Mind reading gets closer to real thanks to Canadian scientists
By Darren Murph 
posted February 12th 2009 10:12AM
posted February 12th 2009 10:12AM
posted February 12th 2009 10:12AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This is pretty neat, but also really, really scary.
Additionally, this reminds me of that technology I read about years ago that allowed scientists to create images of a person's dreams.
Exactly. Mind police is one step closer.
my company (and i'm sure many others) have been doing this for quite some time.
@ teej
By "[your] company," do you happen to me "the government"?
Researchers are constantly giving out statistical data about their projects that may be less than impartial (after all, it's human nature). That's why independent tests are usually needed to corroborate them. I've worked on enough contracts on these type of "scientific" projects and seen interest in them die when independent testing disproves researchers statistics. There have been so many "thought reading" machines that the USG has thrown money at in hopes of getting a "next generation polygraph," all now dead research. Taxpayer dollars get thrown away on a lot of junk science.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46285471@N00/3274119979/
Did the Canadians control your mind as you misspelled that title?
How did they know I wanted one of these!? I've never even told anyone! It's almost like they...
That's right, we do something other than ice fishing up here ;)
lol, kudos. [+1]
Speaking of which, Office Glen and I are going icefishing and drinking real beer later. You in?
@jonchwong:
Is it true you do it doggie-style up there so that you can both watch the hockey game? :P
That must have taken forever without copy-paste.
And, that was meant for iEye.
It was so greyed out that it was hard to see that it was a seperate comment.
The most important detail... Coke or Pepsi? Inquiring (scientific) minds want to know!
i think he gets his life energy from low ranks.
maybe if we high rank him he'll melt and die.
"What am I thinking, eh?"
"That you'd like a Kraft dinner"
"Success, our machine works!"
So, how do they get the near infrared light to the brain tissue? Does it shine through the skull or do they drill a hole?
I am Canadian, eh!
Do you think Americans point out that they are American every time an American company does something noteworthy? No. So hush up 'cause your embarrassing us.
Update:
The two drink options were Coke and shit water.
Thank you, Jim Lahey.
-jp
And to think that 1 out of every 5 people actually preferred the shit water.
Engadget / Time Warner, are you licensing these images from movies etc? if not you should stop using them. it is not "fair use". it isnt wrong because you dont get caught, its wrong because you do it. how would you like it if someone stole your work? set an example.
Yeah, Engadget, you are ruining the lives of hard working actors! BOYCOTT!!
Fair Use is usually very debatable and is usually taken on a case by case basis by a judge.
According to: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html and http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
Fair Use allows for commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education of content.
Now Engadget usually use of images doesn't squarely fall in to these categories since the image is lightly related to the content.
For instance this topic is not about the X-Men films but about 'mind reading'. The idea of mind reading, of course, is being link to Professor Xavier's telepathic ability. I'd say Engadget is either very lightly touching parody at times or light commentary.
'Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations.'
As Engadget is showing a single still frame rather than the movie and they are not trying defame the content thereof, no real damage to the value of the content (the X-Men movies) is being done here.
Either way though it's a little fringe and I'd suggest that Engadget take a moment to put the copyright reference on the material to their owners. After all that's how other sites get away with it. http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/movies/26xmen.html
I enjoy the imagery that Engadget chooses and I'd rather not see that change.
@tes
your comment is well said
but often, the only link to the image being used by engadget, is the reference inserted by engadget.
so for example, I could finish this message by saying, "I wonder what Elvis would think of that" and then insert an image of Elvis.
Fair use of Elvis?
sometimes the only link to the article subject is the insertion of the phone/laptop etc into the hand of the "famous person", by engadget.
famous people like to be paid for endorsements
engadget/time warner [and yes, I think it makes a difference that it is time warner and this is a "for profit" commercial venture], would take a dim view of my tech blog Emgadget, where I just copied their work, but photoshopped unicorns onto it.
This is all fair use, either for editorial or parody. ask anyone with common sense. It is journalism [sic].
@najakwa
so you think anyone can legally take/use copryrighted content, as long as they're a "journalist.", self declared or otherwise?
I didnt realize Lionel Hutz was posting here [sorry to unmask you]
yes i am saying that. you just don't get it do you?
sorry, let me elaborate for the stump in the room. under fair use, you can, and this use is an example of that.
Mr. Sixpack, you ordered the "worms" right?
(as in can of worms... my stupid use of "lessthan equalthan" signs ommited the first part of what I wrote, (walks in with a can). Oh hell, I failed, just fade me out :)
@najakwa
well Mr Hutz, perhaps you could give an example of what is NOT fair use of content for a commercial "journalist" ?
moreover, is bootlegging a music file, or movie fair use, if you write a "journalistic" review? after all, its just another form of content.
is there any clue in the word COPYright, that suggests COPYing might not okay?
under your very generous interpretation, there is effectively no law.
from NY Times
Mr. Kennedy argued, however, that The Associated Press believes that in some cases, the essence of an article can be encapsulated in very few words.
“As content creators, we firmly believe that everything we create, from video footage all the way down to a structured headline, is creative content that has value,” he said.
But he also said that the association hopes that it will not have to test this theory in court.
“We are not trying to sue bloggers,” Mr. Kennedy said. “That would be the rough equivalent of suing grandma and the kids for stealing music. That is not what we are trying to do.”
Can we not just burn him at the stake already?
god damn canadians...
@samo
i'd give up my super cool speed shoes to see that.
blame canada when your girlfriend gets a hold of one of these and starts reading some of the shit on your mind
professor x? dude, if this is going on in canada then weapon x is going to be all over this!
@dan
imagine if you had spent thousands of dollars and 10 hrs getting a photo just right, lighting, actor, wardrobe...
you posted it in your website
then someone copied your photo, drew a p*nis on it, put it on their website, and sold advertising around it/made money off it
how would you feel?
I believe perez hilton lost that "fair use" argument and now licenses his images.
Dude? Fuckin' get over it. If you got a problem with it go report it to your state's attorney general's office and tell them to investigate this technology blog that's using *gasp* still images from movies.....
You do realize one of Engadget's writers, Nilay Pitel, is a former copyright lawyer and probably knows 5.6 million times more than you in that field, right?
@ dead rebel
you do realize that engadget / time warner vigorously protect their own copyrights dont you?
this isnt some guy in his dorm room, writing a blog. its a money making venture from a huge corporation. how much fun are time warner with movie file sharing?
you do realize that there is a discussion by Nilay of fair use re the kindle don't you? ay, there's the rub.
you do realize it is up to the copyright holder to file a complaint don't you?
@najakwa
read tes comment
i believe i did, still fair use. quit yer bitchin.
You have to use the image to make the profit, you n00b. I seriously doubt that it could be proven in a court of law that the above image is making Engadget one red penny. Get over yourself. Engadget may not be dorm room bloggers, but you tipped your hand and showed that you must be, with nothing else better to do. Thanks for the entertainment today.... I love seeing n00bs like you prove my points to themselves and not even realize it.
@dead rebel
" You have to use the image to make the profit, you n00b. I seriously doubt that it could be proven in a court of law that the above image is making Engadget one red penny."
you poor dumb beast.
1 engadget is for profit. it sells advertising off the back of its content.
2 it isnt necessarily about making a profit. a celebrity/plaintiff could prove harm to image/reputation and sue for damages, for unauthorised use of his image, to endorse etc
now, back under your rock, lest the daylight blind you!
Soon your going to have to "watch what you think"
What a bunch of baloney! They were giving people 2 options for drinks, and "eureka!" got 80% accuracy in reading it. Give them Nobel prize for it.
Daily Plant
Sex.Boobs.Beer
Sex.Boobs.Beer
Sex.Boobs.Beer
Sex.Boobs.Beer
Sex.Boobs.Beer
And that was just the first 30 seconds they put the mind reader on Ben,s brain.
Reason why I would never be on board with this. Two words.
Buffy. Earshot.
(Damn good episode, if you haven't seen it.)