Re:Then why am I not impressed?
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Perhaps it's carbon fiber. Whatever it is cracked easily and badly. There has not been a TiBook in my lab (I count 4) that has not had some sort of hardware issue. Perhaps they are rev. 1 or 2., although my advisor is a Mac madman and upgrades at almost every speed bump, so I doubt his cracked screen one was. As for the one I use (the one whose chassis cracked around the IR port), System Profiler says it is 667MHz, PowerBookG4 version 2.1. Maybe this corresponds to rev 2?
Anyway, I am gratified to know that they've gotten better.
Re:Then why am I not impressed?
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 1
No, everything i mentioned was regarding TiBooks except my last comment. And my comment about iBooks was that, in contrast to TiBooks, they are surprisingly solid.
And yes, TiBooks (at least 667MHz model I'm using right now, and all the prior models I've used) have come with the saucer power adapters.
Then why am I not impressed?
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 1
You know, I've heard such stories, but alas the toughness of the TiBook does not impress me. I work in an all-Apple lab, and we've gone through several. A small fall (from a chair onto carpeted floor) cracked one on the IR port side..(there's still a LOT of thin plastic besides the Ti underside and lid) and I had to superglue bits of the chassis together. Alas, the amazing heat the things give off didn't make it easy on the bonds, and the thing cracked in that area again. The paint famously flakes off the titanium (wasn't that one impetus for them switching to the new aluminum alloy?). And ALL the TiBooks we've had end up with slight warping of the screen so that they no longer close flush. Thank god for the magnetic latch, or the one I currently use wouldn't close. My advisor handles his kinda roughly (not baking it in a frickin' oven, but shoving it in and out of backbacks) and cracked the screen....
And we've had other issues...Yet a different TiBook's LCD screen up and died. The one with cracked screen came back from Apple repair with a right speaker that didn't work.
And the power supplies? Easy prey to fray. You unwind the flying saucer enough times, and suddenly there's not so much insulation down near hub of the spool.
Structurally, they just don't feel or perform as solidly under normal (i.e. not baking) wear-and-tear as they look in my experience. I've handled a few of the new iBooks for an extended period, and now there's one tough cookie. On the other hand, the power supply plug on my sister's iBook barely stays in the chassis jack...and that CD tray is just waiting to snap off (to say nothing of its horrible position).
Well, having said all that, the machines and the OS are an unmitigated joy to use, but not so impressed with the ruggedness of the PowerBooks. Maybe the Albooks will be tougher?
I'm a long-time Homestar Runner fan...some of my friends/family are downright addicts. My sister even talks like Strong Bad now. Here's a few tips for the unitiated.
Yes, Strong Bad's emails are the chief draw..only because they're so regularly (weekly, usually) updated--and Strong Bad is such a compelling character. A cross between Triumph the Insult Comic Dog and Butthead, is how I like to think of him....in a Mexican wrestling outfit.
HOWEVER, if you're new, scroll to the bottom and start with the EARLIEST emails. There's a history and culture on this website. There are motifs and inside jokes (e.g. fhqwhgads, tape-leg, etc.) that are too precious and key to enjoying a lot of what follows. It's really worth it. I'd put the "anime" and "dragon" emails right up against "weird dream" or "flag day" any day.
In general, starting with older cartoons gives you a better sense of how things developed. But, the beauty of the website is that you're so richly rewarded for just exploring.
And while it's not that funny, look through the yearbook to learn the cast of characters.
There are MANY funny bits besides the emails. The holiday cartoons..esp. the Halloween ones, are some of my favorites. The characters dressed up in costume..often obscure pop culture figures..is hilarious. Sure, there's some duds...often they're just more strange than funny...but even these can be an enjoyable is surreal distraction.
AS FOR EASTER EGGS: They are there IN SPADES, and often as funny if not more so than the open material. Here's a decent, albeit geocities, website dedicated to uncovering them. They've found most..but even I've stumbled across some undocumented ones...
I'm really really happy for these guys that they've been slashdotted. I've bought stuff from their store to support their impressive creative talents. Just a few months ago, I made a reference to Strong Bad's emails in /. poll on blogs, but got no reply. I'm glad the mass of geekdom has caught on to H*R at last.
Look, I'm a Clie owner myself...have the older T615C...Bought it for the crystal clear Hi-Res display that left the m515 in the dust (at the time). But there's something that's really eluded me about Sony's approach to PDAs....
Why would someone want a digital camera integrated in their PDA? Is there some aspect of Personal Digitial Assistance that involves photography?
Personal entertainment...games, digital music, wireless news service...things a person might use daily or to fight tedium, I can understand. But, a camera?
Some similar multimedia features Sony has touted for a while now have also perplexed me. Like having a picture viewer and movie player in your PDA. In what situation do I, when mobile, need to suddenly watch a 10 sec movie clip? Are people really carrying pictures of their grandkids on these things?!
Then I figured it out. Masturbation. The only viable use I can fathom for having the ability to conveniently and surrepitiously carry around tiny movie clips and random digital phots is to satisfy a lonely geek's need to have easy-access porn-at-hand...for when...ah...nature..calls.
I mean, is this the understood, implicit subtext in packaging all this worthless multimedia capability in a handheld/palmtop? (Wow. Even the form factor is masturbatory.)...or is there some other utility I'm missing?
I can only assume the digital camera is for the porn do-it-yourselfer.
In the cruelest irony, Fink, my E-Z package updater, is proving itself a real pain to update.
Here's the deal. I recently upgraded OS X 10.1 to 10.2. I have done all the Developer tool and XDarwin updates without incident. I have an old fink binary distribution (0.3.2a). All I want to do is update to 0.5.0a. How??
The website has a link to its "Upgrade Matrix". It says to run sudo apt-get update. This fails at various points with FATAL -> Could not set non-block flag Operation not supported by device. Yes, very helpful, thanks. Maybe sourceforge's servers are slashdotted?? I ran this multiple times. Fails at different points with the same error...one time it ran through with no errors. Ran fink --version. Still 0.3.2a.
But I don't know if I even trust the Upgrade Matrix as it hasn't been--er--upgraded for a LONG time. It makes no reference to 10.2 or Fink 0.5.0a. On the other hand, the Fink site at one point had this page describing how to upgrade to the beta 10.2-compatible version of Fink. It basically looks like involved downloading the Fink software archive and recompliling it. I think. Do I still have to do it this way?
And of course the simplest option--that is, downloading the official Fink 0.5.0a binary installer--comes with a stern warning about NOT upgrading with the installer! "Please see the Upgrade Matrix" (?!).
And what's with all the version numbers? The latest Fink binary is 0.5.0a. But the package installer is like 0.9.12 or so. And the software archive is like 0.11.1. What gives? Is this common in the Linux/Debian world?
Please see this and also this entry of The Jargon File (aka The New Hacker's Dictionary), the pre-eminent and oldest hacker slang resource, currently maintained by OSS guru Eric S. Raymond.
(Note the etymology shows no reference to any type of necrophilic acts)
WOW. Thanks for the link to that Bruce Sterling article. That was one of the most well-written and absolutely devastating pieces I've ever read. Really a rare example of exceptionally written science for the lay audience.
What differentiates "antibacterial soap" from "soap"?
One word: Triclosan.
This is an antibacterial agent commonly used in all sorts of consumer products including deodorant soaps. If it's for your body and labeled "antibacterial" check the ingredients. It probably has triclosan. While it is certainly not an antibiotic per se, bacteria can grow resistant to it, producing more virulent strains. See here for a good discussion.
A recent article (too lazy to google again) recently suggested antibacterial and regular soaps do an equally good job of cleaning you of bugs anyway.
Re:Sociologists and legal people
on
Sensors Gone Wild
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Technology moves at a pace that is far, far faster than social change. If we wait until a technology is adopted to consider its social and political ramifications, the damage will be long done--and, in fact, the next phase of that technology will already be well into development.
I sympathize with your concerns that pre-emptive regulation strangles innovation. However, I think the problem lies with the entire approach our society has in dealing with technology. Our society is issue-driven, and deals with issues rather than values. "What is our digital music policy? What is our wire tapping policy? What is our copy protection policy?"...etc.
Instead, we need to formulate a majority expression of our core values regarding matters that have become salient in light of modern technology. Really, I think these boil down to two major domains: Privacy and intellectual property*.
What makes our Constitution so flexibile and adaptive is that it broadly sets out a scaffolding of societal values (at least the Bill of Rights does). But, besides some tangential language in the 4th, there's nothing explicit on privacy. And certainly, IP could never have been anticipated.
I think our societal norms on what constitutes privacy and IP are right now in a state of extreme flux. Once these crystalize, I think much of the debate concerning the legitimacy of many technologies will become moot. For better or worse.
*(OK, there's a 3rd domain: Biological engineering...but this one invokes religion, and so is at a whole other level of complexity. Way, way off from being settled).
OK...Like many of you, I was skeptical that this was an issue at all. How realistic is it, in this MS-paranoid forum, that really you're granting MS access to your system "at any time?" The Ask Slashdot sounded like FUD-baiting. But then, someone made the intelligent point that whether or not MS has real access to private data, the fact that the EULA may cause you to AGREE to give them some sort of access may violate HIPPA.
Well, fight FUD with facts I say, so I downloaded SP3 and here's the actual supplemental EULA. Note bulleted point #3...it does not begin with the same "If you choose..."" qualifier as point #2. I'll leave it the legal scholars and armchair lawyers to talmudically wrangle over what sort privacy violation is inherrent in allowing "OS product" version checking and update installation. I know nothing about HIPPA.
And as for "Severability" clause the parent post referes to...Not there. So, I've never been clear, do I get Dollars or Donuts for winning the bet?:) (OK, granted, the Win2K EULA which is a superordinate parent of the SP3 EULA, may include such a clause...)
Long-ass EULA follows:
SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") operating system components, including any "online" or electronic documentation ("OS Components") are subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement under which you have licensed the applicable Microsoft operating system product described below (each an "End User License Agreement" or "EULA") and the terms and conditions of this Supplemental EULA. BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE OS COMPONENTS, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA AND THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE OS COMPONENTS.
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL, WINDOWS 2000 SERVER, WINDOWS 2000 ADVANCED SERVER, OR WINDOWS 2000 DATACENTER SERVER (each an "OS Product"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.
Capitalized terms used in this Supplemental EULA and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the applicable OS Product EULA.
General. The OS Components are provided to you by Microsoft to update, supplement, or replace existing functionality of the applicable OS Product. Microsoft grants you a license to use the OS Components under the same terms and conditions of the OS Product EULA for the applicable OS Product (which are hereby incorporated by reference except as otherwise set forth below) and the terms and conditions set forth in this Supplemental EULA, provided that you comply with all such terms and conditions. To the extent that any terms in this Supplemental EULA conflict with terms in the applicable OS Product EULA, the terms of this Supplemental EULA control solely with respect to the OS Components.
Additional Rights and Limitations.
* With respect to the OS Components only, if the licensor of the
applicable OS Product was an entity other than Microsoft,
then for the purposes of this Supplemental EULA Microsoft
will be the licensor with respect to such OS Components in
lieu of the "Manufacturer" or other entity and support, if
any, for such OS Components shall not be provided by
Manufacturer. With respect to the existing functionality
contained in the applicable OS Product which is not updated,
supplemented, or replaced by the OS Components, the EULA
for the OS Product shall remain in full force and effect as to
that OS Product.
* If you choose to utilize the update features within the OS
Product or OS Components, it is necessary to use certain
computer system, hardware, and software information to
implement the features. By using these features, you
explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to
access and utilize the necessary information for updating
purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to
improve our products or to provide customized services or
technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this
information to others, but not in a form that personally
identifies you.
* The OS Product or OS Components contain components that
enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may
automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
downloaded to your computer.
* If you have multiple validly licensed copies of the applicable
OS Product(s), you may reproduce, install and use one copy
of the OS Components as part of such applicable OS Product
(s) on all of your computers running validly licensed copies
of the OS Product(s) provided that you use such additional
copies of the OS Components in accordance with the terms
and conditions above. Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or
suppliers retain all right, title and interest in and to the
OS Components. All rights not expressly granted are
reserved by Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or suppliers.
IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO YOU BY MICROSOFT OR ANY OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, THE LIMITED WARRANTY (IF ANY) INCLUDED IN THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA APPLIES TO THE OS COMPONENTS PROVIDED THE OS COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN LICENSED BY YOU WITHIN THE TERM OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA. HOWEVER, THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD FOR WHICH THE LIMITED WARRANTY IS PROVIDED.
IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO YOU BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN MICROSOFT OR ANY OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, MICROSOFT DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AS FOLLOWS:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS COMPONENTS, AND ANY (IF ANY) SUPPORT SERVICES RELATED TO THE OS COMPONENTS ("SUPPORT SERVICES") AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AND SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE OS COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES REMAINS WITH YOU.
EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR: LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, PERSONAL INJURY, LOSS OF PRIVACY, FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY (INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE), NEGLIGENCE, AND ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE OS COMPONENTS OR THE SUPPORT SERVICES, OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA, EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MIGHT INCUR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DAMAGES REFERENCED ABOVE AND ALL DIRECT OR GENERAL DAMAGES), THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF MICROSOFT AND ANY OF ITS SUPPLIERS UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE OS COMPONENTS OR U.S.$5.00. THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY REMEDY FAILS ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
Thanks so much for the point by point reply. (Thanks to everyone who replied, in general).
The bad news about lpd is indeed bad news. I have quite a number of ported UNIX apps whose only means of printing is through lpd. I suppose I can have them print to file, and then use some Aqua app to send the resulting postscript to the printer. But that's a serious hassle. Hmm..and are there OS X native apps that read and print postscript anyway? The only one I can find is MacGSXby Bernd Heller, and it's very beta...no printing implemented yet. Looks like I may be S.O.L.
Manuscript_F...i02.doc Mansucript_F...i02.doc or something like that.
of course these examples are hypothetical, b/c both filenames are LONGER THAN 31 CHARS so Word v.X wouldn't allow them ANYWAY.
Well, anyway..the amount and point of truncation should be user adjustable.
AT LEAST if it showed a "tool tip" or "hint" or whatever it's called in the UI world when you select the file that brings up the entire filename, as Windows does. Maybe Jaguar now does this?
Here's a few things that bug the hell out of me in OS X 10.1.x. If somebody knows if they have/have not been addressed, I'd appreciate it.
Long file name display. Aqua shows the first handful of characters of a filename, followed by ellipsis (...) and then THE COMPLETELY UNINFORMATIVE last few characters. It should, of course, show AS MUCH of the leading the part of the filename as possible, then perhaps ellipsis and the extension. Perhaps.
File Dialogs. These stink. First, they're stuck in NeXT style columnar view. That in and of itself is not the worst. The worst is that as you expand the dialog (to see your filenames which are riddled w/ %@&!ing ellipses), the individual columns get wider...up to a point. They get nominally wider, but then further expansion ADDS ANOTHER COLUMN to the view, all columns being re-squished to their minimal width!! GRRR. AND, of course, there's no option to sort the file dialog by anything but name...a feature in Win. since 95.
Incomplete UNIX-length file support. Speaking of long filenames: Darwin allows standard UNIX-length filenames (what is it? 64? 128 chars? Plenty). Just about every OS X app still limits you to Mac's 31. GRRR. Is this just a limit for "carbonized" apps?
Finder won't show.hidden files. THIS is UNIX?
Line termination character woes. This is a long standing problem, but I feel Apple just kinda ignored it. Standard Mac line term. char: CR (ASCII 0x0d). Standard UNIX (and, ergo, Darwin's) line term. char: LF (ASCII 0x0a). Mix programs that by default generate one or the other in one system...try grepping or awking (or your favorite report management) anything useful...hilarity ensues. THIS is UNIX??
Is it possible to get lpd running, in light of all the built-in OS X printing overhead? OK, this last one just thrown in from a position of admitted ignorance.
Hmm....my little sis has the 2-usb 500MHz G3 iBook...I have beeen very reluctant to recommend to her to upgrade (she's still a OS 9 user) to OS X for 2 reasons:
1) It's SLOW 2) She's completely UNIX illiterate and doesn't need/want any of Darwin's BSD functionality.
Compared to OS 9 on a year-old consumer machine like the 500MHz iBook, has Jaguar sufficiently eliminated reason 1?
BECOME A PR AGENT AND WIN A FREE SCOTTeVEST We are encouraging all our loyal customers and readers to help us get some press coverage. So, we have a brand new contest. Here's how it works: if you send an email to a member of the press, AND they do an article on the product, then you get a free SCOTTeVEST. Some limitations apply, like (a) no spamming, (b) only major publications and Web sites apply (not school newspapers or smaller websites), (c) does not apply to any press that we have already received or work in progress, and (d) you must be the catalyst of the coverage as verified by the reporter. The first person who gets a favorable post on Slashdot gets a prototype of the next version for free (limited sizes available).
Well I'll be...you're right! No mention of Newton on any of the Inkwell propoganda pages at Apple. I could've sworn it was there maybe 2 weeks ago. Apple's really good with the revisionism.
Good points. And how has Apple distanced itself from the Newton legacy, anyway? IIRC, Jaguar will include their Inkwell handwriting-recognition software which Apple loudly touts as being directly inspired by Newton's technology.
Yes, this is a method known as MEG (magnetoencephalography). It is far more sensitive (at least spatially) than EEG, but suffers from even greater constraints to get meaningful data out of it...the devices are massive, and environmental conditions have to be tightly controlled (magnetically sheilded room, etc...we're measuring 10-13 T fields here! Signal to noise is miniscule). Not to mention that it's fantastically expensive, but I guess if we're playing in the realm of govn't conspiracy theory that's not an issue. Anyway, still can't see "thought" with MEG.
I feel that I'm feeding a troll here, but here goes...
Whatever the reality of zero-point field, EEG (the method being proposed here) does not measure it. It's simply the detection of dipoles produced by large (LARGE) numbers of similarly oriented neurons and their axonal processes. In other words, electrical fields. There's no mysterious subatomic field (as this zero point field appears to be) needed to explain cortical potentials.
The neural basis of cognition is the central tenet of all cognitive neuroscience and supported by thousands and thousands of studies. The most fundamental finding is that it is the extremely complex interaction of multitudes of cells which gives rise to cognition, and not some unknown mysterious force.
Look, you can make whatever hair-brained prediction you want, believe whatever crackpot theory you hear. I venture that I know just a fair bit more about the current realities regarding our understanding of the basis of mind than you, and I tell you that there's nothing close to mind-reading coming down the pike any time soon.
Do I think that sometime, maybe on the order of a couple hundred years or so from now we will have the technology and understanding of the brain to remotely monitor thought-processes in a reliable way? It's in the realm of possibility.
Is there any chance that in the next decade or three something like this might emerge? No way.
Now, I would predict that more direct (as opposed to remote) neuroimaging technologies (esp. fMRI) will make remarkable progress. And, we will perhaps even be able to tell, for example, which of a limited set of several objects a person is thinking about. Or how sure a person is about their answer to to a question. And these would be remarkable feats, to be sure. But none of them will be possible except in the tightly controlled constraints of a laboratory environment. And only after extensive post-hoc analysis, and not in real time.
To say something isn't possiable with the mind is what is truely ludicrous, fantasy, and preposterous.
Never said it's impossible, eventually. I will contend that it's patently impossible right now, or even in short-term future on the scale of decades.
To suggest we have any technology today that can infer a person's thoughts is ludicrous. Even at a coarser level, to suggest that a momentary detection of brainwaves can be reliably correlated with some "bank" of known EEG signatures which indicates the disposition or identity of the subject is fantasy.
The weakness and noisiness of scalp potentials cannot be overstated. The devices we use in our lab are state of the art, but even these require a sophisticated multi-electrode cap, each electrode carefully primed with an electrolytic gel, and fed into an extremely sensitive amplifier, while the subject sits in a completely electrically isolated room (basically, a glorified Faraday cage).
And even when *all that* goes well, the data you collect is extremely noisy due to the inherrent conflation of *billions* of neurons all contributing to the recorded potentials. The solution is multi-event averaging. We give subjects 100s of trials, and only after tedious signal processing and averaging can we extract the gross electrical activity associated with a particular cognitive act ("event related potential").
And to suggest that we (cognitive scientists) have some sort of repertoire of electrical signatures mapped to "thought patterns" is preposterous. The best is the suggestion that particular waveforms are associated with "orienting" or "error-making" or "perception" or "novelty." Most serious scientists work hard to localize these signatures to particular brain structures (a whole industry unto itself) rather than wonder if these tiny effects can tell us about a person's hidden agenda.
Much has been made in the popular press about a particular waveform called the P300...a characteristic "positive-going" wave occurring around "300" milliseconds post stimulus onset. This waveform has been associated with attending to a novel stimulus. Some people have suggested using this waveform as a sort of ERP "lie-detector" using the following flawed thinking: If you show a suspect scenes from a crime, if they are novel (new to the suspect), they'll elicit a P300. If they are not surprising (indicated by a *lack* of P300), then the guy's seen the scene before and is guilty. I won't even begin to address all the problems with this "guilt by failure to disconfirm" approach...I'm sure you all are bright enough to see the logical holes, much less the technical and cogntive-theoretical problems.
Anyway...no, some guy passing through a gate, and some gee-wizardry fingering him as a terrorist-like baddy? Only in Ashcroft's wet dreams for now.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it's carbon fiber. Whatever it is cracked easily and badly. There has not been a TiBook in my lab (I count 4) that has not had some sort of hardware issue. Perhaps they are rev. 1 or 2., although my advisor is a Mac madman and upgrades at almost every speed bump, so I doubt his cracked screen one was. As for the one I use (the one whose chassis cracked around the IR port), System Profiler says it is 667MHz, PowerBookG4 version 2.1. Maybe this corresponds to rev 2?
Anyway, I am gratified to know that they've gotten better.
No, everything i mentioned was regarding TiBooks except my last comment. And my comment about iBooks was that, in contrast to TiBooks, they are surprisingly solid.
And yes, TiBooks (at least 667MHz model I'm using right now, and all the prior models I've used) have come with the saucer power adapters.
You know, I've heard such stories, but alas the toughness of the TiBook does not impress me. I work in an all-Apple lab, and we've gone through several. A small fall (from a chair onto carpeted floor) cracked one on the IR port side..(there's still a LOT of thin plastic besides the Ti underside and lid) and I had to superglue bits of the chassis together. Alas, the amazing heat the things give off didn't make it easy on the bonds, and the thing cracked in that area again. The paint famously flakes off the titanium (wasn't that one impetus for them switching to the new aluminum alloy?). And ALL the TiBooks we've had end up with slight warping of the screen so that they no longer close flush. Thank god for the magnetic latch, or the one I currently use wouldn't close. My advisor handles his kinda roughly (not baking it in a frickin' oven, but shoving it in and out of backbacks) and cracked the screen....
And we've had other issues...Yet a different TiBook's LCD screen up and died. The one with cracked screen came back from Apple repair with a right speaker that didn't work.
And the power supplies? Easy prey to fray. You unwind the flying saucer enough times, and suddenly there's not so much insulation down near hub of the spool.
Structurally, they just don't feel or perform as solidly under normal (i.e. not baking) wear-and-tear as they look in my experience. I've handled a few of the new iBooks for an extended period, and now there's one tough cookie. On the other hand, the power supply plug on my sister's iBook barely stays in the chassis jack...and that CD tray is just waiting to snap off (to say nothing of its horrible position).
Well, having said all that, the machines and the OS are an unmitigated joy to use, but not so impressed with the ruggedness of the PowerBooks. Maybe the Albooks will be tougher?
I'm a long-time Homestar Runner fan...some of my friends/family are downright addicts. My sister even talks like Strong Bad now. Here's a few tips for the unitiated.
/. poll on blogs, but got no reply. I'm glad the mass of geekdom has caught on to H*R at last.
Yes, Strong Bad's emails are the chief draw..only because they're so regularly (weekly, usually) updated--and Strong Bad is such a compelling character. A cross between Triumph the Insult Comic Dog and Butthead, is how I like to think of him....in a Mexican wrestling outfit.
HOWEVER, if you're new, scroll to the bottom and start with the EARLIEST emails. There's a history and culture on this website. There are motifs and inside jokes (e.g. fhqwhgads, tape-leg, etc.) that are too precious and key to enjoying a lot of what follows. It's really worth it. I'd put the "anime" and "dragon" emails right up against "weird dream" or "flag day" any day.
In general, starting with older cartoons gives you a better sense of how things developed. But, the beauty of the website is that you're so richly rewarded for just exploring.
And while it's not that funny, look through the yearbook to learn the cast of characters.
There are MANY funny bits besides the emails. The holiday cartoons..esp. the Halloween ones, are some of my favorites. The characters dressed up in costume..often obscure pop culture figures..is hilarious. Sure, there's some duds...often they're just more strange than funny...but even these can be an enjoyable is surreal distraction.
AS FOR EASTER EGGS: They are there IN SPADES, and often as funny if not more so than the open material. Here's a decent, albeit geocities, website dedicated to uncovering them. They've found most..but even I've stumbled across some undocumented ones...
I'm really really happy for these guys that they've been slashdotted. I've bought stuff from their store to support their impressive creative talents. Just a few months ago, I made a reference to Strong Bad's emails in
Look, I'm a Clie owner myself...have the older T615C...Bought it for the crystal clear Hi-Res display that left the m515 in the dust (at the time). But there's something that's really eluded me about Sony's approach to PDAs....
Why would someone want a digital camera integrated in their PDA? Is there some aspect of Personal Digitial Assistance that involves photography?
Personal entertainment...games, digital music, wireless news service...things a person might use daily or to fight tedium, I can understand. But, a camera?
Some similar multimedia features Sony has touted for a while now have also perplexed me. Like having a picture viewer and movie player in your PDA. In what situation do I, when mobile, need to suddenly watch a 10 sec movie clip? Are people really carrying pictures of their grandkids on these things?!
Then I figured it out. Masturbation. The only viable use I can fathom for having the ability to conveniently and surrepitiously carry around tiny movie clips and random digital phots is to satisfy a lonely geek's need to have easy-access porn-at-hand...for when...ah...nature..calls.
I mean, is this the understood, implicit subtext in packaging all this worthless multimedia capability in a handheld/palmtop? (Wow. Even the form factor is masturbatory.)...or is there some other utility I'm missing?
I can only assume the digital camera is for the porn do-it-yourselfer.
Feelin' Trollish,
Me
In the cruelest irony, Fink, my E-Z package updater, is proving itself a real pain to update.
Here's the deal. I recently upgraded OS X 10.1 to 10.2. I have done all the Developer tool and XDarwin updates without incident. I have an old fink binary distribution (0.3.2a). All I want to do is update to 0.5.0a. How??
The website has a link to its "Upgrade Matrix". It says to run sudo apt-get update.
This fails at various points with FATAL -> Could not set non-block flag Operation not supported by device. Yes, very helpful, thanks. Maybe sourceforge's servers are slashdotted?? I ran this multiple times. Fails at different points with the same error...one time it ran through with no errors. Ran fink --version. Still 0.3.2a.
But I don't know if I even trust the Upgrade Matrix as it hasn't been--er--upgraded for a LONG time. It makes no reference to 10.2 or Fink 0.5.0a. On the other hand, the Fink site at one point had this page describing how to upgrade to the beta 10.2-compatible version of Fink. It basically looks like involved downloading the Fink software archive and recompliling it. I think. Do I still have to do it this way?
And of course the simplest option--that is, downloading the official Fink 0.5.0a binary installer--comes with a stern warning about NOT upgrading with the installer! "Please see the Upgrade Matrix" (?!).
And what's with all the version numbers? The latest Fink binary is 0.5.0a. But the package installer is like 0.9.12 or so. And the software archive is like 0.11.1. What gives? Is this common in the Linux/Debian world?
Argh. Any insight would be appreciated.
Please see this and also this entry of The Jargon File (aka The New Hacker's Dictionary), the pre-eminent and oldest hacker slang resource, currently maintained by OSS guru Eric S. Raymond.
(Note the etymology shows no reference to any type of necrophilic acts)
Haha..Oh my gawd. Yeah, the animation is quite impressive...but jeezus...download this for the botched English subtitles....
"I'm going to blow your nostrils up!"
"I'm the king of grapes!"
"You mustard!"
It makes Zero Wing sound like Shakespeare.
She's also probably a member of the Cthurch of $cientology.
Hmm...makes sense. Clearwater is the headquarters for the Co$.
WOW. Thanks for the link to that Bruce Sterling article. That was one of the most well-written and absolutely devastating pieces I've ever read. Really a rare example of exceptionally written science for the lay audience.
What differentiates "antibacterial soap" from "soap"?
One word: Triclosan.
This is an antibacterial agent commonly used in all sorts of consumer products including deodorant soaps. If it's for your body and labeled "antibacterial" check the ingredients. It probably has triclosan. While it is certainly not an antibiotic per se, bacteria can grow resistant to it, producing more virulent strains. See here for a good discussion.
A recent article (too lazy to google again) recently suggested antibacterial and regular soaps do an equally good job of cleaning you of bugs anyway.
Technology moves at a pace that is far, far faster than social change. If we wait until a technology is adopted to consider its social and political ramifications, the damage will be long done--and, in fact, the next phase of that technology will already be well into development.
I sympathize with your concerns that pre-emptive regulation strangles innovation. However, I think the problem lies with the entire approach our society has in dealing with technology. Our society is issue-driven, and deals with issues rather than values. "What is our digital music policy? What is our wire tapping policy? What is our copy protection policy?"...etc.
Instead, we need to formulate a majority expression of our core values regarding matters that have become salient in light of modern technology. Really, I think these boil down to two major domains: Privacy and intellectual property*.
What makes our Constitution so flexibile and adaptive is that it broadly sets out a scaffolding of societal values (at least the Bill of Rights does). But, besides some tangential language in the 4th, there's nothing explicit on privacy. And certainly, IP could never have been anticipated.
I think our societal norms on what constitutes privacy and IP are right now in a state of extreme flux. Once these crystalize, I think much of the debate concerning the legitimacy of many technologies will become moot. For better or worse.
*(OK, there's a 3rd domain: Biological engineering...but this one invokes religion, and so is at a whole other level of complexity. Way, way off from being settled).
OK...Like many of you, I was skeptical that this was an issue at all. How realistic is it, in this MS-paranoid forum, that really you're granting MS access to your system "at any time?" The Ask Slashdot sounded like FUD-baiting. But then, someone made the intelligent point that whether or not MS has real access to private data, the fact that the EULA may cause you to AGREE to give them some sort of access may violate HIPPA.
:) (OK, granted, the Win2K EULA which is a superordinate parent of the SP3 EULA, may include such a clause...)
Well, fight FUD with facts I say, so I downloaded SP3 and here's the actual supplemental EULA. Note bulleted point #3...it does not begin with the same "If you choose..."" qualifier as point #2. I'll leave it the legal scholars and armchair lawyers to talmudically wrangle over what sort privacy violation is inherrent in allowing "OS product" version checking and update installation. I know nothing about HIPPA.
And as for "Severability" clause the parent post referes to...Not there. So, I've never been clear, do I get Dollars or Donuts for winning the bet?
Long-ass EULA follows:
SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR
MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft
Corporation ("Microsoft") operating system components,
including any "online" or electronic documentation
("OS Components") are subject to the terms and
conditions of the agreement under which you have
licensed the applicable Microsoft operating system
product described below (each an "End User License
Agreement" or "EULA") and the terms and conditions of
this Supplemental EULA.
BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE
OS COMPONENTS, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE OS
PRODUCT EULA AND THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA. IF
YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE
OS COMPONENTS.
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR
MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL, WINDOWS
2000 SERVER, WINDOWS 2000 ADVANCED SERVER, OR
WINDOWS 2000 DATACENTER SERVER (each an "OS
Product"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL,
COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.
Capitalized terms used in this Supplemental EULA and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to them in the applicable OS Product EULA.
General. The OS Components are provided to you by
Microsoft to update, supplement, or replace existing
functionality of the applicable OS Product. Microsoft
grants you a license to use the OS Components under the
same terms and conditions of the OS Product EULA for the
applicable OS Product (which are hereby incorporated by
reference except as otherwise set forth below) and the
terms and conditions set forth in this Supplemental EULA,
provided that you comply with all such terms and conditions.
To the extent that any terms in this Supplemental EULA
conflict with terms in the applicable OS Product EULA, the
terms of this Supplemental EULA control solely with respect
to the OS Components.
Additional Rights and Limitations.
* With respect to the OS Components only, if the licensor of the
applicable OS Product was an entity other than Microsoft,
then for the purposes of this Supplemental EULA Microsoft
will be the licensor with respect to such OS Components in
lieu of the "Manufacturer" or other entity and support, if
any, for such OS Components shall not be provided by
Manufacturer. With respect to the existing functionality
contained in the applicable OS Product which is not updated,
supplemented, or replaced by the OS Components, the EULA
for the OS Product shall remain in full force and effect as to
that OS Product.
* If you choose to utilize the update features within the OS
Product or OS Components, it is necessary to use certain
computer system, hardware, and software information to
implement the features. By using these features, you
explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to
access and utilize the necessary information for updating
purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to
improve our products or to provide customized services or
technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this
information to others, but not in a form that personally
identifies you.
* The OS Product or OS Components contain components that
enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may
automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
downloaded to your computer.
* If you have multiple validly licensed copies of the applicable
OS Product(s), you may reproduce, install and use one copy
of the OS Components as part of such applicable OS Product
(s) on all of your computers running validly licensed copies
of the OS Product(s) provided that you use such additional
copies of the OS Components in accordance with the terms
and conditions above. Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or
suppliers retain all right, title and interest in and to the
OS Components. All rights not expressly granted are
reserved by Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or suppliers.
IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO
YOU BY MICROSOFT OR ANY OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARIES, THE LIMITED WARRANTY (IF ANY)
INCLUDED IN THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA
APPLIES TO THE OS COMPONENTS PROVIDED THE OS
COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN LICENSED BY YOU WITHIN
THE TERM OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN THE
APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA. HOWEVER, THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME
PERIOD FOR WHICH THE LIMITED WARRANTY
IS PROVIDED.
IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO
YOU BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN MICROSOFT OR ANY
OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, MICROSOFT
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
OS COMPONENTS AS FOLLOWS:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT
AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS
COMPONENTS, AND ANY (IF ANY) SUPPORT SERVICES
RELATED TO THE OS COMPONENTS ("SUPPORT
SERVICES") AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND
MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM
WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AND
SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND
CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR
STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR
RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT,
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF
NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT,
QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND
CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE
RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF
THE OS COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES
REMAINS WITH YOU.
EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND
CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT
SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR: LOSS OF
PROFITS, LOSS OF CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER
INFORMATION, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, PERSONAL
INJURY, LOSS OF PRIVACY, FAILURE TO MEET ANY
DUTY (INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF
REASONABLE CARE), NEGLIGENCE, AND ANY OTHER
PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING
OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR
INABILITY TO USE THE OS COMPONENTS OR THE
SUPPORT SERVICES, OR THE PROVISION OF OR
FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, OR
OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY
PROVISION OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA, EVEN IF
MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MIGHT
INCUR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DAMAGES REFERENCED
ABOVE AND ALL DIRECT OR GENERAL DAMAGES), THE
ENTIRE LIABILITY OF MICROSOFT AND ANY OF ITS
SUPPLIERS UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY
YOU FOR THE OS COMPONENTS OR U.S.$5.00. THE
FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND
DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY
REMEDY FAILS ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
Thanks so much for the point by point reply. (Thanks to everyone who replied, in general).
The bad news about lpd is indeed bad news. I have quite a number of ported UNIX apps whose only means of printing is through lpd. I suppose I can have them print to file, and then use some Aqua app to send the resulting postscript to the printer. But that's a serious hassle. Hmm..and are there OS X native apps that read and print postscript anyway? The only one I can find is MacGSXby Bernd Heller, and it's very beta...no printing implemented yet. Looks like I may be S.O.L.
Agreed, but perhaps I want to edit my hidden file with an Aqua text editor? I can't access the hidden files in any Aqua file dialog box.
BBEdit, I think, is the only exception, where there is an option to expose hidden files.
Again, it would be simple enough to make this adminstrator-level system pref.
I very often have files that are only distinguished by earlyish middle chars.
i pt_Final_Draft_JNeuroSci02.doc
e.g.
Manuscript_First_Draft_JNeuroSci02.doc
Manuscr
become:
Manuscript_F...i02.doc
Mansucript_F...i02.doc
or something like that.
of course these examples are hypothetical, b/c both filenames are LONGER THAN 31 CHARS so Word v.X wouldn't allow them ANYWAY.
Well, anyway..the amount and point of truncation should be user adjustable.
AT LEAST if it showed a "tool tip" or "hint" or whatever it's called in the UI world when you select the file that brings up the entire filename, as Windows does. Maybe Jaguar now does this?
-Mark
Long file name display. Aqua shows the first handful of characters of a filename, followed by ellipsis (...) and then THE COMPLETELY UNINFORMATIVE last few characters. It should, of course, show AS MUCH of the leading the part of the filename as possible, then perhaps ellipsis and the extension. Perhaps.
File Dialogs. These stink. First, they're stuck in NeXT style columnar view. That in and of itself is not the worst. The worst is that as you expand the dialog (to see your filenames which are riddled w/ %@&!ing ellipses), the individual columns get wider...up to a point. They get nominally wider, but then further expansion ADDS ANOTHER COLUMN to the view, all columns being re-squished to their minimal width!! GRRR. AND, of course, there's no option to sort the file dialog by anything but name...a feature in Win. since 95.
Incomplete UNIX-length file support. Speaking of long filenames: Darwin allows standard UNIX-length filenames (what is it? 64? 128 chars? Plenty). Just about every OS X app still limits you to Mac's 31. GRRR. Is this just a limit for "carbonized" apps?
Finder won't show .hidden files. THIS is UNIX?
Line termination character woes. This is a long standing problem, but I feel Apple just kinda ignored it. Standard Mac line term. char: CR (ASCII 0x0d). Standard UNIX (and, ergo, Darwin's) line term. char: LF (ASCII 0x0a). Mix programs that by default generate one or the other in one system...try grepping or awking (or your favorite report management) anything useful...hilarity ensues. THIS is UNIX??
Is it possible to get lpd running, in light of all the built-in OS X printing overhead? OK, this last one just thrown in from a position of admitted ignorance.
Otherwise, I love it.
Hmm....my little sis has the 2-usb 500MHz G3 iBook...I have beeen very reluctant to recommend to her to upgrade (she's still a OS 9 user) to OS X for 2 reasons:
1) It's SLOW
2) She's completely UNIX illiterate and doesn't need/want any of Darwin's BSD functionality.
Compared to OS 9 on a year-old consumer machine like the 500MHz iBook, has Jaguar sufficiently eliminated reason 1?
Is this what you're up to? :)
Text from lower right-hand column of this page:
BECOME A PR AGENT AND WIN A FREE SCOTTeVEST
We are encouraging all our loyal customers and readers to help us get some press coverage. So, we have a brand new contest. Here's how it works: if you send an email to a member of the press, AND they do an article on the product, then you get a free SCOTTeVEST. Some limitations apply, like (a) no spamming, (b) only major publications and Web sites apply (not school newspapers or smaller websites), (c) does not apply to any press that we have already received or work in progress, and (d) you must be the catalyst of the coverage as verified by the reporter. The first person who gets a favorable post on Slashdot gets a prototype of the next version for free (limited sizes available).
Well I'll be...you're right! No mention of Newton on any of the Inkwell propoganda pages at Apple. I could've sworn it was there maybe 2 weeks ago. Apple's really good with the revisionism.
Good points. And how has Apple distanced itself from the Newton legacy, anyway? IIRC, Jaguar will include their Inkwell handwriting-recognition software which Apple loudly touts as being directly inspired by Newton's technology.
Yes, this is a method known as MEG (magnetoencephalography). It is far more sensitive (at least spatially) than EEG, but suffers from even greater constraints to get meaningful data out of it...the devices are massive, and environmental conditions have to be tightly controlled (magnetically sheilded room, etc...we're measuring 10-13 T fields here! Signal to noise is miniscule). Not to mention that it's fantastically expensive, but I guess if we're playing in the realm of govn't conspiracy theory that's not an issue. Anyway, still can't see "thought" with MEG.
Perhaps you're thinking of the lately-very-sexy independent components analysis (ICA)?
I feel that I'm feeding a troll here, but here goes...
Whatever the reality of zero-point field, EEG (the method being proposed here) does not measure it. It's simply the detection of dipoles produced by large (LARGE) numbers of similarly oriented neurons and their axonal processes. In other words, electrical fields. There's no mysterious subatomic field (as this zero point field appears to be) needed to explain cortical potentials.
The neural basis of cognition is the central tenet of all cognitive neuroscience and supported by thousands and thousands of studies. The most fundamental finding is that it is the extremely complex interaction of multitudes of cells which gives rise to cognition, and not some unknown mysterious force.
Look, you can make whatever hair-brained prediction you want, believe whatever crackpot theory you hear. I venture that I know just a fair bit more about the current realities regarding our understanding of the basis of mind than you, and I tell you that there's nothing close to mind-reading coming down the pike any time soon.
Do I think that sometime, maybe on the order of a couple hundred years or so from now we will have the technology and understanding of the brain to remotely monitor thought-processes in a reliable way? It's in the realm of possibility.
Is there any chance that in the next decade or three something like this might emerge? No way.
Now, I would predict that more direct (as opposed to remote) neuroimaging technologies (esp. fMRI) will make remarkable progress. And, we will perhaps even be able to tell, for example, which of a limited set of several objects a person is thinking about. Or how sure a person is about their answer to to a question. And these would be remarkable feats, to be sure. But none of them will be possible except in the tightly controlled constraints of a laboratory environment. And only after extensive post-hoc analysis, and not in real time.
To say something isn't possiable with the mind is what is truely ludicrous, fantasy, and preposterous.
Never said it's impossible, eventually. I will contend that it's patently impossible right now, or even in short-term future on the scale of decades.
Of course you are correct.
To suggest we have any technology today that can infer a person's thoughts is ludicrous. Even at a coarser level, to suggest that a momentary detection of brainwaves can be reliably correlated with some "bank" of known EEG signatures which indicates the disposition or identity of the subject is fantasy.
The weakness and noisiness of scalp potentials cannot be overstated. The devices we use in our lab are state of the art, but even these require a sophisticated multi-electrode cap, each electrode carefully primed with an electrolytic gel, and fed into an extremely sensitive amplifier, while the subject sits in a completely electrically isolated room (basically, a glorified Faraday cage).
And even when *all that* goes well, the data you collect is extremely noisy due to the inherrent conflation of *billions* of neurons all contributing to the recorded potentials. The solution is multi-event averaging. We give subjects 100s of trials, and only after tedious signal processing and averaging can we extract the gross electrical activity associated with a particular cognitive act ("event related potential").
And to suggest that we (cognitive scientists) have some sort of repertoire of electrical signatures mapped to "thought patterns" is preposterous. The best is the suggestion that particular waveforms are associated with "orienting" or "error-making" or "perception" or "novelty." Most serious scientists work hard to localize these signatures to particular brain structures (a whole industry unto itself) rather than wonder if these tiny effects can tell us about a person's hidden agenda.
Much has been made in the popular press about a particular waveform called the P300...a characteristic "positive-going" wave occurring around "300" milliseconds post stimulus onset. This waveform has been associated with attending to a novel stimulus. Some people have suggested using this waveform as a sort of ERP "lie-detector" using the following flawed thinking: If you show a suspect scenes from a crime, if they are novel (new to the suspect), they'll elicit a P300. If they are not surprising (indicated by a *lack* of P300), then the guy's seen the scene before and is guilty. I won't even begin to address all the problems with this "guilt by failure to disconfirm" approach...I'm sure you all are bright enough to see the logical holes, much less the technical and cogntive-theoretical problems.
Anyway...no, some guy passing through a gate, and some gee-wizardry fingering him as a terrorist-like baddy? Only in Ashcroft's wet dreams for now.