Why would optical nerves be mandatory? I think you are very mistaken.
People do not require optical nerves to see.
If you are blindfolded and I write on your back or hand, you can still read it in your mind. What you need is a suitable spot with enough resolution and bandwidth.
Personally I'd rather have a neural interface, that way I can use my eyes for normal stuff. while having aux video channels for other stuff.
Of course being able to superimpose stuff on the vision field can be very useful. Esp for the military - semi occluded weapons and vehicles getting highlighted. Snipers being located either from the weapon recognition or via the "crack and thump".
Anyway such stuff will also be good for those with memory impairment.
They've already got mind reading stuff - after training where you think of various different objects, they can later tell which of those objects you are thinking of.
So combine the training (check your brain patterns) with the acquisition (artificial "brain" records stuff - video+audio), then the next time you have those brain patterns, the e-brain will just playback stuff (to your aux channels). To turn it on/off use "escape sequences" (unique brain patterns that won't occur normally - e.g. thinking of a purple steak eating a blue carrot).
Yes. Because the MPAA, RIAA etc would want DRM installed.
In a shopping mall with copyrighted music playing in the background? Then backup for your cranial memory is only allowed if you pay per recall and for the "format shifting".
Radio playing somewhere? Same.
Watching a movie in a cinema? Sorry, please check your auxiliary "brain" at the counter first before you are allowed in.
A penny for "your" thoughts would be considered too cheap.
Better fix copyright first, otherwise this augmented stuff isn't going to work so well. You're not supposed to do "telepathy" if the multimedia you're sending to your friends contains some copyrighted material.
The tech is not far off. Monkeys can already play games with just their thoughts. The blind can see with their tongues. People without limbs can feel and control stuff with stuff attached to their chest muscles/nerves.
Hehe I like the Ford "Friesian" (Ford Mustang) vs the "mustang" (horse) race. The handling of the car was so crap (maybe Clarkson didn't do as good a job as he could for dramatic effect, but still it was obvious the car was rolling and understeering really badly). Funny that the cowboys had faster rides 100+ years ago...
Call me sheep all you want. Going out and trying to chase off a cop with a shotgun is still _stupid_. Stupid people get lucky every so often. It doesn't make them less stupid.
If he kills you, he can fire your shotgun, wrap your fingers around it, and say he shot you in self defense, then came into your property to further investigate.
It's not rare for cops to fabricate evidence.
Try to do things the stupid way just gets you in jail or killed.
If you can take the trouble to keep a gun and related safeguards in your house, I don't see why you can't have cameras (maybe even mikes) and a system to make sure the cops/burglars can't easily steal the incriminating recordings (offsites backups).
Once you have the stuff gathering evidence to support your case, if the bad cop is indeed trying to harass or attack you, you are in a better position.
Question: What if we just have a separate stack for data, and a separate stack for code, and do similar things[1] to maintain hygiene aka "code-data separation"?
Then even if stuff overflows, you don't end up _running_ it.
[1] If you need to pass jump addresses as parameters, have whitelisted entry points, or pass an item number instead of the address itself.
Intel and AMD seem to be running out of ideas of what to do with all the zillions of transistors and can't make things faster. Why don't they make it easier for things to be more secure while retaining performance. Having pre-whitelisted entry points for execution might even things easier for cache lookahead.
But there's probably at least 100x more people who can write J2EE programs without "SQL injection crap" than the number of people who can write C programs without "shellcode injection crap". It's a lot easier to do the "parameterized statements/bind vars/placeholders" thing in Java or Perl than with C. So the C programmers will have both buffer overflow problems and SQL injection problems to deal with.
Of course we also get 200x more people who write junk in java...:)
Yeah, those idealists should join the real world once in a while.
When a guy with a gun tells you not to go anywhere, your options are more limited.
The cop can make excuses up later. Even if they are stupid excuses they are given the benefit of the doubt by the courts, because once in a while, they get the crooks that way.
For instance, a real crook might panic and do something stupid when he is forced to pull over.
> Drivers are going to try to drive safer with a steel spike in their face instead of a friendly pillow
When it comes to programming languages, that approach just means either lots more dead or broken code, or a lot less code AND a lot less good code.
There's a higher percentage of C programs where "an attacker can execute arbitrary code of the attacker's choice", compared to say Java or Python programs. Just a look at Bugtraq over the years.
I'm half joking but there might be fewer than 10 people in the world who can write secure, reliable AND useful C programs (useful to more than just one person;) ). I'm not one of them.
> how is it supposed to make your code safer if you pass the size you think your destination buffer is?
When there's more than one coder working on a project, some other coder might have a different idea of what the destination buffer is supposed to be, or change it.
If that happens people can still play the blame game whether it's memcpy or some safer function. But if the resulting code allows "an attacker to execute arbitrary code of his choice" then it's a pretty crappy standard function, and a stupid primitive way of doing things.
It's stupid to design all cars to blow up on crashes just so that people end up being safer drivers. It makes cars a lot less useful as a mode of transport.
Crappy standard (or de-facto standard) functions make a computer language less useful as a way of telling a computer what to do.
I daresay most politicians are smarter than average. You may be smarter than them, but they just have to be smart enough to win elections, e.g. winning the hearts and minds of the average voter.
Average IQ by definition is 100 [1].
They're smart enough to figure out the average person is stupider than they are, and how to get what they want. Even if it means pretending to be dumber than they are.
In the USA, "dumb blonde" sells more than "smart brunette", so some people go "fake dumb" and "fake blonde". e.g. Paris Hilton might be smarter than she behaves, probably even smarter than average.
[1] If the education system gets worse and worse, your IQ scores could go up even if you decline mentally - since 100 by definition is the average score and if the next generation end up really stupid, go figure;).
Slashdot Mirror
Just read Slashdot to build up your immunity.
After wading through all the spelling, grammatical, logic and other errors and problems, you'd hardly notice small stuff like kerning and alignment.
It's about as stupid as requiring stuff to be done in Word.
And some years later they wonder why fewer and fewer people are buying their cars.
Manufacturers in it for the long term would do A * B * C + "cost of losing good will" vs cost of recall.
Of course it's hard to do that if the shareholders and CEOs only look as far ahead as the next financial quarter.
Why would optical nerves be mandatory? I think you are very mistaken.
People do not require optical nerves to see.
If you are blindfolded and I write on your back or hand, you can still read it in your mind. What you need is a suitable spot with enough resolution and bandwidth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKd56D2mvN0
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1C2B5B24E4138762
An AI does not see using a video cable. The stuff running in the AI's computer allows it to see.
Work somewhere else? At the places I've worked, if you don't want your extra monitor, someone would volunteer to "adopt" it pretty quick.
Personally I'd rather have a neural interface, that way I can use my eyes for normal stuff. while having aux video channels for other stuff.
Of course being able to superimpose stuff on the vision field can be very useful. Esp for the military - semi occluded weapons and vehicles getting highlighted. Snipers being located either from the weapon recognition or via the "crack and thump".
Anyway such stuff will also be good for those with memory impairment.
They've already got mind reading stuff - after training where you think of various different objects, they can later tell which of those objects you are thinking of.
So combine the training (check your brain patterns) with the acquisition (artificial "brain" records stuff - video+audio), then the next time you have those brain patterns, the e-brain will just playback stuff (to your aux channels). To turn it on/off use "escape sequences" (unique brain patterns that won't occur normally - e.g. thinking of a purple steak eating a blue carrot).
Yes. Because the MPAA, RIAA etc would want DRM installed.
In a shopping mall with copyrighted music playing in the background? Then backup for your cranial memory is only allowed if you pay per recall and for the "format shifting".
Radio playing somewhere? Same.
Watching a movie in a cinema? Sorry, please check your auxiliary "brain" at the counter first before you are allowed in.
A penny for "your" thoughts would be considered too cheap.
Better fix copyright first, otherwise this augmented stuff isn't going to work so well. You're not supposed to do "telepathy" if the multimedia you're sending to your friends contains some copyrighted material.
The tech is not far off. Monkeys can already play games with just their thoughts. The blind can see with their tongues. People without limbs can feel and control stuff with stuff attached to their chest muscles/nerves.
I'm just not optimistic about the laws.
That computer display might as well be in your brain.
Silly to have it on a contact lens.
There are already neural interfaces. They're not very good - since the brain moves about, and there are other issues to solve.
But I'm pretty sure the brain can learn to use extra input and output channels especially if "installed" at a young age.
Hehe I like the Ford "Friesian" (Ford Mustang) vs the "mustang" (horse) race. The handling of the car was so crap (maybe Clarkson didn't do as good a job as he could for dramatic effect, but still it was obvious the car was rolling and understeering really badly). Funny that the cowboys had faster rides 100+ years ago...
Call me sheep all you want. Going out and trying to chase off a cop with a shotgun is still _stupid_. Stupid people get lucky every so often. It doesn't make them less stupid.
If he kills you, he can fire your shotgun, wrap your fingers around it, and say he shot you in self defense, then came into your property to further investigate.
It's not rare for cops to fabricate evidence.
Try to do things the stupid way just gets you in jail or killed.
If you can take the trouble to keep a gun and related safeguards in your house, I don't see why you can't have cameras (maybe even mikes) and a system to make sure the cops/burglars can't easily steal the incriminating recordings (offsites backups).
Once you have the stuff gathering evidence to support your case, if the bad cop is indeed trying to harass or attack you, you are in a better position.
Hmm and I was wondering what was in a donner kebab.
No it's the new Chunky Soylent Green with more body...
No, that's when there's a hole in the argument big enough for echoes.
I suspect you might be able to train pigs to play pacman.
Pigs are quite smart.
Just get one of those brain interfaces for them to make it easier for them to control stuff.
You better have someone videoing the whole thing.
He's still lucky. A single bad apple is all it takes to kill you.
It's harder to do "My Word vs the Cop's Word" if you are dead with a weapon in your hand.
If you kill the cop instead, the police dept might not take it that well.
You better have someone videoing the whole thing.
Question: What if we just have a separate stack for data, and a separate stack for code, and do similar things[1] to maintain hygiene aka "code-data separation"?
Then even if stuff overflows, you don't end up _running_ it.
[1] If you need to pass jump addresses as parameters, have whitelisted entry points, or pass an item number instead of the address itself.
Intel and AMD seem to be running out of ideas of what to do with all the zillions of transistors and can't make things faster. Why don't they make it easier for things to be more secure while retaining performance. Having pre-whitelisted entry points for execution might even things easier for cache lookahead.
But there's probably at least 100x more people who can write J2EE programs without "SQL injection crap" than the number of people who can write C programs without "shellcode injection crap". It's a lot easier to do the "parameterized statements/bind vars/placeholders" thing in Java or Perl than with C. So the C programmers will have both buffer overflow problems and SQL injection problems to deal with.
:)
Of course we also get 200x more people who write junk in java...
No. Just because he got lucky doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
The bad cop probably didn't want to escalate things further.
Cops have tasered people in their own homes (ironically after they call 911 for _help_).
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/localnews/investigates/stories/wfaa070606_mo_policetasering.20bcdeb9.html
Don't give them an excuse to screw up, and ruin their "unblemished X year service record".
They might lose their job, but you could lose your life first.
Yeah, those idealists should join the real world once in a while.
When a guy with a gun tells you not to go anywhere, your options are more limited.
The cop can make excuses up later. Even if they are stupid excuses they are given the benefit of the doubt by the courts, because once in a while, they get the crooks that way.
For instance, a real crook might panic and do something stupid when he is forced to pull over.
Yeah he's clearly the wrong person for the job.
He really should leave it to somebody else.
They already do it for copyright infringement. So what's the big difference?
In my country if there's copyright infringement in a company, they jail the managers or bosses responsible.
Yes it may be solely some underling's fault. The courts can just let everyone present their case and figure out who is really responsible.
They already spend years in the courts with this "fine the company" stuff.
IMO, copyright infringement is a lesser offense than abuse of monopoly power. But that's just me I guess.
> Drivers are going to try to drive safer with a steel spike in their face instead of a friendly pillow
;) ). I'm not one of them.
When it comes to programming languages, that approach just means either lots more dead or broken code, or a lot less code AND a lot less good code.
There's a higher percentage of C programs where "an attacker can execute arbitrary code of the attacker's choice", compared to say Java or Python programs. Just a look at Bugtraq over the years.
I'm half joking but there might be fewer than 10 people in the world who can write secure, reliable AND useful C programs (useful to more than just one person
> how is it supposed to make your code safer if you pass the size you think your destination buffer is?
When there's more than one coder working on a project, some other coder might have a different idea of what the destination buffer is supposed to be, or change it.
If that happens people can still play the blame game whether it's memcpy or some safer function. But if the resulting code allows "an attacker to execute arbitrary code of his choice" then it's a pretty crappy standard function, and a stupid primitive way of doing things.
It's stupid to design all cars to blow up on crashes just so that people end up being safer drivers. It makes cars a lot less useful as a mode of transport.
Crappy standard (or de-facto standard) functions make a computer language less useful as a way of telling a computer what to do.
Sure, but are we talking about dumb people? Most presidents are smarter than average.
See:
http://www.csbsju.edu/USPP/Bush/Bush-IQ-Myth.html
As for Bush himself, see his SAT scores: http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bushs_yale_transcript.htm
And for a rough pre-1974 SAT to IQ conversion see: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx
I daresay most politicians are smarter than average. You may be smarter than them, but they just have to be smart enough to win elections, e.g. winning the hearts and minds of the average voter.
Average IQ by definition is 100 [1].
They're smart enough to figure out the average person is stupider than they are, and how to get what they want. Even if it means pretending to be dumber than they are.
In the USA, "dumb blonde" sells more than "smart brunette", so some people go "fake dumb" and "fake blonde". e.g. Paris Hilton might be smarter than she behaves, probably even smarter than average.
[1] If the education system gets worse and worse, your IQ scores could go up even if you decline mentally - since 100 by definition is the average score and if the next generation end up really stupid, go figure ;).