Try it; it's very hard to hold your eye perfectly still though. Not only is it very hard, it's impossible to do it yourself! The muscle twitches that continuously "jiggle" your eyeball are involuntary. The experiment you suggest has been done using curare given by an anesthesiologist to a very brave guy.
The title of this article is extremely misleading. The researchers are NOT able to read "thoughts," in anything but the loosest of the word. The "torch" that they talk about using to "see into people's minds" is not even remotely possible, and probably won't be for decades. They can NOT "find" something being "thought" that they weren't already looking for. In this case, they are able to use fMRI (which basically measures blood flow in different brain areas -- not neural activity directly, by the way) to distinguish between a BINARY choice (i.e. whether someone will choose to add or subtract two numbers).
This sort of thing has been done before with fMRI, EEG, and iEEG -- so it's not particularly new. The idea is simply that brain activity while "thinking" of subtracting two numbers on the screen is sufficiently different from brain activity while "thinking" of adding two numbers on the screen to be able to distinguish the two states in single trials. (I say "thinking" in quotes, because in reality, researchers can't have any idea that subjects are actually doing what they want them to be doing.) In this case, they seem to be looking only at the medial prefrontal cortex. Even if they could somehow tell "everything" that was going on in medial prefrontal cortex (which this research is a far cry from), they'd still have the problem of figuring out what's happening everywhere else in the brain.
My last comment is that I am guessing that the software that "guesses people's intentions" needs to be calibrated for each individual from a bunch of trials where the researchers know what the subject is actually intending. In addition, brain-activity-measuring studies (such as fMRI) often accept only right-handed subjects, because brain activity in non-right-handed individuals is different enough that results get thrown off. In other words, take this article with a large block of salt.
This from the candidate who took on Rockstar over the hot coffee mod? Seems like she's arguing for privacy of personal information, but at the same time argues for stricter controls over what games we play. Does that sound hypocritical to anyone besides me?
There are (at least) two ways to prevent people from doing what you don't want them to do. The first is making it impossible for them to do it, even if they know how you're preventing them. I argue that this is analogous to the open-source model of security - the algorithms are open source but the encryption is still hard to break.
The second method is obfuscation - making "doing what you don't want people to do" or "reading what you don't want people to read" so difficult, obscure (secret), bureaucratic, or otherwise unappealing, that they either can't or don't want to follow through. I argue that this is analogous to the closed-source model of security - the algorithms are unknown (and so the encryption might be hard to break), but if the algorithms were known, the encryption would be easy to break.
In the long run, people find ways around obfuscated security measures, analogous to untying a complicated knot, or finding a needle in a haystack. My point is that cracking obfuscated security requires time and energy (e.g. for a brute force crack), or maybe leaked information, but not necessarily innovation (although creative solutions are possible).
While open source security measures aren't perfect, breaking them will, almost by definition, require inventing new algorithms - and once these algorithms are known, they can be used to make security tighter. This is different (and more secure in the long run) than simply creating a longer password or more complicated hash.
This article clarifies for me that, in the long run, governments must ultimately choose the open-source method. Collaboration and freedom of information at the cost of obfuscation and some secrecy is necessary.
While this is an interesting article, I have a problem with several of the indicated "clues that your phone is bugged." First, as the author points out, short-lasting batteries in the vast majority of cases, also as the author points out, simply means either (1) the battery is old and should be replaced, since it is having trouble holding a charge or (2) the battery life indicator on your phone is malfunctioning. Second, an unexpectedly warm phone, particularly when you're in an area where the reception is weak, could simply mean that the phone is continuously searching for a signal. To reduce the overheating and increase battery life, most cell phone services have a number you can dial to update your phone's repository of cell phone towers. Third, when the phone is transmitting or receiving information while you're not making a call, in the vast majority of cases, it's going to be either (1) syncing with the time server to keep your phone's clock accurate, (2) updating cell tower information, (3) updating some other bit of information (weather, stock quotes) continuosly displayed on your phone, or (4) you are currently receiving or sending a text message. The author points out that the vast majority of phones are not bugged, so none of the criterion mentioned in the article are "strong" indicators of bugging, and since the criterion mentioned are not independent, observing all symptoms does not indicate stronger evidence.
none of this stuff is particularly new. here's a brief summary of the first linked-to article:
integrate-and-fire models are extremely simple -- the idea (as implied by their name) is that this neuron model spikes if the membrane voltage passes some set threshold, and otherwise doesn't fire. In response to input current, the cell's membrane voltage charges (depolarizes) or decays (hyperpolarizes) according to exponential time constants. the other spiking models discussed are similarily oversimplified. (these simple neuronal models can be useful, for example in models of neural networks.)
the second article (the main one) is extemely vague on (a) how their findings were verified in actual neurons and (b) whether their model was borne out in actual neurons. i love computational neuroscience, and i think it's an extremely useful tool. one major downside with almost all computational models, however, is that they rely on assumptions that the designers can't prove. designing these models is often an iterative process, where (1) experiments inspire creation of a new model, (2) the model simulates a new condition during which new predictions are made, and (3) new experiments are performed which require adjusting the model or running more simulations. thus, to conclude (as this article appears to) that the authors have "proved proved that the presence of more scaffolding proteins available at the far downstream end of the neuron (and into the synapse) to AMPA receptors increased during LTP..." is misleading, given the dirth of evidence presented in the article.
if scaffolding proteins end up being verified as the mechanism by which AMPA receptors are anchored in the way the authors propose, that might be pretty interesting -- but clearly much more work needs to be done to verify that this is actually the case. the idea that AMPA receptors are promoted during LTP (increasing synaptic strength) and "demoted" during LTD (decreasing synaptic strength) is quite old (for example, see The Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory, published in 2002, by Howard Eichenbaum for a review).
At some point, these ridiculous policies (of course this does not only apply to Australia) will reach a critical mass. At such time, "going about one's daily life" will have become sufficiently annoying that the general public can't ignore it any more. Only then will the public be driven to action and force a policy change. It appears that the old idea of a "slippery slope" is no longer one to be feared, as freedoms around the world are given up in the name of profits and/or fighting terrorism, piracy, etc. Next time you buy a product, think about where the money is going, and thus indirectly, which policies and practices you are therefore supporting.
Ah, sorry, I meant to select "plain text". Here's what I meant to post:
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm always on the lookout for good science fiction books. I tend to tear through all the books I can find by an author I really like, and then I move on to the next "victim."
Some good Robert Sawyer books to start with:
If you're into AI, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, or related stuff: Mindscan, Terminal Experiment Philosophy or scifi in general: Calculating God, Frameshift, Flashforward Parallel Universes: Hominids series (Hominids, Humans, Hybrids)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm always on the lookout for good science fiction books. I tend to tear through all the books I can find by an author I really like, and then I move on to the next "victim."
Some good Robert Sawyer books to start with:
If you're into AI, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, or related stuff: Mindscan, Terminal Experiment
Philosophy or scifi in general: Calculating God, Frameshift, Flashforward
Parallel Universes: Hominids series (Hominids, Humans, Hybrids)
I actually just finished reading his book "Moving Mars," and it was excellent. I'll definitely check out other books by him in the future. I felt that some of his ideas on (science fictional) theoretical physics (for those who have read the book, I'm talking about Bell Contiuum Theory) reminded me a lot of the faster-than-light travel ideas in the later books of Card's Ender's Game series (Xenocide and Children of the Mind). For those of you who haven't tried his books yet, Robert Sawyer is also an excellent author with a similar style.
Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.
Please mod parent up! This is exactly right. While on the job, upholders of the law must be held accountable for breaking laws they are working to enforce. Government by hypocrisy is immoral.
What about selling these on http://w00t.com/ or something similar? or ebay? Aside from at this "movement's" inception, I barely saw anything about this, and I completely forgot about it. I'd be really sorry to see this project fail on a larger scale; I think it's a great idea.
Actually, my brother also recovered from this after 6 months of having no voice -- so Scott Adams isn't the only one. The recovery process seemed similiar to the one described; it involved repeating the same phrases over and over while trying to speak them as well as possible.
I agree that this system may not scale so simply. In addition to the issue of time scale, the doctors mentioned that they, in at least some cases, will be using robots operated remotely rather than the actual surgeons being present on board. One could argue that the success of this experimental surgery suggests that other zero gravity surgeries aren't out of the question. However, it's extremely difficult to predict how subtle differences involved in going from parabolic flight to space flight will affect such a complicated thing as surgery.
Not to mention all that debris and junk that will no doubt be floating around inside this structure. Something Hollywood doesn't portray is the sheer amount of crap (sometimes literally fecal matter) and general gross-ness in weightlessness. Remember Newton's laws? If you cough, saliva travels until it hits something -- then it sticks, since it's moist. In the high humidity environment, bacterias, molds, and other fun stuff run rampant. Got crumbs in space? You're going to be breathing them in, big time.
Severe skin infections and aspiration pneumonia are common in space. Going to the bathroom is a science experiment gone bad (think vacuum cleaner). If you stay in space more than 11 months, your skeleton and muscles become weakened permenantly. Fluids shift towards your head, causing your face to become puffy and swollen.
All in all, in spite of the view (which would probably be spectacular), I would personally never stay in a weightless environment for an extended period of time, such as implied by a hotel or college setting.
I say these things not to be a troll - I think it's an admirable idea, and my hat is off to whoever decides to live on this contraption. I just want to remind people that space is dangerous and dirty; it's not the sterile wonderland from the movies we've all come to know and love.
Is there going to be a poll to decide the winner, or is it out of the community's (collective) hands? Also, would there be any way to allow users to select their CSS style of choice, even if another style was ultimately chosen to be the default?
Xgl/Compiz may be key to the widespread adoption of this release. Because Ubuntu's soon-to-be-out next realease (i.e. Dapper Drake) does not include Xgl by default (although it is available via synaptic), I wonder if people will start gravitating toward Suse in search of nifty eye-candy (especially seeing as SuSe is currently hot on the heals of Ubuntu according to http://www.distrowatch.com/'s counter (to the extent that it can be trusted)...
Current operating systems (OSX, Windows, Linux) seem to be focusing on (debatably useful) eye-candy. OSX has included some pretty sweet stuff for a while, and one of the main focus points for Windows Vista seems to be the new Aero UI. Xgl is the open source community's answer to all this (of course, Xgl ended up beating Aero to the punch).
1/ Go to grad school:
-50k to pay for 2 years school
80k starting salary
I believe your analysis falls short right about here. In reality, many graduate programs (particularly Ph.D. programs, but also some Masters programs) will pay for tuition, health insurance, and give you a stipend. If you want to get a Masters and your program doesn't pay (but offers a paying PhD program), you can always enroll in the PhD program and drop out once you get your Masters. Even if the program doesn't explicitly offer a Masters, they will often award one anyway if you petition for it.
This is exactly right. Even if a network as complex as the human brain could be reconstructed in a petri dish (which I think is unlikely in the next century or so), it would serve little purpose for pure number crunching. The living human brain is capable of only a few floating point calculations per second; why should a petri dish version be any faster?
The real payoff would be in simulating neural networks using actual living neurons. Even using supercomputers, it becomes unrealistic to simulate individual neuronal ion channels and other abundant tiny structures in a network of thousands of neurons. In fact, for fixed computational power, there has always been a tradeoff between model accuracy and the number of neurons which can be included in the network.
This breakthrough sidesteps the accuracy issue entirely -- living neurons "automatically" simulate their own ion channels, etc. for free.
Going in the other direction (as in, implanting computer chips in the brain for the purpose of regaining function) seems a bit unrealistic. For the same reasons I explained above, a computer simulation will rarely do as well as the real thing.
Also remember that these chips are going to require a (battery?) power source. This means that either the patient is going to need to have major surgery every time the battery is low, OR they are going to need to have a battery pack surgically implanted below the skin or their skull (outside the bone). You certainly wouldn't want to be doing head-knocking physical activities with your brain's battery pack literally sticking out of the side of your head.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up! The article summary as posted is incorrect.
for ubuntu 6.10 or earlier:
1.) open terminal
2.) type "sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx" and press enter
3.) press alt+ctrl+backspace to restart X
for 7.04:
1.) install ubuntu (nvidia drivers are included)
enjoy!
The Oxygen (O) part of the CO2 we output comes from the O we breath. The Carbon (C) comes from SUGAR. Here's a diagram of the Kreb's cycle: http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~bi107vc/images/mol/krebs_ cycle.gif. For a full overview of metabolism, go here: http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~bi107vc/fa02/terry/metabo lism.html. I think you've mistaken the law of conservation of matter with the "law of conservation of molecules" (which doesn't exist).
The title of this article is extremely misleading. The researchers are NOT able to read "thoughts," in anything but the loosest of the word. The "torch" that they talk about using to "see into people's minds" is not even remotely possible, and probably won't be for decades. They can NOT "find" something being "thought" that they weren't already looking for. In this case, they are able to use fMRI (which basically measures blood flow in different brain areas -- not neural activity directly, by the way) to distinguish between a BINARY choice (i.e. whether someone will choose to add or subtract two numbers).
This sort of thing has been done before with fMRI, EEG, and iEEG -- so it's not particularly new. The idea is simply that brain activity while "thinking" of subtracting two numbers on the screen is sufficiently different from brain activity while "thinking" of adding two numbers on the screen to be able to distinguish the two states in single trials. (I say "thinking" in quotes, because in reality, researchers can't have any idea that subjects are actually doing what they want them to be doing.) In this case, they seem to be looking only at the medial prefrontal cortex. Even if they could somehow tell "everything" that was going on in medial prefrontal cortex (which this research is a far cry from), they'd still have the problem of figuring out what's happening everywhere else in the brain.
My last comment is that I am guessing that the software that "guesses people's intentions" needs to be calibrated for each individual from a bunch of trials where the researchers know what the subject is actually intending. In addition, brain-activity-measuring studies (such as fMRI) often accept only right-handed subjects, because brain activity in non-right-handed individuals is different enough that results get thrown off. In other words, take this article with a large block of salt.
This from the candidate who took on Rockstar over the hot coffee mod? Seems like she's arguing for privacy of personal information, but at the same time argues for stricter controls over what games we play. Does that sound hypocritical to anyone besides me?
There are (at least) two ways to prevent people from doing what you don't want them to do. The first is making it impossible for them to do it, even if they know how you're preventing them. I argue that this is analogous to the open-source model of security - the algorithms are open source but the encryption is still hard to break.
The second method is obfuscation - making "doing what you don't want people to do" or "reading what you don't want people to read" so difficult, obscure (secret), bureaucratic, or otherwise unappealing, that they either can't or don't want to follow through. I argue that this is analogous to the closed-source model of security - the algorithms are unknown (and so the encryption might be hard to break), but if the algorithms were known, the encryption would be easy to break.
In the long run, people find ways around obfuscated security measures, analogous to untying a complicated knot, or finding a needle in a haystack. My point is that cracking obfuscated security requires time and energy (e.g. for a brute force crack), or maybe leaked information, but not necessarily innovation (although creative solutions are possible).
While open source security measures aren't perfect, breaking them will, almost by definition, require inventing new algorithms - and once these algorithms are known, they can be used to make security tighter. This is different (and more secure in the long run) than simply creating a longer password or more complicated hash.
This article clarifies for me that, in the long run, governments must ultimately choose the open-source method. Collaboration and freedom of information at the cost of obfuscation and some secrecy is necessary.
While this is an interesting article, I have a problem with several of the indicated "clues that your phone is bugged." First, as the author points out, short-lasting batteries in the vast majority of cases, also as the author points out, simply means either (1) the battery is old and should be replaced, since it is having trouble holding a charge or (2) the battery life indicator on your phone is malfunctioning. Second, an unexpectedly warm phone, particularly when you're in an area where the reception is weak, could simply mean that the phone is continuously searching for a signal. To reduce the overheating and increase battery life, most cell phone services have a number you can dial to update your phone's repository of cell phone towers. Third, when the phone is transmitting or receiving information while you're not making a call, in the vast majority of cases, it's going to be either (1) syncing with the time server to keep your phone's clock accurate, (2) updating cell tower information, (3) updating some other bit of information (weather, stock quotes) continuosly displayed on your phone, or (4) you are currently receiving or sending a text message. The author points out that the vast majority of phones are not bugged, so none of the criterion mentioned in the article are "strong" indicators of bugging, and since the criterion mentioned are not independent, observing all symptoms does not indicate stronger evidence.
none of this stuff is particularly new. here's a brief summary of the first linked-to article:
integrate-and-fire models are extremely simple -- the idea (as implied by their name) is that this neuron model spikes if the membrane voltage passes some set threshold, and otherwise doesn't fire. In response to input current, the cell's membrane voltage charges (depolarizes) or decays (hyperpolarizes) according to exponential time constants. the other spiking models discussed are similarily oversimplified. (these simple neuronal models can be useful, for example in models of neural networks.)
the second article (the main one) is extemely vague on (a) how their findings were verified in actual neurons and (b) whether their model was borne out in actual neurons. i love computational neuroscience, and i think it's an extremely useful tool. one major downside with almost all computational models, however, is that they rely on assumptions that the designers can't prove. designing these models is often an iterative process, where (1) experiments inspire creation of a new model, (2) the model simulates a new condition during which new predictions are made, and (3) new experiments are performed which require adjusting the model or running more simulations. thus, to conclude (as this article appears to) that the authors have "proved proved that the presence of more scaffolding proteins available at the far downstream end of the neuron (and into the synapse) to AMPA receptors increased during LTP..." is misleading, given the dirth of evidence presented in the article.
if scaffolding proteins end up being verified as the mechanism by which AMPA receptors are anchored in the way the authors propose, that might be pretty interesting -- but clearly much more work needs to be done to verify that this is actually the case. the idea that AMPA receptors are promoted during LTP (increasing synaptic strength) and "demoted" during LTD (decreasing synaptic strength) is quite old (for example, see The Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory, published in 2002, by Howard Eichenbaum for a review).
At some point, these ridiculous policies (of course this does not only apply to Australia) will reach a critical mass. At such time, "going about one's daily life" will have become sufficiently annoying that the general public can't ignore it any more. Only then will the public be driven to action and force a policy change. It appears that the old idea of a "slippery slope" is no longer one to be feared, as freedoms around the world are given up in the name of profits and/or fighting terrorism, piracy, etc. Next time you buy a product, think about where the money is going, and thus indirectly, which policies and practices you are therefore supporting.
Ah, sorry, I meant to select "plain text". Here's what I meant to post:
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm always on the lookout for good science fiction books. I tend to tear through all the books I can find by an author I really like, and then I move on to the next "victim."
Some good Robert Sawyer books to start with:
If you're into AI, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, or related stuff: Mindscan, Terminal Experiment
Philosophy or scifi in general: Calculating God, Frameshift, Flashforward
Parallel Universes: Hominids series (Hominids, Humans, Hybrids)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm always on the lookout for good science fiction books. I tend to tear through all the books I can find by an author I really like, and then I move on to the next "victim." Some good Robert Sawyer books to start with: If you're into AI, philosophy of mind, neuroscience, or related stuff: Mindscan, Terminal Experiment Philosophy or scifi in general: Calculating God, Frameshift, Flashforward Parallel Universes: Hominids series (Hominids, Humans, Hybrids)
I actually just finished reading his book "Moving Mars," and it was excellent. I'll definitely check out other books by him in the future. I felt that some of his ideas on (science fictional) theoretical physics (for those who have read the book, I'm talking about Bell Contiuum Theory) reminded me a lot of the faster-than-light travel ideas in the later books of Card's Ender's Game series (Xenocide and Children of the Mind). For those of you who haven't tried his books yet, Robert Sawyer is also an excellent author with a similar style.
Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.
Please mod parent up! This is exactly right. While on the job, upholders of the law must be held accountable for breaking laws they are working to enforce. Government by hypocrisy is immoral.
What about selling these on http://w00t.com/ or something similar? or ebay? Aside from at this "movement's" inception, I barely saw anything about this, and I completely forgot about it. I'd be really sorry to see this project fail on a larger scale; I think it's a great idea.
Actually, my brother also recovered from this after 6 months of having no voice -- so Scott Adams isn't the only one. The recovery process seemed similiar to the one described; it involved repeating the same phrases over and over while trying to speak them as well as possible.
I agree that this system may not scale so simply. In addition to the issue of time scale, the doctors mentioned that they, in at least some cases, will be using robots operated remotely rather than the actual surgeons being present on board. One could argue that the success of this experimental surgery suggests that other zero gravity surgeries aren't out of the question. However, it's extremely difficult to predict how subtle differences involved in going from parabolic flight to space flight will affect such a complicated thing as surgery.
Not to mention all that debris and junk that will no doubt be floating around inside this structure. Something Hollywood doesn't portray is the sheer amount of crap (sometimes literally fecal matter) and general gross-ness in weightlessness. Remember Newton's laws? If you cough, saliva travels until it hits something -- then it sticks, since it's moist. In the high humidity environment, bacterias, molds, and other fun stuff run rampant. Got crumbs in space? You're going to be breathing them in, big time.
Severe skin infections and aspiration pneumonia are common in space. Going to the bathroom is a science experiment gone bad (think vacuum cleaner). If you stay in space more than 11 months, your skeleton and muscles become weakened permenantly. Fluids shift towards your head, causing your face to become puffy and swollen.
All in all, in spite of the view (which would probably be spectacular), I would personally never stay in a weightless environment for an extended period of time, such as implied by a hotel or college setting.
I say these things not to be a troll - I think it's an admirable idea, and my hat is off to whoever decides to live on this contraption. I just want to remind people that space is dangerous and dirty; it's not the sterile wonderland from the movies we've all come to know and love.
That's because you're insane...
I like number three the best.
Is there going to be a poll to decide the winner, or is it out of the community's (collective) hands? Also, would there be any way to allow users to select their CSS style of choice, even if another style was ultimately chosen to be the default?
Xgl/Compiz may be key to the widespread adoption of this release. Because Ubuntu's soon-to-be-out next realease (i.e. Dapper Drake) does not include Xgl by default (although it is available via synaptic), I wonder if people will start gravitating toward Suse in search of nifty eye-candy (especially seeing as SuSe is currently hot on the heals of Ubuntu according to http://www.distrowatch.com/'s counter (to the extent that it can be trusted)...
Current operating systems (OSX, Windows, Linux) seem to be focusing on (debatably useful) eye-candy. OSX has included some pretty sweet stuff for a while, and one of the main focus points for Windows Vista seems to be the new Aero UI. Xgl is the open source community's answer to all this (of course, Xgl ended up beating Aero to the punch).
Nope, now she's at Brandeis University. Check it out: here or here.
Now that IBM/Lenovo is a Chinese company, does this apply to them as well? How many computers/parts are actually made in China?
I believe your analysis falls short right about here. In reality, many graduate programs (particularly Ph.D. programs, but also some Masters programs) will pay for tuition, health insurance, and give you a stipend. If you want to get a Masters and your program doesn't pay (but offers a paying PhD program), you can always enroll in the PhD program and drop out once you get your Masters. Even if the program doesn't explicitly offer a Masters, they will often award one anyway if you petition for it.
This is exactly right. Even if a network as complex as the human brain could be reconstructed in a petri dish (which I think is unlikely in the next century or so), it would serve little purpose for pure number crunching. The living human brain is capable of only a few floating point calculations per second; why should a petri dish version be any faster?
The real payoff would be in simulating neural networks using actual living neurons. Even using supercomputers, it becomes unrealistic to simulate individual neuronal ion channels and other abundant tiny structures in a network of thousands of neurons. In fact, for fixed computational power, there has always been a tradeoff between model accuracy and the number of neurons which can be included in the network.
This breakthrough sidesteps the accuracy issue entirely -- living neurons "automatically" simulate their own ion channels, etc. for free.
Going in the other direction (as in, implanting computer chips in the brain for the purpose of regaining function) seems a bit unrealistic. For the same reasons I explained above, a computer simulation will rarely do as well as the real thing.
Also remember that these chips are going to require a (battery?) power source. This means that either the patient is going to need to have major surgery every time the battery is low, OR they are going to need to have a battery pack surgically implanted below the skin or their skull (outside the bone). You certainly wouldn't want to be doing head-knocking physical activities with your brain's battery pack literally sticking out of the side of your head.