Computer build lists Cisco Comcast FCC Intel Microsoft Network Management Network Neutrality Security Verizon
Written by: Justin James 6/17/2008 8:52 PM
I love to read stuff from Microsoft Research. Say what you willa bout their shipping products, their research items are just plain fascinating, and I have learned a lot by reading their papers. I came across an item today, an interview with a guy there working on human/computer interfaces, Desney Tan. It was interesting; he talked about "wetworks" (merging the brain and the machine) fairly casually. Now, I am all for technological progress, I am certainly no Luddite. But the idea of wetworks somehow bothers me in a weird way. Not really moral qualms, per se. But practical issues. Things like, "if my brain is wired up like this, what happens if I ever need an MRI?" And, "if my brain is tightly coupled to a machine, what happens when the machine crashes?" Another one: "if I am tethered to a machine, what powers it? What happens if it runs out of power?" And so on. It's odd, I've read a lot about people working on the "tough problem" which is the machine/brain interface. But no one seems to really be addressing the practical problems. I think that until these practical issues are dealt with, this will not be a serious technology except in niche markets. J.Ja
I love to read stuff from Microsoft Research. Say what you willa bout their shipping products, their research items are just plain fascinating, and I have learned a lot by reading their papers. I came across an item today, an interview with a guy there working on human/computer interfaces, Desney Tan. It was interesting; he talked about "wetworks" (merging the brain and the machine) fairly casually.
Now, I am all for technological progress, I am certainly no Luddite. But the idea of wetworks somehow bothers me in a weird way. Not really moral qualms, per se. But practical issues. Things like, "if my brain is wired up like this, what happens if I ever need an MRI?" And, "if my brain is tightly coupled to a machine, what happens when the machine crashes?" Another one: "if I am tethered to a machine, what powers it? What happens if it runs out of power?" And so on.
It's odd, I've read a lot about people working on the "tough problem" which is the machine/brain interface. But no one seems to really be addressing the practical problems. I think that until these practical issues are dealt with, this will not be a serious technology except in niche markets.
J.Ja
7 comments so far...
You can power via electromagnetic induction You can power via electromagnetic induction so that you don't need a big hole in the back of your head or Frankenstein nodes on your neck. Then there are no openings in your body that can get infected not to mention how freaky it is to have nodes sticking out of your body. Communications will also need to be a wireless gigabit+ interface.If the machine crashes, you still function as a normal person but you'll feel crippled since you're cut-off from your super human mental powers given to you by the computer.We've talked about this before a few years ago.Now do I want to be a beta tester for this brain-embedded computer? No. Do I want it after it's matured? Definitely.
You can power via electromagnetic induction
You can power via electromagnetic induction so that you don't need a big hole in the back of your head or Frankenstein nodes on your neck. Then there are no openings in your body that can get infected not to mention how freaky it is to have nodes sticking out of your body. Communications will also need to be a wireless gigabit+ interface.If the machine crashes, you still function as a normal person but you'll feel crippled since you're cut-off from your super human mental powers given to you by the computer.We've talked about this before a few years ago.Now do I want to be a beta tester for this brain-embedded computer? No. Do I want it after it's matured? Definitely.
Re: Do we really want "wetworks"? If there is wireless communications involved, it had *better* be like 4,048 bit encryption...J.Ja
Re: Do we really want "wetworks"?
If there is wireless communications involved, it had *better* be like 4,048 bit encryption...J.Ja
No, 128-bit AES is more than enough. Don't play the bit length inflation game No, 128-bit AES is more than enough for almost everything. Don't play the bit length inflation game.http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6145490.htmlWhat does need to be 4048 bit is the RSA key used for key exchange.Besides, what leaves your head is mostly going to be web queries so it's no more risky than it is today.
No, 128-bit AES is more than enough. Don't play the bit length inflation game
No, 128-bit AES is more than enough for almost everything. Don't play the bit length inflation game.http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6145490.htmlWhat does need to be 4048 bit is the RSA key used for key exchange.Besides, what leaves your head is mostly going to be web queries so it's no more risky than it is today.
Re: Do we really want "wetworks"? On a lighter side...- To get anti-virus, do you go to your family doctor?- Makes literal meaning of 'Zombie' nodes in DoS attacks- Out of control kids can be put into 'hibernate'But seriously, it's good advancement and hopefully it'll gain some traction.
On a lighter side...- To get anti-virus, do you go to your family doctor?- Makes literal meaning of 'Zombie' nodes in DoS attacks- Out of control kids can be put into 'hibernate'But seriously, it's good advancement and hopefully it'll gain some traction.
If it's a computer in your brain, I'd just lock it down against any sort of software installation If it's a computer in your brain, I'd just lock it down against any sort of software installation that hasn't been cryptographically verified from a VERY trusted source. It would also need to be audited many times by the best crackers in the world. We would also limit its ability to control muscles so that a virus can't come in and tell your arms to slash your own throat, etc. There would need to be extensive safety mechanisms built in.
If it's a computer in your brain, I'd just lock it down against any sort of software installation
If it's a computer in your brain, I'd just lock it down against any sort of software installation that hasn't been cryptographically verified from a VERY trusted source. It would also need to be audited many times by the best crackers in the world. We would also limit its ability to control muscles so that a virus can't come in and tell your arms to slash your own throat, etc. There would need to be extensive safety mechanisms built in.
Re: Do we really want "wetworks"? Hello George,Take a look at Ghost in the Shell to see how a computer can be integrated into a human brain. Both positive and negative effects.
Hello George,Take a look at Ghost in the Shell to see how a computer can be integrated into a human brain. Both positive and negative effects.
Re: Do we really want "wetworks"? The power problem has some interesting solutions.Some of my favorite are salt table conduction (where the entire salt table of your body is lit by a central power source allowing you to power any removable wetware device just by contact), and this blood powered method proposed for this digital tattoo concept Referred to as "powered by pizza".
The power problem has some interesting solutions.Some of my favorite are salt table conduction (where the entire salt table of your body is lit by a central power source allowing you to power any removable wetware device just by contact), and this blood powered method proposed for this digital tattoo concept Referred to as "powered by pizza".
Adrian's PC Doctor blog Deb Shinder's blog Deb Shinder on Vista Dietrich T. Schmit on Linux Erratasec blog - Security Ed Bott on Microsoft Jason Hiner's blog John Carroll Justin James' developer blog Matt Sherman's blog Martin McKeay Paul Mah, Tech at play Richard Bennett's blog Sunbelt Blog - Security Tom Shinder on ISA Tom Shinder on security ZDNet - Zero day Rich Tehrani - VoIP