To eliminate the wire-like or metallic nanotubes, the Stanford team switched off all the good CNTs. Then they pumped the semiconductor circuit full of electricity. All of that electricity concentrated in the metallic nanotubes, which grew so hot that they burned up and literally vaporized into tiny puffs of carbon dioxide. This sophisticated technique was able to eliminate virtually all of the metallic CNTs in the circuit at once.
Bypassing the misaligned nanotubes required even greater subtlety.
I would suggest that such aliens have something better than radio to use.
I'm curious what can we imagine the aliens could use to communicate. I found this bit on neutrino communication. It also mentions axions (which might not even exist). Gravitational waves are suggested in the comments. Are there any other potential communication technologies we can read about?
I was hoping for strong counterarguments. Most people decide to allocate their donations themselves, so my argument must be really weak. (Perhaps weak enough for people just to ignore it..)
Here are some of the weaker counters I can think of:
"The government will squander your money. They are a bunch of corrupt fucks." Yeah, this is mostly true. But government spending is mostly recurring expenses that are not decided on a whim. Some of your money will go to finance science, infrastructure, the justice system, defense, and many other essential things we almost take for granted. Also, donations are tax deductible, so you are taking some money away from the government when allocating your donations yourself.
"Allocating our public spending yourself gives you a real voice in how the money is spent, whereas the government are a bunch of puppets of the ruling elite and do not care about you very much." Yeah, this is also mostly true. However, democracy is usually loosely understood as "one man, one vote." If you make an average amount of money, your public donations are more-or-less democratic. If you are a billionaire like Bill Gates, suddenly you have a much greater amount of votes in this "democracy." Not that our actual government is very different from this..
Any other points one way or the other?
Don't get me wrong, people are waking up. I'm just not confident enough will be awake in time to prevent some very very bad things from happening in a very short time.
Many people have woken up (and not recently either) and understand that they are realistically no longer in control of their government. They just don't know what to do about it. Can we keep this discussion going: What CAN we do about this situation?
Ideas like vote third party, organize protests, write your representative, seem too feeble and toothless. We need massive protests to get even a tiny impact. The closest thing to this was the occupy movement, and it failed miserably. Voting seems almost pointless now. It's almost impossible to get even 1 third party seat in Congress. Both major parties seem beyond hope of rehabilitation. Perhaps a large third party vote percentage would make the rounds on the media and draw some attention. The other problem is that people can't agree which third party to vote for. All those parties seem to be extremists, not aligned with even 10% of the population. Writing your representative also seems pointless since he's most likely a corrupt career politician voting the party line.
Thanks for your replies. I can't agree with you on everything, but that's fine. The government we currently have is mainly a function of what the people have voted for over the centuries. It is a bit pointless to argue about what it was designed to do at the very beginning. The people living today are the ones responsible for their government.
Clearly there is a difference between how the US government and most European governments are structured. Europeans tend to get better representation of the people in their governments. Perhaps it is due to proportional representation or other differences in the way elections are conducted. The US electoral system does seem outdated in comparison (but really hard to change). And the Europeans also tend to have large governments financing social safety nets, while still managing to keep corruption low. I'm guessing your opinion is that the Europeans are better educated, and so able to construct better governments. I can't really argue against that. I think it is more or less true that the people get the government they deserve.
That point, I very much agree with you on though I don't perceive the person you responded to was joking.
Yeah, the wording was not historically accurate, nor 100% serious either. I was trying to make a point that government is not working well because it relies too much on the people in it being ethical. My opinion is that the type of government we currently have is not necessarily a total failure. Instead of drastically downsizing it and cutting social programs, we should consider introducing more checks against corruption. I kind of know what to expect from the libertarians here on Slashdot, so I'm not eagerly awaiting the alternative opinion (or more flame). That path has been tread many times before on this site.