Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wires in your brain?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bascule
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCotMan
    If so, what would this Mr. "Hippy" [assistant] be shaped like? [It certainly wouldn't be a paperclip...
    Roach clip, duh

    Leave a comment:


  • astcell
    replied
    If I ever meet the idiot who wrote "Unsharp Mask...."

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCotMan
    replied
    Originally posted by Voltage Spike
    ...
    [Much clever and witty content removed]
    Gives a new meaning to the "Cancel" button.

    (This is a pet peeve of mine, by the way, and even Apple gets it wrong on occasion. Are "Yes"/"No" answers really so hard to implement?)
    Yep. Right up there with the Old MacOS: "drag floppy disk to trash to eject" and MS Windows "Click on 'Start' to shutdown."

    [Much clever and witty content removed]
    It sounds like you chose the "demon" assistant. My "hippy" assistant asks....
    Ah! Are you saying this Interface was designed by Bacule? If so, what would this Mr. "Hippy" [assistant] be shaped like? [It certainly wouldn't be a paperclip... and what would happen at 4:20 when you need help?]
    (I laughed out loud while reading your post. Excellent stuff.)
    Last edited by TheCotMan; April 30, 2005, 17:16. Reason: added content in []

    Leave a comment:


  • Voltage Spike
    replied
    Originally posted by TheCotMan
    Thanks. :-) Feel free to call me "Cot" since it is fewer keystrokes.
    Yes, because we all know that TheCotMan is very concerned with reducing the amount of text on this board.

    Originally posted by TheCotMan
    MS-DOS vs WIndows XP (Command line vs GUI)
    The command line gives experienced users great power.
    The GUI gives mediocre users marginal competence.
    True, but seeing as we are discussing the speed of an interface, one purpose of a GUI is to reduce the amount of time required to perform common tasks. The end result is sometimes that the work required of the computer is much greater than the work required of the user. I think it is safe to assume that bascule's computer wouldn't have such frustrations (seeing as how bascule designed it ).

    Originally posted by TheCotMan
    "I't looks like you are taking out the garbage. Would you like help with the steps necessary?"
    Clicks yes.

    "Placing garbage in your neighbor's bin is an easy, but generally effective, method of preventing the government from looking through your waste in states that allow it."

    Originally posted by TheCotMan
    "It looks like you are trying to breathe. Are you sure you want to do that?" (The "[OK]" is greyed out due to a bug. :-o )
    Gives a new meaning to the "Cancel" button.

    (This is a pet peeve of mine, by the way, and even Apple gets it wrong on occasion. Are "Yes"/"No" answers really so hard to implement?)

    Originally posted by TheCotMan
    "It looks like you are trying to kill that driver on the road in a bit of road rage. Would you like help to do this without getting caught?"
    It sounds like you chose the "demon" assistant. My "hippy" assistant asks: "It looks like you are trying to kill that driver on the road in a bit of road rage. Have you considered alternative forms of transportation?"

    Originally posted by TheCotMan
    "It looks like you are posting on usenet, would you like help with flaming and trolling?"
    Nope, I've got it covered. Thanks, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCotMan
    replied
    Originally posted by dYn4mic
    That all makes a lot of sense TheCotMan.
    Thanks. :-) Feel free to call me "Cot" since it is fewer keystrokes.

    Maybe this is why my window managers are light, and simplistic themes are choosen (over ultra colorful (etc..))
    An even more extreme comparison.
    MS-DOS vs WIndows XP (Command line vs GUI)
    The command line gives experienced users great power.
    The GUI gives mediocre users marginal competence.

    What happends if I use the computer while im intoxicated and my thoughts illogical? What happends when I think about something other than the task at hand? What If i think about deleting a file, but im not sure if I want to or not..?
    Good points.

    I don't want a "clippy" in my head...
    Gah! That would really SUCK!
    "I't looks like you are taking out the garbage. Would you like help with the steps necessary?"

    "It looks like you are trying to breathe. Are you sure you want to do that?" (The "[OK]" is greyed out due to a bug. :-o )

    "It looks like you are trying to kill that driver on the road in a bit of road rage. Would you like help to do this without getting caught?"

    "It looks like you are posting on usenet, would you like help with flaming and trolling?"

    Gah! The humanity!
    Last edited by TheCotMan; April 30, 2005, 13:01. Reason: Punctuation

    Leave a comment:


  • dYn4mic
    replied
    That all makes a lot of sense TheCotMan. Maybe this is why my window managers are light, and simplistic themes are choosen (over ultra colorful (etc..))
    This is a good quote I've saved from a SecFocus article a while ago...

    "I don't believe we'll ever see a reversal of the trend towards bloatware in software. But with security now a major threat to every single software company in the world, the security issues that stem from increasing software complexity must be addressed. The solution to all this complexity cannot be more complexity; we must find a more elegant and simple solution. Security must become ingrained into everything we do."

    But, I believe that finding that elegant simple solution is really difficult.
    You could argue the number of system calls increasing as evidence that software is moved to bloatware to meet the demand of users.
    "UNIX was designed to do one thing, and do it well"

    What happends if I use the computer while im intoxicated and my thoughts illogical? What happends when I think about something other than the task at hand? What If i think about deleting a file, but im not sure if I want to or not..?
    I don't want a "clippy" in my head, but I also don't want to be deleting or breaking something just because I think about it and the computer moves too fast for me before I change my mind or something.... There's huge implications to something such as this. But TheCotMan is right.. protections would need to get an overhaul and limits applied.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCotMan
    replied
    Originally posted by dYn4mic
    I spend a lot of time wating for the computer to do something, then It doing something for me.
    Some would say that much of the time we wait for the computer has to do with bloated OS [and] applications that are huge-- mostly because of User Interface features that were designed to make use of the system easier and protect users from themselves at a sacrifice of speed.

    If the user interface was moved to a hardware interface that meets to requirements [originally] outlined by Bascule, then that would initially lead to an abundance of free cycles due to loss of need for an extensive user interface.

    IMO, this abundance of CPU cycles would be short lived. New features would be added to the OS to protect users from themselves.

    Wanting to delete certain files, but leave other files behind could be as simple as imagining a regex pattern and having files get selected, or in Bascule's original suggestion, "just thinking about the files" would be enough to have the interface figure it out.

    Imagine sharining a computer with a another when you get mad at them and think, "I should delete all their files."

    More protections would need to be added as people less techie start to use such interfaces. OS bloat could become even larger than it is now.
    Last edited by TheCotMan; April 30, 2005, 12:09. Reason: horrible typos fixed

    Leave a comment:


  • dYn4mic
    replied
    I think If i could control the computer entirely from my mind... (as stated above)
    I would grow more fustrated with using the computer... I spend a lot of time wating for the computer to do something, then It doing something for me. This applys to any computer I have ever used (and will use in the next few years you might argue)
    An example is using a shitty keyboard or mouse... this interface is normally easy and transparent... but the minute we have a sticky space bar, or a shitty ball mouse... we notice it.. and notice it BIGTIME. It distracts us from working properly and makes our entire computer experance at the time fustrating. (this also applys to mundane details like your car (something that becomes transparent.. A->B) and even security work... (a network intrustion for a person who is trained but has no frequent experiance will make mistakes, be slow and unprepared..etc..etc)

    Making my computer input be as fast as I can think it would just be overload (for the most part). The internet is too slow, etc..etc...
    I COULD see this in a FPS or gaming... some kind of vision system and sound system I could wear or even "jack in" kinda a deal like the matrix... but then we're just into Virtual Reality.. and processing arch. is noplace near where it needs to be for that.
    Or someday when the computer AND the network (world is going to become a giant network... (think of a computer without 'the network' now.. its almost silly in most uses) is as fast as I can think... but then we'll have other things going on.

    Leave a comment:


  • bascule
    replied
    Originally posted by enCode
    You bring up an interesting point. You dont have to make it so your brain IS the computer, rather a medium by which the computer is operated.
    When you couple high speed bidirectional information exchange directly with the brain with computer networks, the line really begins to blur...

    Leave a comment:


  • enCode
    replied
    Originally posted by FunkyChicken
    A little OT (and old news)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3186850.stm

    Something very interesting is a scientific test that was performed in America, Monkeys brains were controlling robot arms over 600 Miles away!!! The monkies had electronic sensors planted in their brain, these sensors would monitor the monkeys brain signals and convert them into what the monkey desired. The monkey would simply control a dot on a computer screen using nothing other then its brain. Scientists linked this up with a robot arm in another lab(600 miles away), the monkey could now perform an action in another state by simply thinking. The reason for these experiments is to enable people who are unfortunate enough to be paralysed to move again.

    But how does this relate to this topic? User Interface? If a monkey can control a dot on a screen by thinking, what stops us from controlling a cursor on the screen by simply thinking? This technology opens up thousands of possibilities, in fact, the possibilities are endless, for example, why 'type' a letter when u can simply 'think' it?
    We see these technologies in futuristic films, “that'll never happen” you say, change your mind now?

    The most important thing to think about in this case is that all of the signals are one way. The monkey can send data by simply thinking, but to recieve data back it must do so by regular senses, i.e. visual.
    You bring up an interesting point. You dont have to make it so your brain IS the computer, rather a medium by which the computer is operated. I think i would do that. Also the medicinal implications are extrodinary.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCotMan
    replied
    Originally posted by FunkyChicken
    ...Monkeys brains were controlling robot arms over 600 Miles away!!!
    Oh crap! Next thing you know, these monkeys will be web browsing and posting on these forms. That will be a bad day.

    [/quote]The reason for these experiments is to enable people who are unfortunate enough to be paralysed to move again.[/quote]
    Nice. They have been doing work on eye movement to control operating systems and make "typing" possible by using a special visor or a pair of glasses. Thought thought is a step ahead of using thoughts, both have great potential for those paralized.

    But how does this relate to this topic? User Interface? If a monkey can control a dot on a screen by thinking, what stops us from controlling a cursor on the screen by simply thinking? This technology opens up thousands of possibilities, in fact, the possibilities are endless, for example, why 'type' a letter when u can simply 'think' it?
    We see these technologies in futuristic films, “that'll never happen” you say, change your mind now?
    The idea since before cyberpunk (role playing game) was to have implants for User Interface. Event the idea of the Star Trek transporter may be possible in a distant future. (Consider physics and teleportation in quantum mechanics-- not exactly a transporter, but perhaps research necessary to get a transporter.

    The most important thing to think about in this case is that all of the signals are one way. The monkey can send data by simply thinking, but to recieve data back it must do so by regular senses, i.e. visual.
    This could also be scary. How many times do we start typing horrible flames on mailing lists only to finally be cool, calm and collected enough to not press "SEND."
    Speed of thought? heh. We won't have the same amount of time to cool off before thinking "SEND" :-)

    Or, an obviously flawed example:
    What if you were thinking, "I wonder what would happen if I formatted my computer's hard disk?"

    Leave a comment:


  • mfreeck
    replied
    Originally posted by LosT
    Would learning increase faster if information desired was instantly provided when it was 'requested'? Surely. But you will still reach certain limits imposed by the ability to digest such information.
    Here's an interesting thought... Learning something like martial arts... doing anything physical really involves not just book knowledge, but 'muscle knowledge.' Your body learns at a physical level from doing the same motions over and over again. What if you could cut down on that time a bit?

    I think it's at a low enough level that it would be either easier or harder. Easier because it's at the brain level, not the mind. OTOH, you'd have to decode those types of 'memories' in order to recreate them and figure out how to transmit them again. I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts working on that for folks recovering from brain injuries.

    As far as whether I'd like to be hardwired for communications... No. I don't mind being integrated with external wear, but I draw the line at implants of any sort, with the exception of compensating for a medical deficiency (lack of something I was or should've been born with... eye, arm, well functioning heart).

    Regarding pop culture bits being "viruses," I suppose it could be considered a worm. When I think about 'hacking' somebody's mind, I think about brain washing. Replication can be argued both ways... I think it does replicate, but there are few vulnerable hosts. I am speaking more of cults than picking a random individual and forcefully programming them.

    Leave a comment:


  • FunkyChicken
    replied
    A little OT (and old news)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3186850.stm

    Something very interesting is a scientific test that was performed in America, Monkeys brains were controlling robot arms over 600 Miles away!!! The monkies had electronic sensors planted in their brain, these sensors would monitor the monkeys brain signals and convert them into what the monkey desired. The monkey would simply control a dot on a computer screen using nothing other then its brain. Scientists linked this up with a robot arm in another lab(600 miles away), the monkey could now perform an action in another state by simply thinking. The reason for these experiments is to enable people who are unfortunate enough to be paralysed to move again.

    But how does this relate to this topic? User Interface? If a monkey can control a dot on a screen by thinking, what stops us from controlling a cursor on the screen by simply thinking? This technology opens up thousands of possibilities, in fact, the possibilities are endless, for example, why 'type' a letter when u can simply 'think' it?
    We see these technologies in futuristic films, “that'll never happen” you say, change your mind now?

    The most important thing to think about in this case is that all of the signals are one way. The monkey can send data by simply thinking, but to recieve data back it must do so by regular senses, i.e. visual.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCotMan
    replied
    Originally posted by LosT
    *Not everyone 'thinks' at the same speed
    *Not everyone 'thinks' with the same process/paradigms applied
    True. With shared thoughts, there is risk for elimination of diversity, as people could share the same experiences and experience is a fundamental part of our decision making process.

    I still say that connection is not the same a understanding- you may be able to tap into certain facts, pieces of information, etc- but the digestion of such information will always be a function of the person- Just like you can teach someone the tools they need for a complex eplison delta proof, and yet they still may not be able to formulate the proof correctly...
    This is the old issue of memorization/recitation vs comprehension. Some of the fastest speed readers may be able to recite facts, and memorize lines, but is this reading for comprehension and retention?

    Would learning increase faster if information desired was instantly provided when it was 'requested'? Surely. But you will still reach certain limits imposed by the ability to digest such information.
    And we still have an indexing problem (described before.) New ideas are often born of experience and difficulties. Finding new solutions to existing problems is partly a result of genetics and partly a result of experience. If people were "programmed" the same way with the same information, then original invention may suffer. "Think Different" ? It may not be so easy.

    Leave a comment:


  • LosT
    replied
    *Not everyone 'thinks' at the same speed

    *Not everyone 'thinks' with the same process/paradigms applied

    I still say that connection is not the same a understanding- you may be able to tap into certain facts, pieces of information, etc- but the digestion of such information will always be a function of the person- Just like you can teach someone the tools they need for a complex eplison delta proof, and yet they still may not be able to formulate the proof correctly...

    Would learning increase faster if information desired was instantly provided when it was 'requested'? Surely. But you will still reach certain limits imposed by the ability to digest such information.

    LosT

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X