The future according to IBM: mind-reading computers, self-produced energy, integrated biometric identification, an end to spam

75 תגובות

1. Avi,
   No one said that mind reading would be of this type, the article talks about completely different mind reading.
   Besides, computers cannot interpret the content of information, but only make predefined uses.
   When it becomes possible (if ever) to use a computer to translate electrical signals passing through the brain into verbal information - the only use you can make to uncover "criminal criminals" in an entire population of people, will be by instructing the computer to locate certain words only (and even then it will be It is necessary to "manually" go through the dozens or hundreds of contexts in which these words appeared - most of the time, it will be a "needle in a haystack" and in vain).

2. R. H.,
   Very nice!
   And you gave me some good ideas too.
   Thanks

3. XNUMX And they said to all the people who were at the gate, and the elders were witnesses; May the Lord grant the woman who comes to your house, like Rachel and Cleo, who both built the house of Israel, and made the army in Ephrathah, and called the name in the house of bread. XNUMX And let your house be like the house of Peretz, who gave birth to Tamar for Judah from the seed that Jehovah will give you, from this girl. XNUMX And Boaz took Ruth and she was his wife, and he came to her; And Yahweh made her pregnant, and she gave birth to a son... XNUMX And these are the births of Peretz, Peretz begat Hezron. XNUMX And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Aminadab. And Aminadav begat Nachshon, and Nachshon begat Shlomo. XNUMX And Solomon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed. XNUMX And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.

   Want to say Ruth = Tamar. That is, even if she is a forbidden Moabite, Boaz will take her because there were already precedents of such in the tribe of Judah.
   The proof that he was right is given in the last verse from which Moabiah was born at the end of the palindrome son of Palindrome and the circle is closed.

4. Israel Shapira,
   Filled Wikipedia, but the two lights quote Yigal Alon without shame and without bringing redemption to the world.

5. Probably in some rule book that deals with cheating or cheating.

   There is a slight difference between the story of Amnon and Tamar and the story of Nablus and Dinah. Simple arithmetic shows us that Dina was six or seven years old at the time of the act, which can perhaps explain the heavy punishment imposed on Hamor and Nablus. A simpler and more logical explanation for the massacre: immediately after the circumcision of the residents of Nablus and their conversion to Jews, came the pogrom.

   The War of Liberation - contrary to the myth, Uri Avinari, Uri Milstein, and Wikipedia claim that at every stage of the war we had more soldiers than all the Arabs combined.

   http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA

6. And the myth of the few against the many in the War of Independence:
   Yigal Alon wrote that the victories achieved in the battles were the majority of those whose balance of forces was in their favor.

7. R. H.,
   Advocate of Israel

8. Israel Shapira,
   There is a basic principle that guides me in criticizing the texts of the Holy Scriptures, and that is to follow the motives of the writers. These texts were written by priests (including prophets) with the aim of conveying a certain message to the target audience. The target audience can be the people who come to the temple (or the market square), the leader, other priests and more. Parchment and papyrus scrolls do not last long and need to be re-copied from time to time. On this occasion the text is edited and rewritten from generation to generation. There were several priestly families in the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. Each family of priests had an interest in presenting some kind of history that suited them. What is certain is that the intention of the writers was brainwashing, and writing the truth was not a candle to their feet - to say the least. Over the generations, gods and religions changed, priestly families split, merged and split again, writings that were of interest survived, others disappeared, texts were mixed and we got the final product that has mainly religious value (mostly of the last priestly sect that took over the writing) as well as literary, but there is no It's worth looking for history there. For example, the story of Amnon and Tamar in the book of Samuel parallels the story of Nablus and Dinah in Genesis and its role is to present the story of Amnon's murder by Absalom as justified. However, while the story of Amnon, Tamar and Absalom went through several incarnations, as required by repeated coups in the royal court (not necessarily the House of David, despite what is told in the version we have), the story of Dinah did not go through incarnations and remains in our hands more or less as written in the original.
   The story of Judah and Tamar is also meant to cover something. In the beginning Judah had three sons - Er, Onan and Shelah, and these explained the names of places in the territory of the Kingdom of Israel. Later, these places were destroyed and the writers of the Bible had to find other sons for Judah. This is how the first two sons of Judah died (and the sin with which they died alludes to the manner in which the places attributed to them were destroyed) and in their place Peretz and Zarah were born, which were intended to explain the existence of two respectable clans in the Kingdom of Judah.
   One of the very anachronistic signs in the story of Judah and Tamar is her presentation as a saint who receives her customers in the tent. Dedications were a well-known phenomenon throughout the country and especially in the city of a thousand temples, Jerusalem. They lived under the auspices of the temples and were an important source of income for their patrons. They did not work in isolation from the temples. But in this story, Tamar pretends to be holy but is not attached to any temple.

9. jubilee,
   To me and Rabbi Yitzhak of Berdichev? Maybe we're both tall, muscular blondes with blue pants and models for Bocelli?

   Israel,
   By your honor, external books are not in the Bible and no, she did not have an affair with Bernadotte. But nice you learned something about the history of Sweden. In short, the answer is incorrect.

10. Exclusion of women Elek.. Tell that to poor Er and Onan.

    no no. The story is much simpler. With Yehuda, everything is simple - even the universe. The scattered Yehuda actually wanted to take his son, hers, to the synagogue to sing psalms, but due to being scattered and confused he went to God, and of course as usual he forgot to bring money, so he left the wicks and the staff, and that's how the story unfolded.

    Moral of the story: When you go to God bring cash!

    Wikipedia says: external books, reason: like father grandfather and great grandfather, for them only the daughters of Aram Naharim were equal. But as I know R.H., she must have had an affair with Bernadotte.

    Yovibon - as a myth researcher, what do you think of the following myth: in the war of liberation we fought the few against the many and defeated the armies of 7 Arab countries that invaded us, not including the Palestinians.

11. R. H.,
    What do you and Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev have in common? May there be many like you.
    I leave the story of Tamar the second to Israel, and I will only note that it is slightly similar to another story in the book of Genesis (which I believe was written by the same author).

12. Israel,

    Why so? She was a woman who rebelled against the exclusion of women and against the stupid stigmas of a black widow. She took the initiative, disguised herself (note she disguised herself! She wasn't really Z), risked her life, but in the end with her great wisdom she got what she wanted and proved her righteousness with Ada.
    In my opinion, the whiny Rachel and Leah deserve more appreciation.

    Speaking of Binyamin, a tribe of murderers and rapists who justified the act of the mistress in Giva to the point of going to war and then kidnapped girls for wives, not a great pride.

    Riddle for you: where is Tamar mentioned except in the book of Genesis? and why?

13. Laughter, laughter, but you touched a bare sadness.
    The Jews are full of self-hatred. These myths, with their negative images, only reinforce this. I believe that the hatred on the part of the Gentiles would not be so strong if the Jews knew how to love themselves, even just a little.
    There was an attempt to correct the distortion in the days of Josiah, when Jacob's blessing (which itself was written less than a hundred years earlier) was rewritten so that it praised and praised the tribe of Judah. But it was too little too late.

14. UV, it seems to me that S.H. right. Besides throwing popsicle sticks into the water, he also knows how to listen to the teacher Shmilkiho.

    But note in what light this puts us. In a place with virtue, a light to the Gentiles, we are actually the sons of God, the product of incest between an old man and a widow and a black woman whom no one wanted. There is not a trace of Rachel in us, the beauty of the title and the beauty of the appearance, and a lot is full of deceit and hatred. And the blood of the son of the wicked flows in us both from the grandfather's side - Jacob - and from the grandmother's side - Leah.

    So is it any wonder that the whole world is against us?

    (Except for the three of us of course. We are descendants of the tribe of Benjamin, son of the beautiful and beloved Rachel, who mixed with Judah and survived).

15. Thank you R.H.
    From all my teachers, etc.
    Hope you had a good time and came back happy 🙂

16. Well I'm back from Charles,

    Tamar, Yuval. He is talking about Tamar.

17. Israel Shapira!
    You mean the first self-replicating RNA molecule? It doesn't seem to me that she is mentioned in the Bible (perhaps in letter skips, but what do I care about that?).
    For the wrong reason I came up with the name of one who understands the Bible. So I announce here, get a knowledgable and four readers because it's not her. I'm all about criticizing myths, and so I also happened to read a few verses from this book.
    As far as I understood from Shagat, until the days of Omri and Ahab, everything was children's stories and novels for maids, and literature was never my forte. Sorry

18. Oh well..
    I don't think Sh.H. will get us out of the mud. On clue number 1. You didn't answer, but I assume you know the answer is: Yehuda.

    So if you think that I am protecting Yehuda because he is a son of Israel - then you are attributing to me virtues that do not exist in me. I simply remember who survived the previous conflict between Israel and Judah.

    Clue No. 2. Whose descendants are we really?

19. Israel Shapira,
    You got a like from me, the singer, and it's all thanks to you.
    The wisest sentence I remember from the show is "My wife cheats on me with me", and in this context I am interested in who she is pregnant with.
    Singing idols don't die. They just change.
    And you, instead of rolling your eyes, please understand hint number two.

20. I have no idea what Yuval is talking about. But sometimes when I read your responses, a mind craft of logic and formulation, and quite a bit of mowing too, for some reason I am reminded of King Solomon and Solomon the shoemaker.

    So here it is, from a not really known performance, I believe, of a song by Alterman (which Ben-Gurion called "Nathan the Wise"):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3PS93FtJYM

    Because I'm missing, I'm missing something,
    But what - I won't know exactly.
    I lack, outside of wisdom,
    The sweet as a raisin nonsense.
    ...

    Smart is not always the main thing,
    Stupidity also seeks satisfaction.

    Because the heart - nothing helps it,
    If he lacks something, he lacks it.

    Whereas my own stupid ten-year-old daughter would come back all excited from a performance by her singing idols (which I only know was actually a replacement band, because the real idols had long since died), I don't know if I should have told her the truth.

    The same with other idols.

21. the last camila,
    "Yoval's trash" is a term that indicates a certain technique of brainwashing while biasing a discussion. In the relevant example, the speaker bombards the interlocutor with a number of ideas that appear to be related. He quickly throws them one after the other without giving the other side a chance to breathe, then concludes with a question that is completely irrelevant. The shocked "victim" who struggles to breathe, believes to his core that there is logic in the things he was told, and tries to answer them one by one, and invests mental effort mainly in the irrelevant last question. Usually, the other party is exhausted and gives up after a small number of such dialogues.
    In Athens, about 2500 years ago, a man who engaged in this after exhausting all his townspeople was sentenced to death. The talented prosecutor applied his own technique to the defendant and managed to get him to defend himself against charges other than the ones he was accused of and in the end also accept the sentence with love.

22. Israel,
    I trust you that you have a clear intention behind the questions, it seems that Yuval also recognizes the hidden meanings in them, but I admit that I still don't understand where you are heading and what kind of trash Yuval is talking about.

    I will answer you with a question - would you rather have a total emotional experience lacking rational thinking in the form of a cow in a meadow instead of being the creature you are with the set of cognitive abilities for good and bad?

    The dichotomous division you present is wrong and it is easy to see it in the videos where the behavior ranges from complete hysteria to almost indifference. I also disagree with you about the totality of the experience. For all of us the experience is total even if the behavioral expression and even the type of inner feelings is different. Since I had the privilege of experiencing strong emotions both in the field of art and in the field of science, I feel lucky and have an advantage over those in whom science does not evoke such sublime feelings.

    Surely a scientist who is able to enjoy the rainbow even more after understanding its nature will also be able to dance madly in Goa, participate in meditations and even enjoy a magician's performance. I don't like charlatans that much, just like I don't like criminals and I probably can't sympathize with them, but that doesn't mean I'm not impressed by the abilities of the most talented among them and curious about the way they carry out their actions. I don't think it has to do with science but with values ​​and morality.

    If it is clear that both the cow wants to nurse and the calf wants to nurse, how important is the question of who wants more?

    Although I answered your questions, I have a feeling that I did not answer what you intended to ask, unless the very answer was supposed to show something, which, as mentioned, still eludes me.

23. Don't say desperate. Even Shlomo, before winning the title, was mainly busy catching a glimpse of the queen coming through the torn floor.

    But you'll have to crawl a bit.

    1. Who do I always protect on the site from all of his categories?

24. OK. Bring a hint, but it's not what will save the lost title.

25. Chen has not been here for a long time. Also a nice point. R.H. With the kids in the Charles River. Camilla with Charles at the palace. Judah ran away. Michael drove him away. Only you and me here. We will wait for the morning in LA. Or do you want a hint?

26. So shall we wait for RA? I enjoyed holding the title of "the smartest of all", even though it was only for a few minutes. Thanks.

27. Nice, but no.

    Hagar is in general the mother of Ishmael the son of David, about whom it is said: "Ishmael for the Lord has heard of your poor, and he will be a wild man with all his hands and all his hands in him and in front of all his brothers he will dwell."

    Also note that the claim of our cousins ​​that they are Jewish like us does not have much basis. Hagar is Egyptian, and so is Ishmael's wife, so in fact they are three-quarters Ham. The same heat of the story with Father Noah Bahl, who cursed with his pen to be a slave to slaves.

28. The Bible is not exactly my strong point. We should wait for the mouth of the real R. H. Hambin to come out.
    Meanwhile, the one that comes to my mind is "M-H", her mother, this is Hagar who was Sarah's mother, the first mother. And in Wikipedia we also state: "According to what is said in Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX, Abraham married another wife in his old age, whose name was Ketura, after the death of his wife Sarah. She bore him six sons: Zamran, Yakshan, Medan, Medin, Ishbak, and Shokh. According to Sages, incense is the Hagar".

29. Good comfort. If you understand the Bible like that, who is the fifth mother?

30. Really 😛
    In the meantime I answered you by email

31. Beautiful. This is the solution. You are the smartest person.

32. Israel,
    I really have no idea, but what is very interesting about your puzzle is the timing. Just now I was going over something I wrote in my book of priests (a large part of which is devoted to biblical criticism) and I asked myself why the priests of Anat had to tell Josiah so many stories about King Solomon who had a thousand wives. On the one hand, this is supposed to justify the existence of the thousand temples and platforms that were in Jerusalem (because all of Solomon's wives were foreigners and for each one he built a temple for herself). On the other hand, maybe they intended to encourage him to get out of unacceptable sexual tendencies...
    Coincidentally, one of the permutations of the name "Shlomo" is "Mishla", and he is the son of David ben Yishai, but I really have no idea who you meant 🙁
    I sent you an email hours ago. Please your attention.

33. Ask Adam, he is the first scientist in the Bible.
    Until Camila answers (if at all), here is a riddle in your heart: Who is the scientist ben Yadan, ben Palindrum ben Palindrum, who knew and knew and knew, and by changing the letters is also a charlatan son of a charlatan?

34. It is really interesting if there is a connection between the two meanings or if these are words from two different languages ​​that just happen to be spelled the same. Where should and should we look for knowledge? Google or JDate?

35. jubilee
    You probably know what Ydan is in the Bible, don't you?

36. Israel Shapira!
    Is this the "scientist"?
    : )

37. pumping, flushing, pulling, pushing,
    Aren't you supposed to enter my model's mom?

38. Michael,
    Indeed David 🙂

    Israel,
    My apologies for being blunt. I looked for your email and couldn't find it. Maybe spam went.
    In my district they vacuum the floor (everything here is carpet). It seems to me that suction can be more fascinating than washing when applied to a brain 😛

39. Camila, thanks for the reply.
    I wonder what Yuval thinks.
    (What, isn't that Camilla?)

    Jubilee! What about the active site! What happened, you suddenly broke?
    Well, I'm going to wash the floor. (The only thing I know how to wash, and it's not who knows what either).

40. David Ben Yishai

41. Israel Shapira!
    You take two seemingly similar things and present as if there is a connection between them. This is beautiful creative thinking, "outside the box", which I think is a shame to waste it on the six or seven readers of this small site.
    When you ask "And if the first claim is true, then is the second claim also true?" Then pushing a "personal question", you manage to trash even great IQ's such as the recent Camila.
    And I ask: isn't it a shame? Isn't it a shame that you are wasting your great talent for brainwashing here?

    And I still haven't received an answer to the riddle: Palindrome ben Palindrome (3). Maybe אתה You will succeed wherever you areUncle Fails?

42. Yet? Look at the video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoF-7VMMihA&feature=related

    And try to ask yourself where would you rather be: with the girls raging in a complete loss of consciousness, or with the professors on the side who politely clap their hands, analyze the hysteria in precise and defined scientific terms, and are completely unable to participate in the total experience?

    Or if you mentioned the rainbow: do you think that the scientist who is able to enjoy the rainbow even more after understanding its nature (I think Feynman was talking about a leaf), will also be able to dance madly in the heathen with the charlatan Maharishi? Admire a performance by Uri Geller the con artist?

    Who wants more - the cow to nurse or the calf to nurse?

43. Israel,
    I'm not sure I get to the bottom of your mind...
    I think there is a big difference between art, which is a personal expression (even if it is a band), an expression that can be an interpretation (as said personally) of reality or without any connection to some conscious reality, and between people who claim to have real knowledge about phenomena in this world. I don't think that identification, however strong it may be with the lyrics of a song, is equivalent to the situation where a person identifies with what a fortune teller tells him. There may be some similarity in the feelings in both cases, but there is a big difference in the pretense of the information passer regarding the nature of the information that is given.
    I don't think that the band members planned or intended to convince all the listeners that each of them is the subject of the sentence "I want to hold your hand". When the homeopath treats you, he clearly pretends to make you well and he may do so even in a situation where he has no ability to really help you and even in a situation where he puts your life at risk because you trust him and decides as a result to give up real treatment that actually could have helped.

    The beetles were not charlatans and it is interesting to see what Wikipedia has to say on the subject
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%9F
    Especially in the section titled "use of the word":

    Since art is different from charlatanism, then my answer is: No, I would not give them up.

    I have never felt such a feeling (blind adoration) and therefore it is difficult for me to imagine myself as a girl screaming madly for singer idols (or for an X-ray). I also never had "my favorite band" or anything like that. There are songs and performances that I like and some that I don't. There is a super talented band that also has terrible songs and there are shocking bands that in a certain performance are at the level of angels singing. Like everything in life.

    Introducing logic into madness does not change anything just as the physical understanding of how a rainbow is formed does not impair the excitement and amazement at the sight of that rainbow, the opposite is true, with understanding comes the ability to see more fascinating details that the layman does not notice at all. Understanding in such a case only enriches the experience. This is one of the idiotic arguments against science, as if it impairs experience, an opinion you are invited to test among other scientists and see what their answer will be on the subject.

44. A question for Kamila (not trying to argue, just to understand a point of view).

    Do you think there is any difference between the illogical flocking after demagogues, religious priests, Kabbalists and all those involved in what could be considered the occult, unscientific and illogical, and the Beatlemania of the 60s?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rnLSc8gBHo&feature=related

    And if there is no essential difference - are the Beatles charlatans? Do they really want to hold your hand? Do they love you ya, ya, ya? Didn't they make millions from selling illusions? Would you give them up?

    And another slightly more focused question: would you be able to see yourself among the crowds of girls screaming madly at the singing idols of your youth without a single rational thought in your head? And if you put some sense into the madness, wouldn't it destroy everything?

45. Yael,
    You are completely missing the point. You didn't insult me ​​and certainly the insult is not the motive for my reactions towards those other commenters. I tried to patiently explain to you, as if you were an adult, what the problem was with the things you wrote to me earlier. I can't force you to use your intellect and answer the factual questions I asked you about the things you wrote, the questions are not meant to "take a beating", if I were to do that I would just mutilate my mouth, the questions are meant to make you examine the characteristics of the content of the things written. I think it will help you in life if you are able to support your opinions with reasons. The reasons may not convince some people, but at least your opinions will not rely on gut feelings or an inner belief in your rightness and will allow for a discussion of the arguments for their own sake. It is impossible to have a rational discussion about our feelings of inner faith. If you think something is good and I think something is bad, then contenting ourselves with expressing our feeling about the issue does not advance anything, certainly cannot convince at all.
    You don't need to hide behind your father because just as your unfounded opinions don't impress me, other unfounded assertions don't impress me either. For example, it follows from the same statement that the main goal of scientists is to make as many mistakes as possible because that way it increases their chances of gaining something, and it is very stupid to say such a thing both because it does not make any sense and because factually it is far from the reality of the conduct of scientists (the same conduct that brings the All the good things in science).

    Your private opinion, in which you make determinations based on nothing, is not that interesting. My responses to those commenters and also to you are definitely related to science and the protection of others. They are related to science because I make sure to use the rules of scientific thinking which includes referring to facts and drawing rational conclusions that arise from the statements of the commenters. In those comments I condemn those who I think deserve condemnation (because of inappropriate behavior in my opinion that the commenter displayed and I back it up with facts) and thus I allow the readers who did not notice the problems in the words of those commenters to see them clearly. If someone expresses a disdainful attitude and writes that it is impossible to do something that has already been done in the past, then it is appropriate to have someone to condemn the disdain of that commenter and it is appropriate to have someone to draw attention to the fact that the same thing has already been done in the past. That way, the same commenter may give up his disparaging tone the next time and maybe try to check if what he wants to say also stands the test of reality. Of course there are commenters who are chronic disparagers and slanderers, who are not interested in relying on facts and logical thinking (two things that are the basis of science).

    R.H. Rafai.M
    At this point I think you have to be careful. Although there is a rule of thumb that adults should be treated with respect, I do not think that the words of an adult who talks nonsense or the actions of an adult that are inappropriate should be treated with respect. This rule stems from the assumption, which is not always true, that older people are also wiser/mature, etc. One of the main things I'm trying to convey here is that the content of the things is more important than who expressed it, whether it's a scientist or a girl. The quality of the content comes precisely from the logical coherence of the arguments and the attachment to facts and existing knowledge (even if the topic is about things that are not yet known). In this, it does not matter who says the things but only how they are said. I do not believe that anyone who begins his words with a disparaging tone without explaining well why and on what basis the disdain comes, should respect him or his opinion, even if he is elderly. In our case, I don't think Yael should respect me because I'm older than her, but I do expect her to treat the substantive claims I made in my questions to her at least as I treat her claims.

46. Yael
    And your father also taught you to treat people older than you with respect?

47. Camila, I'm sorry I offended you.

    My father says that the difference between a politician and a scientist is that a politician succeeds when he convinces another wrongly, a scientist earns when he is convinced he was wrong. Decide which one you are.

    I'll just tell you my private opinion: the agers are yours. They have nothing to do with science or the protection of others, it seems to me that you are just looking to beat children younger than you.

48. Yael,
    I at least formulate arguments and explanations that will clarify why I choose a certain style towards certain commenters, which you don't do. There are several questions that can, and should, in my opinion, be asked of you regarding your response to me, I know that my tone often sounds aggressive (what to do is an almost inevitable feature of female researchers in the field in which I am involved) but I would appreciate it if you would try to honestly answer the relevant points in the following questions:

    1) Why do you think it is not relevant to tell a person who behaves condescendingly and disrespectfully that he is talking nonsense? (For example, the commenter Rami who wrote at the beginning of his response: "a rather sloppy article" and then states that it is impossible to do something that has already been done)
    Why do you think it is not relevant to say to a person who speaks disparagingly of scientists and then asks questions whose purpose is obviously not to understand anything in science but to discredit those who are engaged in it and create a false representation as if mind reading, astrology, the spaghetti monster and other vegetables are all in the same factual status as physics, chemistry and biology ( For example commenters like Avig, David and the like)? And all this especially when they bother to bring facts and examples that illustrate the problematic of the words of those commenters.

    2) What in your words should convince me, or anyone else for that matter, that this is a bad style? Just because you think so or because you added exclamation marks at the end? At least I don't just say what I think but also bother to back it up, if it is to show where the ignorance is, where the logical fallacy is, where the lie is and where the improper behavior of that commenter, and it is by definition a hassle to do it in such a way, you are welcome to try it yourself and prove it.

    3) Why do you think it is wrong for me to write to those commenters that their words are inappropriate but it is okay for you to write to me that my words are inappropriate? You really don't see the problem with your selective pluralism?

    4) Why did you choose to use the comparison to a womanizer in the market in a way that is difficult not to see it as personally and deliberately offensive and insulting? Is this the unspoiled style that you advocate and want to see in the other commenters as well? After all, if I chose to behave this way just to get rid of the provocateur in the market I would always do so, how do you explain that I don't behave this way all the times, but only towards specific reactions with similar characteristics?

49. withering,

    You are not convincing! Your style is messed up! Second him or give up on the challenger role in the market you have chosen for yourself. Really, really irrelevant...

50. Anat,
    You may be right, but sometimes I feel that the fact that there are commenters who allow themselves to spew nonsense on the right and the left hurts the innocent readers who don't always know how to differentiate between scientifically based things (factually and/or logically) and other things. Experience shows that a polite approach towards those trolls is not a useful approach, whereas rather an assertive, even aggressive approach in response to an initial attack on their part, can help in at least two ways, one by exposing the ignorance on the one hand and the aggression (which is sometimes disguised in a tone of disdain and slander) of those commenters, and the other is that sometimes when The same commenters present that their violence does not pay off because there are those who are willing to stand up against them and present them in all their folly, so they fold their tails and move on to harass elsewhere. I think that other commenters who thought for a moment that there might be something in the words of those trolls, whether it is in connection with the defamation of science or in connection with the glorification of vanity, in this way indirectly accept the position of the things about their accuracy. I understand that not everyone is ready to make this investment, but I am afraid that the reality around us shows us that it is not good to ignore negative phenomena (such as the exclusion of women, for example) because they have a tendency to accumulate mass and acceleration if they are not opposed in the early stages. From this point of view, I believe that it is not only an opportunity, but a real responsibility of everyone who cares about scientific issues, to resist attempts to turn the contents of this site (even if it is "only" in the comments) into another spiritual site of one kind or another that already exists in great abundance around us.

51. Enough to play with nature.

52. the last camila,
    There is no point in going down on my father C. Or Remy.
    This is not the place for that.
    (If they even understand :-) )

53. rummy,
    A lot of energy is lost every second. This is a fact. Can this energy be harnessed? Probably so. Sea wave energy has been used for many years and with great success:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power
    (I am terribly amused by people who claim that something that has already been done is in their opinion impossible, and it has already been done! Like here?)

    Avig,
    Rami did not move you up a rank, he simply went down in your direction, i.e. - preferring faith over facts and rational thinking. Of course, this is also a way to get closer to people.

54. Link to an article about IBM in Orange

55. rummy
    Thank you very much, you moved me up a notch

56. A rather sloppy article
    Cell phone cameras may have a good resolution, but their lens is relatively poor, so they probably can't photograph the retina.

    There is no such thing as mind reading, there is a maximum of connecting an electrode to the brain and for the person to learn to operate the device, it is not a thought, it is like moving the hand.

    It is impossible to harness energy like the water in the faucet because we want the water to come out of the faucet in a stream and not a trickle, so we need the energy they have.
    It is impossible to harness the energy of sea waves because on a large scale they will change the climate on the planet

    This article is roughly at the level of Avi G's comments

57. Another genius from IBM
    The fact that 5.6 billion devices will be sold in a population of 7 does not mean that everyone will get one.
    There have long been many more computers in the world than people - this does not mean that every person has a computer.
    And the really sad analogy.. there is enough food in the world for 7 billion people but still 24 thousand people die every day from hunger

58. Five points that clarify why this article is recycled for IBM PR needs only:
    1) Self-consumption electricity - indeed yes. But from kinetic energy?!?! - There are so many studies in the pipeline on other types of energy from cold fusion (Andrea Rossi University of Bologna) to solid fuel cells (Bloom Energy http://www.bloomenergy.com/) - some of them are already in commercial use. Kinetic energy would be useless at sixty and terribly expensive against them. Even if we leave the conspiratorial types of energy aside - kinetic energy?? come on.
    2) Is biometric identification new?! Even our glorious government wants to establish such a reservoir. And if it does exist, it will probably have much more extensive uses beyond saving us the need to remember passwords... and not only banks will use it... I'll leave it to you to imagine who else would be happy for a worldwide biometric database. There is no scientific, technological or other breakthrough here.
    3) Mind reading?! - Moving a marker by reading certain signals of brain activity is far from reading minds, just as we are far from understanding what is happening on the other side of the event horizon in a black hole (let's say...) This technology also already exists, although not in large and commercial circulation, but it is used, among other things, to help for the paralyzed
    4) Reducing the digital divide - will not happen until the limited people have something to eat and how to make a living and how not to die in the war caused by the rise of the dictator on duty - to say that a business model will solve all this... well - someone needs to get their head out of the place where the sun doesn't shine (the laboratory...)
    5) The end of the spam mail - hahahahaha.... and those who understand will understand. And I don't want predictable information at all, part of the fun is walking around the edges and finding things I didn't know about before. It is true that you can also come across a lot of garbage and unpleasant smells (the Torah bullshit of IBM for example) but you can also find a lot of rough diamonds in the unknown 🙂

59. This is my father
    We see an article written many years ago, there is really no news in it

60. I didn't understand why this is the future according to IBM

    The future according to Husham:

    In Chosham laboratories, the transition to a speed higher than the speed of light is developed
    In Chusham biotechnology laboratories new drugs are found every day
    And also the cure for AIDS.

    Only in the heat, come to the heat and be excited by the heat.
    Oh .. and the stock of Husham is waiting for you, dear investors.

    Thanks

    I at least say thank you to those who read my advertisement
    But IBM probably not.

61. There is no point in getting excited by every puff of a puffed-up scientist.
    They have no idea what thoughts are and what memories are, what they are made of and how they work. And yet they claim to prophesy false prophecies. Thirty years ago it was predicted that in ten years there would be robots that would replace the housekeeper.
    In the meantime, it turned out that it is very, very difficult to do this in practice. There are indeed robots that know how to play chess at the level of a master. But they still don't know how to build a robot that can, for example, read and explain what is written on this page. And not even translate the page from Hebrew to English or any other language in a proper and understandable way.

62. If a computer is able to read minds, then the age of spam will pass and the age of real spam will begin

63. If this is not something that can be measured by some scientific parameter, please save your rants to New Age sites like the ones you sent me to and spare us your punishment, or we'll have to do it ourselves.

64. Avig,
    Keep being stuck in your delusions. Thoughts and dreams and even faith and the feeling of desire have been accessible to neuroscientists for some time and although the successes are still preliminary and we still have a great deal to learn, no sane person who knows a little about the research on the subject has any doubts about the direction in which things are going. See for example here:

    http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

    But I'm sure that even when you see it with your own eyes you will still continue to claim that what was just demonstrated to you is impossible because it goes against your belief.

65. Spring
    Hear the interference with all due respect is still one or another material as long as it can be identified by the viewer or as signs by an absorbent board.
    Thought is not a substance that can be measured by some scientific parameter
    As in your dream (I hope you are dreaming) you see with your spiritual eyes pictures of events, people, etc. You will never be able to fast such an event and see something - yes you can recreate it in a drawing in the story of the dream.
    What you saw in the dream is not material it is an infinite state like the thought you can try to prove but for sure you will try to deny.

66. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mNcnj2l6RE&ob=av3e

67. http://www.tapuz.co.il/Forums2008/ViewMsg.aspx?ForumId=716&MessageId=152178724&r=1

68. Liair
    Remember that ten years ago, especially stupid phones were a luxury of businessmen only? Remember when the slogan "a computer for every child" seemed like a dream, remember that five years ago no one knew what a social network was? Remember how when someone talked about nanotechnology, except for a few scientists, no one in Israel knew what you were talking about?
    Things actually progress so fast.

69. 5 years?! No way, things don't move that fast. Was the world so different 5 years ago? I'm not saying we're not making progress, but 20 years sounds much more reasonable.

70. You probably haven't heard of entanglement, maybe the laws of quantum mechanics also work on mind reading?
    If you are so smart and believe in every theory except the scientific truth, then tell us what the thought particles are made of, are they electrons, photons, quarks?
    How are they measured, in what units?

71. There is no real mind reading of a computerized system or otherwise.
    The thought is dispersed from the thinking person at a frequency that cannot be detected by a system that has been built or will be built
    For this purpose by the person.
    There are cases when a thought that comes out at a certain frequency from person X encounters the frequency receiver in person Y.

72. All this will happen in the USA, in Israel it will happen only 5 years later if at all.

73. "Reading thoughts" not in the sense of extracting a person's hidden and abstract thoughts - you read thoughts in the sense of instructions, like speaking without a voice.

74. Sounds horrible! So I'll think about my @#$@#$ ex and my skype/mobile phone will call her?? WTF

    Mind reading of any kind is something very bad

    Tomorrow there will be government software that will take this mind reading and send alerts to the police about anyone who thinks about something criminal (like a passing thought to hit the inspector who gave you a report or some politician) ... The thought police is probably not science fiction according to IBM !!!

    It sounds very bad to me.

75. End of spam? Only if the end is on 12.2012

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.