Whut up, yo? Mostly moved to Twitter... You have an account... why don't I see you there much?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
And here is more specifically about reasonable expectations of privacy:
Thank's for quoting the 4th Amendment! If you read it carefully, it says person's house, papers and effects are only subject to "unreasonable" searches when a warrant has been requested and authorized. Going back about 45 years to the Katz decision, the courts have said a search is unreasonable when it violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy". Anything outside of that that "reasonable" expectation of privacy is fair game for the government without a court approved warrant. Anything within, that "reasonable expectation expectation of privacy" requires a warrant.
Subsequently, the courts have been trying to determine what stuff falls inside or outside that "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the most recent jurisprudence says that when you give your data to a third party, and you aren't paying them to store it for you, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to that data and thus is subject to government subpoena without a warrant.
Now don't take my for all this - read what the eff has to say:
The problem with this position is that the 4th amendment is not, and never has been an absolute right to privacy whenever and wherever I want it to be. There are limitations. Thus we have a huge history of jurisprudence surrounding the whole notion that the 4th only applies when you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". And when you provide information to a third party to store for your convenience, not pay them for anything for the service (thus you can't really be called a "tenant"), and you allow that third party to read your information so that they can sell better targeted advertisements, you no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The sad reality of our online world is that the vast majority of our communications now involve 3rd party intermediaries who provide their services for free and when you use those services, your 4th amendment rights don't apply.
Don't like it? Host your own mail server in your house. Encrypt your communications. Use peer to peer encrypted services that don't involve 3rd parties. Avoid communicating with those that use 3rd party services.
Too much trouble for you? Then lobby for some tougher privacy laws or an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing a more absolute right to privacy when you store your information with a 3rd party.
Link to Original Source
Check into it and ask about the impact of retinal remodeling on potential interventions.
Nossir. That is not correct. See my comment just above.
[sigh].... do not feed the troll.... do not feed the troll...
OK, I'll feed the troll. Yes, I am acutely aware of Paul Bach-y-Rita's work. You however apparently do not understand the concepts that you are invoking. There is plasticity in neural systems, yes. Plasticity is important in vision, sure. Nobody, *anywhere* has demonstrated that they can generate coherent "visual percepts" in a coordinated fashion with any kind of stimulus. Its far more complicated than hooking up electrodes and stimulating until someone "learns" what the stimulus means.
btw, the tongue thing is very, very cool. Its not vision and does not even map to vision, but those lingual electrodes can easily map topographic data, sonar data, relief data, contrast data onto the high resolution innervation of the tongue and allow people to interpret those stimulii as a map to be followed. The technology was originally developed for US Navy SEALS to navigate complex 3D environments at night, with no light and it works. It works incredibly well with very little training necessary. I would like to see more effort and funds put into techniques like that to help people live more independent lives.
I am familiar with Nirenberg's work. What Nirenberg seems to be missing is that the programming outflow of the retina is altered in retinal disease. ON and OFF channels are substantially altered in retinal disease and the whole programming substrate is altered because the circuitry and programming down to the molecular levels is altered.
Its not all pessimism though as we will need to understand how the normal retina signals and I find her work to be interesting and compelling. Though she is not addressing *which channels* of information outflow are being encoded. There are 14-16 separate outflow channels in the retina that project to different areas of cortex and sub cortex and she is not addressing how to separate those channels and what those separate channels mean in terms of the "visual world".
This is just my point. While I understand that science and engineering has to start somewhere, they have made promises to this woman and done surgery to her, potentially increasing risks for other problems where I would argue there is no hope of "seeing" anything coherent.
Yes, we can do remarkable things with even an 8x8 pixel array, but this approach has no promise of even delivering that to this woman. The electrode cuff on the optic nerve simply stimulates too many neurons that are not coherent and those neurons project to far too many areas of cortex. A retinal implant that appropriately targets cell populations would be more appropriate as would genetic engineering of targeted opsins to other cell classes.
As for implants directly in the cortex, I might argue that this has a better chance of stimulating phosphenes that could be interpreted as vision. I've participated in some of that early work http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2009/08/bionic-implants/ and while I believe there are other approaches that will be more effective, that work still has some promise (particularly for motor interfaces).
Ah, ad hominem attacks from an Anonymous Coward... You will note that I am an "eye doctor". What are your qualifications to call someone else a clown?
We'll see... I would have liked to have seen some traditional methods of evaluation in animal models using psychophysics before moving directly to humans. Were I a betting man, I don't think the engineering is up to the biological task right now. A couple decades work already suggests that we don't yet understand how the information is coded to get into the brain.
Yeah, its easy for people to get enthused about rescuing vision loss. Its an important thing and keeps us working at all hours of the day as hard as we can to understand how the visual system works and how to fix it when it goes wrong. We've published before on this issue and I am sure they are aware of the work. My only concern is when promises are made to patients and expectations are built up that these devices will cure blindness when the biology has not been worked out and the engineering is predicated upon that imprecise understanding of the biology.
For the first part, see my comment to femto above.
As for the neurons changing their behavior, yes... that is exactly what I am saying. It definitely happens in the retina as the retina is reprogrammed and there is some evidence that it happens higher up as well. Though those precise studies have yet to be performed.
So, flashes of light are simply uncoordinated signaling by neurons. Turns out vision is far more complicated than the cochlear system that allows us to engineer bionic solutions for hearing. Provided the cochlea is intact, it is easy to stimulate those neurons in an appropriate manner that people can learn to interpret. Vision is another story entirely and unless you stimulate the *right* neurons with the *right* type of stimulation, its not gonna work.