To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Trust is a marketing point, not necessarily technical (as Apple has showcased many times). People in the past wouldn't entrust their money on banks for example, and while there are good reasons to not trust them, most people have their money on banks anyway.
When personal computers started becoming popular, people were afraid to trust them too. Your post sounded like the Orthodox Church and their fear for computers in the '80s and how we would all lose our individuality, and have a chip in our forehead as a personal ID, that's controlling us (I watched various such "documentaries" on the Greek TV as a teen). It's all FUD. Eventually things like that get ironed out, security also matures, not just software features.
Remember the iPhone and how everyone "hated it" in the beginning (before it got released 2 months later) because it had no stylus or hardware buttons. A lot of whining about that back in early 2007. But since its touch UI made sense eventually, people followed it anyway when the device actually came out. And they loved it.
The UI I suggest is even more intuitive and natural. There's nothing stopping progress. If something is useful, it gets adopted, despite the risks.
Edited 2011-10-10 21:07 UTC
I hadn't heard that bit about the Orthadox church but I'd rather there be a well defined interface based on open standards between the brain and computer to ensure that it was only able to gleem so much information.
Typically I use my brian as a buffer for things I might say/do/type before I actually do one of those things, then they are run through a couple situation dependant filters before they are possibly acted upon. I would like to retain that ability, even with brain interfaces.
When personal computers started becoming popular, people were afraid to trust them too. Your post sounded like the Orthodox Church and their fear for computers in the '80s and how we would all lose our individuality, and have a chip in our forehead as a personal ID, that's controlling us (I watched various such "documentaries" on the Greek TV as a teen). It's all FUD. Eventually things like that get ironed out, security also matures, not just software features.
Remember the iPhone and how everyone "hated it" in the beginning (before it got released 2 months later) because it had no stylus or hardware buttons. A lot of whining about that back in early 2007. But since its touch UI made sense eventually, people followed it anyway when the device actually came out. And they loved it.
The UI I suggest is even more intuitive and natural. There's nothing stopping progress. If something is useful, it gets adopted, despite the risks.
Do yourself a favor and watch a Anime OVA/Moive called Macross Plus and you'll realize just how utterly stupid what you are suggesting really is.
To make things simple, A test pilot hooked to an interface similar to what you are suggesting started daydreaming about causing his rival test pilot aircraft to crash and burn. Guess what happend? Yep, the interface took that idle thought and acted upon it, and there was nothing the pilot who thought the command could do to stop it.
Some future to forward to isn't it?
Maybe at some point in the future the humans will interact with hardware in some very creative ways,but not in the foreseeable future.
Apparently, the future is now: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11283/1181062-53.stm




Member since:
2008-09-11
The things aren't running exactly how you try to picture them. Nobody will let his brain to interface with suspect hardware and tablets, desktops and laptops will be with us at least a century or so.
Maybe at some point in the future the humans will interact with hardware in some very creative ways, but not in the foreseeable future.