Slashdot Mirror


Instead of a Wheel Chair, How About an Exoskeleton?

New submitter the_newsbeagle writes "This year, Ekso Bionics will roll out its most sophisticated exoskeleton ever. The company's robotic walking suit, called the Ekso, allows paraplegics to get back on their feet and walk on their own. The first commercial model will be sold to rehab hospitals for on-site physical therapy, but the company plans to have a model ready for at-home physical therapy by the end of 2012. In a few years, they plan to sell an Ekso that a paraplegic person can wear to the post office, to work, etc."

232 comments

  1. Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I still consider it a transitionary solution, useful, but only until we can grow organs and nerve tissue and basically fix people like we fix machinery :)

    1. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you look at it. Personally I would rather be a machine made out of non-biological components. If I could transfer my brain into a computer today I would do it.

      Biological systems are too erratic for my tastes. I want perfect consistency.

    2. Re:Awesome, but.. by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I still consider it a transitionary solution, useful, but only until we can grow organs and nerve tissue and basically fix people like we fix machinery :)

      It's interesting you think that, as it's rather the opposite of the trend of science-fiction and posthumanist fantasizing.

      For the former, Larry Niven's Known Space universe (such as the tales in Flatlander ) had organ transplantation as a widely implemented medical solution (amusingly leading to the death penalty for even minor crimes), but eventually ended by alloplasty, "gadgets instead of organs".

      For the latter, Ray Kurzweil and his fans hope that we'll be able to upload our brains into computers any day now. And that's understandable, since a civilization that has technology advanced enough to produce new biological parts in vitro may be on the cusp of transcending biology entirely.

    3. Re:Awesome, but.. by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And backups.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Awesome, but.. by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally wouldn't upload my brain into a computer for the same reason that I'd never agree to use a Star Trek style transporter if one is ever invented. Both are essentially a method of suicide that gets covered up by a replacement that appears to be the original.

    5. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mechanical systems require a lot of maintenance (consider how often you change the oil in your car vs how often you get your blood removed and filtered).

    6. Re:Awesome, but.. by tmosley · · Score: 1

      How often do you have to do maintenance on your computer?

      No moving parts there. Lots of moving parts in the body. Magnificently engineered, sure, but lots of moving parts. Much better to exist as a perfect simulation in an editable virtual world.

    7. Re:Awesome, but.. by tmosley · · Score: 1

      You need to have your brain coexist with the new one for some amount of time so your consciousness transfers to the new one seamlessly. Communication between the two parts is VITAL, for the very reason you stated. With a transfer to a computer, it would be much easier than with a transporter, as it could be done by steps in a highly controlled manner.

    8. Re:Awesome, but.. by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 2

      Every two years, when I buy a new one?

    9. Re:Awesome, but.. by smi.james.th · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That would take the term "Blue Screen of Death" to a whole new level.

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    10. Re:Awesome, but.. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well there is always the transitional solution.

      Robotic Assist devices like this give us promise now (or in the near future) regrowing organs and limbs may take far longer time, or not at all. If you are injured you might as well get the assist now then wait around hoping for a full cure.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How often do you eat? Drink? go to the bathroom? Mechanical systems would cut back on that. Even Data from Star Trek drank a chemical to lube his inner workings. And not to mention when break downs occur, easy to replace until you are in a unit that they quit making parts for.
        I just hope apple doesn't get a pantent on this, also they would most likely cut out any kind of mechanical sex. What a walled garden that would be.

    12. Re:Awesome, but.. by Khazunga · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, let's assume you connect, allow consciousness to transfer, then sever the connection but *don't* destroy the biological part. Who am I? I'd wager I'd still be the biological one, albeit the sillicon part may be a perfect copy. Now, kill the biological part. I'm dead. Thanks, but no, thanks. Not until we pinpoint conscience beyond "I think therefore I am".

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    13. Re:Awesome, but.. by Khazunga · · Score: 2

      I'm not that much of a trekkie to know the workings of the transporter. However, if it'd somehow physically move all my atoms to another place, in the same configuration, I'd go in. If it copies and reproduces, then destroys the original, I concur with you. Thanks but no thanks.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    14. Re:Awesome, but.. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      So... which is it? Do you want to transfer your brain to a computer, or do you want perfect consistency?
      Or have you never seen two identical computers run the same program differently?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    15. Re:Awesome, but.. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The Biological Body can heal, and perform well beyond normal operational limits.

      One long power outage. A cooling fan that dies when you are in deep though you over head. and your dead.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:Awesome, but.. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I believe I read somewhere that the transporters in the Star Trek shows actually transferred the original matter of your body from one point to another, in the form of energy, so there is no replacement. In theory, at least, it's exactly the same person that steps out one the other side, not a clone, and the connection to the "mind" or "soul" or "sense of self", or whatever you want to call it, remains unbroken. The original models provoked riots for exactly the reason you stated, once people understood how they worked.

      Anyway, I think the brain-upload could be done without cloning you or destroying your identity, if it was done gradually enough. Replace one cell at a time with a computer simulation of that cell's function, in the same way that the cells continually rebuild themselves from raw materials any yet maintain the same identity. In the end you would have an all-electronic brain, and yet your individuality would have remained intact throughout the process.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    17. Re:Awesome, but.. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      I'd think it is a new step in posthumanist fantasies rather than a reversal. This science fiction (specifically Niven's "Flatlander" stories published 1975) predates most of the advances of biotechnology, including the human genome project (1984-2003) and successful genetic engineering (first breakthrough in 1973). Just as Asimov's Multivac was a city-spanning vacuum-tube based supercomputer with a teletype interface because he couldn't conceive of nanoscopic transistors and LCDs, science fiction authors had trouble imagining artificial prosthetics that were squishy and yet equal or superior to what we're born with.

      Now that tissue can be grown, expectations are raised and aesthetics become a concern. Given the choice, most would prefer being repaired or augmented while looking "natural" rather than like a steampunk cyborg. Even non-organic stuff like pacemakers or reinforced bones can be small, inconspicuous, and hidden away inside us.

    18. Re:Awesome, but.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      how often you get your blood removed and filtered

      Never, I've got internal devices to do it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Awesome, but.. by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting

      98% of the atoms on your body are replaced ever year, whether or not you take a ride in a transporter. So, "you" are not a certain set of particles, but rather a self-propagating pattern.

    20. Re:Awesome, but.. by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tell that to Thomas Riker.

    21. Re:Awesome, but.. by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

      But you changed the question... the options offered were wheel chair or exoskeleton? It wasn't about going off onto the tangent of whether it's transitionary or not... Of course it's transitionary. We wouldn't stop developing technology just because someone made an exoskeleton...

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    22. Re:Awesome, but.. by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      I actually read a pretty decent sci-fi book based on this premise. The idea of copying and reproducing a body to teleport it. It had some interesting things to say on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_Moon The point of copying and reproducing was explicitly so that one of the two copies might now be expendable.

    23. Re:Awesome, but.. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      David Brin's Kiln People was an excellent entry into the "copying people" genre.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    24. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I prefer a gradual replacement of the brains circuitry with non-biological parts. If we can build them with all the capabilities (current processing along with learning ability), I think that would be ideal. That way there would never be 2 of you or a transfer and shutdown of the original. Wouldn't be much different from what the body already does.

    25. Re:Awesome, but.. by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Computers aren't magic. Two systems, given the exact same hardware, software, and configuration should produce exactly the same results for a given program, unless there is a hardware defect somewhere (e.g. bad RAM) or there was deliberate randomness introduced.

    26. Re:Awesome, but.. by gorzek · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the continuity of existence you perceive as "you" will end the moment your original body is destroyed. The new body and mind will be identical to the original in every way--except that the conscious existence of the original is gone.

      Everyone else will see that person as you, but from your own perspective, you're dead.

    27. Re:Awesome, but.. by expatriot · · Score: 1

      I have always been puzzled by what the uploading of consciousness could mean. Uploading knowledge sure, but what could it mean to upload our individual sense of being ourselves? Even something that thinks just like me is not me.

    28. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      new neurons are created and old ones die, the process is slow but with a decade or three (perhaps four) if you used neuron emulation chips to substitute for the reduced rate of regrowth due to aging you could end up all "inside" the software

    29. Re:Awesome, but.. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's a bit like suggesting that because I've replaced the individual parts in my car that I no longer have the same car and that it's exactly the same as if I were to just buy a new car. I don't personally agree with that notion, at some point you do have to agree that replacing enough stuff quickly enough and you no longer have the original to work with.

    30. Re:Awesome, but.. by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      And biological systems don't? I spent almost a year back in the '90s getting my blood removed and filtered three times a week...trust me, it sucks. If you ever get the chance to avoid dialysis, I highly recommend it ;) Having the ability to remove and replace a modular component when it wears out or breaks would be the biggest advantage of a mechanical device over a biological one, IMHO.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    31. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a great idea for the Pirate Party health platform, but how can we afford to pay for such things? It seems like we might need to sidestep a bit and take a path that gets away from profit-driven care.

    32. Re:Awesome, but.. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Precisely what I was getting at. Personally I don't really care about other people when it comes to things like this. I might consider donating my consciousness to a robot to further my works, but a transfer is definitely not something that I would ever consider. Death is ultimately inevitable and even in the case of a transfer the essential bits of me would still be dead.

    33. Re:Awesome, but.. by glueball · · Score: 1

      Short sighted thinking and way to make the injured feel second class.

      What if I am an able bodied person and I want these improvements because they are better than my original equipment? What if, because of these exoskeletons, we may one day say "wow, those paraplegics are sooooo lucky because they get the automatic leg upgrade"

      I work with a lot of injured and the last thing they need is to feel like they are waiting for yet another technology like regrowing organs.

      The exoskeleton performance amplifier *is* the solution.

    34. Re:Awesome, but.. by SlippyToad · · Score: 2

      I would rather be a machine made out of non-biological components

      I'm sorry. I would rather enjoy the biological thrills of existence. You can't program an orgasm, or a laugh, or the thrill of looking down into a 1,200 foot chasm beneath your feet.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    35. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then, you aren't you after a year then?

      You just read, "98% of the atoms in your body are replaced every year", and you make a comparison to a car.

    36. Re:Awesome, but.. by Rhacman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Also, I've seen no less than three hard-drives that began failing a few weeks out of the box. In another instance I sent back a defective video card that was still under warranty. The replacement that was sent to me had a cooling fan that wouldn't spin due to large solder blobs shorting out power connector not to mention a surface mount capacitor that was mounted about 45 degrees out of alignment. Even if we assume that new equipment is perfect, computer hardware is not very tolerant to damage and certainly not self-repairing in the way the human body is. Add to all this we still don't know what type of system would be required to emulate a human being so it is quite a stretch to compare maintenence of modern systems to maintaining a human body. Another thing to consider is that if you think nuclear bombs / solar flares are scary now, just wait until you exist as a computer simulation and can be wiped out by an EMP. Lastly, I don't much care for the prospect of being built out of parts made in China let alone the motives of the software developers... even if it is open source.

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    37. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather be a machine made out of non-biological components

      I'm sorry. I would rather enjoy the biological thrills of existence. You can't program an orgasm, or a laugh, or the thrill of looking down into a 1,200 foot chasm beneath your feet.

      Yet...

    38. Re:Awesome, but.. by nine932038 · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely correct, but the point is the continuity in the self-propagating pattern. The person I am today is distinct, both in terms of mental state and composition, from the person I was ten years ago, but it's not like we think of ourselves as the murderers of our previous iterations.

      I am not comfortable with the concept of losing the continuity in my self-propagating pattern. I've come to enjoy it. :)

    39. Re:Awesome, but.. by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert, but I believe the Star Trek transporters don't recreate the molecules. They pull the originals through subspace and re-create the bonds between them. How else could they transport DOWN to a surface that has no receiving platform (and no way to "create" a new body, as you seem to imply)? Then again that whole concept is full of holes in the star trek universe..

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    40. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for most of the atoms in your brain cells.

      Do you claim that an electrochemical circuit can become *voila* sentient in and of itself? Until the mechanism of thought (as opposed to reasoning) is understood, there's absolutely no way to speculate whether a molecularly identical brain would house the same personality, let alone a personality in continuum with the original.

    41. Re:Awesome, but.. by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 2

      i didn't know sheldon read slashdot!

    42. Re:Awesome, but.. by Rhacman · · Score: 1

      I suspect you could, it is just beyond our current understanding of the human body. Human emotions are just another system in our bodies that obey rules just like any other. This much is evident by our ability (albeit crude) to stimulate some of these responses via chemical means or by direct brain stimulation. There are a lot of reasons I would opt NOT to replace my body with a synthetic one but in the realm of speculative science, lack of emotions is not one of them.

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    43. Re:Awesome, but.. by grumbel · · Score: 1

      That's a bit like suggesting that because I've replaced the individual parts in my car that I no longer have the same car and that it's exactly the same as if I were to just buy a new car.

      It is, at least for the car. It only makes a difference to you because you don't lose continuity when you replace your car piece by piece instead of all at once, as you are always left with something that reminds you of your old car. By the time the last part of your old car gets replaced, you have gotten used enough to the new parts to consider them "your car". However for the car it makes no difference, your old car is on the scrapyard and the thing you are driving is all new.

    44. Re:Awesome, but.. by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just always remember this little ditty by Douglas Adams "I teleported home one night with Ron and Sid and Meg. Ron stole Meggie's heart away, and I got Sidney's leg."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    45. Re:Awesome, but.. by Genda · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the opinion General Grievous. By the way, a single blaster shot to the heart and you are buggered sir!

    46. Re:Awesome, but.. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      So we call Car Talk for help on this stuff?
      "My husband makes this strange sound when starting up."

    47. Re:Awesome, but.. by chilvence · · Score: 1

      What I have never been able to understand is why all disability aids seem to have been designed purposely too look ugly. My dad needs a mobility scooter for other reasons, he has emphysema so he can't go anywhere without basically starving himself of oxygen. He spends most of his spare time now with a welder and a grinder tricking out his personalised electric scooter. This is a step in the right direction (pardon the pun) but it seems to add insult to injury to make people who have suffered the loss of mobility to spend their days in something that even looks grey and depressing and reminiscent of a hospital trolley.

    48. Re:Awesome, but.. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (consider how often you change the oil in your car vs how often you get your blood removed and filtered).

      Twice a week. I'm on dialysis you insensitive clod!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    49. Re:Awesome, but.. by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      or cosmic rays.

    50. Re:Awesome, but.. by Genda · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not citing "Data" as an authoritative example of a mechanical life form. Think Asimo over at Honda. Can you say "Massive Maintenance!!!" So how do you power your machine? You have to eat something? You have to store energy. You have to eliminate waste products, every machine produces them. Your meat body is just an insanely complex machine with several hundred trillion moving parts, and its amazingly well designed. Able to get energy from abundant natural resources, convert that energy very efficiently into all kinds of interesting work. Its even capable of replicating itself and shuffling the genome to ensure genetic diversity. You over estimate the advantages of being a mechanical being. At least in anything resembling the near future.

      Most of the things you're interested in having could be done with modifying the human body itself. Engineering the genome, augmentation, introduction of new technologies like nanotechnology when it arrives. You could ultimately build a body that is a super body in virtually every way.

    51. Re:Awesome, but.. by BattleApple · · Score: 4, Informative
    52. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should is the operative word

    53. Re:Awesome, but.. by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Nah, cosmic rays just give them superpowers.

    54. Re:Awesome, but.. by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      The law would probably agree that it was the same car. That said, this seems relevant triggers broom

    55. Re:Awesome, but.. by gorzek · · Score: 1

      "Should" is just a hedge. They will behave identically. If they don't, something is wrong. A properly-functioning computer is entirely deterministic.

    56. Re:Awesome, but.. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      Correct.
      Completely identical computers should produce identical results. Too bad we can't make perfectly identical computers. We can't even test machines to see exactly what minor imperfections they have so we can extrapolate exactly how it will work.

      Currently most computer errors manifest in inconsequential details like a pixel being 1/256th redder than it should be for one frame out of 3000. How exactly will that translate when a computer is simulating someone's conscience?
      Would you want to be uploaded to a computer that has some minor processor defect that gets interpreted by your conscience as an ant crawling on your brain?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    57. Re:Awesome, but.. by willaien · · Score: 1

      How about... upload your consciousness before your natural death?

    58. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually when you replace the engine block, you must register the new VIN on the engine block, which is when the car ceases to be the original car. It now becomes a "multi-VIN vehicle."

    59. Re:Awesome, but.. by gorzek · · Score: 1

      You are illustrating my point, really. :)

      Those things you mentioned are bugs. They may be really trivial bugs, but they're still bugs.

      You are right by way of implication that the more complex a program is, the more likely it is to expose any obscure bugs in the system.

      That said, there are safeguards one can have in place to ensure consistency of results, like checksums/CRCs/ECC for all data and storage. You just aren't going to find that level of quality in consumer-grade hardware. Then again, what kind of idiot would want to store his very essence on the $300 netbook he bought at Costco? :-p

    60. Re:Awesome, but.. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I believe what you are looking for is the Ship of Theseus Paradox . For those who are unaware of it it asks the question of when does something stop being the original when pieces have been replaced. In essence we are all Ships of Theseus.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    61. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you know consciousness doesn't reset every time you take a nap? Today you just have the memories of what another self with the same personality and the same memories did yesterday and tommorrow another self will remember what you did today.

    62. Re:Awesome, but.. by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      I always considered it strange that they rarely if ever thought to use the transporter as an offensive weapon since the uses are near endless.
      Transport large amounts of stuff into the path of oncoming torpedoes.
      Shoot large heavy cannon balls into the transporter and have them re materialize at speed in front of a boarding party of borg.
      Even easier, large quantities of that green gas stuff from first contact that dissolves organic matter.
      Use the transporter in combination with the replicator to rapidly rebuild a damaged ship.
      Transport heavy ceramic insulated cocoons in place around the enemy, they'd fry themselves to death if they tried to burn their way out.

      fair enough they'd come up with some interference BS, but it would certainly have worked against most of the baddies in the Startrek universe.

    63. Re:Awesome, but.. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Just think of the stump the chumps segments though.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    64. Re:Awesome, but.. by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      true, but I believe they have also been blamed for flipping bits in ram.

    65. Re:Awesome, but.. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      You're going to die anyway: uploading your brain or teleporting could be better than the alternative. Kirk is crying pitifully for you to come and help him--how will you live with yourself if you refuse?!

    66. Re:Awesome, but.. by CubicleView · · Score: 2

      Cheers, I didn't know that. I've learned that it's always prudent to use the word probably or maybe in my posts, it dramatically cuts down on the time I need to fact check my posts.

    67. Re:Awesome, but.. by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Really? I hadn't heard that. Quite interesting.

    68. Re:Awesome, but.. by timeOday · · Score: 2

      Ok, let's assume you connect, allow consciousness to transfer, then sever the connection but *don't* destroy the biological part. Who am I? I'd wager I'd still be the biological one, albeit the sillicon part may be a perfect copy.

      No, the correct answer is, both the biological you and the silicon you are absolutely convinced that they are the real one, and both perceive continuity starting from childhood, and both beg to be preserved even if at the expense of the other.

    69. Re:Awesome, but.. by Speare · · Score: 1

      I teleported home one night/ With Ron and Sid and Meg./ Ron stole Meggie's heart away/ And I got Sidney's leg.

      Take me apart, take me apart, what a way to roam./ But if you have to take me apart to get me there, I'd rather stay at home.

      --Douglas Adams

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    70. Re:Awesome, but.. by artor3 · · Score: 1

      But they're not replaced all at once, which is an important difference. If our conscious selves are indeed complex patterns in our brains, then those patterns can survive having parts changed out, a few molecules at a time. But if you destroy the brain altogether, the pattern stops. The fact that an identical copy of the pattern was created ahead of time makes no difference. Your pattern has ended.

      For an analogy, if I'm running a program on my computer, the states of various nodes in the CPU are constantly changing. But if I power cycle the computer, that instance of the program is over, because it can't survive having everything blanked at once. Having a copy of the same program running elsewhere doesn't change anything.

    71. Re:Awesome, but.. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Primarily because consciousness exists during sleep, it just gets a bit differenty. If your consciousness didn't exist during ones sleep cycle there'd be phenomena like parasomnias that wouldn't happen and being awakened at the wrong point in the sleep cycle could have disastrous effects.

    72. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had this broom for 20 years.

      It's only needed 4 new handles and 6 replacement heads.

    73. Re:Awesome, but.. by x0 · · Score: 1

      Actually when you replace the engine block, you must register the new VIN on the engine block, which is when the car ceases to be the original car. It now becomes a "multi-VIN vehicle."

      In the US, the manufacturers stopped number matching the major components in the early '70's. The build sheet/warranty might have the block number included with the VIN, but there is no *legal* requirement register a 'new' VIN.

      m

      --
      In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
    74. Re:Awesome, but.. by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      I personally wouldn't upload my brain into a computer for the same reason that I'd never agree to use a Star Trek style transporter if one is ever invented. Both are essentially a method of suicide that gets covered up by a replacement that appears to be the original.

      If the replacement copy can be considered exact, what's the problem with that? The original who committed suicide isn't going to be alive to regret the decision and the replacement thinks he's the original, so he's happy. That's functionally equivalent to the original living through the transport / upload.

      Where do you draw the line? Suppose our medical technology is so advanced we can essentially be treated like machines. Your heart starts to fail, you get a mechanical one. Are you still you? Now your lungs. Your kidneys. Is the line your brain? What if your brain doesn't get replaced at once? You get a stroke and can no longer move the left part of your body, so they go in and put in electronic replacement parts to the brain to give you full control again. Later you get Alzheimer's and you get implants to help with memory. This keeps happening until everything has been replaced, but maintain the exact same functionality and memories you've had before. At what point did you cease to be you?

    75. Re:Awesome, but.. by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's assume you connect, allow consciousness to transfer, then sever the connection but *don't* destroy the biological part. Who am I? I'd wager I'd still be the biological one, albeit the sillicon part may be a perfect copy. Now, kill the biological part. I'm dead. Thanks, but no, thanks. Not until we pinpoint conscience beyond "I think therefore I am".

      I think differently. I think both the biological and silicon versions are you. There's no reason to pick one over the other. If you allow the biological one to wake up and make new memories, now the two versions have had different experiences and are two different people, and killing the biological one is murder. If you do it before there's been a chance for this to happen, it doesn't matter, the copy is identical.

    76. Re:Awesome, but.. by Plunky · · Score: 1

      Oh I remember reading that but didn't know what it was called. You might also like "Farthest Star" by Frederick Pohl which features a matter duplicator.. there were several copies of various characters (including alien species, as I recall) sent to investigate a planet found travelling through interstellar space.

    77. Re:Awesome, but.. by chadenright · · Score: 1

      What's to stop me from making ten copies of my mind? or fifty? or a thousand? I don't think the consequences of that kind of 'upload' have been sufficiently explored. And I'm with the other guy, I have no intention of losing my bio shell until it's completely unavoidable, even if i already have fifty mental clones :p

    78. Re:Awesome, but.. by Plunky · · Score: 1

      Yes, well I've got an axe which has been in my family for a hundred years! My dad had to replace the handle once or twice and I had to replace the head about 20 years ago, but its the same axe my grandad used to chop wood..

    79. Re:Awesome, but.. by CSMoran · · Score: 0

      Not really. Parallel computing is not deterministic.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    80. Re:Awesome, but.. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      ...at which point "termination of consciousness" becomes a completely different crime than "termination of life".

      And backups become more than the sum of their parts.

    81. Re:Awesome, but.. by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've always thought something like that would make an awesome plot for a Sci-Fi movie -- people use transporters to go everywhere, multiple times per day, but the reality is that you end up with two conscious copies of the same person, and the old one gets automatically destroyed once the copy and replication is complete. The new copy steps out at the other end feeling like the teleportation worked flawlessly, and the old person (itself a multi-Nth copy of the person who was born years earlier) stands in the booth wondering why it's not working, until he gets killed and vaporized (with people who've seen the process believing it's part of the teleportation process, instead of a purely destructive clean-up act, and very few genuinely understanding what's really going on... because nobody would ever step into such a booth knowing that they themselves were going to effectively die, even if their "consciousness" lived on after replication elsewhere).

      Now, imagine a teleporter whose "destructor" system fails after working well enough to injure (instead of kill) someone who just teleported, and leaves him convinced that terrorists are systematically murdering people -- and has no idea that it's now teleportation machines are *intended* to work, and eventually manages to teleport home from work after a visit to the hospital, only to run into himself#2.n, who just uneventfully teleported home from work after a perfectly normal day that included about a half-dozen teleportations that worked "without incident".

      Now, stir in some extra details to make it a real story... engineers who stumbled on the truth while trying to reverse-engineer the process for a start-up competitor (who were summarily committed to a mental institution, because at that point, teleporters had been used by everyone multiple times per day since birth, and the whole *idea* that teleportation == death was viewed as ludicrous... were hospitalized, then truly went insane after being forcibly teleported multiple times per day at the mental hospital (knowing each time what was really happening to them). Add a legal system completely unprepared to deal with both the consequences of having two copies of the same person, and a society where all other forms of transportation had effectively ceased to exist and teleportation was literally the only way to travel more than a few thousand feet (even elevators were replaced by teleporters by that time, and stairs were increasingly uncommon).

      Fun stuff ;-)

    82. Re:Awesome, but.. by gorzek · · Score: 1

      You can code it to be deterministic. Whether or not that matters to you obviously depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If the goal is 100% reliable and repeatable results, then you'd code it accordingly.

    83. Re:Awesome, but.. by timeOday · · Score: 2

      You should watch The Prestige. (Although I may have just spoiled it by recommending it in this context).

    84. Re:Awesome, but.. by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Part of a larger class of "soft" errors if wikipedia is to be believed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_error#Cosmic_rays_creating_energetic_neutrons_and_protons

    85. Re:Awesome, but.. by crakbone · · Score: 2
    86. Re:Awesome, but.. by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      Useless as disabled people can't afford such things.

    87. Re:Awesome, but.. by CSMoran · · Score: 0

      But that's not what you said earlier. You said "for a given software".

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    88. Re:Awesome, but.. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the continuity of existence you perceive as "you" will end the moment your original body is destroyed. The new body and mind will be identical to the original in every way--except that the conscious existence of the original is gone.

      Everyone else will see that person as you, but from your own perspective, you're dead.

      Well, yes and no. From your own perspective, you're in a new body, too. For a while, there were two of you, but now there's just the one. You're confusing the issue by suggesting there was ever only the one of you, which is now dead. For a while, "your own perspective" was in fact two different perspectives.

      The original is gone, sure, but so is the person I was last year. I'm still alive, despite the fact that the old me is long gone. This is no different, really. There is no non-magical justification for the point of view that I'm not the same person I would be if all my atoms were replaced with new copies (and indeed, as a living biological being, this is occurring as I sit here and type this while digesting my latest slice of pizza). To somehow expect it to be a different result if it occurs at a different rate (e.g. all at once, in a machine that vaporizes me at point A and reconstructs me at point B) is bizarre. What does the rate have to do with it? There's no magic to be lost in the process. I suspect you think there's more to being you than there actually is, if you think the "copy" it any less you than you are.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    89. Re:Awesome, but.. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      ...in the case of a transfer the essential bits of me would still be dead.

      There are no "essential bits". Do you have a non-magical argument for you point, or does this really boil down to your religious belief in "essential bits"?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    90. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect you're a philosophical zombie if you don't understand what self consciousness and awareness are. If the original isn't destroyed at the moment of making the copy, does the same self awareness exists in both the original and the copy.

    91. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was basically the idea discussed by Marvin Minsky I believe (never read The Turing Option), but is seems to be what you discussed. Roger Penrose argued in The Emperor's New Mind that the patient might not realize their decreasing consciousness during the process, and observers noticed no drop in function, yet by the end, there was an unconscious thing mimicking a conscious entity.

    92. Re:Awesome, but.. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Primarily because consciousness exists during sleep, it just gets a bit differenty. If your consciousness didn't exist during ones sleep cycle there'd be phenomena like parasomnias that wouldn't happen and being awakened at the wrong point in the sleep cycle could have disastrous effects.

      I believe you'll find your description here is a direct contradiction of the definition of sleep, which implies that one is unconscious. (Dreaming is a grey area, granted, but you're not constantly dreaming while you sleep). Consciousness is an activity, like walking. You don't have to always be walking, you can stop, and then start again later. Likewise, you can stop being conscious, and being awoken has no disastrous effect, you simply pick it up again.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    93. Re:Awesome, but.. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I'm not that much of a trekkie to know the workings of the transporter. However, if it'd somehow physically move all my atoms to another place, in the same configuration, I'd go in.

      Why is that important? You realize you're not the same atoms in the same configuration as you were yesterday, don't you? If you think that's what makes you you, you've already died countless times...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    94. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/

    95. Re:Awesome, but.. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      That's a bit like suggesting that because I've replaced the individual parts in my car that I no longer have the same car and that it's exactly the same as if I were to just buy a new car. I don't personally agree with that notion, at some point you do have to agree that replacing enough stuff quickly enough and you no longer have the original to work with.

      I think you're suffering from a confusion if you think there's a "true" answer to that question. If you want to know which ship is Theseus', ask the Athenian Port Authority. To the extent the question has any answer, it's an answer of arbitrary legal authority. Ultimate it's how you choose to label things. "Theseus' ship" is a legal concept, not a physical object. Whether the car is the "original" is a matter of concepts and language and how to choose to use them. The only people who find the Ship of Theseus a vexing philosophical problem are those who mistakenly assume there's some fundamental metaphysical truth that just isn't there, a "right" answer that's something more than which of the ships the Port Authority arbitrarily says is the original. There ain't no such thing...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    96. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you have seen The Prestige, or you need to watch that movie right now.

    97. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There would be no problem for religious people: as only god can create soul, the copy has either no soul and die on the spot or God transfer the soul between the original and the copy. You see, no paradox.

      It's only for non religious people that the concept of consciousness and copies become hard to grasp. The easy way out is to pretend there's no problem by denying consciousness exist. The "I don't want to admit I don't understand the problem fully so I'll pretend it doesn't exist instead" approach.

    98. Re:Awesome, but.. by oreiasecaman · · Score: 1

      Well a possible solution would be to gradually replace the original, organic neurons in your brain with eletronic counterparts. Of course, it would lead to some interesting questions, like the Ship of Theseus paradox, i.e. if you replace all the parts, are you still "you"?

      The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

      But, considering cells die and replacements are born all the time in your body, if the process is gradual enough, there would be no such problems at all...

      --
      This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
    99. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using consciousness as a synonym of "self awareness" here. Not consciousness as "being awake".

    100. Re:Awesome, but.. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Roger Penrose argued in The Emperor's New Mind that the patient might not realize their decreasing consciousness during the process, and observers noticed no drop in function, yet by the end, there was an unconscious thing mimicking a conscious entity.

      I was assuming that it is possible to transfer consciousness to a computer in the first place. If you can't do that as part of a gradual replacement process, you probably won't be able to do it as an atomic transfer either. If it is possible to perform the transfer without forfeiting consciousness, however—assuming that is even a real factor, something yet to be proven—then the gradual approach is probably the only way to do it without creating a clone, however temporarily.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    101. Re:Awesome, but.. by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      You need to have your brain coexist with the new one for some amount of time so your consciousness transfers to the new one seamlessly

      How exactly does consciousness "transfer"? There is no physical process that does that. If you could somehow obtain two identical copies of the brain, down to quantum level, you could perhaps keep adjusting the state of the copy to match the state of the original, but it's still a copy, and as soon as you stop adjusting the mental processes in the two will start diverging immediately (at various speeds, depending on the situation - differences in the environment could cause immediate divergence, but even if you kept the enviromnments identical, basic quantum effects will still ensure the states of the two brains won't remain the same).

      I philosophically agree with people that define a copy/replacement process as suicide; the replacement, even if identical to begin with is still a different person from me. So, no "upload to the machine", nor "Star Trek teleportation" for me. That doesn't mean there isn't a way to migrate to hardware, Kurzweill style, just that the process shouldn't be "snapshot and copy".

      I think the migration process should be via gradual extension, starting with grafts: develop small processing modules that can interface directly with the brain, and implant them into the body. I'd expect the initial stuff to be simple, maybe small enhancers for people with different nerve diseases. Later some more complex stuff, for example a device for advanced arithmetic, or a big knowledge database. When the graft recipient sees a complicated numerical calculation, or wants to know what the Latin word was for "soup", he shouldn't require any effort to compute the result, or search for the translation; he should just "know" the answer, just as if he recalled something he knew - while in reality the work was handled by the addon. As technology advances, I'd expect extra memory grafts, giving everybody total recall, followed by "intelligence" processing modules. The brain will gradually adapt and start using the extra resources, and some of the thinking and storage tasks will be done in silicon. As the capacity and capability of the machine parts increases, the percentage of the work handled by the biological components becomes smaller and smaller, until finally it becomes negligible compared to the total processing taking place. At this moment the biological brain can be discarded, and conscience has completely migrated to the machine seamlessly, with no discontinuity - without "suicide".

    102. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "Think like a dinosaur"

    103. Re:Awesome, but.. by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      You are considering the implications of creating a perfect copy of someone that can hold their self awareness. I don't see why this wouldn't make another copy of the self awareness/ self conscouisness.

      Self awareness does not imply uniqueness. I think we are in some level of agreement that somewhere around 7 billion organisms on this planet all possess self awareness. We even have cases of organism pairs that have identical DNA and are both self aware.

      Making an exact copy of yourself with it's own self awareness does not imply that it would be somehow magically or psychically linked to you. I can only think that both copies would go forward with identical memories and thoughts, but as soon as they start recieving different stimuli through their sensory organs, their thoughts, personalities and memory recalls would start to diverge.

    104. Re:Awesome, but.. by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Why does it matter if there is a continuity of your consciousness? If the end result is my body with my mind and consciousness inside it, seemingly identical to before the process, how does the journey matter? I can understand anxiety about doing it, but afterwards it is a simple matter of whether you are still alive or not.

    105. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mech can squash your nerve tissue :P

    106. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was. It was an episode of The Outer Limits called Think Like A Dinosaur.

    107. Re:Awesome, but.. by Boscrossos · · Score: 1

      Well, you actually can't transfer yourself to a computer. The way I see it, you make a copy of yourself into the computer, then kill your meat self (which , I should add, still also has your conscience in it!), and the copy in the machine keeps on going. The question is, really, wether this counts as "you" transferring to the machine, or a copy of you continuing after you have killed yourself. Is this copy still you? It'll think it is. But then, so will the meat body you.

      --
      Jesus saves... the rest takes full damage.
    108. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now consider the possibility that our forward progress through time is merely an illusion of memory. At any given point in time we can only remember those things that happened previously. But our awareness is instantaneous. I can not decide to think in the past since it has already occurred. Neither can I currently think in the future since it has not occurred yet. I can only think now, in this instant, with memory only extending into the past. So no matter how time actually manifests itself, it will always appear that I am traveling forward through time. This illusion of awareness taking a specific amount of time is merely my memory, and I only exist in an instant (approaching no period of time). I can't even tell which instant I exist in, or if I exist in several, or even all instants simultaneously. Did I exist previously? Only my memory says so. Will I exist after this instant? Only my memory suggests that I will.

    109. Re:Awesome, but.. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      There was a radio play on BBC Radio 4 a few years ago on exactly this subject, a woman who had teleported and the "old her" hadn't been removed due to a malfunction. They come to kill the "old her", and she's of course not really happy about this.

    110. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 6th Day?

    111. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the problem. Of course they would be self aware and of course there's no magical link between both. The conclusion is that, existing at the same time, there are not the same person despite sharing memories knowledge personality and cognition patterns. From the point of view of both the original and copy, death of their body, even if the other lives, death still means oblivion because none are philosophical zombie. If we were philosophical zombies there would be no problem but we all know we are self aware which should not be possible. Unfortunately, I don't think we'd understand what self aware really means and how it is achieved within my lifetime. Till then, all of this is purposeless philosophising.

    112. Re:Awesome, but.. by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Race conditions, temperature variations causing differences in io block times? If you can create two actually identical machines, you're a better engineer than... anyone.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    113. Re:Awesome, but.. by aug24 · · Score: 1
      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    114. Re:Awesome, but.. by gorzek · · Score: 1

      The results should still be the same, assuming you have structured your systems meticulously and accounted for any errors. Intel has an interesting article about deterministic parallelization.

      As I said, if you introduce any deliberately random elements, you will obviously not get the same results. But if both systems have been developed to produce entirely deterministic results, and use adequate data validation to ensure no errors creep in, the results would be identical.

      You guys telling me it's not possible to write a program that behaves the same way and produces the same results on more than one system? Might as well toss out the entire field of Computer Science, then. :-p

      I admit it's not easy to do this, the more complex a program gets, but it is by no means impossible.

    115. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out The Prestige. Set in the past and involving magicians (and Nikolas Tesla :) ), but seriously involves the duplicate creastion problem.

    116. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more or less the argument of The Prestige. The real transported man trick was a teleporting aparatus that duplicated the individual.

    117. Re:Awesome, but.. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      It matters because of two possibilities. First, the end result may not be truly identical, despite appearing the same to every objective test we can devise. If there is a non-physical component to consciousness (and I'm not saying that there is), it would almost have to be beyond our ability to measure or quantify. The end result may be the same, physically, and even have your memories and thought processes and quirks, and yet not actually be you in a way that you, and perhaps others, can perceive but not quite explain.

      Second, and more objectively, the alternatives generally involve creating a clone. At some point there are two complete living entities, and, to complete the transfer, one of them has to be killed. The end result may be the same, but I think most people would be very uncomfortable with the idea of being killed by or for their clone, even if no one else could tell the difference afterward.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    118. Re:Awesome, but.. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you look at it. Personally I would rather be a machine made out of non-biological components. If I could transfer my brain into a computer today I would do it.

      Biological systems are too erratic for my tastes. I want perfect consistency.

      Just send me a million dollars and I'll email you details of the fucking singularity, and how to achieve iit now!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    119. Re:Awesome, but.. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Much better to exist as a perfect simulation in an editable virtual world.

      If yu find reality inadequate or disappointing, transporting yourself into a virtual world isn't going to solve your issues.

      Just saying.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    120. Re:Awesome, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    121. Re:Awesome, but.. by holmstar · · Score: 1

      That assumes that the silicon analogue cells actually replicate consciousness. Since we cant explain consciousness at this point, it would be a pretty big thing to assume. With sufficiently advanced knowledge, I'm sure it's possible, but we're not anywhere near "sufficiently advanced" at this point.

    122. Re:Awesome, but.. by holmstar · · Score: 1

      until finally it becomes negligible compared to the total processing taking place. At this moment the biological brain can be discarded, and conscience has completely migrated to the machine seamlessly, with no discontinuity - without "suicide".

      Ah... maybe. Or maybe the machine portion starts doing most of the thinking as your brain loses function. Like brain damage, but on purpose. But you don't notice it since the machine is replacing the lost functions.

      That the machine is replacing lost functionality does not automatically imply that it is taking on your consciousness. When the biological portion of your brain is gone, or just shriveled mostly away, your consciousness may go with it. Not that anyone else would notice, since the mechanical/silicon you would still act the same.

      Without knowing how consciousness works there is no way to say one way or the other.

    123. Re:Awesome, but.. by holmstar · · Score: 1

      Well, the "you" at the destination would believe that everything worked wonderfully. That doesn't mean that you didn't die though. The original stream of consciousness that defined the original you probably ended when you entered the transporter.

    124. Re:Awesome, but.. by LucienChase · · Score: 1

      Hi there, I'm a long time reader, but first time commenter. I know this thread is kind of old, but after the parent comment, I felt that I should bring attention to the excellent book "The Resurrected Man" by Sean Williams, which deals with the near-same situation as the post above details. The book's a few years old now, but well worth the read!

    125. Re:Awesome, but.. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      There are quite a few instances where they have used the transporter as a weapon. Although I agree it's odd that they haven't been more creative with it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    126. Re:Awesome, but.. by oreiasecaman · · Score: 1

      If all that singularity stuff proves to be true we'll see it during our lifetimes... but that's a big IF right there, and all one can do is only hope :)

      --
      This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
    127. Re:Awesome, but.. by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      If they used it all the time I suppose it would be like superman incinerating his opponents at the start of every fight, and I'd complain about that instead :S but I definitely agree that they lacked creativity with it.

  2. Meh... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Call me when you have a flying exoskeleton.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      close enough? http://www.ted.com/talks/yves_rossy_fly_with_the_jetman.html

    2. Re:Meh... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Informative

      After taking the time to actually watch the video, I'm impressed (and not just by the cute chick). I'm also surprised that the current model still requires remote-control input from the therapist, though they say that will be sorted out in the next version. In the end, it's all about the user experience, and this girl seems to be pretty enthusiastic about it. Kudos!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    3. Re:Meh... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm also surprised that the current model still requires remote-control input from the therapist, though they say that will be sorted out in the next version.

      Except the remote control aspect could be a serious problem: It's The Wrong Trousers, Gromit, and they've gone wrong!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Meh... by forkfail · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for dual fusion cannons and plasteel armor.

      --
      Check your premises.
    5. Re:Meh... by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      So that's why Stephen Hawking was looking for a full time engineer....

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  3. No bionic man yet by elrous0 · · Score: 2

    Exoskeletons and robotic limbs are kind of like self-driving cars. Every few years, you see a news report on supposed progress made. Some prototype is demonstrated. And nothing ever comes of it.

    So we're always hearing about some great new advancement for paraplegics or amputees and yet every time you walk into a hospital, they're still using the same basic wheelchairs, hooks, and simple artificial limbs they've been using for decades (with a few advancements like electric wheelchairs and improved gripping on the hooks).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:No bionic man yet by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Luxury vehicles have had optional fully automatic parallel parking for a couple years now.

      Next year some production models of mid range vehicles have optional automated lane drift correction.

      We also have cruise control systems that automatically brake when you approach slower traffic.

      So if exoskeletons are like self driving cars, then expect them to rapidly progress over the next decade and see some comercial deployment, but don't expect anything as bad ass as Starship Troopers power armor.

    2. Re:No bionic man yet by chronoglass · · Score: 1

      oh, the new stuff is out there and in use by a number of people.. but because it's a medical device instead of a toy made by hasboro it's 20k instead of 300 dollars. which one do you think is covered by .

      if you add the word medical to your product you increase it's cost by 1000%(don't worry, you've got insurance right?), tactical only gets you about 175% anymore(because the government seems more worried about "cyber").. and cyber seems to have moved into the negatives in the private space, though that gubbment check can make up for it.. i think they actually called the naked body scanners cyber medical scanners for tactical purposes.. so we're gettin raped on taxes as WELL as in the airports!

    3. Re:No bionic man yet by chronoglass · · Score: 1

      woops "insert big bad insurance company here" got taken out after "which one do you think is covered by"

    4. Re:No bionic man yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but don't expect anything as bad ass as Starship Troopers power armor.

      Can we at least get the micronukes?

    5. Re:No bionic man yet by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Exoskeletons and robotic limbs are kind of like self-driving cars. Every few years, you see a news report on supposed progress made. Some prototype is demonstrated. And nothing ever comes of it.

      So we're always hearing about some great new advancement for paraplegics or amputees and yet every time you walk into a hospital, they're still using the same basic wheelchairs, hooks, and simple artificial limbs they've been using for decades (with a few advancements like electric wheelchairs and improved gripping on the hooks).

      "They can fix a spine. But not on vet benefits, not in this economy."

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:No bionic man yet by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 5, Funny
    7. Re:No bionic man yet by maroberts · · Score: 1

      but don't expect anything as bad ass as Starship Troopers power armor.

      Can we at least get the micronukes?

      We already have the micronukes. Proper exoskeletons are much more complicated.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    8. Re:No bionic man yet by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not true, if you add medical to the product it has to go through much more strenuous testing for FDA approval. It has absolutely nothing to do with insurance companies and everything to do with the fact that medical devices are expected to do no harm under even fewer circumstances than normal devices and have to have a therapeutic or medical use as well.

      That costs money and quite frankly you do get a more reliable and better built piece of hardware in virtually all cases.

    9. Re:No bionic man yet by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Exoskeletons and robotic limbs are kind of like self-driving cars. Every few years, you see a news report on supposed progress made. Some prototype is demonstrated.

      20 something years VW was demoning a self parking car prototype, then nothing every came of that... till a little while ago when automatic parking starting becoming a feature seen in regular everyday cars. Also ePaper, years and years of prototype and tech demo and nothing usable of even buyable, then Kindle happened. New technology simply takes a while to get from first prototype to mass market and when you sit at the sidelines reading news reports about it all the time, it might seem like there isn't any progress, yet it still happens.

      Now exoskeletons might not have quite the mass market appeal as a Kindle, but there is still plenty of demand (i.e. elderly people) that I have little double that 10 or 20 years down the road those things won't be something you only see on some tech demo video, but something that walks by you on the street.

    10. Re:No bionic man yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I want them on my wheel chair.

    11. Re:No bionic man yet by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, 20 years- length of a patent. I wonder if there is a correlation.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    12. Re:No bionic man yet by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Well, since cars have been around for a century, I wouldn't expect the explosion in development you're predicting.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  4. I'm confused by bigattichouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's a post office?

    --
    meh
    1. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is were you pickup your online orders when you choose the cheap shipping option and miss the delivery. ;)

    2. Re:I'm confused by virgnarus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hobby shop for stamp collectors.

    3. Re:I'm confused by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      It's a place similar to the Monty Python sketch where people go for abuse or an argument. "Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!"

    4. Re:I'm confused by forkfail · · Score: 1

      It's one of those antiquated things from the time when people had this archaic idea that not quite everything needed to be monetized directly; that there were certain things that a nation should provide as services that would not show a direct and immediate profit from, but which would ensure long term freedom and prosperity.

      However, the role of the post office changed from that of conveyor of communication between individuals into an entity that was expected to make money serving corporate interests by delivering pound upon pound of junk mail on a daily basis. Though it struggled valiantly to serve the tier one citizens of the nation (the corporations who generated all this junk mail), it failed, and thus, it will soon not be possible to send a letter or Christmas card.

      (See also, "Going Postal", by Terry Pratchett)

      --
      Check your premises.
    5. Re:I'm confused by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      It's a place similar to the Monty Python sketch where people go for abuse or an argument.

      No it isn't.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  5. Would have gotten first post.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But my experimental exoskeleton segfaulted... :-(

  6. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a class two rating.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Ob by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Be my guest...

      --
      Loading...
    2. Re:Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get away from her you BITCH!

  7. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Welcome our new exo-skeleton outfitted Stephen Hawking overlord.

  8. Less insulting jokes too. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't want to tangle with someone with a powered suit of armor.

    Would you?

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Less insulting jokes too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends........ Is there a big red "Power" button on the back that I can push to turn it off?

    2. Re:Less insulting jokes too. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Depends ... am I an alien queen on a space ship near the airlock, or on a nice planet somewhere?

  9. previous stories by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fwiw, previous coverage on Slashdot of related products:

    Human Exoskeletons Getting Closer (March 2009)

    Elder-Assist Robotic Suits, From the Real Cyberdyne (October 2009)

    eLEGS Exoskeleton Allows Paraplegics To Walk (October 2010)

    1. Re:previous stories by shadowrat · · Score: 0

      this exoskeleton appears to feature a passenger with great, um, assets?

  10. Nice but by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Who but the ridiculously wealthy will be able to afford them?

    1. Re:Nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who but the ridiculously wealthy will be able to afford them?

      Same thing could be said about wheelchairs for a good 1/3 of the world's population.

    2. Re:Nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry Mitch but this is the way it works...
       
      Early adopters pay out big money
      If there is a demand the big money pays for R&D to make the technology accessible at a lower price point
      A large customer base continues to pay for R&D
      the cycle continues...

    3. Re:Nice but by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet another reason why medical costs are shooting through the roof. Add to that, manual wheelchairs are carbon neutral. Electric wheel chairs can be decently effecient (the manufactures try their best for efficiency only to improve battery life, but that's a rare example of capitalism working). This, however, is likely to be an energy hog, and contribute to the death of the planet.

      Of all the things to be worried about, the power used by exoskelatons / wheelchairs / HULC suits and other aliens are really at the bottom of the list.

      Is your ability to look at orders-of-magnitude problems that impaired?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Nice but by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      Are wheelchairs in fact carbon neutral? Even disregarding carbon during manufacturing/delivery to the point where it is at your door, can you say positively that a user does not burn more calories using a wheelchair versus other alternatives of getting around? Can you say that calories not burned by someone wearing an efficient exoskeleton will never outweigh the energy savings of a wheelchair or alternatives? Engineers have to work around many many parameters when designing solutions, and despite how much everyone nowadays wants to be green and talk about carbon, energy usage is not always a top priority especially in the medical industry.

    5. Re:Nice but by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That is why there is Insurance.

      Insurance is a form of Socialized health care were everyone who in the plan pays for everyone else's healthcare.

      That is why Obama Care wants everyone to have insurance. No so much as the sick but because the healthy low cost people are paying to help cover the costs of the sick people. Right now the healthy are opting out of health care so the high costs of health care is split across the sick.

      That said. If everyone has health care there could be an increase in demand for health care, which would push the prices higher.

      I guess we will see what happens.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your ability to look at orders-of-magnitude problems that impaired?
       
      Of course it is. The poster railing on about "a rare example of capitalism working" is a classic sign on being a total douche.

    7. Re:Nice but by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      And this is why people don't take the enviro-nuts seriously. If you seriously believed in being carbon neutral you would give up all your fancy planet killing technology and go join some group like the Amish. There is a thing called quality of life and some of us believe that it is important.

    8. Re:Nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Choice 1: Give up technology and live like the Amish

      Choice 2: Say fuck it and pollute as much as you want

      If only there were some 3rd less idiotic choice.

    9. Re:Nice but by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are wheelchairs in fact carbon neutral?

      It's rather impolite to do so but some people refer to disabled people as "vegetables", and since vegetables are plants then it's possible they extract C02 from the atmosphere by photosynthesis.

      Then agian it's possible that the GP is the kind of flid whom throws around technical sounding terms in an attempt to seem exponentially smarter than he really is.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Nice but by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      If everyone has health care there could be an increase in demand for health care, which would push the prices higher.

      As opposed to not everyone having health care, which not reduces the demand for health care because people can't afford it, but reduces it permanently as people die.

      It's win win!

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:Nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The description of the exo-hiker seemed efficient to me. A 1.2 lb battery powers an 80 watt propulsion system transporting 140 lbs + hiker for 21 hours (I believe up to 42) miles. It also had an option for a PV system to extend the range. If it were affordable, I would so get that. Think of how far you could go between sites that had water if you carrying over 100 lbs of water (100 pints = 50 quarts = 25 days maybe, since you wouldn't be exerting yourself in carrying it).

    12. Re:Nice but by rcp · · Score: 1

      Are wheelchairs in fact carbon neutral? Even disregarding carbon during manufacturing/delivery to the point where it is at your door, can you say positively that a user does not burn more calories using a wheelchair versus other alternatives of getting around? Can you say that calories not burned by someone wearing an efficient exoskeleton will never outweigh the energy savings of a wheelchair or alternatives?

      To treat your questions seriously, yes a manual wheelchair is carbon neutral.

      - Carbon from manufacturing/delivery is comparable to a artisan-made bicycle - approx same manufacturing process, and style and size of business.
      - Pushing a wheelchair burns about as many calories as walking. If you think about this it makes sense - you have smaller muscles called upon to do the work, but you're engaging less of your body in the effort, and you have the mechanical advantage of wheel.

      Some data's available here, which puts wheelchair in the middle of light exertion walking.
      http://caloriecount.about.com/activities-walking-ac17

      Finally, using a wheelchairs all about sitting on your ass all day - how couldn't it burn less calories! :-)

  11. As per Ripley. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Get away from her, you bitch!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  12. As a transhumanist... by DC2088 · · Score: 1

    ... today is a good day. Let's keep along this road to the inevitable endoskeletal/replacement limb assistance for paraplegics. This is an excellent step - no pun intended.

    1. Re:As a transhumanist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Shaper Coalition thinks you are, in fact, a Mechanist pretending to be a Transhumanist. Thank you for stepping forward.

  13. 2012 - year of the exoskeleton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, so THIS will be the year of the exoskeleton then!

  14. All Hail Stephen Hawking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one am pleased to meet our new robotic exoskeleton overlords.

  15. Need to industrialize it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then send them to fight queen aliens.

  16. Anyone remember M.A.N.T.I.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. I fear for humanity... by nman64 · · Score: 2

    ...when I see a company developing robotic exoskeletons for humans run by a CEO named Bender. This development could cover both "embrace" and "extend". I think we all know what comes next.

  18. Stephen Hawking by Leif_Bloomquist · · Score: 4, Funny
  19. William Gibson dixit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one remembering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Winter_Market ?

  20. Could they have picked a goofier pose? by Osgeld · · Score: 0

    The woman in the video is clearly normal minus the use of her limbs, in fact it says

    "User Tamara Mena, who was paralyzed in 2005, gleefully puts her exoskeleton walking suit through its paces."

    So why did they choose the pose that makes her look "1 drool spot and a birthday hat" away from full blown retarded?

    1. Re:Could they have picked a goofier pose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't notice a pose and I have experience with a) mental health and addictions services b) physical disabilities c) mental disabilities and d) show biz.

      Either I'm a bit thick or you're projecting.

  21. Why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Instead of exoskeleton, why not Zoidberg?

    1. Re:Why not... by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      indeed.

  22. I love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Her boobs look great in that suit!

  23. What happened to ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... Dean Kamen's iBot wheelchair? Not quite as cool as an exoskeleton. But much more maneuverable than a standard wheelchair. And it leave your hands free.

    Sadly, it appears to have been discontinued. But it was far cheaper than $100K, so if J&J couldn't make a go of the cheaper technology, what are the chances of this contraption ever seeing a market?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:What happened to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Dean Kamen's iBot wheelchair?

      te/ds

      (too expensive / didn't sell)

    2. Re:What happened to ... by eriks · · Score: 1

      How about this one:

      http://www.gizmag.com/rochair-lever-rowed-wheelchair/20128/

      Human powered, and more maneuverable than a standard wheelchair.

    3. Re:What happened to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this one:

      http://www.gizmag.com/rochair-lever-rowed-wheelchair/20128/

      Human powered, and more maneuverable than a standard wheelchair.

      The Rochair is far from a universal solution. The biggest problem with it is that anyone without excellent trunk control is going to fall over forward on the "pull" stroke. This excludes many paraplegics or individuals with compromised trunks from using it.

      Seem like you can order one for about $5K: http://rotamobility.com/rochair/index.html I suspect it's unlikely you can get insurance to assist in funding the purchase of one.

      So it fills a niche, of able-enough chair/scooter users looking for mechanical advantage in propulsion, but don't expect it to replace the norm.

  24. sounds sensible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because wheelchairs are just so cheap, lets offer them something more expensive

  25. How about an exoskeleton? by james_van · · Score: 1

    That'd be great except for a few minor details: Wheelchairs are easier to maintain (fewer moving parts, much larger network of parts and support providers), wheelchairs are easier to transport (they fold up nicely and fit easily in the backseat of a car), they are easy to use (no instruction required, it's very self explanatory), they don't require power (granted, some do, but the average wheelchair is "self powered"), and - here's the kicker - much much much cheaper (yes, i know that theyre very expensive, especially for the high end ones, but compared to the cost of an exoskeleton, they are much cheaper). Personally, I'm all for exoskeletons and I personally know people in wheelchairs who I would love to see up and walking, but the challenges of making this into a reality are massive. That being said, once those challenges are overcome, I will jump in line to purchase one and upgrade/weaponize/harden/repaint/awsome-ize it and proceed to be a nuisance to my neighborhood.

    1. Re:How about an exoskeleton? by b0bby · · Score: 1

      From the article/video, they're using this generation as a rehab tool, letting the user "walk" for an hour or so with a therapist walking behind them controlling the steps. It's not a wheelchair replacement, at least not yet. If someone works out with this regularly, then when the next generation comes along they may be able to use it by themselves.

  26. Re:Sounds like a great idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny because Reagan, figurehead of the ideology you parody, became the very drooling retard his regime would toss into the streets to be left to die.

    As a non-American, I am in two minds about the guy. On the one hand, his work laid the path to the destruction of America over the following two decades. On the other, like Thatcher, his obsession with selling off the family silver to the most abusive bidder has led to the rise of China.

  27. Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how the person selected for the demonstration is a blonde with huge tits. I'm sure out of all possible users, she was selected at random.

    1. Re:Model by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      She's a paraplegic motivational speaker (I'm sure that the tits didn't hurt though).

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
  28. Need an exoskeleton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not Zoidberg?

    1. Re:Need an exoskeleton? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It would tip over due to his huge nose.

      Sorry, thought you said Zuckerberg.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  29. ftfy Re:2012 - year of the exoskeleton by Fubari · · Score: 1

    "Ah, so THIS will be the year of the exoskeleton on the desktop then!"
    Fixed that for ya :-)

  30. Unfortunately Rudimentary by djbckr · · Score: 1

    I watched the video, and the only thing I could think of was, "This thing is quite rudimentary." It's not even close to seeing the light of day - certainly not by the end of 2012. Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction (pun intended), but not ready for market.

    1. Re:Unfortunately Rudimentary by SpacePirate20X6 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that, from the video and article, these users have only just begun using the device. It stated in the article that a significant issue is the individual learning how to balance themselves; I assume after that point the whole mechanism looks much more fluid.

      Combine this with an EEG, and perhaps we could see people walking around without walking sticks in less than a decade.

  31. So interesting... by Genda · · Score: 1

    There are simply dozens of ways to address the frailty of the human body and the injuries we acquire as a function of living in a modern society filled with great big moving metal objects. The machines that convey us, so exceed the designs of being human its almost mind numbing. The fastest vehicles travel faster than Mach 20. The human body is designed to travel at distance at around at 5-10 mph and in short sprints at around 15 mph. You fall or bang into something going that fast and you will probably sprain or break something. Simply incredible.

    The first thing we will do is augment externally. This is however crude and inelegant. Shortly after we will begin to seriously augmenting internally (actually these trends are already in place, there are plenty of implant for the human body today, but that number is soon to explode), and there will be significant overlap between the two. Next we will have control of our physiology at the genetic then molecular level with the advent of nanotechnology and our bodies will become artwork. Designs that will be interesting, unique, specific to a given need. This will be the beginning of true super humans, and the species with transform. Finally, as our augmented selves determine the best materials from which to build bodies and minds, we may well migrate from protein. Who's to say.

  32. Let's make these things universally available by russotto · · Score: 1

    Then we can get rid of almost all that damned handicapped parking.

    And if someone does take the remaining space so the poor sod who can't use an exoskeleton can't use it, another guy with an exoskeleton can just pick up the car and move it out of the way.

  33. Legs and feet, dammit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to be able to feel my feet trampled over instead of rolled over for a change, dammit! I hope they don't forget "sexy" in making those exoskeletons. The future of machine assisted sex will be interesting.

  34. Aging is like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need organ replacements for this effect. Just grow older. You'll genuinely feel like a different person/being.

  35. army also does R&D and this seems to have big by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    uses in the army and they spend big time to pay for stuff like this.

  36. You've never heard of 'The Trouble with Tribbles"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really?

    And you post on slashdot? Why?

    Please turn in your Geek card and don't let the portal vaporize your ass on the way out.
    Cheers.

  37. Depends by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

    What if you stay conscious during the transfer to a new substrate?
    To use a car analogy, say you drive your car up a ramp into a large truck, step out of your car, dump the car off the truck, then continue driving in the truck.

    --
    It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
  38. TED Talk about the Ekso by HizookRobotics · · Score: 1

    FYI, there was a TED talk about Ekso (formerly Berkeley Bionics): http://www.ted.com/talks/eythor_bender_demos_human_exoskeletons.html

  39. strangely limited destinations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will there BE post offices to walk to 'in a few years'?

  40. Golden Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I certainly never expected my Golden years would end up looking like an episode of Exosquad

  41. public domain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but but but this is just what they've always been waiting for! If we digitize ourselves, or teleport/copy ourselves, won't "the life of the author" effectively be forever? At least the Pirate Party might gain some traction after the common culture and public domain have been completely scraped clean of anything remotely monetizable...

  42. I dont get it... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

    I can see many situation where an exoskeleton would be a great benefit, but not this one. Why are we using a mechanical device to solve a signalling issue?

    Surely with Paraplegics it would be easier and take far less power to electrically stimulate their existing muscles - either externally through TENS devices, or via implanted electrodes.

  43. Medical vrs Military by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    How does this model compare to the exoskeletons the military has developed to let soldiers carry more weight? I get that there is some added sophistacation in the balancing and control algorthms needed to assist a parapalegic. But I wonder if the robotics is actually better or different. Is this just the same model as the military version but spun off for medical use?

  44. MANTIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone remember this show?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.A.N.T.I.S.

  45. It's Such a Beautiful Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an Asimov short story "It's Such a Beautiful Day" that features a society that prides itself (due to the expense) on using only Doors (Stargate-like portals) to travel between buildings, never going or even seeing outside; and a boy who chooses an unusual way to return from school.

  46. The replacement does not destroy brain structure by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Most of the replacement is in part of the cell going out and in, not a total cell replacement, occuring only after cell death which happens much more rarely in the brain than in the rest of the body. So whereas it is true that our "molecules/atoms" are getting shifted around while the cells live, it is a fallacy to generalize that and say our cell in our brain are so much getting replaced that we are only a patern.

    You are not a self "propagating patern", what the heck is that anyway ? Made up definition day ? The brain as we understand it is a serie of cell , neurone , interconnected in a vast network. Each neurone has its own potential, triggering, connection to many other neighbor neurons. Learning change those connection and potentiel triggering. "you" are not only the set of potential each neuron has, you are a whole , the set of potential at any moment WITH the network connection. You may be changing from day to day, but that change is gradual and not certainly not in neuron replacement.

    Now I can imagine giving the argument of replacing neuron by neuron with a silicon equivalent (which is not IMHO "uploading", as uploading would mean you jsut copy the neuron potential patern in a network having the same structure and behavior as the neuron). I think it would work since baring mythic things like "souls", we are just machines, complicated machines with massive parallel circuit and emergent associated property, but just machine. Now the technology to do that is as far away as you can imagine.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  47. Gift first one to Stefhan Hawking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gift first one to Stefhan Hawking, & test it out.

  48. Mod parent up. Was: Re:I'm confused by dead_cthulhu · · Score: 1

    Would have modded you myself, but I wanted to comment, since you made an excellent point. Certain services, like the post office, and passenger rail are vital infrastructure for any modern nation. If they manage to be self-sufficient, without needing taxpayer money, the better. But they are needed services even if they require subsidies. In these cases, public funding and operation provide better service for the users than any private attempt to do the same thing.

  49. Re:Sounds like a great idea... by dead_cthulhu · · Score: 1

    Only replying to this troll due to having too much Ambien and not much better to do at the moment.

    We need to do *more* for cripples, rather than less, because having them just sit there trying to survive off of disability cheques is a waste of resources. It makes more sense to help them contribute more. I remember sitting on a bus one day talking with some guy with no legs who was frustrated that his nearly broken wheelchair would take a few months to replace. The guy had all the credentials needed to become a psychologist. I'd *hope* that the folks at the Social Security office would do more than just hand him enough to avoid starvation and homelessness, but to maybe provide mental therapy *he* could have used (at least to overcome depression related to being stuck on disability), or at least a list of jobs at the local VA for qualified individuals. I'd figure, that a soldier coming back missing bits would more likely identify with a shrink who was also an amputee. Most disabled people *want* to work, and most *can* if given a bit of help.

    Oh, and hell, even retards are probably giving more to society than you. Just about everyone I've ever met who had Downs is a far better person than you'll ever be in your pathetic lifetime, and plenty of them manage to take care of themselves, work, and pay taxes.

  50. Imagine the hacks you could do! by sita · · Score: 1
  51. Done before, But don't know name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a book or movie about this. I remember only a couple details of it from when I was a kid. Something went wrong with the transportation system. The person was teleported, but the original station never got the ok signal and the original person was kept alive. Years later (the new person was on some long, distant mission/general work/something), somehow they both are discovered to be alive. Use of the teleporters were not every day occurrences, or at least they were shrowded in some sort of mistery (I think).

    Anyone know what I'm referring to? If /. doesn't know, I don't know who else would.