[Fidelista]

I guess I will have to make a tin-foil cap after all!.
A interesting article on mind control tech developed for Computer games. >f
Remote Control Device 'Controls' Humans By YURI KAGEYAMA, AP Business Writer
Wed Oct 26, 7:28 AM ET



ATSUGI, Japan - We wield remote controls to turn things on and off, make them advance, make them halt. Ground-bound pilots use remotes to fly drone airplanes, soldiers to maneuver battlefield robots.



But manipulating humans?

Prepare to be remotely controlled. I was.
---------------------------
Timothy Hullar, assistant professor at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo., believes finding the right way to deliver an electromagnetic field to the ear at a distance could turn the technology into a weapon for situations where "killing isn't the best solution."

"This would be the most logical situation for a nonlethal weapon that presumably would make your opponent dizzy," he said via e-mail. "If you find just the right frequency, energy, duration of application, you would hope to find something that doesn't permanently injure someone but would allow you to make someone temporarily off-balance."

Indeed, a small defense contractor in Texas, Invocon Inc., is exploring whether precisely tuned electromagnetic pulses could be safely fired into people's ears to temporarily subdue them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/...rol_for_humans

[alex_holker]

Why do humans seem incapable of thinking?

This is not a mind control device. This is a device which screws with your sense of balance. It makes you feel like up is a direction other than up. Is that really that hard to understand?

Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp., Japans top telephone company, says it is developing the technology to perhaps make video games more realistic. But more sinister applications also come to mind.

There are already ways to screw with someone's sense of balance. The author simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

"We call this a virtual dance experience although some people have mentioned it's more like a virtual drug experience," said Taro Maeda, senior research scientist at NTT. "I'm really hopeful Apple Computer will be interested in this technology to offer it in their iPod."

This guy really needs to learn how to control his mouth. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks there are sure to be paranoid, science-illiterate readers of this article.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by alex_holker

Why do humans seem incapable of thinking?

This is not a mind control device. This is a device which screws with your sense of balance. It makes you feel like up is a direction other than up. Is that really that hard to understand?

There are already ways to screw with someone's sense of balance. The author simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

This guy really needs to learn how to control his mouth. Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks there are sure to be paranoid, science-illiterate readers of this article.

???.Thats quite a hostile response to game tech . This machine {tech} is not a "mind control" as in controlling ones thoughts, the writer never claimed that, nor did I. It controls physical behavior, balance ect, at least that is what is claimed. Influences movement.
A taser can do that!. Its should be no suprise that others would be interested---military ,police. Any thing that causes involuntary reactions would be of great interest.
I thought it was interesting technology, and esp since computer related.
I am really suprised at your attack on the writer of this article > "This guy really needs to learn how to control his mouth"---well, she's a writer for the Associated Press, thats her job, I would think---to write???.
I fail to see what your problem is with writer, or the product they have developed
I don't worry about "paranoid" readers, they will be paranoid regardless , and I think people here are pretty stable
Maybe this article contains lies of some sort, I wouldn't know. I just posted it because I thought it was interesting--it was in Yahoo news.
I had no idea this game tech, with other possibilities, would provoke such a hostile reaction. I thought it was pretty neat. >f

[Gibble]

Because the author COMPLETELY DISTORTED THE TRUTH.

Saying "Prepare to be remotely controlled. I was." is a extreme stretch. Hey, shine a bright light in my eyes and you've "remotely controlled" me to close my eyes or shield my vision with my hand. But saying you "remotely controlled" me conjures up images that are not at all accurate.

It's supposed to be about reporting, not sensationalizing.

[Chicon]

I would like to 'remote control' my tax collector away from my home.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Because the author COMPLETELY DISTORTED THE TRUTH.

Saying "Prepare to be remotely controlled. I was." is a extreme stretch. Hey, shine a bright light in my eyes and you've "remotely controlled" me to close my eyes or shield my vision with my hand. But saying you "remotely controlled" me conjures up images that are not at all accurate.

It's supposed to be about reporting, not sensationalizing.

Ok , her writing style. I didn't pay much attention to it.
I was more interested in how it worked.
If these observations are inaccurate then using the term "remotely controlled" would be dishonest.>"I felt a mysterious, irresistible urge to start walking to the right whenever the researcher turned the switch to the right. I was convinced — mistakenly — that this was the only way to maintain my balance".

"The phenomenon is painless but dramatic. Your feet start to move before you know it. I could even remote-control myself by taking the switch into my own hands".

"There's no proven-beyond-a-doubt explanation yet as to why people start veering when electricity hits their ear. But NTT researchers say they were able to make a person walk along a route in the shape of a giant pretzel using this technique"
-----------
I have no idea if this woman or NTT are a liars , or sensationalizing---never entered my mind. I read tech news all the time, but not so critically. If their honest about effects, calling it a remote control would not be unreasonable, kind of the first thing you would think of--- you push a button and something happens.
Not to worry, no more yahoo tech news posted here. I had no idea it would be so controversial >f

[Fidelista]

One more example of "distorting the truth" and senationalizing!. --and from-- you guessed it--yahoo tech news!
Everybody knows a car can't learn like humans, much less 16 year olds!.
This guy really needs to learn how to control his mouth! LOL!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stanford robotic vehicle adapted human ways of learning

By Mike Langberg

Mercury News


Stanley, the robotic car from Stanford University that triumphed in a recent $2 million race across desert terrain, learned to drive in much the same way as any 16-year-old: by following the lessons of experienced humans.

It worked. The Volkswagen Touareg R5 crossed the finish line ahead of four other competitors in the DARPA Grand Challenge race for driverless vehicles, sponsored by the Pentagon, on Oct. 8.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...y/12922892.htm

[bassetman]

Someone was just telling me about the "mules" form one of Azminov's books last night!

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Someone was just telling me about the "mules" form one of Azminov's books last night!

Truth is {sometimes} stranger than fiction!. They are working on all kinds of interesting stuff. Just wished it all didn't revolve around killing--but that is wishful thinking. >f

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by Gibble

It's supposed to be about reporting, not sensationalizing.

Of course it's supposed to be about sensationalizing. Haven't you watched the news in the past 5 years? Or read it? Or listened to it?

Sensationalism is the name of the game.

Originally Posted by Fidelista

Truth is {sometimes} stranger than fiction!. They are working on all kinds of interesting stuff. Just wished it all didn't revolve around killing--but that is wishful thinking. >f

There was an article in the WSJ about robot jokeys riding being developed to race camels in Saudi Arabia.

WSJ seems like an intelligent source. Not so sensationalistic.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Of course it's supposed to be about sensationalizing. Haven't you watched the news in the past 5 years? Or read it? Or listened to it?

Sensationalism is the name of the game.


There was an article in the WSJ about robot jokeys riding being developed to race camels in Saudi Arabia.

WSJ seems like an intelligent source. Not so sensationalistic.

Thanks Bandit. I read WSJ tech "opinions" but thats about all.
Maybe I will subscribe.
I was being sarcastic about robotic vehiches--- I would guess you know that .
Robotics is amazing not only in what it does now, but future.
I never worry about about false science, as some things work , others don't.
Thats the way it is with new tech. > >f

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Of course it's supposed to be about sensationalizing. Haven't you watched the news in the past 5 years? Or read it? Or listened to it?

Sensationalism is the name of the game.

No, and for this very reason.

[jiml8]

In the field of electronic warfare, we don't speak of "remote control" except within the context of the originator of the weapon remotely controlling it. From the standpoint of defense, we don't "remotely control" or "take control of" and enemy asset; usually we can't hope to do that.

Instead, we "jam" that asset. Our jamming may be "noise jamming" or it may be "deception jamming". In the context of an infrared-seeker missile, noise jamming would typically be a strobe or a laser, that is flashed at the missile with the intent to saturate its infrared eye (possibly damaging it) so that the missile can't distinguish the true target. Deception jamming would be accomplished by deploying flares that mimic the real target so that the missile steers to those flares rather than to the real target.

When the missile uses a radar seeker, noise jamming means broadcasting high-power radar energy at it in an incoherent burst (sort of like shouting at the missile) so that it can't home on the target. There are also a number of sophisticated and often very effective deception jamming techniques which (for security reasons) I won't discuss that have the effect of taking control of the missile and causing it to steer in the wrong direction. Similar deception techniques can spoof a manned radar that is used for acquisition or tracking.

In the current context, the human mind would be the asset to be jammed. The indicated technique would certainly not constitute a "remote control" of a human, though I would suggest that such an activity might be technically possible (though beyond current state-of-the-art). The indicated technique also does not constitute a deception jam because the target is not being misdirected.

Instead, the technique is a noise jammer, that fouls up the target system, causing it to malfunction. This could certainly be a valuable technique, but it certainly isn't "remote control".

[EdGreen]

Lighten up peeps. There is nothing sensational or misleading about the article. If you look at the headline you see the word controls in single quotes. That's a very common tool for indicating that a word is likely being used in a manner distorted from its normal meaning. Further, there is a picture included showing a remote control unit that any kid or model plane builder would recognize immediately as such. The author was simply playing off that image in a clever fashion.

alex_holker, you seem to be the one who wasn't thinking since you missed this obvious literary maneuver.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by EdGreen

Lighten up peeps. There is nothing sensational or misleading about the article. If you look at the headline you see the word controls in single quotes. That's a very common tool for indicating that a word is likely being used in a manner distorted from its normal meaning. Further, there is a picture included showing a remote control unit that any kid or model plane builder would recognize immediately as such. The author was simply playing off that image in a clever fashion.

alex_holker, you seem to be the one who wasn't thinking since you missed this obvious literary maneuver.

Hi Ed!

How's the Liberal version of GB?