Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Develop Device That Can 'Hear' Your Internal Voice (theguardian.com)

Researchers have created a wearable device that can read people's minds when they use an internal voice, allowing them to control devices and ask queries without speaking. From a report: The device, called AlterEgo, can transcribe words that wearers verbalise internally but do not say out loud, using electrodes attached to the skin. "Our idea was: could we have a computing platform that's more internal, that melds human and machine in some ways and that feels like an internal extension of our own cognition?" said Arnav Kapur, who led the development of the system at MIT's Media Lab.

Kapur describes the headset as an "intelligence-augmentation" or IA device, and was presented at the Association for Computing Machinery's Intelligent User Interface conference in Tokyo. It is worn around the jaw and chin, clipped over the top of the ear to hold it in place. Four electrodes under the white plastic device make contact with the skin and pick up the subtle neuromuscular signals that are triggered when a person verbalises internally. When someone says words inside their head, artificial intelligence within the device can match particular signals to particular words, feeding them into a computer.

108 comments

  1. shwing! schwing! schwing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All day long everyday.

  2. That should be useful for interoogation purposes. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Don't think of the pink elephant. Don't think of the pink elephant."

    Damn. Thought of the pink elephant. Now they know.

    --
    "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  3. Mister Gant... by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..you must think in Russian.

    Think Russian.

    *whooooosh*

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:Mister Gant... by DarkLordBelial · · Score: 1

      Firefox!!

    2. Re:Mister Gant... by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Safari!!

      Am I doing this right?

    3. Re:Mister Gant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      prokofiev rakete?
      My Russian is close to nil but my Clint Eastwood runs fairly deep.
      Well done, sir.

  4. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are tremendous opportunities for entertainment with this!

    I can see this as the perfect party-game...

  5. NOT mind-reading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For folks wondering, this is more the realm of sub-vocal utterances. It isn't mind-reading, and reading too much into it is likely a mistake outside of niche human behavior research.

    You'd get the same result running a few filters on a mini-microphone stuck in your throat. At best, you're going to hear mumbling, perhaps some hyper-crude renditions of a song someone is thinking of, lots of hmms.

    As far as biometric time wasters go, seems OK - but this is basically one step below (yes, below) random polygraph junk in terms of data sources for 'truth' about someone.

  6. Nonverbal vocalizing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it is more reading the grumbling/mumbling silent vocalizing and not really your inner voice of consciousness, right?

    Still pretty cool and much better than a throat mike, but I think they are marketing it wrong.

  7. Re:That should be useful for interoogation purpose by myth24601 · · Score: 1

    "Don't think about screwing my buddy's wife."

    Damn.

    --
    No matter where you go, there you are.
  8. Pretty sure this isn't new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a device invented about 10-ish years ago that seems like the same thing. It would read the nerve impulses in your vocal cord region and derive words from them. And yes, this was done with unspoken words.

    https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-05/electronic-voice-box

  9. We're all screwed now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I just say that out loud?... or not?

  10. BS by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    More fake "innovation" from the MIT Media Lab. When have they actually produced something that might be useful? And I call baloney on the ability to identify non-verbalized words. Complete BS.

    1. Re:BS by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      And I call baloney on the ability to identify non-verbalized words.

      Well . . . that's what you say . . . but what are you really thinking . . .?

      Let's just strap our Interrogation Assistant onto your head to find out . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More fake "innovation" from the MIT Media Lab. When have they actually produced something that might be useful? And I call baloney on the ability to identify non-verbalized words. Complete BS.

      Just came to whine, did you? What have you contributed that might be useful? Empty criticisms of other people's efforts? Pointless knee-jerk negativity?

    3. Re:BS by AlanBDee · · Score: 2

      Looking at their wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., I see a fair amount of stuff that's gone to market.

      Some Media Lab-developed technologies made it into products or public software packages, such as the Lego Mindstorms, LEGO WeDo and the pointing stick in IBM laptop keyboards[citation needed], the Benton hologram used in most credit cards, the Fisher-Price's Symphony Painter,[22] the Nortel Wireless Mesh Network,[23] the NTT Comware Sensetable,[24] the Taito’s Karaoke-on-Demand Machine.[25] A 1994 device called the Sensor Chair used to control a musical orchestra was adapted by several car manufacturers into capacitive sensors to prevent dangerous airbag deployments.[26][27]

      It is a research facility so I actually expect that most of their research won't pan out directly into a product. This may not actually be very useful as a computer input interface but it might help in other ways like being able to better diagnose Autism, ADHD, schizophrenia or other mental disorders in people.

    4. Re:BS by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      More fake "innovation" from the MIT Media Lab. When have they actually produced something that might be useful? And I call baloney on the ability to identify non-verbalized words. Complete BS.

      I beg to differ, the MIT Media Lab isn't the first do achieve this, it has been done before, and with great success: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    5. Re:BS by sheramil · · Score: 1

      And I call baloney on the ability to identify non-verbalized words.

      I expect it would either not work at all, or work far too well, with someone suffering Tourette's.

    6. Re: BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well letâ(TM)s see:
      Touchscreens
      E-ink
      Robotic prosthetics
      Car GPS systems
      LEGO Mindstorms
      Holograms used in credit cards
      All originated at MIT Media Labs

      https://youtu.be/F_ci1Yb6MCA

    7. Re:BS by SlashGodet · · Score: 1

      Nope, Tourette's -- a person says (usually rude) things they are _not_ thinking. Terrible affliction.

    8. Re: BS by TrumpThemAll · · Score: 0

      So those are the best MIT can do? Pretty sad if you ask me.

    9. Re: BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A small minority of Tourettes sufferers do that. Most just make sounds and faces.

    10. Re:BS by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but I dare anyone to suggest a potential beneficial use of such a technology. The only thing such a device would ever be used for would be a state of oppression that humanity has never encountered before. AI is going to be bad enough as it is.

      Even IF it wasn't monopolized by governments to enslave the world (and that's a huge fucking if), I'm not so sure a world where everyone can read anyone else's mind is one I particularly care to live in.

      Y'all can go be ants somewhere the fuck else.

  11. Paging Mr. Eastwood by dnorman · · Score: 1
    --


    It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  12. Untrue headline and synopsis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously slash, step it up.

    Human machine interface using nonverbal cues is *not* hearing your fucking inner voice.

    The fuck.

  13. Maybe more useful for something else? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    My mind seems to be so scattered that I don't know if I'd be able to use this accurately. I can't even tell how many posts I've written then deleted because something else came to mind.

    Where I think this could be really cool though is transcribing dreams. It seems most days I can remember a portion of a dream, but never the entire thing. I think it would be neat to look and see what I was dreaming about.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  14. Pity Stephen Hawking's not around by XXongo · · Score: 1

    It's a pity Stephen Hawking is no longer with us. This would undoubtably speed up the rate at which he could communicate.

    1. Re:Pity Stephen Hawking's not around by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Given that it reads neuromuscular signals, I'm not sure it would actually have helped Stephen Hawking. But maybe it could have.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  15. Whoa. Did I just say that out loud? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... headset ... is worn around the jaw and chin, clipped over the top of the ear to hold it in place.
    Four electrodes under the white plastic device make contact with the skin ...

    Try getting through airport security wearing that and after it verbalizes your thoughts to the TSA agents.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Whoa. Did I just say that out loud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are these thoughts you speak of?

    2. Re:Whoa. Did I just say that out loud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      captcha: inhuman

  16. Re:Bullshit by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 5, Funny

    'Bullshit' - that is exactly what I thought, with my inner voice! But you transcribed it, so you must be able to read my mind... so this invention must really work! Even when I wasn't wearing it... ;)

    --
    William George
  17. Predicted by David Brin in "Earth" in 1990 by Paul+Johnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The science fiction book "Earth" by David Brin predicted exactly this back in 1990. Brin imagined a clip-on device that would interpret subvocalised words by measuring muscle movements in the chin and throat, exactly like this. He called it the "subvocal". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
    1. Re:Predicted by David Brin in "Earth" in 1990 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The science fiction book "Earth" by David Brin predicted exactly this back in 1990. Brin imagined a clip-on device that would interpret subvocalised words by measuring muscle movements in the chin and throat, exactly like this

      Ummmm ... isn't this just a throat mic, and haven't they been around for decades?

      This feels like someone has 'invented' something we've all known about for a very long time.

      Am I missing something here?

    2. Re:Predicted by David Brin in "Earth" in 1990 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Brin is the subhuman piece of shit who wrote Foundation's Triumph in 1999. It is the only piece of his disgusting filth I have ever had the misfortune of reading and I will never read anything else with his name on it..

      For what he and his scumbag cronies tried to do Asimov's Foundation, he needs to apologize to the entire world. Every single day for the rest of his miserable and pathetic little life.

    3. Re:Predicted by David Brin in "Earth" in 1990 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not the same. The throat mic pics up sound from the thoat. This allegedly picks up nerve impulses (jaw, tongue, voice box muscles) even when no sound is being generated.

      It's been in Sci-Fi books for a while (eg Ender's Game series).

      If the sensors pick up nerve impulses well enough, and now that voice recognition in the cloud is pretty good, it should be easy to train these systems to understand you while you're really speaking and then have them still understand you when you're not speaking out loud at all. Like with your mouth closed.

    4. Re:Predicted by David Brin in "Earth" in 1990 by drew_kime · · Score: 2

      The science fiction book "Earth" by David Brin predicted exactly this back in 1990.

      Orson Scott Card beat him with the earring to talk to Jane in Ender's Game in '85.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    5. Re:Predicted by David Brin in "Earth" in 1990 by gumpish · · Score: 1

      And Frank Herbert described the technology even earlier in the Dune series.

    6. Re:Predicted by David Brin in "Earth" in 1990 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      André Maurois, La machine à lire les pensées (The Machine that reads thoughts), 1937.
      Very similar story.
      I gather this is a pretty common idea that comes to many imaginative minds.

  18. Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If my thought-dreams could be seen they'd probably put my head in a guillotine.

    1. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's alright ma, it's life and life only.

    2. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could probably just simulate this by writing a script that inject 'goddamnit' and/or 'boobies!' every 30 seconds....
      Just me?
      Ok, just for me then...

  19. Subvocal recognition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocal_recognition

  20. Conceptually cool, but useless. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    The article has a professor talking about the potential military applications for communications. The thing is, subvocal microphones (attached right above the larynx) and bone conduction microphones already solve that problem with the military. And it also solves the problems that they are trying to solve of "secret communications with my device." Also, it looks significantly less stupid.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  21. Riiiiiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a world class mumbler, I've had the opportunity to listen to recordings of my speaking which even I could not understand. Almost everyone mumbles. That is, full articulation of words doesn't often happen. As any audiologist will tell you sentences (at least) aren't composed of words separated by voids, but run together. As they say, hearing is not the same as listening (or understanding). It would be interesting to find out what the number of atomic "words" the apparatus is able to distinguish. I'd guess less than a couple dozen.

  22. Which voice? by guruevi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have between 2 and 6 voices going on internally simultaneously, typically when I'm multitasking or mulling over a difficult problem, the voice keeps going on in the background (quite literally as if you're in a shared office) and occasionally interrupts the current primary conversation. I also have conversations with myself in my head and they have different voices.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Which voice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (nervously) Are any of those voices saying "Fire is the Cleanser... Fire is the Cleanser..." over and over?

    2. Re:Which voice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a bratty teenaged girl in my head and she tells me to eat chocolate cupcakes.

    3. Re:Which voice? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Woah, you might want to get that checked out!

    4. Re:Which voice? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It's quite normal I'm told as long as they aren't interrupting your life and they are your voices. The problem would be when you hear voices that you don't identify as your own.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    5. Re:Which voice? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, I talk to myself too, sometimes out loud. Of course, there is a question as to whether I'm actually "normal"!

    6. Re:Which voice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite normal I'm told

      Which voice told you that? Do the others agree?

  23. It's called sub vocalization. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it's been around for a while. See

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyN4ViZ21N0 (Posted March 2008)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spFIBtTVtAA (Posted March 2009)

    Nothing new here people, move along.

    1. Re:It's called sub vocalization. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least read the f***ing summary before going off half-cocked and proving what an idiot you are. Now go back to watching porn in your mommy's basement.

  24. They mistook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My internal farts for my internal voice. I know it's tough to tell the difference.

  25. Re: Bullshit by peragrin · · Score: 2

    Kind of my thought. When you subvocalize words internally your voice box actually twiches to make the sounds you just don't move your lips and tongue to say them.

    This is different from picking your thoughts which uses a different mechanism.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  26. Beer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it beer?

  27. But can it smell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my inner farts?

  28. except that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that people don't use their vocal apparatus when they use their inner voice...

  29. Mine always says Nom Nom Nom by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Guess it's working perfectly

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  30. Come, on we know you. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Come on Cambridge analytica, we spot you. Don't think you got us fooled for a minute.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  31. What if you don't think in words? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Although I can think in words when I explicitly want to, I find that the most accurate way to describe how I normally think is in terms of either images or else general concepts that I have an intuitive understanding of or at least the ability to imagine.

    1. Re:What if you don't think in words? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      I think this is the point. To use this device, you would have to consciously think in words. It wouldn't be able to pick up on the other stuff. This (might) allow you to control what the device picks up.

  32. Does everyone have an inner voice? by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Robert J. Sawyer in his book Quantum Night mentioned this sort of idea.

    He suggested that Philosophical Zombies would not have an inner voice, they in reality go through the motions of every day life without actually carrying on an inner monologue and they just fake it to fit in. He gives a lot of examples of strange human behaviour that are explained by the idea. For example mob mentality if many people are running a simple "just fit in" script in their brains instead of a real train of sapient thought.

    No matter what, if this device really works, we are going to learn a lot more about human consciousness from it over the next decade.

    1. Re:Does everyone have an inner voice? by psnyder · · Score: 1

      Except some of us don't always think in words. We think in pictures & diagrams coupled with movements. Of course we think in words too. But that mode of thought is often too slow. An easy example would be solving a Rubix cube. Thinking in words would cripple the process.

      I think most people think like this at different times. I find thinking in words useful when communicating or when solidifying/defining something in my head. But if I try to go through the day while thinking in words, my next sentence interrupts almost as soon as each new sentence starts, since that thought "bundle" has already been processed and understood.

  33. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes and no

    You can subvocalise like that
    But certainly the Sunday is claiming access to your internal voice, not subvocalised speach.

    Not reverb close to the same thing.
    So certainly the summary is bs.

    That and the fact that their sensors are not in the right place for voice box monitoring anyway.
    So this looks to be little more that old fashioned muscle tracking, so they are monitoring mostly tongue movement.

  34. interior voice or subvocalization? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Can someone who's read the article please tell me if we're talking about some kind of mindreading horseshit or subvocalization?

    It's Friday and I've been drinking since 11am and I really can't be bothered to click the link.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:interior voice or subvocalization? by markjhood2003 · · Score: 1

      It appears to be some sort of subvocal recognition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... has a bit about the subject, but with no citations to the research.

    2. Re:interior voice or subvocalization? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Some time ago, I worked on a project that used subvocalization to create formants and envelopes to synthesize spoken (and sung) words. I was working on the synthesis part and not the subvocalization part, which I still don't quite understand. I didn't see what happened to the project because I moved on to something else.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  35. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subconscious is best realized through your nerve endings. The most nerves are in your nose and in your butthole.

  36. Re: Bullshit by sheramil · · Score: 2

    Kind of my thought. When you subvocalize words internally your voice box actually twiches to make the sounds you just don't move your lips and tongue to say them.

    This might explain why my voice is so tired. I usually have a tune running through my head, pretty much 24/7, and right now it's playing "Rosetta Stoned" by Tool, and I don't have Brother Maynard's vocal range.

  37. bigbrother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously this will be used to extract confessions from accused persons. Politicians and televangelists will be granted immunity from anything they think.

  38. Orwellian by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

    Can you say "thoughtcrime?"

    1. Re:Orwellian by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's the thing. You don't *HAVE* to say it.

    2. Re:Orwellian by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

      *big grin*

    3. Re:Orwellian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it doesn't even have to work... All it needs to do is print out "I confess, I did it" whenever someone hits a button.

      Or just use a photocopier instead like this example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN7pkFNEg5c

      In the end, there's no way to tell if someone's inner voice is telling the truth... Many innocent people, under interrogation, start to question even their own innocence. Inner voice is important like that.

  39. You just missed Elizabeth and Abraham... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I can join the fellowship!

  40. Re: Bullshit by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    It's what did I lock the door I should really go to bed where's the cat what bread should I get tomorrow where did I put my phone why isn't whelmed a word whatever happened to Limahl I thought too.

  41. Distopian Vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is just the exact type of AI that should not be developed. Do we really want anyone, let alone the government, be able to immobilize us somehow strap this on us and either use it as a lie detector or to read thoughts that we have never tried to NOT subvocalize. In fact the real market may be in courses that teach you to not think in words at all!

  42. Re:That should be useful for interoogation purpose by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Yeah, mod you all the way up, first thing that occurred to me. This will be used by law enforcement, and there will be Supreme Court challenges to it's use, as it would violate someone's 5th Amendment rights, I believe. Of course all of this is assuming the device actually works as advertised, with accuracy, and isn't just a bunch of overhyped or fake tech.

  43. Re: Bullshit by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "But certainly the Sunday is claiming access to your internal voice, not subvocalised speach."

    You mean that voice, that tells me to kill everybody, that I'm hearing all the time?

  44. Re: Bullshit by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "pretty much 24/7, and right now it's playing "Rosetta Stoned" by Tool, and I don't have Brother Maynard's vocal range."

    Just rap it, that should be doable with 3 tones.

  45. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Practice practice practice.
    Vocal range is from practice.

  46. 2002 by kamathln · · Score: 1

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    In 2002, the Japanese company NTT DoCoMo announced it had created a silent mobile phone using electromyography and imaging of lip movement. "The spur to developing such a phone," ...

  47. Re:Bullshit by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Oh, how amazingly insightful, thank you professor.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  48. The new 'Lie Detector' by jtgd · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have any doubts that this will instantly be used by law enforcement and your government?

    I didn't think so.

    --
    J
  49. Re:That should be useful for interoogation purpose by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Even if it works as described, it seems like it's still useless if a person thinks in terms of pictures or general concepts and not words.

  50. Famous last un-words by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "That dress makes your ass look big"

  51. This reminds me (very much) of what I saw yesterda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw a story yesterday. Instead of using millions of dollars of equipment, a group of researchers used the el-cheapo (ok say a couple thousand bucks) version of a brain wave scanner: basically about 20 probes that you can attach to your head (they can be mounted into something like a cap that you put on). They recorded brain waves from users, and while feeding the brain wave sources into an AI computer, showed people pictures of many different people. After about 15 minutes, they asked the person to think about someone and what they looked like. They reversed the process (read the brain waves) and it came up with a picture. They then asked them who the person was, and showed a picture of them beside the 'brain wave' picture. And they were *damn* close. Not perfect, slightly blurry, but very definitely the same person. And this was from cheap hardware. We are 20 years away from reading what people are thinking by machine.

  52. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't they create some thing like this for cats and dogs??
    How did that turn out?

  53. Snake Plissken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brain-reading will make it so much easier for AI to destroy us all. The tech world is full of brilliant short-sighted idiots.

  54. Re: Bullshit by TrumpThemAll · · Score: 0

    I was going to ask if it can hear my internal voice on reading this article, but aparantly everyone can....

  55. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A psychologist did something similar as an experiment. He was able to pick up the voices (audio hallucinations) that someone was hearing in their head.

  56. My inner thoughts for the last 2 minutes by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    AUGH! Learn to type as**ole!
    Take it easy. Ok. Never mind. Rented fingers.
    Does the JOIN get fully analyzed before the WHERE?
    I will never effing understand this elliptic curve s**t
    Man I really have to poop now
    Check slashdot first. What's the stock market doing
    Tweet this trump. I knew I shoulda bought amazon.
    Fricking Microsoft! How could you NOT implement shortcircuit IF?
    "Not in HTML5". Great.
    Supersix EVO. oh yea baby. 64 cm ought to do it. Man that bitch is 'spensive.
    Crap. Is it Len() or Length()? My mind is turning to mush.
    Note to self. Renew Methylphenidate script.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  57. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were a visual thinker, you could think all those things within the span of two seconds.

  58. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's all fucking well and good until the fuckers find out how many of our internal fucking voices suffer from fucking tourettes" was mine. Really not looking forward to the day they start fitting this technology to guns though.

  59. Re: Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly this technology is already too powerful!

  60. Re: Bullshit by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

    Oh, the one that started out sounding like Woody Allen on acid and as the world grew more insane now has the authoritative voice of Maximillian P. Arturo and sounds reasonable.....?

    Yeah, I feed that fucker lots of weed and GTA...keeps him sedated and sated. ....for now.....

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  61. Exactly like anal dilation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goatse didn't get an asshole like that from nothing. :)

  62. Given that you still use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "lie detectors", fingetprints, hair/gene analysis, lineups, witnesses, and similar unscientific nonsense, it's safe to say that, as always, law enforcement ist all about quickl finding the nearest scapegoat in the causal graph, for the sole purpose of vile primitve revenge (aka doing the same thing as the criminal and claiming *you* are more equal because he did it first).

  63. Let me correct the headline by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

    Researchers have created a wearable device that can read people's jaw movements.

  64. Stephen Hawking's ghost is thinkiing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stephen Hawking's ghost is thinking "Oh yeah... NOW!"

  65. Re:That should be useful for interoogation purpose by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    But how many people can discipline their thoughts that way, especially if they're being interrogated relentlessly for hours?

  66. Re:That should be useful for interoogation purpose by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I'm suggesting that some people, myself for example, don't think in words at all. The only time I think in words is when I explicitly am thinking about what to say or to write, or I make the deliberate and conscious choice to try and do so. In general, I think in terms of wordless images, or general ideas... until I try and communicate whatever it is that I am thinking about to another person. If I'm not trying to communicate it, no words need necessarily exist... words are tools only needed for linguistic communication, not thought.

  67. Re:That should be useful for interoogation purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone is autistic, though. In fact, some people have the opposite condition and can't visualize at all.

  68. Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subvocal throat microphones have existed for decades.