..? It's okay
| citizen, don't fret, breathe some more surveillance dust!
| danellis wrote:
| Lithium _carbonate_.
| carapace wrote:
| AKA "smartdust"
|
| > The concepts for Smart Dust emerged from a workshop at RAND in
| 1992 and a series of DARPA ISAT studies in the mid-1990s due to
| the potential military applications of the technology.[2] The
| work was strongly influenced by work at UCLA and the University
| of Michigan during that period, as well as science fiction
| authors Stanislaw Lem (in novels The Invincible in 1964 and Peace
| on Earth in 1985), Neal Stephenson and Vernor Vinge. The first
| public presentation of the concept by that name was at the
| American Vacuum Society meeting in Anaheim in 1996.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartdust
| brandonmenc wrote:
| Another interesting old reference is the two-part "Utility Fog"
| article in Extropy magazine from 1994 and 1995:
|
| http://fennetic.net/irc/extropy/ext13.pdf
|
| http://fennetic.net/irc/extropy/ext14.pdf
| smackay wrote:
| This is an idea that has been extensively explored since 1996,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_sensor_nodes
|
| It's a pity that the theme is now surveillance as the utility
| of sensor networks is rather high. Perhaps larger devices that
| could roam the planet and especially the oceans would be to
| better to spend money on. There's so much to learn yet we waste
| the opportunity snooping on each other.
| rolph wrote:
| these are larger than dust, they actually have a small
| "propeller"
|
| https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/09/23/microflier1-013b...
|
| https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2021/09/23/microflier_sq-3e...
| awinter-py wrote:
| eat your heart out pham nuwen
| orthoxerox wrote:
| There are people who unironically like the Emergence out
| there in the wild.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| I have given up hoping he will ever finish the "zones"
| series. It's been ten years since _Children of the Sky_.
|
| Better almost that he never wrote CotS and left us hanging.
| :(
| awinter-py wrote:
| amazing author IMO. came out of nowhere, wrote very little,
| kubrickian in that he doesn't want to repeat himself, idea
| quality is astounding in that his ideas are new,
| influential, and fully formed. You can read true names
| every 5 years and still be like 'oh that piece came true'.
|
| Rainbow's End is the icing on the cake.
|
| Everyone has N novels in them, maybe he just reached N.
| carapace wrote:
| (Not to nitpick but it's "Rainbows End", without
| apostrophe. More evocative, eh?)
|
| And yeah, he's amazing!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_Vinge
| floren wrote:
| > Rainbow's End is the icing on the cake.
|
| What Silicon Valley keeps forgetting is that Rainbow's
| End wasn't supposed to be aspirational.
|
| Except for the robot EV taxis, that's pretty cool I
| guess.
| awinter-py wrote:
| no user serviceable parts within
| addaon wrote:
| "Rainbows End" (no apostrophe) -- different meaning.
| hinkley wrote:
| Vernor Vinge's first use of that concept in a book was
| published the same year as that workshop. I wonder how the
| timing of that works out. It's not uncommon for the stage to be
| set by previous work and multiple actors putting 2 and 2
| together in a fairly short period of time.
|
| I can never keep track of who has published works as serials or
| as short stories prior to novelization. I don't see anything in
| Wikipedia about that for _A Deepness in the Sky_ though.
| titzer wrote:
| > The scientists say they could potentially be used to monitor
| for contamination, surveil populations or even track diseases.
|
| The complete lack of awareness in this whole endeavor is
| absolutely gobsmacking. They want to manufacture these things by
| the _billions_ and then throw them into the wind with no plan to
| collect them and dispose of them afterwards (because that 'd
| basically be impossible)? Uh, these things aren't monitoring for
| contamination, they _are_ contamination.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >The complete lack of awareness in this whole endeavor
|
| How do you know what awareness these groups have? Even this
| tiny article demonstrated that they already make bio-degradable
| versions. The main person mentioned, John Rogers, has an
| ungodly number of publications and patents, including lots on
| biodegradability and related issues.
|
| Or did you simply assume?
| titzer wrote:
| >> The complete lack of awareness in this whole endeavor
|
| I'm sticking with my original assessment. Assuming you can
| just make a billion of _anything_ and dump them into the
| environment is a totally different mindset than literally any
| conservationist philosophy[1]. I 'm sure these things are
| biodegradable in the same sense that plastics are
| "recyclable". Microchips aren't made out of sawdust and
| sugar. Junk always has consequences.
|
| [1] This philosophy motivates the "leave no trace" rule that
| hikers, climbers, conservationists, and nature lovers all
| follow. Don't throw anything into the ecosystem, not even
| "biodegradable" stuff like banana peels. Invasive parasites
| aside, just offering more foodstuff for anything doing the
| biodegrading disturbs the environment.
| tonmoy wrote:
| > "We think that we beat nature," Rogers said. "At least in the
| narrow sense that we have been able to build structures that fall
| with more stable trajectories and at slower terminal velocities
| than equivalent seeds that you would see from plants or trees."
|
| I don't think nature had the same goal. As long as the local
| minima is good enough for survival nature would be happy
| Filligree wrote:
| To the contrary, erratic seed dispersal would be an advantage.
| theothermatt wrote:
| Devices similar to this were a major plot point in the second
| book of the 'Zones of Thought' sci-fi series by Vernor Vinge[1].
| It is a really great series that is often recommended on HN. My
| favorite thing about the series (as it relates to this story) is
| the way Vinge writes about about the consequences of uncovering
| code/programs/hardware that was developed thousands or millions
| of years in the past. There are so many layers to these ancient
| programs that you never truly know what you are unleashing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Deepness_in_the_Sky#Localize...
| romwell wrote:
| My first thought was about _A Deepness in the Sky_.
|
| Like, the implications of these things are fascinating and
| scary.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| There are days when I genuinely wonder if Transmetropolitan was a
| prophecy of sorts. Naturally, it had those, but it also had very
| robust anti-censorship movements.
| mpva wrote:
| Great, thats all I need to breathe in every day
| danellis wrote:
| Flying Microchips Size of a Sand GRAIN Could be Used by Citizens
| to Keep Authorities In Check
| Borrible wrote:
| Could?
|
| Hitachis RFID-'Powder' was developed almost twenty years ago.
|
| https://thefutureofthings.com/3221-hitachi-develops-worlds-s...
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| I for one welcome our new nanobot overlords.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Reminds me of the "snarks" in Off Armageddon Reef.
| excalibur wrote:
| I bet these feel really great when they get in your lungs
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-23 23:01 UTC)