The article says "NASA has developed a computer program that comes close to reading thoughts not yet spoken, by analyzing nerve commands to the throat," but I've learned to take what a reporter says in an article about something scientific with a grain of salt. I have read an AP business reporter refer to steam as liquid hydrogen, almost causing my brain to explode. Look at what NASA reps are actually quoted with saying in the article. "A person using the subvocal system thinks of phrases and talks to himself so quietly it cannot be heard, but the tongue and vocal cords do receive speech signals from the brain"
"What is analyzed is silent, or subauditory, speech, such as when a person silently reads or talks to himself."
It's not mind-reading. If you don't subvocalize, it won't pick it up. But it is extremely cool, and I think will have some really cool applications. I wish DARPA were doing this instead of NASA though. I think they tend to do the best job of developing new technology like this.
The way I see it, there are three kinds of silent reading.
The first involves real subvocalization, meaning people that read out loud very quietly and move their lips. I don't want to offend anyone, but I find it kind of annoying when people do that. Don't know why. The number of people that do this is in my experience, a minority and occurs most often in people that are weak readers or intentionally reading very carefully. I actually will do it myself when I am following chemistry lab instructions or sometimes when I read in Spanish, a second language.
The next kind of reading is what I think is the most common. There is no subvocalization of any kind, no tongue moving inside the mouth, no vocal chord movement, but words written are mentally translated first to sound-thought and then comprehended. I'm not sure if sound-thought makes sense but it's the best description I can think of. Sound-thought is then what is actually processed and understood by the brain. This I think is most common because I believe that most people's thought process takes the form of an internal monologue. A notable exception is that I know when I do calculus, there is a lot of visualization, algebra, logic and simple math going on in my head and very little verbal thought.
The last kind of reading I think could be considered a form of speed-reading, though I have never taken any speed-reading instruction. I use this whenever I am not reading for pleasure and the passage need not be read super-carefully. I look at the words very quickly and directly process them without first converting to internal sound-thought. If the passage is divided into narrow columns, I can process a whole line at a time and scan straight down the page without any lateral eye-movement.
The level of comprehension and retention when I do this is worse than with methods one or two, but it's extremely fast. The biggest advantage for me anyway that it has over methods one and two is that I retain parts of the text visually. I have a quasi-photographic memory and when I took a course in US History for example, I was able to read names and dates off pages in visual memory because I read the text in that manner.
Now, to get a little more back on topic....
When I was in high school, I competed in quiz bowl trivia competitions like jeopardy, but the questions are only read aloud, and you can buzz in and interrupt the reader at any time before the question is finished and give an answer. Our team and other very good teams learned ways to anticipate the question.
Some teams' familiarity with the subtle structure and format of the questions gave them such a strong intuition that weak teams would swear they were cheating. You got to know individual readers and how much they will continue to read after you buzz in(sometimes finishing the word, sometimes mid-syllable.) Which brings me to my point; if you watch somebody's mouth very carefully when they speak, as they are ending a word and starting to form the next, it's easy to tell what the next letter out of their mouth will be.
A teammate of mine once rang in after a reader had read the letter "J" and then stopped. He could tell the next letter was going to be D, and there had already been several similar questions in earlier rounds asking for different information concerning the same subject that he could tell pretty certainly what the question was going to ask(questions often repeat subject but rarely answers between rounds) So he answered Holden Caulfield.
The other team wasn't pleased at all.
This skill could be practical in interrogations of criminal/terrorist suspects and is what I first thought of when I read the headline of the story. (A better headline would be Nasa develops computer processing of subvocal speech.) A suspect under a lot of stress may come close enough to giving you a name that you can tell from the shape of their mouth that it probably starts with an L rather than a T before refusing to speak any more, and that might be enough.
Right, computing itself is their hobby, so they want it to be something that is interesting and engaging to do. If Linux were easy like OS X, Linux users wouldn't like it as much. They'd move to BeOS if they had to to maintain the same elitist pattern of time-wasting. A front end for moving my music to my iPod? No thanks, buddy!
I have a few specific questions relating to this same topic:
1.In Canada, downloading music is legal, while uploading is not. What is REALLY the case in the US? If I own a cd, but say it's become unplayable by too many scratches, is it legal for me to get a copy from someone else? What if someone stole my cd's? Has anyone ever been sued just for downloading?
2. What about a peer to peer network where there is no distribution, only performance? It could be like a humongously massive jukebox, with secure DRM streaming of any song someone else hosts. User's pay performance royalties managed through Sound Exchange. or royalties are paid by the people that maintain the infrastructure with money they make from forced advertising in either the stream clients or audio ads before streamed songs.
Because his seems to be based on the text, whereas, as was pointed out, the original author draws conclusions that cannot logically be drawn from the text by an rational person.
It's marked up a little though. I still don't quite understand what the big deal is about ripping cd's. It takes only a couple minutes to rip and. Putting on a pair of shoes is a bigger hassle. New music is not "often" protected as stated in the AS; in my experience it rarely is. If it is, they probably don't deserve your patronage anyway.
Tiled pink background + oversized US Flag + 3 short columns of centered text + strange rendering makes it too wide for browser initially + animated gifs + blue underlined text that's not a hyperlink + link to where you already are + lame useless joke about dashes = head implosion.
Why do we need so many distros when we already have 1 or 2 well developed, well supported good ones? Instead of making a thousand for different purposes, why not just make it easier to customize Red Hat or Suse to fit all those purposes(i.e. LinuxBBC, uclinux, etc)?
His "exploring" involved the access of "home telephone numbers and Social Security numbers for more than 3,000 contributors to the Times' Op-Ed page." And use of the LexisNexis service without paying for it. He also "set up five fictitious user identification names and passwords inside the Times' system to use to access LexisNexis and then used them to make more than 3,000 searches in February 2002."
While you can quibble about the definition of damage, I feel that what he did is the analogue of theft and trespassing on a massive (albeit electronic) scale. He is remorseful for his actions, and I agree that he certainly should be held accountable for his actions.
From the spelling, it appears he's British, and the British connotation of the word misdemeanor, if I'm not mistaken, is more serious than the American one. For example, in our US constitution, a misdemeanor is something for which we would impeach our President.
BTW, apparently "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an anagram for "Monica hiding dress hem smear."
Umm, I tried googling around for "ConcentricHost-Ashurbanipal" and couldn't find evidence that it was actually an http daemon but more like it was jsut a service offered by concentric networks. Can you clarify?
Slashdot Mirror
The article says "NASA has developed a computer program that comes close to reading thoughts not yet spoken, by analyzing nerve commands to the throat," but I've learned to take what a reporter says in an article about something scientific with a grain of salt. I have read an AP business reporter refer to steam as liquid hydrogen, almost causing my brain to explode. Look at what NASA reps are actually quoted with saying in the article.
"A person using the subvocal system thinks of phrases and talks to himself so quietly it cannot be heard, but the tongue and vocal cords do receive speech signals from the brain"
"What is analyzed is silent, or subauditory, speech, such as when a person silently reads or talks to himself."
It's not mind-reading. If you don't subvocalize, it won't pick it up. But it is extremely cool, and I think will have some really cool applications. I wish DARPA were doing this instead of NASA though. I think they tend to do the best job of developing new technology like this.
The way I see it, there are three kinds of silent reading.
The first involves real subvocalization, meaning people that read out loud very quietly and move their lips. I don't want to offend anyone, but I find it kind of annoying when people do that. Don't know why. The number of people that do this is in my experience, a minority and occurs most often in people that are weak readers or intentionally reading very carefully. I actually will do it myself when I am following chemistry lab instructions or sometimes when I read in Spanish, a second language.
The next kind of reading is what I think is the most common. There is no subvocalization of any kind, no tongue moving inside the mouth, no vocal chord movement, but words written are mentally translated first to sound-thought and then comprehended. I'm not sure if sound-thought makes sense but it's the best description I can think of. Sound-thought is then what is actually processed and understood by the brain. This I think is most common because I believe that most people's thought process takes the form of an internal monologue. A notable exception is that I know when I do calculus, there is a lot of visualization, algebra, logic and simple math going on in my head and very little verbal thought.
The last kind of reading I think could be considered a form of speed-reading, though I have never taken any speed-reading instruction. I use this whenever I am not reading for pleasure and the passage need not be read super-carefully. I look at the words very quickly and directly process them without first converting to internal sound-thought. If the passage is divided into narrow columns, I can process a whole line at a time and scan straight down the page without any lateral eye-movement.
The level of comprehension and retention when I do this is worse than with methods one or two, but it's extremely fast. The biggest advantage for me anyway that it has over methods one and two is that I retain parts of the text visually. I have a quasi-photographic memory and when I took a course in US History for example, I was able to read names and dates off pages in visual memory because I read the text in that manner.
Now, to get a little more back on topic....
When I was in high school, I competed in quiz bowl trivia competitions like jeopardy, but the questions are only read aloud, and you can buzz in and interrupt the reader at any time before the question is finished and give an answer. Our team and other very good teams learned ways to anticipate the question.
Some teams' familiarity with the subtle structure and format of the questions gave them such a strong intuition that weak teams would swear they were cheating. You got to know individual readers and how much they will continue to read after you buzz in(sometimes finishing the word, sometimes mid-syllable.) Which brings me to my point; if you watch somebody's mouth very carefully when they speak, as they are ending a word and starting to form the next, it's easy to tell what the next letter out of their mouth will be.
A teammate of mine once rang in after a reader had read the letter "J" and then stopped. He could tell the next letter was going to be D, and there had already been several similar questions in earlier rounds asking for different information concerning the same subject that he could tell pretty certainly what the question was going to ask(questions often repeat subject but rarely answers between rounds) So he answered Holden Caulfield.
The other team wasn't pleased at all.
This skill could be practical in interrogations of criminal/terrorist suspects and is what I first thought of when I read the headline of the story. (A better headline would be Nasa develops computer processing of subvocal speech.) A suspect under a lot of stress may come close enough to giving you a name that you can tell from the shape of their mouth that it probably starts with an L rather than a T before refusing to speak any more, and that might be enough.
Said salted and smoked meat is usually sliced thin and fried.
Firefox and its extensions?
Right, computing itself is their hobby, so they want it to be something that is interesting and engaging to do. If Linux were easy like OS X, Linux users wouldn't like it as much. They'd move to BeOS if they had to to maintain the same elitist pattern of time-wasting. A front end for moving my music to my iPod? No thanks, buddy!
I have a few specific questions relating to this same topic:
1.In Canada, downloading music is legal, while uploading is not. What is REALLY the case in the US? If I own a cd, but say it's become unplayable by too many scratches, is it legal for me to get a copy from someone else? What if someone stole my cd's? Has anyone ever been sued just for downloading?
2. What about a peer to peer network where there is no distribution, only performance? It could be like a humongously massive jukebox, with secure DRM streaming of any song someone else hosts. User's pay performance royalties managed through Sound Exchange. or royalties are paid by the people that maintain the infrastructure with money they make from forced advertising in either the stream clients or audio ads before streamed songs.
Because his seems to be based on the text, whereas, as was pointed out, the original author draws conclusions that cannot logically be drawn from the text by an rational person.
Buy an iTunes gift certificate off ebay?
It's marked up a little though. I still don't quite understand what the big deal is about ripping cd's. It takes only a couple minutes to rip and. Putting on a pair of shoes is a bigger hassle. New music is not "often" protected as stated in the AS; in my experience it rarely is. If it is, they probably don't deserve your patronage anyway.
I call someone who pays THAT MUCH over the price of an archos for the FORM FACTOR a dumbass.
iPod's aren't worth it yet. Wait a couple years for competitors to catch up and make high-capacity good-interfaced devices much cheaper.
In the mean time, buy a cd-mp3 player. They're cheap!
Somehow your joke was quite unfunny.
Ron Paul.
Tiled pink background + oversized US Flag + 3 short columns of centered text + strange rendering makes it too wide for browser initially + animated gifs + blue underlined text that's not a hyperlink + link to where you already are + lame useless joke about dashes = head implosion.
Because for 7 hours you have 10,000 songs to pick from to listen to.
But I agree. I think that for example, the cast-benefit ratio is better for buying a cd-player that play's mp3-cd's than a HD-based player right now.
Option 1: Pay 70 dollars Option 2: RTFA and pay for acouple standard batteries and a firewire connector
Umm, just take it out and show them. It's made of two nine volts and two double A's. I don't think it would be too hard to explain.
Last week they were around 3 billion for sure. I had a bet with a friend over it. I think it was 3.3 actually.
Hey studioqb is too easy. my friend got every question right with google in like 40 minutes.
Why do we need so many distros when we already have 1 or 2 well developed, well supported good ones? Instead of making a thousand for different purposes, why not just make it easier to customize Red Hat or Suse to fit all those purposes(i.e. LinuxBBC, uclinux, etc)?
I'm all out of bubble gum!
You think we're going to find fossil fuels there?
His "exploring" involved the access of "home telephone numbers and Social Security numbers for more than 3,000 contributors to the Times' Op-Ed page." And use of the LexisNexis service without paying for it. He also "set up five fictitious user identification names and passwords inside the Times' system to use to access LexisNexis and then used them to make more than 3,000 searches in February 2002."
While you can quibble about the definition of damage, I feel that what he did is the analogue of theft and trespassing on a massive (albeit electronic) scale. He is remorseful for his actions, and I agree that he certainly should be held accountable for his actions.
This from the CNN article.
I'm sorry man, but the moon wasn't anybody's private property and equipment.
Because he didn't have a permanent address and occasionally stayed in empty buildings.
From the spelling, it appears he's British, and the British connotation of the word misdemeanor, if I'm not mistaken, is more serious than the American one. For example, in our US constitution, a misdemeanor is something for which we would impeach our President.
BTW, apparently "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an anagram for "Monica hiding dress
hem smear."
Ah cool.
But what about ConcentricHost-Naram?
It wasn't listed in that header repository.
Umm, I tried googling around for "ConcentricHost-Ashurbanipal" and couldn't find evidence that it was actually an http daemon but more like it was jsut a service offered by concentric networks. Can you clarify?