UML is just so versatile. It works nicely as a honeypot. It can be used to partition one machine into several for webhosting providers to let customers run what they want. It goes one step beyond chroot for running daemons you need but don't particularly trust. It lets you safely try distributions you haven't used before or design new ones.
So, cool to see it gets the official seal of approval.
I really liked Farscape, but I don't suppose I can really blame Sci-Fi's initial reaction. As you allude to, there is a limit to how much one station can push a particular genre, and while Stargate didn't really do it for me they're still rerunning Lexx and playing Roddenberry's Babylon 5 on the channel.
I kind of hoped that HBO would pick Farscape up so that they could push the shock factor a bit farther without resorting to crap like the "Coup by Clam" episode. I'm worried that if Sci-Fi backs down and hangs on to it the show is going to completely burn out anyway... it feels like at least as far as this season has gone they're on the plot decline already, which is unfortunate because there is still so many concepts they can toy with when their world doesn't have to bear any resemblance to the world as we know it (like Star Trek: Voyager did when they were stuck in the Alpha Sector).
On the other hand, it is cool to see that the fans can occasionally get their way. Your plan intrigues me, although I think a better deal would be to pay Henson $40/fan and get the DVDs for the next season directly shipped to us instead of broadcast. I'd do it.
I remember seeing something that stated that there was no way that the farmer being sued by Monsanto could have the density of genetically-enhanced corn he did in his field accidentally. Has anyone else seen this argument?
I think they had Klax on there too; it was a pretty good port considering the level of technology in the 2600.
My favorite game for the platform was Adventure. Not only was it quite possibly the first graphical RPG (admittedly a simple one), it was also the first game I recall with an easter egg in it. Plus, the dragons looked like giant ducks, and there was a bat you couldn't kill that would constantly steal things, including live dragons, and fly around the 'world' with them until it found another item to pick up.
Like Pitfall, it was a game that for all its simplicity would still find itself being played again and again. I miss those sort of games.
Because, in the grand scheme of things, the Internet is still a bit player (so to speak). It makes long-distance computer interactions very convenient, but if the backbone was taken out tomorrow I'd bet businesses could kludge things over the phone network (the portions that don't rely on the Internet, anyway) for everything critical. It'd be irritating, but there really isn't much terror value in cutting our access to it.
The reason it keeps coming up as something that they are likely to do is because the media knows fear sells and Congress likes the political mileage they can get out of 'fixing' the 'problem' without stepping on the toes of any constituents that matter to them.
The deal with making Linux palatable to businesses is what makes Red Hat look so bad to people who aren't looking at Linux through corporate eyes. Red Hat, for better or worse, has become the Linux standard for business. Software companies that want to target applications to Linux are frightened by the type of support headaches that dealing with several distributions entails; so they target Red Hat instead. Hardware companies run with it because they've got proven support solutions that beat searching for a HOWTO anyday (provided you can afford them).
Basically, Red Hat is the perfect hybrid of commercial/open-source -- they can take advantage of the pool of free developers to get the bulk of their product developed, then work over the result in-house to make the various pieces work together seamlessly (well, mostly), and finally provide direct support to businesses implementing their solution. They are proof that the Microsoft strategy can be made even more effective with open source. Do they step on toes, as with the KDE/GNOME fiasco? Only where necessary to improve the user experience and to aim towards making a product better than Redmond.
Assuming you're talking about XM (I haven't been to Best Buy in a while) I don't know if he'd go for it. I seem to recall the ad on TV saying something about how there were some commercial-free stations on it, implying the rest still had commercials just like the stuff on the dial. Probably more genres to pick from, but ClearChannel's got a large stake in it so my guess is the difference has more to do with the delivery mechanism than it does with the content.
Maybe it'd be worth picking up a CD player that can playback MP3 and burning a couple of 10 hour discs? I've already shifted most of my collection to MP3 so admittedly it's pretty convenient for me, but it works well and you don't get any commercials.
Not only that, but they may have a point about the lack of constitutionality in the "Junk Fax" law. I get advertisements through the mail that I don't necessarily want because it wouldn't jive with the First Amendment to pass a law to stop them. The same with my telephone, or door-to-door solicitations to sell me stuff or save my soul. And I'm willing to put up with all of this because I treasure others' right to free speech every bit as much as my own.
Why are junk faxes illegal? Because it inconveniences businesses, not people, and we don't mind crippling free speech for the sake of corporations. Criminalizing spam flies in the face of free speech as well, especially given the relative inexpensiveness of the medium as compared to telemarketing or junk mail. Plenty of technological measures are available to combat each of these things at the receiving end. Why must we use the law to silence people when individuals can easily choose not to listen?
They could, by requiring that the 'CD' be in the drive at program launch only but permitting regular operation for the rest of the time. Not that it wouldn't be aggravating, but when has that stopped them?
My gut feeling is that this is intended to be a more active form of copy-control. If you can read/write to the smart card in the plastic wafer (they say you can), imagine the following design:
Portion 1 of the disc is plainly visible as an ISO track and contains the installation binaries + AUTORUN (under Windows). Portion 2 could be in any format readable by the drive but containing the program in encrypted form.
Upon running the install binaries, the smart card in the device is checked by the program. Assuming the card permits installation, it will relinquish the decryption key and the install program will unpack the binaries.
They make a point of the ability to write back to the card. This could be part of a more complex authentication scheme, but I'd bet it's something simpler like "The third time someone tries to start an install, refuse to give them the key."
political spam would be a drop in the bucket. It's not like politicians will be able to get away with things like abusing open relays or refusing to honor opt-outs -- at least, not without affecting their campaign.
If this is the bone we need to throw to Congress to finally get some laws passed banning commercial spam without opt-out lists being honored, so be it. Besides, if spam is as irritating as we think it is, it's going to backfire as a PR tool even if it isn't illegal to use.
I think that we all have violent tendencies to one degree or another. The biggest problem is that children are supposed to learn restraint as they're growing up, right around the time that we introduce them to a bunch of murder simulators and virtual deliquency via gaming consoles and inappropriate discussions and imagery via the Internet. With decent parents, children can of course be taught to understand right from wrong, but where in the past children were typically inundated with positive experiences (the responsibility of work at an early age, the introduction of morality that comes from attending mass every Sunday, the social and familial values that come from sitting down to a homecooked meal after a hard day of work and schooling) today they are immersed in a world of vice (the pornography of violence that is video gaming or prime-time television, nightclubs for kids, broken homes or homes that were never whole to begin with, complete lack of spirituality).
It's obvious that video games play a minor part in the decadence of society. However, games like Grand Theft Auto III, Postal, and Doom should never make it into the hands of minors. Parents are in general a whole lot less effective than they were fifty years ago; while it certainly isn't fair to all of us that we must remove entirely from the public the forms of entertainment that might cause Junior to go haywire, it is probably the first sensible approach towards getting a handle on our run-amok society.
I prefer your interpretation, of course, as I think it's closer to common sense than the direction we've been taking with laws regarding both computer security and usage of the airwaves. I'm just urging prudence to the one or two people potentially present that'll run off and try warchalking in their town because someone has said it's perfectly legal in this forum. There's enough legal haziness around this issue to make it a risk even if logic would dictate otherwise,
It's almost a given that people contributing to the open source community are being or expect to be compensated in some way. In many cases, the software has been made then given away because the author probably couldn't sell it or support it commercially but wants to benefit others (charity). Some maintain it because they directly benefit from the use of the software; others because they're being paid by companies that benefit (money). For some it's just a hobby where they can do things above and beyond what they could do in a more structured work environment (expanding horizons) People might work on it in the hopes that they'll learn or be able to point to a particularly successful project that they're part of (pride/career advancement/social). And some people just like to code (hobby).
I think the ego comes in more when people feel that they're likely to come under attack for some shortcoming. The goodwill of others is perhaps the biggest compensation most open source developers can hope for, and getting slammed for working on something you're giving away is pretty bogus. A lot of developers are self-starters and get pretty invested mentally into their work as a demonstration of their ability to code, and they're putting their work up for review in front of a group of people not known in general for their tact or pleasant demeanor. I try to keep this in mind when I see one post or another exhibiting a primadonna attitude; it's probably less about narcissism than it is about not letting the bastards grind you down.
Then again, some developers just happen to be assholes in general.
I have no particular axe to grind... I've never spoken to lilo and I haven't been on OPN in a fairly long time (I do want to make this clear because it seems like people are taking this one personally). My question is simply this: shouldn't it be up to the person providing the service to decide whether or not to charge for it? He could have chosen methods less likely to inflame users of his service, to be sure, but I don't think that it's a particularly bad goal to become self-sufficient within the community. I don't know when the shift between Free and free occurred, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea that we should start dictating terms by which people must contribute to the rest of us.
IRC provides a near-instantaneous means of making an ass of yourself. Most of us are hardcore computer users, and therefore lack those mental output filters civilized people employ in their day-to-day lives, so it is probably fortunate that the rooms on IRC are virtual. Then you've got the power trip the chanops are on because they've got the control over the comings and goings of tens of others, reinforced by half of that crowd constantly sucking up to them. Nobody can tell when anyone is joking because it's all text, so you've got plenty of opportunity for misinterpretation.
Personally, I can't stand IRC. I've been trying to wade back into it slowly after giving up on it for six or seven years, but the general attitude in some of the linux channels in particular (EFnet...) is as offensive to me now that I'm giving Linux advice as it was when I was asking for it.
so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you get modded down for it.
It seems to be a pretty simple proposition; lilo is requesting money to continue providing a service. Nobody had any complaints when things were free. The general sentiment I'm seeing expressed is that he should continue to provide the service for free (and shut up about it) rather than ask for donations. I've tried taking this approach with a couple of local businesses ("You know, I could probably build my own surfaces in a couple of hours for the cost of raw materials so are you willing to make a counteroffer on this teak furniture?" or "My parents never charged me for food so why do you?") but they were less than sympathetic.
This type of attitude makes a mockery of our community in general, and explains why for-real businesses have such a hard time taking us seriously. Why does lilo owe everybody a free IRC server just because others are willing to provide one?
Actually, the best parts of each should be integrated with X. Right now, a lot of the bloat the common user experiences on the Linux GUI is because of the seven layers of translation the average API call goes through -- every window draw, every mouse click, every sound has a huge timing penalty incurred by the three or four extra layers over and above what you would find under Windows or even in Mac OS X. Building in icon support, sound support, font support, higher-level networking, drawing primitives, and OpenGL could make X anywhere from 12% to 37% faster on the average platform (depending on the features involved), bringing us that much closer to the Windows refresh rate.
Window managers should really be little more than themes; otherwise, we're just reinventing the wheel every time another person has to redevelop an algorithm that's already present in five other places.
I wouldn't make a blanket statement like this right now unless you have done some conclusive research into federal, state, and local laws or have some knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to. It strikes me as being very plausible that the laws on the books could be interpreted as making something as simple as turning on a laptop running Windows with a wireless LAN card in the area of somebody else's wireless network a crime, particularly if it is argued that warchalkers are doing this with the specific purpose of determining whether or not it is possible to use a network that doesn't belong to them. Just as, say, buying pills from the suspicious man on the corner to turn over to the authorities as proof of drug dealing or randomly turning handles on doors in a neighborhood to determine whether or not they're locked might be misinterpreted, warchalking too is something that people shouldn't bother with unless they're fully cognizant of how bad it's going to look if they get caught.
Personally, I'd say screw it; security consultants get paid better than warchalkers, they're better appreciated, and they don't do jail time. There are plenty of better ways to be a good samaritan without having to second-guess the law.
I'm a bit worried that with all this attention being paid to the Moon by other countries they might start to get the idea that they should be able to own a bit of it. One thing that most people don't realize is that the American flag placed on the Moon was more than purely symbolic; under U.S. law, they were actually staking a claim on the land for America. That's one of the reasons the commercial interest in fully exploiting the Moon's potential as a tourist site is based in our country -- corporations realize that our government is going to have the final say over whether or not businesses will exist on the Moon at all. There's even something in the U.S. Code to this effect.
First things first, one would have to assume that the librarian and network techs can be fully trusted. If not, any library-provided computer has to be considered untrustworthy unless you bring your own laptop, in which case what's the point, right?
Respect for the anonymity of the library patron (at a minimum) needs to be codified in law. Otherwise, at any point the government can stop funding libraries that don't track patrons (like McCain's initiative that flew through Congress mandating web surfing filters) or worse.
If all these conditions are met, then if the libraries refused to use proxy logs or anything of the sort, and set up network PCs that ghosted themselves from a server (preferably with Linux) every time a patron logs out to fight trojan loaders and such, then things would go pretty well. But I don't think that it's the technology that's at issue.
Our librarian is pretty cool about these things, by the way, and probably would go for setting up something along these lines if she thought it'd be worth the investment. It wouldn't be, however, because there's still a lot of other variables that prevent such a setup from presenting anything other than a false sense of security.
The problem is that they don't understand the true relevance of these laws to their own lives. The minimal attention paid to these issues (in U.S. media, anyway) is never sufficient to fully explain the pros and cons, and typically tout these laws as fighting a small undesirable segment of society rather than hindering our rights as a whole. DMCA fights pirates, the Patriot Act fights terrorism, etc.
It is essential that the average citizen understands the true impact of these laws, and that the government receives arguments from every side of the issue. A fistful of academics and computer scientists certainly can provide meaningful support to the public interest, but only if they engage the public and the government about the issue in terms that they can understand.
I don't agree with the argument in the article that commercially-packaged Free Software being sold alongside other commercial software should have to abide by the same warranty obligation of commercial software (which is essentially worthless at the 90-day limit EULAs set, but that's beside the point.) Actually, this type of restriction would seem to put a damper on massive bundling of free/cheap software as well as game companies dumping old games in the bargain bins, as warranty obligations can get pretty expensive. This could use a bit of rethinking.
No crappy system is going to be made effective by simply hiding the implementation. The best system would be open and unencumbered by patent so that acceptance is more likely across the board.
I'm not personally for preventing Fair Use, mind you, but for stopping the unchecked spread of other peoples' property across the Internet merely because it's convenient and made of electrical impulses. An effective DRM system, in my mind, would not impede the easy transfer and playback we've gotten used to with dumping CDs to tape and MP3 or the like locally but would prevent (the convenient) bulk network transfer of content. I'm positive this would be possible if the major companies would sit down and work this out together rather than trying to figure out how to weasel cash from the whole scheme.
I'm apprehensive to any sort of restrictions (particularly mandatory restrictions) being put on my P2P activities. This sort of thing needs to be approached with some degree of common sense and respect for the system that has been in place for decades. Fortunately, it sounds like we're on the threshold of implementing a technological solution that won't unfairly impact all computer users.
It's all about the balance of our rights against the rights of content owners to protect their investment and realize their returns in the open market. Building in DRM where it's needed most as opposed to just dumping it into every piece of consumer electronics on the market seems quite sensible and reasonable. I'm certain people who have been getting a free ride off of the artists won't appreciate it, but I believe that besides cutting off an avenue of exploitation this will also help return the Internet to a responsive state as well as encourage the media giants to finally embrace this medium without hesitation.
It's got to end sometime, folks -- otherwise, we're gonna kill the golden goose.
I had the opportunity to attend a symposium on a similar topic. One talk, about biomechanoid technology, was quite facinating. Apparently, a joint research project between a tech school (I missed the introduction) and a dot-com startup is starting to pay dividends in this field. They've expanded upon the experiment where an electronic impulse from a wire fused directly to a neuron controlling arm movement was used to control a mouse cursor on a computer screen by a mentally-aware patient unable to speak or move his extremities. The technology being employed is a specially-modified version of WinCE (they mentioned that earlier but less-successful prototypes were using Linux but they hit a bunch of licensing issues) and a VR helmet with a similar interface.
Apparently, this is already pretty close to being a medical reality, which begs the question of when the rest of us can get some of these units to play Halo directly in our heads!:)
Slashdot Mirror
So, cool to see it gets the official seal of approval.
I kind of hoped that HBO would pick Farscape up so that they could push the shock factor a bit farther without resorting to crap like the "Coup by Clam" episode. I'm worried that if Sci-Fi backs down and hangs on to it the show is going to completely burn out anyway... it feels like at least as far as this season has gone they're on the plot decline already, which is unfortunate because there is still so many concepts they can toy with when their world doesn't have to bear any resemblance to the world as we know it (like Star Trek: Voyager did when they were stuck in the Alpha Sector).
On the other hand, it is cool to see that the fans can occasionally get their way. Your plan intrigues me, although I think a better deal would be to pay Henson $40/fan and get the DVDs for the next season directly shipped to us instead of broadcast. I'd do it.
I remember seeing something that stated that there was no way that the farmer being sued by Monsanto could have the density of genetically-enhanced corn he did in his field accidentally. Has anyone else seen this argument?
My favorite game for the platform was Adventure. Not only was it quite possibly the first graphical RPG (admittedly a simple one), it was also the first game I recall with an easter egg in it. Plus, the dragons looked like giant ducks, and there was a bat you couldn't kill that would constantly steal things, including live dragons, and fly around the 'world' with them until it found another item to pick up.
Like Pitfall, it was a game that for all its simplicity would still find itself being played again and again. I miss those sort of games.
The reason it keeps coming up as something that they are likely to do is because the media knows fear sells and Congress likes the political mileage they can get out of 'fixing' the 'problem' without stepping on the toes of any constituents that matter to them.
Basically, Red Hat is the perfect hybrid of commercial/open-source -- they can take advantage of the pool of free developers to get the bulk of their product developed, then work over the result in-house to make the various pieces work together seamlessly (well, mostly), and finally provide direct support to businesses implementing their solution. They are proof that the Microsoft strategy can be made even more effective with open source. Do they step on toes, as with the KDE/GNOME fiasco? Only where necessary to improve the user experience and to aim towards making a product better than Redmond.
Maybe it'd be worth picking up a CD player that can playback MP3 and burning a couple of 10 hour discs? I've already shifted most of my collection to MP3 so admittedly it's pretty convenient for me, but it works well and you don't get any commercials.
Why are junk faxes illegal? Because it inconveniences businesses, not people, and we don't mind crippling free speech for the sake of corporations. Criminalizing spam flies in the face of free speech as well, especially given the relative inexpensiveness of the medium as compared to telemarketing or junk mail. Plenty of technological measures are available to combat each of these things at the receiving end. Why must we use the law to silence people when individuals can easily choose not to listen?
My gut feeling is that this is intended to be a more active form of copy-control. If you can read/write to the smart card in the plastic wafer (they say you can), imagine the following design:
Portion 1 of the disc is plainly visible as an ISO track and contains the installation binaries + AUTORUN (under Windows). Portion 2 could be in any format readable by the drive but containing the program in encrypted form.
Upon running the install binaries, the smart card in the device is checked by the program. Assuming the card permits installation, it will relinquish the decryption key and the install program will unpack the binaries.
They make a point of the ability to write back to the card. This could be part of a more complex authentication scheme, but I'd bet it's something simpler like "The third time someone tries to start an install, refuse to give them the key."
If this is the bone we need to throw to Congress to finally get some laws passed banning commercial spam without opt-out lists being honored, so be it. Besides, if spam is as irritating as we think it is, it's going to backfire as a PR tool even if it isn't illegal to use.
It's obvious that video games play a minor part in the decadence of society. However, games like Grand Theft Auto III, Postal, and Doom should never make it into the hands of minors. Parents are in general a whole lot less effective than they were fifty years ago; while it certainly isn't fair to all of us that we must remove entirely from the public the forms of entertainment that might cause Junior to go haywire, it is probably the first sensible approach towards getting a handle on our run-amok society.
I prefer your interpretation, of course, as I think it's closer to common sense than the direction we've been taking with laws regarding both computer security and usage of the airwaves. I'm just urging prudence to the one or two people potentially present that'll run off and try warchalking in their town because someone has said it's perfectly legal in this forum. There's enough legal haziness around this issue to make it a risk even if logic would dictate otherwise,
I think the ego comes in more when people feel that they're likely to come under attack for some shortcoming. The goodwill of others is perhaps the biggest compensation most open source developers can hope for, and getting slammed for working on something you're giving away is pretty bogus. A lot of developers are self-starters and get pretty invested mentally into their work as a demonstration of their ability to code, and they're putting their work up for review in front of a group of people not known in general for their tact or pleasant demeanor. I try to keep this in mind when I see one post or another exhibiting a primadonna attitude; it's probably less about narcissism than it is about not letting the bastards grind you down.
Then again, some developers just happen to be assholes in general.
I have no particular axe to grind... I've never spoken to lilo and I haven't been on OPN in a fairly long time (I do want to make this clear because it seems like people are taking this one personally). My question is simply this: shouldn't it be up to the person providing the service to decide whether or not to charge for it? He could have chosen methods less likely to inflame users of his service, to be sure, but I don't think that it's a particularly bad goal to become self-sufficient within the community. I don't know when the shift between Free and free occurred, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea that we should start dictating terms by which people must contribute to the rest of us.
Personally, I can't stand IRC. I've been trying to wade back into it slowly after giving up on it for six or seven years, but the general attitude in some of the linux channels in particular (EFnet...) is as offensive to me now that I'm giving Linux advice as it was when I was asking for it.
It seems to be a pretty simple proposition; lilo is requesting money to continue providing a service. Nobody had any complaints when things were free. The general sentiment I'm seeing expressed is that he should continue to provide the service for free (and shut up about it) rather than ask for donations. I've tried taking this approach with a couple of local businesses ("You know, I could probably build my own surfaces in a couple of hours for the cost of raw materials so are you willing to make a counteroffer on this teak furniture?" or "My parents never charged me for food so why do you?") but they were less than sympathetic.
This type of attitude makes a mockery of our community in general, and explains why for-real businesses have such a hard time taking us seriously. Why does lilo owe everybody a free IRC server just because others are willing to provide one?
Window managers should really be little more than themes; otherwise, we're just reinventing the wheel every time another person has to redevelop an algorithm that's already present in five other places.
Personally, I'd say screw it; security consultants get paid better than warchalkers, they're better appreciated, and they don't do jail time. There are plenty of better ways to be a good samaritan without having to second-guess the law.
I'm a bit worried that with all this attention being paid to the Moon by other countries they might start to get the idea that they should be able to own a bit of it. One thing that most people don't realize is that the American flag placed on the Moon was more than purely symbolic; under U.S. law, they were actually staking a claim on the land for America. That's one of the reasons the commercial interest in fully exploiting the Moon's potential as a tourist site is based in our country -- corporations realize that our government is going to have the final say over whether or not businesses will exist on the Moon at all. There's even something in the U.S. Code to this effect.
Respect for the anonymity of the library patron (at a minimum) needs to be codified in law. Otherwise, at any point the government can stop funding libraries that don't track patrons (like McCain's initiative that flew through Congress mandating web surfing filters) or worse.
If all these conditions are met, then if the libraries refused to use proxy logs or anything of the sort, and set up network PCs that ghosted themselves from a server (preferably with Linux) every time a patron logs out to fight trojan loaders and such, then things would go pretty well. But I don't think that it's the technology that's at issue.
Our librarian is pretty cool about these things, by the way, and probably would go for setting up something along these lines if she thought it'd be worth the investment. It wouldn't be, however, because there's still a lot of other variables that prevent such a setup from presenting anything other than a false sense of security.
It is essential that the average citizen understands the true impact of these laws, and that the government receives arguments from every side of the issue. A fistful of academics and computer scientists certainly can provide meaningful support to the public interest, but only if they engage the public and the government about the issue in terms that they can understand.
I don't agree with the argument in the article that commercially-packaged Free Software being sold alongside other commercial software should have to abide by the same warranty obligation of commercial software (which is essentially worthless at the 90-day limit EULAs set, but that's beside the point.) Actually, this type of restriction would seem to put a damper on massive bundling of free/cheap software as well as game companies dumping old games in the bargain bins, as warranty obligations can get pretty expensive. This could use a bit of rethinking.
I'm not personally for preventing Fair Use, mind you, but for stopping the unchecked spread of other peoples' property across the Internet merely because it's convenient and made of electrical impulses. An effective DRM system, in my mind, would not impede the easy transfer and playback we've gotten used to with dumping CDs to tape and MP3 or the like locally but would prevent (the convenient) bulk network transfer of content. I'm positive this would be possible if the major companies would sit down and work this out together rather than trying to figure out how to weasel cash from the whole scheme.
It's all about the balance of our rights against the rights of content owners to protect their investment and realize their returns in the open market. Building in DRM where it's needed most as opposed to just dumping it into every piece of consumer electronics on the market seems quite sensible and reasonable. I'm certain people who have been getting a free ride off of the artists won't appreciate it, but I believe that besides cutting off an avenue of exploitation this will also help return the Internet to a responsive state as well as encourage the media giants to finally embrace this medium without hesitation.
It's got to end sometime, folks -- otherwise, we're gonna kill the golden goose.
Apparently, this is already pretty close to being a medical reality, which begs the question of when the rest of us can get some of these units to play Halo directly in our heads! :)