I think that's more of a "todays college graduates" issue than anything specific to EEs. I'm a computer science major and I can solder, use a dmm/osciliscope/spectrum analyzer, program PICs and microcontrollers, design (simple) PCB layouts, design (simple) circuits, etc. I'm even working on a summer project to build a theremin using surface mount parts. This is all in addition to the standard CS skillset, and I do it because my immediate reaction to coming into contact with something I don't know or don't understand is to try and learn all that I can about it.

But then I've got classmates who don't know any of that stuff, and also constantly struggle with even simple CS concepts. They don't want to learn new things, they just expect that now because they did the bare minimum of effort to obtain a degree they'll land a 100k a year job doing "coding". Even though they still have only the vaguest idea about what coding actually is or how to do it. I know someone who's theoretically starting on their junior year, yet struggles with things such as implementing a function in a java program (and the entire early CS curriculum is basically in java, so it's not like a language issue or something). The scary bit is that a lot of these people have already graduated.

Because your video stream can buffer and if you care about your trading data that much you should have a dedicated line so you don't loose 10 million from a few second network hiccup.

Obviously you've never met a python fanatic then.

So if you're not going to answer the questions to demonstrate your innocence, and your memory is fuzzy anyway, then the only reasonable conclusion is that you're guilty and therefore need to be thrown in jail?

That's a bit of a dangerous precident to be setting.

Even then... It's been my experience that assuming you're not an idiot (granted that's a bold assumption since you didn't study until the night before) and showed up to lectures or at least know a little about the material, you'll often have better chances reasoning out the questions in a less sleep deprived state.

I'm out of mod points, but that's a actually pretty insightful.

I'd suspect that the first AIs we'd see (if sci-fi style AIs even become a thing, I don't think they will but that's a different argument) would be to do things like predict markets and aid in complex decision making. If AIs did decide to "take over", I would suspect that it would come in the form of giving humans advice, and then humans willingly following that advice because they know that the AI is quite smart and it'll make things work out well in the long run.

Eventually humans might technologically regress (or AIs might just become smart to the point we can't comprehend their thought processes anymore) that the AIs become the future analog of old time prophets telling people when to plant their crops. I doubt that an AI would decide to kill all the humans, thought they might end up using humans as pawns to kill each other. Either for population reduction or maybe to take out or defend against a competing AI or some reason completely incomprehensible to us. By that point humans may willingly go and do it in the same way that dogs have been used for similar tasks.

I've seen these guys before at maker faire. It's a neat idea, but I never really understood what was so special about it compared to just downloading a smartphone app or internet or (*gasp*) maybe even reading up on how to do the math and figuring out where it is on your own.

The problem is that there's only so much you can do to a signal to amplify it before there's no signal left.

With a current gen headset, if you were to turn off the 60hz notch filter, the signal it would be picking up from the power lines would drown out the brain signals by several orders of magnitude. Even someone waving their hand over top of your head while you wear one will cause enough interference to blot out the sorts of signals the brain produces. On top of that, those signals that we can pick up are extremely broad, created by millions of neurons firing in sequence. Unless it becomes legal to plant wires in peoples heads that can detect the actions of single neurons, or we develop some kind of wearable FMRI, the kind of things that article is worried about are so far ahead as to be in the territory of asking how we should regulate flying cars.

EEG technology is akin to telling what state a computer is on by opening up the case and pointing some IR thermometers at different components and measuring the temperature. I could tell if you're doing something graphically intensive vs CPU intensive vs memory intensive, and maybe make some inferences based on the time of day and previous states but that's it. It doesn't matter how much more sensitive you make an IR thermometer, it's not going to give me any more detailed information than a vague idea of what bits are being used more than others.

Because no one cares if a computer flies around the world. They need to see a human put their life in danger for it to be interesting.

Definitely a click-bait headline. They have enough trouble getting the accuracy and resolution required to tell those sorts of things with medical grade EEGs, let alone a consumer grade headset.

But but but.... if you haven't done anything wrong, then you've got nothing to hide from their wiretaps!!11~

Well.. if you say so I guess.

Personally I was going to chalk it up to some kind of art project where the artist was attempting to spell out letters in a different language using random electrical components as the medium.