Time to develop soft plastic probe sheets.. The idea of implanting little needles in the brain (which have to go to the right depth) is the obvious brake on adaption of this technology. Sadly right now you won't be able to catch the necessary activity from outside the skull. I think a durable, safe and unobtrusive implant is a matter of time.
The implants I have seen consisted of a plastic sheet with probes. The probes would be connected to a plug in the skull (not very flattering). I guess use in humas would include some transmitter in the skull (f.i. near the ear). the implant would have to be on the top right inside the skull (primary or perhaps secondary motor cotex), and if not fixed to the skull it could damage the brain.
Right now it actually looks like this..
http://www.impactlab.com/2006/07/12/bionic-man-uses-brain-power-to-control-tv/
Having been part of the computational neuroscience community, and fully up to date on brain controlled operation of a robot arm by a monkey in 2001 my assesment would be that we will see all kinds of applications of full brain control.
The way these systems work is by implanting a grid of probes on the cortex (underneath the skull bone and dura mater). This is the main problem in terms of adaption to humans, but this is the only way to get the detailed measurements of neural activity that can be analyzed and interpreted for use as a control signal.
The funny thing is, which I found amazing at the time, that first, you don't need that much probes to measure usable signals. I believe 45 probes is enough to distill arm drection in the monkeys case (from millions of 'randomly' participating neurons) and second, the adaption to the control comes naturally:The monkey at one point will simply sease to lift his own arm and instead use the robots.
So in my opinion brain control is here, it just needs to be refined. The implants are relativley safe because there is no immunoresponse under the dura mater, I'm not sure how long they remain operational, but it could be years.
Sonemone working on this is Justin C. Sanchez check out www.pubmed.org
Cheers,
Use clean energy
Hi,
It puzzles me that you think you can take a few paraqraphs of ancient folklore, elaborate on it with best guesses and then go "hmm. if this where true, what hypothesis could I test to prove it" and consider this a serious endeavour. Call it religious Sci Fi. The only thing created in creationism is psuedo logic and pseudo thruth.
What gets me most is that it costs so much energy to counter creationism while it completely corrupts the budding scientific mind and makes young pupils suspicious of science. I realy don't like that to happen so much that we can't find anyone anymore to give us a bypass, run our nuclear facilities or work on a solution to climate change.
Another thing is that it is completely unavoidable people will believe some things that are completely illogical on the condition that the belief is not testable but as such makes the owners world view more coherent.
Dear creationist,
Your phrase:" if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses" proves you do not understand one iota of the scientific method and are therefore not qualified to participate.
Science always tries to disprove a hypothesis, science is what is left of all hypothesis ever proposed that no one could disprove. Science is not soft on the facts,
and nothing is a fact until people agree there is no point denying it.
Picture yourself before heavens gate, Peter invites you to prove
creationism to go to heaven, but if yo fail you go to hell. Would
you take the challenge?
Someone created the argument that if a person is taught something that can earn him a lot of money later on, he should be charged for it more. If this concerns medical science or some education involving lots of equipment this makes some sense, but you can see by the price of an MBA it is simple greed driving these price hikes. It increases social inequality and takes us back to the day where only rich people where able to afford a good education..
Eventhough there is no reason government should pry into your personal data, you should have nothing to hide from the law.
Q: Exactly what incriminating evidence does that (cloaking) provide? A: Evidence of obstruction of justice.
Its very well possible competition is stifled by agreements amongst vendors. In the European Union these kind of agreements, aimed at getting the maximum money out of a market that has habituated to a certain price level, have been found in almost every industry. As your country recently overturned the law preventing mandatory minimum pricing , effectivley saying you'll always pay for store overhead even if there is no store, you can be sure you'll be ripped off.
What would you say if the person that sells you your typewriter also enters your house whithout permission, searches your bookshelves and files to find out more about you, and then leaves 'relevant' paper adverts on your coffee table. Do
This where a strange world if one could coerce others to enter into an 'agreement'. On the face of it the Fear argument is warped. Perhaps it is more the Loathing for the restrictions of the new GPL and the implicit commercial motivation that keep some from adopting it.
A very recent example from CNN. Doctors apparently do not break the patients privacy when they remain anonymous:
"The prognosis is not good and he is not likely to survive," a member of the medical team that treated him at the Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow said on condition of anonymity because details about patients' condition are not to be made public."
This is of course the media twisting the patients right to privacy...
I guess there are a lot of situations where the limits of legal conduct are explored by people with criminal intent. In those cases it may help to react strongly, and maybe find some really incriminating material. I don't think TPB has criminal intent, but I agree it should be investigated.
Someone else responded and said the blanket shutting down of TPB is to indiscriminate. I agree. I thinks users of the Pirate Bay understand where TPB has been responsible and where it has not, so the negative image won't be problem for them. It may now be easier to rally people (that do not understand what TPB is) against it, like rallying muslims against the Satanic verses..
Maybe some countries do not have explicit laws against pornography, still I'm sure the judges in those countries are willing to sentence someone of owning and distributing evidence of serious abuse (when someone takes it to court). Laws are (in the case of a functional justice system) under constant revision by government, meaning you can bring a case in a way that is new, and force creation of a law.
I have nothing against pornography, and at least erotic relations with boys is tradition in some countries (like f.i. Afganistan). But I don't believe you will be able to get any lawmaker in any country on record saying child pornography is acceptable.
In Pakistan it was for years acceptable to kill your wife if you suspected her of adultary. Many died just because the husbands wanted a younger wife. I believe that if you see something wrong you should say something about it.
I'm talking www.bayimg.com, owned by TPB. Seems to be down now. It's not a torrent site. That's where user could upload any image, no restrictions. I'd say experiment failed, let's move on.
The police and TPB will have to defend their actions in court. We're talking images of child abuse here, I don't see how this has anything to do with the freedom to express ones opinion. Other than that: Yes, we live in a politicized environment.
What I mean to say is I agree if the law steps in. It does so with people that consider murdering somebody acceptable, it does so with people that consider scarring children for life acceptable. The judiciary system in a way functions as the emergency conscience some people sadly lack. It has nothing to do with Sweden, in no country it is allowed to possess or publish material that resulted from criminal abuse of underaged childeren. My language may sound a bit 1984ish, but then there are limits beyond which behavior becomes unacceptable, its entirely my prerogative to express that opinion.
I disagree. If one can surf to a TPB site (bayimg) and click on a tag and see uploaded child pornography that's TPB serving child pornography. I tried to report it to them but there is no way to do that. I don't see why
defending the right to share files should come with
defending the freedom of perverts.
If you don't object to owning a website serving
child pornography you have a moral defect, and
someone should step in to help you see that it
is unacceptable. This has nothing to do with
copyright or freedom of speech..
Slashdot Mirror
Time to develop soft plastic probe sheets.. The idea of implanting little needles in the brain (which have to go to the right depth) is the obvious brake on adaption of this technology. Sadly right now you won't be able to catch the necessary activity from outside the skull. I think a durable, safe and unobtrusive implant is a matter of time.
The implants I have seen consisted of a plastic sheet with probes. The probes would be connected to a plug in the skull (not very flattering). I guess use in humas would include some transmitter in the skull (f.i. near the ear). the implant would have to be on the top right inside the skull (primary or perhaps secondary motor cotex), and if not fixed to the skull it could damage the brain. Right now it actually looks like this.. http://www.impactlab.com/2006/07/12/bionic-man-uses-brain-power-to-control-tv/
Having been part of the computational neuroscience community, and fully up to date on brain controlled operation of a robot arm by a monkey in 2001 my assesment would be that we will see all kinds of applications of full brain control.
The way these systems work is by implanting a grid of probes on the cortex (underneath the skull bone and dura mater). This is the main problem in terms of adaption to humans, but this is the only way to get the detailed measurements of neural activity that can be analyzed and interpreted for use as a control signal.
The funny thing is, which I found amazing at the time, that first, you don't need that much probes to measure usable signals. I believe 45 probes is enough to distill arm drection in the monkeys case (from millions of 'randomly' participating neurons) and second, the adaption to the control comes naturally :The monkey at one point will simply sease to lift his own arm and instead use the robots.
So in my opinion brain control is here, it just needs to be refined. The implants are relativley safe because there is no immunoresponse under the dura mater, I'm not sure how long they remain operational, but it could be years.
Sonemone working on this is Justin C. Sanchez check out www.pubmed.org Cheers, Use clean energy
Hi, It puzzles me that you think you can take a few paraqraphs of ancient folklore, elaborate on it with best guesses and then go "hmm. if this where true, what hypothesis could I test to prove it" and consider this a serious endeavour. Call it religious Sci Fi. The only thing created in creationism is psuedo logic and pseudo thruth. What gets me most is that it costs so much energy to counter creationism while it completely corrupts the budding scientific mind and makes young pupils suspicious of science. I realy don't like that to happen so much that we can't find anyone anymore to give us a bypass, run our nuclear facilities or work on a solution to climate change. Another thing is that it is completely unavoidable people will believe some things that are completely illogical on the condition that the belief is not testable but as such makes the owners world view more coherent.
Dear creationist, Your phrase:" if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses" proves you do not understand one iota of the scientific method and are therefore not qualified to participate. Science always tries to disprove a hypothesis, science is what is left of all hypothesis ever proposed that no one could disprove. Science is not soft on the facts, and nothing is a fact until people agree there is no point denying it. Picture yourself before heavens gate, Peter invites you to prove creationism to go to heaven, but if yo fail you go to hell. Would you take the challenge?
Someone created the argument that if a person is taught something that can earn him a lot of money later on, he should be charged for it more. If this concerns medical science or some education involving lots of equipment this makes some sense, but you can see by the price of an MBA it is simple greed driving these price hikes. It increases social inequality and takes us back to the day where only rich people where able to afford a good education..
Eventhough there is no reason government should pry into your personal data, you should have nothing to hide from the law. Q: Exactly what incriminating evidence does that (cloaking) provide? A: Evidence of obstruction of justice.
Its very well possible competition is stifled by agreements amongst vendors. In the European Union these kind of agreements, aimed at getting the maximum money out of a market that has habituated to a certain price level, have been found in almost every industry. As your country recently overturned the law preventing mandatory minimum pricing , effectivley saying you'll always pay for store overhead even if there is no store, you can be sure you'll be ripped off.
This discussion to me is pure propaganda for Apple. Buttons are a design choice, who cares if the Iphone has them or not..
What would you say if the person that sells you your typewriter also enters your house whithout permission, searches your bookshelves and files to find out more about you, and then leaves 'relevant' paper adverts on your coffee table. Do
This where a strange world if one could coerce others to enter into an 'agreement'. On the face of it the Fear argument is warped. Perhaps it is more the Loathing for the restrictions of the new GPL and the implicit commercial motivation that keep some from adopting it.
A very recent example from CNN. Doctors apparently do not break the patients privacy when they remain anonymous: "The prognosis is not good and he is not likely to survive," a member of the medical team that treated him at the Royal Alexandra Hospital near Glasgow said on condition of anonymity because details about patients' condition are not to be made public." This is of course the media twisting the patients right to privacy...
I guess there are a lot of situations where the limits of legal conduct are explored by people with criminal intent. In those cases it may help to react strongly, and maybe find some really incriminating material. I don't think TPB has criminal intent, but I agree it should be investigated.
Someone else responded and said the blanket shutting down of TPB is to indiscriminate. I agree. I thinks users of the Pirate Bay understand where TPB has been responsible and where it has not, so the negative image won't be problem for them. It may now be easier to rally people (that do not understand what TPB is) against it, like rallying muslims against the Satanic verses..
Agreed.
Maybe some countries do not have explicit laws against pornography, still I'm sure the judges in those countries are willing to sentence someone of owning and distributing evidence of serious abuse (when someone takes it to court). Laws are (in the case of a functional justice system) under constant revision by government, meaning you can bring a case in a way that is new, and force creation of a law. I have nothing against pornography, and at least erotic relations with boys is tradition in some countries (like f.i. Afganistan). But I don't believe you will be able to get any lawmaker in any country on record saying child pornography is acceptable. In Pakistan it was for years acceptable to kill your wife if you suspected her of adultary. Many died just because the husbands wanted a younger wife. I believe that if you see something wrong you should say something about it.
I'm talking www.bayimg.com, owned by TPB. Seems to be down now. It's not a torrent site. That's where user could upload any image, no restrictions. I'd say experiment failed, let's move on.
The police and TPB will have to defend their actions in court. We're talking images of child abuse here, I don't see how this has anything to do with the freedom to express ones opinion. Other than that: Yes, we live in a politicized environment.
What I mean to say is I agree if the law steps in. It does so with people that consider murdering somebody acceptable, it does so with people that consider scarring children for life acceptable. The judiciary system in a way functions as the emergency conscience some people sadly lack. It has nothing to do with Sweden, in no country it is allowed to possess or publish material that resulted from criminal abuse of underaged childeren. My language may sound a bit 1984ish, but then there are limits beyond which behavior becomes unacceptable, its entirely my prerogative to express that opinion.
I disagree. If one can surf to a TPB site (bayimg) and click on a tag and see uploaded child pornography that's TPB serving child pornography. I tried to report it to them but there is no way to do that. I don't see why defending the right to share files should come with defending the freedom of perverts.
If you don't object to owning a website serving child pornography you have a moral defect, and someone should step in to help you see that it is unacceptable. This has nothing to do with copyright or freedom of speech..