IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#2A little fanciful I think. The stuff about generating your own energy through captured kinetic energy is silly. My house has a 20KW feed - thats about 27 horsepower. On my bike I produce a tiny fraction of a horsepower. Its many orders of magnitude off.
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#3i am setting an alert in my calender 5 years from now with the text of this article and the author's email address.
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#4Can someone change this to link to the actual IBM blog entry [1] instead of the CNET fluff piece?
[1] http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2011/12/the-next-5-in-5-our-f...
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#5A little fanciful I think. The stuff about generating your own energy through captured kinetic energy is silly. My house has a 20KW feed - thats about 27 horsepower. On my bike I produce a tiny fraction of a horsepower. Its many orders of magnitude off.
[deleted]
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#6probably depends on your definition of "mind reading", but sounds like it warrants a longbet.
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#7Linkbaity headline, there.
"Mind reading" already exists kindof sortof maybe good enough to cnet to write an article about.
This is at the top of my Christmas list: http://emotiv.com/
In fact, here is a comparison of consumer Brain Computer Interfaces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain%E2...
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#8"ATM machine" in an IBM video? I'm slightly disappointed.
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#9Well I guess you could link brain patterns to thoughts, but how do you gonna read them without a 5 ton MRI machine?
Re: IBM: Mind reading is less than five years away. For real.
#10The "No Passwords" prediction is overlooking a big stumbling block: biometric data is not that secret and cannot be changed once intercepted. You might as well just walk up to an ATM, and speak your social security number. So the ATM is secure, but it's just another trusted client with all its associated problems.
The only thing biometric data is really good for is keeping track of people when they don't want to be tracked or want to hide their identity. For example, it would be a useful means of tracking and identifiying people in a prison or a border checkpoint.