Lots of good arguments about what this all means here. I'm of the opinion that it's a win-draw for M$. They don't get paid for what they didn't get paid for before, and they get good PR for this announcement. It keeps them from being scapegoated for some of what the foreign governments are doing. It won't make much difference to the attacked organizations. But what the discussion has done for me is raise awareness. From now on, I will ask every charity to which I give whether they spend money on software with functionality that can be had for free.
Haven't tried setting up a local server for it yet, but have been using the Roku for a while for mostly Netflix. My only real complaint is that since there's such a silly amount of local buffering, there's not a very decent scan forward/backward. That said, I'm looking forward to setting up a local media server for us AND setting up a private Roku channel or two for friends and family anywhere AND setting up a public Roku channel that will appear on anyone's Roku channel list. Right now there aren't many Roku channels, so even though Roku ownership isn't that huge, many of the owners will see your channel. Particularly after reading through the comments here I can see that Roku's not the best choice for just in-home media, but offers some things that none of the others can. It does "just work," which is more than I can say for even many DVD players.
"removing tax costs from individuals and foisting them on businesses"
Whaaaat?
Ever look at how corporate income taxes have changed over the last half-century?
I tend to think that we'd be observed for science's sake, or at least like gerbils. However, I think most of us anthropomorphise extraterrestrials. How the heck can we predict how some entirely different life form might act, or even what kinds of decisions about individual lives humans, or what humans have become, might make in a millenia or two? But yes, I was mostly just putting forward a rather ridiculous idea that didn't seem at first glance to have that many holes in it. I suspect the real explanation for Fermi's Paradox is that the vast distances between habitable planets makes it unlikely for civilizations to come in contact, particularly if annihilation by asteroids, gamma ray bursts, etc. acts to limit the span of such civilizations. Perhaps there's some discovery that is so dangerous that most civilizations destroy themselves by accident before they realize the danger. Pessimistically speaking, perhaps we're already upon it, and it just hasn't killed us yet but will before we grasp it's danger.
Getting off-topic a little... just don't blow our cover (worse) by transmitting! Fermi's Paradox isn't hard to resolve. The reason we haven't been visited yet is because there are few interstellar travelling species. The reason for that is that the ones that travel extinguish any others they find. As soon as "intelligent" signals are detected, they destroy the source. No point in taking a chance that some other planet's species will cause them problems later. Why don't we hear them? Because they're smart enough to keep us from hearing them. Maybe they use lasers to communicate point-to-point, or maybe some type of quantum nonlocal effect, or perhaps embed information in the gamma ray bursters they trigger when terminating other species that we haven't decoded or even noticed. Interstellar steganography. No, we won't have 900 years from the time a Monolith asks its creators what to do until we're exterminated. It will already know what to do with us when it finds us. Don't go flagging it down.
Parabolic dishes generally focus parallel incoming on the focus, where the LNB sits, or take signals from the focus and send them out as a straight beam. So I don't think it will do quite what you're thinking, but it would intensify any sound from the focus wherever the beam is pointed to some degree and most importantly create something of a beam. But that's if you use the focus. Other spots in front of the dish produce other effects, thought none will bring everything together in another spot.
Nuisance for an individual, not for a large organization, especially when combined with other data (from streetside cameras, license plate-scanning squad cars - elsagnorthamerica.net, etc).
Killing off FlightSim took TrainSim with it, no? Will this mean the return of it? With GFWL, can we look forward to rogue locos pulling out of sidings just as our trains approach?
Sounds like it came straight from a magazine that worships only those spending on ads. I vote neither, but rather to look forward and leave the fossils for future archaeologists to study or laugh about. Seriously, just because it's an ad for both MS and Adobe doesn't mean it isn't an ad.
Andy Griffith. Obviously some people still enjoy watching some ancient shows in black and white and so-so quality even for old NTSC. I'm one of them, though the B&W does tire me after a while. It's just too unnatural. However, I personally absolutely disagree with including time compression in that lot. Some of my favorite shows become unwatchable when frames are removed to speed up the show to cram in more ads. DVRs and TVs can't fix this, at least none of the ones I've seen yet, though I can imagine it's feasible since they usually only clip out frames that could probably be interpolated back into existence.
Around 22 years ago, I found a neat little program in a magazine to increase the DOS type-ahead buffer. It had to be typed into a text file, then fed to DEBUG to create a.com file. At the time, I had a secretary who kept asking for things to do, so I gave her the page to type in. She did, but it didn't work. I checked for capital Ohs instead of zeros, but it still didn't work. Then I found the lower case ls instead of 1s. Oh brother. If she'd been my mom's age, I would've not been surprised, but she was about 20 and had been using an ordinary PC keyboard for at least a couple of years.
So what happened to the program? It didn't work, even after ensuring it was typed in exactly as in the magazine.
I still keep finding documents with two spaces after periods and keep removing one. It's a life-long endeavor. 4 space indents are about right for most purposes. People I know who use 2 space indents have functions that run on for several pages and can't use 4 because then they can't see the code on the screen or paper.
I wish I had a disk drive the size of the byte count of all the second-spaces-after-periods in the world. Maybe I do. Maybe it's the one in my circa 2000 PC.
As a former trombonist (tromboner?), I'd just like to point out that, depending on how one tunes one's instrument, it may also be necessary to adjust the pitch occasionally using the lips even with the trombone, otherwise sometimes a 1st position note will have to be played in (near, as all 7 are approximations until a particular note in a particular key is selected) 7th, 6th, etc. position to sharpen it a little. The alternative is to adjust the tuning so that when the slide's all the way in, the highest pitch adjustment to any note normally played in 1st position will be in tune, then adjust the slide to flatten every other 1st position note. I always thought that was a PITA, so used the same method of adjustment as other brass players. BTW, some of us avoid using the slide for vibrato, too, and not just those who also play crippled (non-slide) brass instruments. Somewhat similarly, fretted string instruments can be tuned to the flattest note to be played on each string, then bent to produce the slightly sharper notes as necessary to play in tune. I have never been good enough on guitar to mess with this much, but imagine it could work OK for long duration single notes, and short notes and chords get short shrift.
For a nice example of synthesized Bach played in perfect tune, try Wendy Carlos' "Switched-On Bach 2000." Notice how much easier it is on the ear than when played on piano. My understanding is that some pipe organs have (had) provision for playing in perfect tune in more than one key. How? Extra keys on the keyboard? Anyone care to comment on that? I also understand that well-tuned pianos' strings for particular notes are not all tuned to exactly the same pitch, the resulting dissonance being why I don't care much for slow things played on piano.
On topic: If you're really skilled at all the things you listed, then you know the fundamentals better than 95+% of the "modern" programmers out here. Just get comfortable with encapsulation and event-driven programming notions, then pick a project that interests you and Google for tutorials, reference, whatever you need to know to learn it. I absolutely disagree that one needs to learn C#. My advice is to avoid "managed" code environments. Black boxes for which you can't fix the bugs are still bad news. C# beats the poop out of VB (because it's not BASIC), but isn't normally run by browsers without executing ActiveXs or something. Just use ECMAScript, or Java if you can ask or require the browser to have a JVM enabled.
For the most part, I agree, but I'll go further. I think the publicly accessible permanent records will force us to acknowledge that people have flaws and checkered histories. I'm looking forward to that general recognition. But as usual, it's the transition period that's rough. Until a majority of the populace has adapted to the new paradigm of record-keeping, we're going to have an increase in the attention the public pays to slung mud.
Yes, I realize it's not the right length for a VIN.
Someone suggested WEP key... I thought everyone using WEP had memorized their key by now, since they've had to type the darn thing in so many times. Or do some people keep changing their WEP key?
True enough. And while Netflix may be looking forward to a mostly-online service, for now their customers (me) will be more likely to keep paying them if we can get DVDs on Saturday. Perhaps they're also being agreeable with the USPS because they've been at odds in the past over envelop jamming and such. I really couldn't care less if I get a package from Amazon on Saturday or wait until Monday. The only case that makes sense to me is when I send a gift and I'm as late ordering it as I usually am. I think skipping another day besides Sunday is OK for the USPS, but I'd vote for Wednesday so as not to have two consecutive days missed.
This will just make phones greater targets for thieves, as they'll be much more valuable on the black market. Oh yeah, and not to mention cloning will pick up again. Gee thanks.
>> Creating light rays apparently emanating from a three dimensional object >> with basically two dimensional apparatus is holography
>Wikipedia disagrees with you (and so do I), but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt so I embedded that "way out" for you in my >comment.
Certainly I erred by omitting a reference to interference, and my comment was anything but precise, but I do believe that we'll see that most will accept a broader/looser definition of "holography" in the future, if not already. So I stand by it. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia entry that negates it, but only defines holography more narrowly.
>> generating objects just to see images of them
>So an array of microscopic light emitting devices which can emit different intensities of light in different directions is still holography in your >opinion? E.g., an array of triplets of RGB LEDs mounted on micromechanical scanning devices (which can scan at speeds fast enough so that all the >various angles are integrated by the eye)? Interesting. Most people, I believe, wouldn't classify that as holography.
Had to think about that a bit. So I'm thinking of a surface with pixels, but as you say, the light emanating from each pixel varies in intensity by the direction from which it's viewed. At first I thought perhaps not, but now I'd say yes, that is going to be labelled holography. In visible wavelengths, observers can believe they're seeing a three dimensional object, but the image is generated from/by a surface with no depth. I think an efficient way of storing a recorded image in the memory of the computer driving the display would be by storing an interference pattern. Seems like interference will have to be computed anyhow to prevent the appearance of unwanted artifacts.
However it's accomplished, I'm looking forward to seeing something that produces results similar to a hologram, so that I'll be able to enjoy it with only one eye.
You lack tact. It makes your errors harder to ignore.
Creating light rays apparently emanating from a three dimensional object with basically two dimensional apparatus is holography. So yes, if you're excluding creating three dimensional objects just to produce the images, I'd say that's holography. I don't believe that in the near future generating objects just to see images of them will be economically feasible, but it's certainly food for thought. In any case, I don't think many people would classify that as 3DTV. It's more like letting someone else drive your fabber.
What's been made so far, as far as I know, is wholly depended on parallax (beyond what's already being captured normally in many films). Parallax is a weaker indicator of 3D for most people that other cues. Just because POV means they can get away with only showing 24 frames or so of distinct information per second doesn't mean that we can't use much more. Come on, people, double or quadruple the frame rate. Vary the depth of field more often. And remember, the only real way to make 3D images without the objects is to recreate the images in 3 dimensions using holography.
Enforced properly, existing laws would force retailers of used games to prominently display a notice that the used merchandise does not contain content equivalent to the new one. Resale value then falls. Over time, there would presumably be less demand for games that couldn't be resold for much, and publishers would notice a decline in demand for the new games that employ such tactics.
Thanks for clearing that up. I had never heard NJ forbade detectors, only Virginia and, I think, Connecticut. I don't know about now, but some years back Virginia employed detector detectors and pulled people for using detectors even when they weren't readily visible at first glance. Some manufacturers created (at least they claimed) detectors whose local oscillators didn't leak so that detector detectors didn't find them.
I dislike environmental destruction more than most here, I would wager, yet hate to see the complete demise of what was a truly great design. Which brings me to a major complaint about GM, Ford, the old ChryCo, etc. They don't do niche products. If they can't figure out how to profit from producing several hundred thousand of something a year for a decade, they tend to quit considering it. Why not produce a trickle of those engines, certainly to be bought, at slightly higher prices? Tooling, etc. is already paid for, so only the variable costs remain. It would be different if they were pushing it aside to use the resources on something else, but they're obviously not. Other complaints? Big block in a Corvair? What, for wheelstands? AFAIK there was no such thing, outside of possibly a prototype. Produced for over 50 years? What? No, the Mark IV, originally 396 cubic inches, was introduced in 1965 (later produced in larger displacements: 402, 427, 454, 502... It was NOT in the same family as the previous "big block" Chevy 348/409, introduced in the 1950s, as in "She's real fine, my 409..." Rats (427, etc.) are heavy; 409s were ridiculously massive and were mostly found in Impalas and such.
How about, with or without the brain sensors, a Recaptcha-like system where multiple people tag each photo and each person has to tag several photos, one already heavily processed and one as-yet-untagged? This might prove to be a lot more difficult for machines to do than text systems. On the other hand, if the determined spammers out there figure out how to get a machine to do it, then they've done our work and we now have a machine that can tag photos.
Having worked in several VA state agencies, all of which have to deal with the state IT agency, I've seen some of the best and some of the worst in that state. I suspect there are some good people at the IT agency, but I have neither first hand experience with any such people nor hearsay nor even anecdotal evidence of any such existence. That agency MIGHT assist a few agencies with their IT needs, but for most agencies it hinders. If you want your project to fail, become mired, or be cancelled, just get the Department of Information Technology (or whatever it's called today) involved. I'm surprised when there's a success in which they're involved, so it's no biggie when such an "oversight" occurs.
Why is it this way? Partly because political hacks in the Gov's office and in the state legislature have no clue about IT.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of good arguments about what this all means here. I'm of the opinion that it's a win-draw for M$. They don't get paid for what they didn't get paid for before, and they get good PR for this announcement. It keeps them from being scapegoated for some of what the foreign governments are doing. It won't make much difference to the attacked organizations. But what the discussion has done for me is raise awareness. From now on, I will ask every charity to which I give whether they spend money on software with functionality that can be had for free.
Haven't tried setting up a local server for it yet, but have been using the Roku for a while for mostly Netflix. My only real complaint is that since there's such a silly amount of local buffering, there's not a very decent scan forward/backward. That said, I'm looking forward to setting up a local media server for us AND setting up a private Roku channel or two for friends and family anywhere AND setting up a public Roku channel that will appear on anyone's Roku channel list. Right now there aren't many Roku channels, so even though Roku ownership isn't that huge, many of the owners will see your channel. Particularly after reading through the comments here I can see that Roku's not the best choice for just in-home media, but offers some things that none of the others can. It does "just work," which is more than I can say for even many DVD players.
"removing tax costs from individuals and foisting them on businesses" Whaaaat? Ever look at how corporate income taxes have changed over the last half-century?
Well, I quoted "intelligent", but yes, you have a point. What threat could we possibly be, if we spend our time that way?
I tend to think that we'd be observed for science's sake, or at least like gerbils. However, I think most of us anthropomorphise extraterrestrials. How the heck can we predict how some entirely different life form might act, or even what kinds of decisions about individual lives humans, or what humans have become, might make in a millenia or two? But yes, I was mostly just putting forward a rather ridiculous idea that didn't seem at first glance to have that many holes in it. I suspect the real explanation for Fermi's Paradox is that the vast distances between habitable planets makes it unlikely for civilizations to come in contact, particularly if annihilation by asteroids, gamma ray bursts, etc. acts to limit the span of such civilizations. Perhaps there's some discovery that is so dangerous that most civilizations destroy themselves by accident before they realize the danger. Pessimistically speaking, perhaps we're already upon it, and it just hasn't killed us yet but will before we grasp it's danger.
Getting off-topic a little... just don't blow our cover (worse) by transmitting! Fermi's Paradox isn't hard to resolve. The reason we haven't been visited yet is because there are few interstellar travelling species. The reason for that is that the ones that travel extinguish any others they find. As soon as "intelligent" signals are detected, they destroy the source. No point in taking a chance that some other planet's species will cause them problems later. Why don't we hear them? Because they're smart enough to keep us from hearing them. Maybe they use lasers to communicate point-to-point, or maybe some type of quantum nonlocal effect, or perhaps embed information in the gamma ray bursters they trigger when terminating other species that we haven't decoded or even noticed. Interstellar steganography. No, we won't have 900 years from the time a Monolith asks its creators what to do until we're exterminated. It will already know what to do with us when it finds us. Don't go flagging it down.
Parabolic dishes generally focus parallel incoming on the focus, where the LNB sits, or take signals from the focus and send them out as a straight beam. So I don't think it will do quite what you're thinking, but it would intensify any sound from the focus wherever the beam is pointed to some degree and most importantly create something of a beam. But that's if you use the focus. Other spots in front of the dish produce other effects, thought none will bring everything together in another spot.
Nuisance for an individual, not for a large organization, especially when combined with other data (from streetside cameras, license plate-scanning squad cars - elsagnorthamerica.net, etc).
Killing off FlightSim took TrainSim with it, no? Will this mean the return of it? With GFWL, can we look forward to rogue locos pulling out of sidings just as our trains approach?
Sounds like it came straight from a magazine that worships only those spending on ads. I vote neither, but rather to look forward and leave the fossils for future archaeologists to study or laugh about. Seriously, just because it's an ad for both MS and Adobe doesn't mean it isn't an ad.
Andy Griffith. Obviously some people still enjoy watching some ancient shows in black and white and so-so quality even for old NTSC. I'm one of them, though the B&W does tire me after a while. It's just too unnatural. However, I personally absolutely disagree with including time compression in that lot. Some of my favorite shows become unwatchable when frames are removed to speed up the show to cram in more ads. DVRs and TVs can't fix this, at least none of the ones I've seen yet, though I can imagine it's feasible since they usually only clip out frames that could probably be interpolated back into existence.
Around 22 years ago, I found a neat little program in a magazine to increase the DOS type-ahead buffer. It had to be typed into a text file, then fed to DEBUG to create a .com file. At the time, I had a secretary who kept asking for things to do, so I gave her the page to type in. She did, but it didn't work. I checked for capital Ohs instead of zeros, but it still didn't work. Then I found the lower case ls instead of 1s. Oh brother. If she'd been my mom's age, I would've not been surprised, but she was about 20 and had been using an ordinary PC keyboard for at least a couple of years.
So what happened to the program? It didn't work, even after ensuring it was typed in exactly as in the magazine.
I still keep finding documents with two spaces after periods and keep removing one. It's a life-long endeavor. 4 space indents are about right for most purposes. People I know who use 2 space indents have functions that run on for several pages and can't use 4 because then they can't see the code on the screen or paper.
I wish I had a disk drive the size of the byte count of all the second-spaces-after-periods in the world. Maybe I do. Maybe it's the one in my circa 2000 PC.
Interesting post, thanks.
As a former trombonist (tromboner?), I'd just like to point out that, depending on how one tunes one's instrument, it may also be necessary to adjust the pitch occasionally using the lips even with the trombone, otherwise sometimes a 1st position note will have to be played in (near, as all 7 are approximations until a particular note in a particular key is selected) 7th, 6th, etc. position to sharpen it a little. The alternative is to adjust the tuning so that when the slide's all the way in, the highest pitch adjustment to any note normally played in 1st position will be in tune, then adjust the slide to flatten every other 1st position note. I always thought that was a PITA, so used the same method of adjustment as other brass players. BTW, some of us avoid using the slide for vibrato, too, and not just those who also play crippled (non-slide) brass instruments. Somewhat similarly, fretted string instruments can be tuned to the flattest note to be played on each string, then bent to produce the slightly sharper notes as necessary to play in tune. I have never been good enough on guitar to mess with this much, but imagine it could work OK for long duration single notes, and short notes and chords get short shrift.
For a nice example of synthesized Bach played in perfect tune, try Wendy Carlos' "Switched-On Bach 2000." Notice how much easier it is on the ear than when played on piano. My understanding is that some pipe organs have (had) provision for playing in perfect tune in more than one key. How? Extra keys on the keyboard? Anyone care to comment on that? I also understand that well-tuned pianos' strings for particular notes are not all tuned to exactly the same pitch, the resulting dissonance being why I don't care much for slow things played on piano.
On topic: If you're really skilled at all the things you listed, then you know the fundamentals better than 95+% of the "modern" programmers out here. Just get comfortable with encapsulation and event-driven programming notions, then pick a project that interests you and Google for tutorials, reference, whatever you need to know to learn it. I absolutely disagree that one needs to learn C#. My advice is to avoid "managed" code environments. Black boxes for which you can't fix the bugs are still bad news. C# beats the poop out of VB (because it's not BASIC), but isn't normally run by browsers without executing ActiveXs or something. Just use ECMAScript, or Java if you can ask or require the browser to have a JVM enabled.
For the most part, I agree, but I'll go further. I think the publicly accessible permanent records will force us to acknowledge that people have flaws and checkered histories. I'm looking forward to that general recognition. But as usual, it's the transition period that's rough. Until a majority of the populace has adapted to the new paradigm of record-keeping, we're going to have an increase in the attention the public pays to slung mud.
Yes, I realize it's not the right length for a VIN.
Someone suggested WEP key... I thought everyone using WEP had memorized their key by now, since they've had to type the darn thing in so many times. Or do some people keep changing their WEP key?
True enough. And while Netflix may be looking forward to a mostly-online service, for now their customers (me) will be more likely to keep paying them if we can get DVDs on Saturday. Perhaps they're also being agreeable with the USPS because they've been at odds in the past over envelop jamming and such. I really couldn't care less if I get a package from Amazon on Saturday or wait until Monday. The only case that makes sense to me is when I send a gift and I'm as late ordering it as I usually am. I think skipping another day besides Sunday is OK for the USPS, but I'd vote for Wednesday so as not to have two consecutive days missed.
This will just make phones greater targets for thieves, as they'll be much more valuable on the black market. Oh yeah, and not to mention cloning will pick up again. Gee thanks.
>> Creating light rays apparently emanating from a three dimensional object
>> with basically two dimensional apparatus is holography
>Wikipedia disagrees with you (and so do I), but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt so I embedded that "way out" for you in my >comment.
Certainly I erred by omitting a reference to interference, and my comment was anything but precise, but I do believe that we'll see that most will accept a broader/looser definition of "holography" in the future, if not already. So I stand by it. I don't see anything in the Wikipedia entry that negates it, but only defines holography more narrowly.
>> generating objects just to see images of them
>So an array of microscopic light emitting devices which can emit different intensities of light in different directions is still holography in your >opinion? E.g., an array of triplets of RGB LEDs mounted on micromechanical scanning devices (which can scan at speeds fast enough so that all the >various angles are integrated by the eye)? Interesting. Most people, I believe, wouldn't classify that as holography.
Had to think about that a bit. So I'm thinking of a surface with pixels, but as you say, the light emanating from each pixel varies in intensity by the direction from which it's viewed. At first I thought perhaps not, but now I'd say yes, that is going to be labelled holography. In visible wavelengths, observers can believe they're seeing a three dimensional object, but the image is generated from/by a surface with no depth. I think an efficient way of storing a recorded image in the memory of the computer driving the display would be by storing an interference pattern. Seems like interference will have to be computed anyhow to prevent the appearance of unwanted artifacts.
However it's accomplished, I'm looking forward to seeing something that produces results similar to a hologram, so that I'll be able to enjoy it with only one eye.
You lack tact. It makes your errors harder to ignore.
Creating light rays apparently emanating from a three dimensional object with basically two dimensional apparatus is holography. So yes, if you're excluding creating three dimensional objects just to produce the images, I'd say that's holography. I don't believe that in the near future generating objects just to see images of them will be economically feasible, but it's certainly food for thought. In any case, I don't think many people would classify that as 3DTV. It's more like letting someone else drive your fabber.
What's been made so far, as far as I know, is wholly depended on parallax (beyond what's already being captured normally in many films). Parallax is a weaker indicator of 3D for most people that other cues. Just because POV means they can get away with only showing 24 frames or so of distinct information per second doesn't mean that we can't use much more. Come on, people, double or quadruple the frame rate. Vary the depth of field more often. And remember, the only real way to make 3D images without the objects is to recreate the images in 3 dimensions using holography.
Enforced properly, existing laws would force retailers of used games to prominently display a notice that the used merchandise does not contain content equivalent to the new one. Resale value then falls. Over time, there would presumably be less demand for games that couldn't be resold for much, and publishers would notice a decline in demand for the new games that employ such tactics.
Thanks for clearing that up. I had never heard NJ forbade detectors, only Virginia and, I think, Connecticut. I don't know about now, but some years back Virginia employed detector detectors and pulled people for using detectors even when they weren't readily visible at first glance. Some manufacturers created (at least they claimed) detectors whose local oscillators didn't leak so that detector detectors didn't find them.
I dislike environmental destruction more than most here, I would wager, yet hate to see the complete demise of what was a truly great design. Which brings me to a major complaint about GM, Ford, the old ChryCo, etc. They don't do niche products. If they can't figure out how to profit from producing several hundred thousand of something a year for a decade, they tend to quit considering it. Why not produce a trickle of those engines, certainly to be bought, at slightly higher prices? Tooling, etc. is already paid for, so only the variable costs remain. It would be different if they were pushing it aside to use the resources on something else, but they're obviously not. Other complaints? Big block in a Corvair? What, for wheelstands? AFAIK there was no such thing, outside of possibly a prototype. Produced for over 50 years? What? No, the Mark IV, originally 396 cubic inches, was introduced in 1965 (later produced in larger displacements: 402, 427, 454, 502... It was NOT in the same family as the previous "big block" Chevy 348/409, introduced in the 1950s, as in "She's real fine, my 409..." Rats (427, etc.) are heavy; 409s were ridiculously massive and were mostly found in Impalas and such.
How about, with or without the brain sensors, a Recaptcha-like system where multiple people tag each photo and each person has to tag several photos, one already heavily processed and one as-yet-untagged? This might prove to be a lot more difficult for machines to do than text systems. On the other hand, if the determined spammers out there figure out how to get a machine to do it, then they've done our work and we now have a machine that can tag photos.
Having worked in several VA state agencies, all of which have to deal with the state IT agency, I've seen some of the best and some of the worst in that state. I suspect there are some good people at the IT agency, but I have neither first hand experience with any such people nor hearsay nor even anecdotal evidence of any such existence. That agency MIGHT assist a few agencies with their IT needs, but for most agencies it hinders. If you want your project to fail, become mired, or be cancelled, just get the Department of Information Technology (or whatever it's called today) involved. I'm surprised when there's a success in which they're involved, so it's no biggie when such an "oversight" occurs. Why is it this way? Partly because political hacks in the Gov's office and in the state legislature have no clue about IT.