Is apple willing to pay the taxes on all that for you? Seriously that gotta be at least 13K in prizes for which the US gov will want ~ 50%. Most companies offer people the prize or let then refuse it all together (this is what "The Price is Right" does). Most people end up turning down prizes because they can't afford to pay the taxes on them. Even if the person has the cash on hand to pay the taxes who is going to fork over 5K just to get a prize. Basically they'd be getting everything at half price.
Apple knows this and is using the "prize" as just a publicity stunt..
Sure you can design a great OS, Game, Programming Language or even _File System_... but if you really want to be famous just brutally murder a loved one.
from the article: "Hoping to make slashdot headlines and undercut all the other low cost computers coming from MIT... this new team hopes to produce a laptop that will be free." John Smith the leader of the team is quoted having said "Ideally we'd really like to make a computer that we pay you to take... but we've yet to work out the economics, so for now we're going to stick with the free computer." The team hopes to have their computer ready to go in a few years...
Lie detectors are the biggest scam against society. They only work in as much as people think they do. Study after study has shown that the galvanic skin response (used in the polygraph) DOES NOT detect lying or dishonesty, rather stress. People sweat when they are stressed.
If you put a person in an interrogation room with authority figures and strap on a "Lie Detector" its going to stress them out when they lie. This is all the lie detector detects.
If I understand the article correctly this is essentially what they are measuring. The galvanic skin response essentially measure how conductive the skin is, the more open the sweat glands are the lower the resistance across the skin.
I personally would predict that this device would be less effective then a standard polygraph. If this technology worked it "could" potentially be better as the person would be unaware that the truthfulness of their answers was being "measured". Polygraphs work because the person KNOWS the truthfulness of their responses are in question which in turn raises their stress level.
As a neuroscientist, I personally don't believe that a true lie detector will ever be invented. The signal to noise ration is low and variable from subject to subject, also what signal should actually be examined is unclear.
On the contrary, I am actually a research scientist myself, and it is because of my scientific training that I have become skeptical of umbrella claims like the one in the article.
This is a pretty bold statement. Scientist predicted that life couldn't survive in a number of environments on earth, yet it has been found in each one:
1- In lakes frozen hundreds of meters down in antarctica 2- In the dept of the ocean where NO light permeates 3- Next to Volcanic openings in the earths crust were tempuratues are well over 800 degress c 4- In the highly acidic and poisionus ponds in Yellowstone National Park
I am sure that there are more but I can't think of any.
So for some scientist to say that there can't be life, I just have to role my eyes. One thing that I have learned about life is that life will find away. So just because we can't concieve of the possible forms that life might take its a little presumputous for us to assume that it can't exist.
Earth is a small speck in the universe, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not but to assume that life, as we know it on this planet, is the only form and location of life in the universe is a very ignorant view point.
I am of the firm conviction that as soon as we have the technology to explores these remote and hostile locations we will find things that we haven't even dreamed could exist.
So to get off my little soapbox here; if there is water there is probably life, and just because the conditions on the planet don't fit are current formula for life doesn't mean that our formula is correct.
As the number of contributors grow and the network becomes more and more complex you NEED management who understand the task at hand. Dilbert, and I'm sure most people out there, suffer from BAD management. We all know how bad management can doom a great project.
I am sure that they miss coding but are they working on linux to satisfy their own coding desires or to make linux a better product. If it is the former then they have no reason to be in management, but if it is the later then they are needed where the are. As the network gets bigger and more complex we are going to need people who have a better grasp of the BIG picture. Without this linux will die.
Sprint and Verizon will have their answers to iPhone
The iPhone isn't going to be successful because of features but because of how easy it is to use. The iPod is the best MP3 player in my book because it is so easy to use. The entire process is seamless. If Verizon or Sprint want to compete with this phone it won't be by adding video capabilities to their currently existing phones, rather it will be be creating a brand new phone based around a positive user experience.
LG, Motorola, Snayo, Samsung, etc... are all to busy trying to beat the other company with the number of features their phones have. Apple has never taken this approach. You can easily find mp3 players, computers, and cell phones that have more features then the apple products; however, the user experience with these products is lacking.
Apple knows how to make a product that is both idiot proof and powerful. This is why the iPhone will be successful. This is why the iPod was successful.
Do you not have a cell phone right now? Whenever you buy a phone the carrier runs a credit check on you. In order to do a credit check they need your ssn.
You're exactly on. One thing people haven't picked up on is that the iPhone runs safari and that all designed apps for the iPhone will also run on safari. Steve is releasing safari to the public so that anybody can develop apps for the iphone. Safari is the link between the iphone and the pc. Like itunes is the link between the pc and the ipod.
I think the word you were looking for is adapts. The brain doesn't regenerate (well most structures, one current theory behind limitless memory is the constant birth of new neurons in the Hippocampus).
Yes the brain can adapt to the loss of structures and tissue; however, this adaptation has limits. The ability for a 24 month old baby to adapt to the loss of a brain region is very different from that of a 60 year old man. Also you mention the cutting of the Corpus Callosum and how that people still function normally. Normal is a very relative term.
If you were to meet someone who had their corpus callosum cut you probably wouldn't know, but if you got to know them and watched them in their private life you would see a huge change in them. From wikipedia "A patient with a split brain, when shown an image in his or her left visual field (the left half of what each eye sees), will be unable to name what he or she has seen. This is because the speech control center is in the left side of the brain in most people and the image from the left visual field is sent only to the right side of the brain. Since the two sides of the brain cannot communicate, the patient can't name what he or she is seeing. The person can, however, pick up a corresponding object (one within the left overall visual field) with their left hand, since that hand is controlled by the right side of their brain."
Eventually the patient learns to adapt but the brain never regenerates the lost tissue.
You make a really good point. The brain unlike most tissues in the body does not have the capacity to regenerate itself (in the majority of circumstances). Inserting an electrode, microchip, stint, or anything into the brain KILLS neurons and damages the brain. Whether or not this damage is going to have lasting effect depends upon many factors.
This is why these implants are only the current solution. They are only for people who really need them (like guys who drive a wheel chair with a straw). They can implant the chip into a part of the brain that has been disconnected from the body so the damage done is negligable.
When EEG, ECOG, MEG, etc... tech gets better we (hopefully) will be able to monitor individual neuron activity without implanting anything into the brain. When that happens is what the article was referring to when it mentioned replacing a keyboard with a headband.
Watch some Republican in congress is going to pass a bill outlawing this tech because of the possible "Global Chilling by terrorist". (Not only will he be seen as Anti-Terror, but eco-friendly.)
I saw this exact device in action at the Annual Society for Neuroscience meeting last October in Atlanta Georgia. I spent about an hour talking to the group that were displaying the device. It uses EEG technology to detect voltage potentials across the skin (caused by inputs into layer 4 of the cortex). The tech who explained the device to me told me that current EEG analysis is not good enough to detect what a person is thinking about, rather it can detect IF a person is thinking.
The device does not recognize thoughts about specific letters, rather it recognizes general thought. The person has a grid of electrodes on the scalp that are measuring the voltage. The person then looks at a computer screen that displays groups of letters.
A band like "A D T E R K" is displayed and the person is instructed to count every band that appears that contains the desired letter. So if the person wants to type an "S" then upon seeing the band "S T V W K N" they would register having seen the S and the process of counting produces a large enough EEG signal that it is logged by the computer. The computer then displays separate bands that contain no more then one letter from the first band. Bands like " T D E I M" or "S B C X Z" might appear and as the second band contains an S the person would count it and produce the EEG signal. The computer then looks for the common elements between the bands and as S is the only common element the letter S is typed.
So again the computer isn't reading specific thoughts, rather just general thinking. The subject doesn't think "K" and then K is typed rather the computer displays a K and the person confirms the choice by thinking.
This display process is very fast (about 1 band a second) but it is rather a slow process to write. It takes around 5 or 6 minutes to write a sentence. It isn't as great as the article makes it seem, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.
Hawkins' theory that all parts of the neocortex perform the same algorithm
Well that depends on how you define neocortex some scientists call all cortex neocortex while others only refer to the frontal lobe in humans as neocortex. If you look at the circuitry of all the cortical areas then no they don't use the same algorithm and if Hawkins claims this then he is wrong. I haven't studied the frontal lobe that much so I can't say much about the circuitry there but I would be extremely surprised to see if the human specific cortex is a simple as one basic algorithm.
the only thing making animals less intelligent than humans was the size of the cortex
Actually this is a topic for debate. The animal with the greatest cortex area to brain mass is the Dolphin. Their cortex literally dwarfs ours. Yes dolphins are extremely intelligent animals but they lack many cognitive abilities that humans posses.
As a current student I neuroscience I would love to see this happen however there are a few major problems.
1) All the research into cortical circuitry is done in non-humans. There are definite similarities between our cortex and that of a rat, but there are also drastic differences, if there weren't then rats would be able to talk, think, and reason like we do. (Yes lots of research is being done in non-human primates, but this work is EXTREMELY expensive and even non-human primates have different cortical circuitry then we do)
(Not only are the cortices of different species drastically different, scientists often chose regions of cortex that have no correlation in humans. Many neuroscientists are studying the Barrel Cortex. It is a region of cortex that is specifically designed to integrate the signals from the whiskers of a Rodent. Humans don't have whiskers and we also don't have Barrel Cortex. Anything learned about the circuitry of the Barrel Cortex will not necessarily correlate to human cortex.
2) Intra-population Circuitry research examines very small subsets of neurons that make up a bigger populations. When studying neurons in the visual cortex for example the best anyone can do is look at the firing of about 150 neurons. When you consider that there are over 10,000,000,000 (BILLION) neurons that make up the human brain a small set of 150 neurons is almost nothing. We don't have sufficient technology to examine what each neuron in a specific population is doing.
3) Inter-population circuitry research only looks at what populations are connected to each other. Yes we know what type of neurons project from one area of the brain to the next, however, this only gives a very rough schematic of the circuitry. The circuitry of both the cerebellum and the hippocampus have been described beautifully (they have both been known for well over 50 years). However once we no this circuitry it yields no light on how the circuitry actually accomplishes its task.
4) Failure to integrate both intra and inter population circuitry. I have yet to read a paper that does a good job of integrating these two studies. Most neuroscientist pick one emphasis and stick with it. In order to understand exactly what the cortex is doing you must integrate all levels of research into your studies.
5) Study of the cortex is insufficient. The cortex projects to many regions of the brain whose functions are still unknown. These connections to these brain regions might not appear necessary but if they really weren't necessary why are they there? Back in the day people who had really bad seizures would have what is called a "Corpus Callosomy" This is the cutting of the fibers that connect the two hemispheres of the brain. At first the procedure was called a success. However, after further investigation it turned out that the people on whom this operation was performed had drastic problems. (Example, if a person was holding an object in their left hand (the sensory fibers project from the left hand to the right side of the brain) and if they weren't allowed to see the object, upon request of the examiner of what the person was holding they would respond there is nothing in their hand. ) This example is only to illustrate that upon initial examination many regions of the brain appear to have no function as lesioning these structures has no aversive effects, this is what many people thought about the corpus colosum, however upon further examination this proved untrue. Before we can understand how the cortex fully functions we must understand how the entire brain works with it.
Sorry to be a nay sayer but I have serious doubts whenever someone claims to have figured out how the cortex works.
How many times do we have to screw up an ecosystem before we learn that we don't understand ecosystems well enough to predict what our acts will do.
1st. In Moab, Utah the forest service planted Russian trees to prevent the erosion of the river bed, only to find out that the plants have drained the river and killed many endogenous plants and animals.
2nd. Cane Toads were introduced into Australia to eat the insects that prey on the sugar cane. It turns out that the insects that eat sugar cane in Australia and Hawaii are completely different and there are no predators that can eat the Cane Toads. Now Australia is over populated with a Cane Toads which again are killing the natural plant life and animal life.
3rd. I can't think of another off the top of my head but I am certain there are probably hundreds of examples of this.
We must stop screwing with the ecosystems. When I hear of orbiting solar shields and massive projects to paint the desert, I get really scared because a scientist who really understands the delicate balance of the ecosystem would never dare to suggest such an idea. Only one who doesn't and is looking to make a buck and get on time for "saving the planet from global warming" would do it. These ideas will only result in causing more problems then they solve.
if you have enough money you can always buy yourself some respectability
.
Yes that it true, but I would really like to see if you could give up BILLIONS. People always talk about being generous once they hit it, big but very few are actually as generous as they said they would be once they get their millions (the poorest in America are those that donate the most). If it really was that easy to just give up your money once you hit it big more people would be doing it and it wouldn't be headlines material.
You can be as cynical of Mr. Gates as you want but he did something HUGE that will benefit generations to come.
Slashdot Mirror
Is apple willing to pay the taxes on all that for you? Seriously that gotta be at least 13K in prizes for which the US gov will want ~ 50%. Most companies offer people the prize or let then refuse it all together (this is what "The Price is Right" does). Most people end up turning down prizes because they can't afford to pay the taxes on them. Even if the person has the cash on hand to pay the taxes who is going to fork over 5K just to get a prize. Basically they'd be getting everything at half price. Apple knows this and is using the "prize" as just a publicity stunt..
Sure you can design a great OS, Game, Programming Language or even _File System_... but if you really want to be famous just brutally murder a loved one.
from the article: "Hoping to make slashdot headlines and undercut all the other low cost computers coming from MIT... this new team hopes to produce a laptop that will be free." John Smith the leader of the team is quoted having said "Ideally we'd really like to make a computer that we pay you to take... but we've yet to work out the economics, so for now we're going to stick with the free computer." The team hopes to have their computer ready to go in a few years...
AMAZING!
Check these out: I read these in elementary school and remember loving them: Wrinkle in Time and the Tripod Series: http://www.amazon.com/Tripods-Trilogy-John-Christopher/dp/0020425716
So you're looking to digitize "Gaming" magazines... I guess you can call 'em that...
Lie detectors are the biggest scam against society. They only work in as much as people think they do. Study after study has shown that the galvanic skin response (used in the polygraph) DOES NOT detect lying or dishonesty, rather stress. People sweat when they are stressed. If you put a person in an interrogation room with authority figures and strap on a "Lie Detector" its going to stress them out when they lie. This is all the lie detector detects. If I understand the article correctly this is essentially what they are measuring. The galvanic skin response essentially measure how conductive the skin is, the more open the sweat glands are the lower the resistance across the skin. I personally would predict that this device would be less effective then a standard polygraph. If this technology worked it "could" potentially be better as the person would be unaware that the truthfulness of their answers was being "measured". Polygraphs work because the person KNOWS the truthfulness of their responses are in question which in turn raises their stress level. As a neuroscientist, I personally don't believe that a true lie detector will ever be invented. The signal to noise ration is low and variable from subject to subject, also what signal should actually be examined is unclear.
even though it would be delivering information via edge. So you could set up an old school BBC on it or something.
On the contrary, I am actually a research scientist myself, and it is because of my scientific training that I have become skeptical of umbrella claims like the one in the article.
This is a pretty bold statement. Scientist predicted that life couldn't survive in a number of environments on earth, yet it has been found in each one:
1- In lakes frozen hundreds of meters down in antarctica
2- In the dept of the ocean where NO light permeates
3- Next to Volcanic openings in the earths crust were tempuratues are well over 800 degress c
4- In the highly acidic and poisionus ponds in Yellowstone National Park
I am sure that there are more but I can't think of any.
So for some scientist to say that there can't be life, I just have to role my eyes. One thing that I have learned about life is that life will find away. So just because we can't concieve of the possible forms that life might take its a little presumputous for us to assume that it can't exist.
Earth is a small speck in the universe, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not but to assume that life, as we know it on this planet, is the only form and location of life in the universe is a very ignorant view point.
I am of the firm conviction that as soon as we have the technology to explores these remote and hostile locations we will find things that we haven't even dreamed could exist.
So to get off my little soapbox here; if there is water there is probably life, and just because the conditions on the planet don't fit are current formula for life doesn't mean that our formula is correct.
what somebody who knows how to install that kind of software on their computer was doing by sending their PC to the Geek Squad.
As the number of contributors grow and the network becomes more and more complex you NEED management who understand the task at hand. Dilbert, and I'm sure most people out there, suffer from BAD management. We all know how bad management can doom a great project.
I am sure that they miss coding but are they working on linux to satisfy their own coding desires or to make linux a better product. If it is the former then they have no reason to be in management, but if it is the later then they are needed where the are. As the network gets bigger and more complex we are going to need people who have a better grasp of the BIG picture. Without this linux will die.
The iPhone isn't going to be successful because of features but because of how easy it is to use. The iPod is the best MP3 player in my book because it is so easy to use. The entire process is seamless. If Verizon or Sprint want to compete with this phone it won't be by adding video capabilities to their currently existing phones, rather it will be be creating a brand new phone based around a positive user experience.
LG, Motorola, Snayo, Samsung, etc... are all to busy trying to beat the other company with the number of features their phones have. Apple has never taken this approach. You can easily find mp3 players, computers, and cell phones that have more features then the apple products; however, the user experience with these products is lacking.
Apple knows how to make a product that is both idiot proof and powerful. This is why the iPhone will be successful. This is why the iPod was successful.
Do you not have a cell phone right now? Whenever you buy a phone the carrier runs a credit check on you. In order to do a credit check they need your ssn.
You're exactly on. One thing people haven't picked up on is that the iPhone runs safari and that all designed apps for the iPhone will also run on safari. Steve is releasing safari to the public so that anybody can develop apps for the iphone. Safari is the link between the iphone and the pc. Like itunes is the link between the pc and the ipod.
I think the word you were looking for is adapts. The brain doesn't regenerate (well most structures, one current theory behind limitless memory is the constant birth of new neurons in the Hippocampus).
Yes the brain can adapt to the loss of structures and tissue; however, this adaptation has limits. The ability for a 24 month old baby to adapt to the loss of a brain region is very different from that of a 60 year old man. Also you mention the cutting of the Corpus Callosum and how that people still function normally. Normal is a very relative term.
If you were to meet someone who had their corpus callosum cut you probably wouldn't know, but if you got to know them and watched them in their private life you would see a huge change in them. From wikipedia "A patient with a split brain, when shown an image in his or her left visual field (the left half of what each eye sees), will be unable to name what he or she has seen. This is because the speech control center is in the left side of the brain in most people and the image from the left visual field is sent only to the right side of the brain. Since the two sides of the brain cannot communicate, the patient can't name what he or she is seeing. The person can, however, pick up a corresponding object (one within the left overall visual field) with their left hand, since that hand is controlled by the right side of their brain." Eventually the patient learns to adapt but the brain never regenerates the lost tissue.
You make a really good point. The brain unlike most tissues in the body does not have the capacity to regenerate itself (in the majority of circumstances). Inserting an electrode, microchip, stint, or anything into the brain KILLS neurons and damages the brain. Whether or not this damage is going to have lasting effect depends upon many factors.
This is why these implants are only the current solution. They are only for people who really need them (like guys who drive a wheel chair with a straw). They can implant the chip into a part of the brain that has been disconnected from the body so the damage done is negligable.
When EEG, ECOG, MEG, etc... tech gets better we (hopefully) will be able to monitor individual neuron activity without implanting anything into the brain. When that happens is what the article was referring to when it mentioned replacing a keyboard with a headband.
Watch some Republican in congress is going to pass a bill outlawing this tech because of the possible "Global Chilling by terrorist". (Not only will he be seen as Anti-Terror, but eco-friendly.)
You gotta love politics.
I saw this exact device in action at the Annual Society for Neuroscience meeting last October in Atlanta Georgia. I spent about an hour talking to the group that were displaying the device. It uses EEG technology to detect voltage potentials across the skin (caused by inputs into layer 4 of the cortex). The tech who explained the device to me told me that current EEG analysis is not good enough to detect what a person is thinking about, rather it can detect IF a person is thinking.
The device does not recognize thoughts about specific letters, rather it recognizes general thought. The person has a grid of electrodes on the scalp that are measuring the voltage. The person then looks at a computer screen that displays groups of letters.
A band like "A D T E R K" is displayed and the person is instructed to count every band that appears that contains the desired letter. So if the person wants to type an "S" then upon seeing the band "S T V W K N" they would register having seen the S and the process of counting produces a large enough EEG signal that it is logged by the computer. The computer then displays separate bands that contain no more then one letter from the first band. Bands like " T D E I M" or "S B C X Z" might appear and as the second band contains an S the person would count it and produce the EEG signal. The computer then looks for the common elements between the bands and as S is the only common element the letter S is typed.
So again the computer isn't reading specific thoughts, rather just general thinking. The subject doesn't think "K" and then K is typed rather the computer displays a K and the person confirms the choice by thinking.
This display process is very fast (about 1 band a second) but it is rather a slow process to write. It takes around 5 or 6 minutes to write a sentence. It isn't as great as the article makes it seem, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.
Microsoft said "All your emails are belong to us"
As a current student I neuroscience I would love to see this happen however there are a few major problems.
1) All the research into cortical circuitry is done in non-humans. There are definite similarities between our cortex and that of a rat, but there are also drastic differences, if there weren't then rats would be able to talk, think, and reason like we do. (Yes lots of research is being done in non-human primates, but this work is EXTREMELY expensive and even non-human primates have different cortical circuitry then we do)
(Not only are the cortices of different species drastically different, scientists often chose regions of cortex that have no correlation in humans. Many neuroscientists are studying the Barrel Cortex. It is a region of cortex that is specifically designed to integrate the signals from the whiskers of a Rodent. Humans don't have whiskers and we also don't have Barrel Cortex. Anything learned about the circuitry of the Barrel Cortex will not necessarily correlate to human cortex.
2) Intra-population Circuitry research examines very small subsets of neurons that make up a bigger populations. When studying neurons in the visual cortex for example the best anyone can do is look at the firing of about 150 neurons. When you consider that there are over 10,000,000,000 (BILLION) neurons that make up the human brain a small set of 150 neurons is almost nothing. We don't have sufficient technology to examine what each neuron in a specific population is doing.
3) Inter-population circuitry research only looks at what populations are connected to each other. Yes we know what type of neurons project from one area of the brain to the next, however, this only gives a very rough schematic of the circuitry. The circuitry of both the cerebellum and the hippocampus have been described beautifully (they have both been known for well over 50 years). However once we no this circuitry it yields no light on how the circuitry actually accomplishes its task.
4) Failure to integrate both intra and inter population circuitry. I have yet to read a paper that does a good job of integrating these two studies. Most neuroscientist pick one emphasis and stick with it. In order to understand exactly what the cortex is doing you must integrate all levels of research into your studies.
5) Study of the cortex is insufficient. The cortex projects to many regions of the brain whose functions are still unknown. These connections to these brain regions might not appear necessary but if they really weren't necessary why are they there? Back in the day people who had really bad seizures would have what is called a "Corpus Callosomy" This is the cutting of the fibers that connect the two hemispheres of the brain. At first the procedure was called a success. However, after further investigation it turned out that the people on whom this operation was performed had drastic problems. (Example, if a person was holding an object in their left hand (the sensory fibers project from the left hand to the right side of the brain) and if they weren't allowed to see the object, upon request of the examiner of what the person was holding they would respond there is nothing in their hand. ) This example is only to illustrate that upon initial examination many regions of the brain appear to have no function as lesioning these structures has no aversive effects, this is what many people thought about the corpus colosum, however upon further examination this proved untrue. Before we can understand how the cortex fully functions we must understand how the entire brain works with it.
Sorry to be a nay sayer but I have serious doubts whenever someone claims to have figured out how the cortex works.
This reminds me of the futurama pilot.
How many times do we have to screw up an ecosystem before we learn that we don't understand ecosystems well enough to predict what our acts will do.
1st. In Moab, Utah the forest service planted Russian trees to prevent the erosion of the river bed, only to find out that the plants have drained the river and killed many endogenous plants and animals.
2nd. Cane Toads were introduced into Australia to eat the insects that prey on the sugar cane. It turns out that the insects that eat sugar cane in Australia and Hawaii are completely different and there are no predators that can eat the Cane Toads. Now Australia is over populated with a Cane Toads which again are killing the natural plant life and animal life.
3rd. I can't think of another off the top of my head but I am certain there are probably hundreds of examples of this.
We must stop screwing with the ecosystems. When I hear of orbiting solar shields and massive projects to paint the desert, I get really scared because a scientist who really understands the delicate balance of the ecosystem would never dare to suggest such an idea. Only one who doesn't and is looking to make a buck and get on time for "saving the planet from global warming" would do it. These ideas will only result in causing more problems then they solve.
You can be as cynical of Mr. Gates as you want but he did something HUGE that will benefit generations to come.