Forgot your password?

Comment: OpenEEG? (Score 1) 41

by h5inz (#47228077) Attached to: Open-Source Hardware For Neuroscience
So how does it differ from OpenEEG project? I read the summary and I read a couple of paragraphs from their site, but it was all some round talk. You can get fully assembled 2 channel (uses smt components - it's small) OpenEEG device from Olimex for 99 euros (+electrodes and shipping costs), if you are not into soldering.

Comment: Re:Stronger than steel (Score 1) 82

by h5inz (#47210183) Attached to: Biodegradable Fibers As Strong As Steel Made From Wood Cellulose

Yeah, this shit is basically worthless if it rots when it gets wet.

Is that why people have never used wood as a construction material?

What are you implying? Is it something that explains why people have never considered stone, concrete, steel, aluminium alloys or carbon fiber to be better construction materials than wood?

Comment: TDCs (Score 3, Informative) 138

by h5inz (#46978177) Attached to: Electric Stimulation Could Help You Control Your Dreams
It is called tDCS and it has already formed an amateur community, search in Reddit for example, many have bought their devices and many of them have made them themselves. If you are going to try this, then do your research and try to be safe. There are safety guidelines made by some guy here for example:
Also there was a study on rats which found that :"Brain lesions occurred at a current density of 142.9 A/m2 for durations greater than 10 minutes."
Exceeding recommended current will probably give you skin burns long before you reach anything brain damaging. Don't get me wrong though, I don't recommend you anything and I am not a doctor either.

Comment: Re:no Ghost_no "singularity"_only sci-fi (Score 2) 426

Maybe if you read the article that the Slashdot summary refers to, you would also read a little about the criticism about the claim that human consciousness is not computable. The criticism pretty much destroys this and it appears that the "definite proof of non-computability" translates to " thinks its not possible for humans to make it" (to mimic the function of a human brain). Maybe I should point some out:

*The neural network of human brain can be atomized down to neurons and their connections. It is not magic. Do you believe in magic?

*“Memory functions must be vastly non-lossy, otherwise retrieving them repeatedly would cause them to gradually decay,” What BS is that? Retrieving a memory strengthens it, and encoding a memory in brain is lossy or non-lossy only based on what you consider the information being stored - if we consider everything that the human sense neurons fire then of course most of it gets lost and also the chemical composition of a neuron changes over time which affects the info it contains. You could achieve a non-lossy encoding of couple of numbers through a lots of redundancy.

*"You can't remove the smell of a chocolate from a brain" - why not? You just don't know which neurons exactly contain the information and how to target them exactly but you could erase the memory from your brain by using a shot-gun.

*The cs guy only says that according to his research the human consciousness either does not fully fall under the definition or being perfectly integrated or it does not compute. So the bad journalism automatically picked the second.

* Why does the word science appeal so much to the biggest morons on Slashdot? Ironic, isn't it?

Comment: Re:Just when the American trees are under attack . (Score 3, Informative) 112

by h5inz (#46661183) Attached to: Cheaper Fuel From Self-Destructing Trees
Whether science or not science, who cares. The Taco Cowboy's comment is just stupid. What is it exactly what he is worried about? First of all they will self destruct under processing conditions. Will the modified poplars take over the world and then mutate to self destruct without assistance or will these self-destruction genes drift to other subspecies of poplars? The self destruction, if it happened without any processing, would not be a feature that made a tree fit for survival, common sense says - so these genes wouldn't prevail anyway then.

Comment: Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (Score 1) 330

Lets put things into context. In Fukushima, the main problem was that they didn't have a seawall, unlike in Onagawa. You could also point out the Chernobyl disaster. The key problems there were old technology compared to today, combined with soviet halfassery and the fact that they made a conscious effort to make the plant go boom under the name of "safety testing".
Sources for Chernobyl disaster: go find your own.

Comment: Re:Do electric cars actually produce CO2? (Score 1) 330

"variety, which is fissile (= radioactive, potentially dangerous and useable as nuclear fuel)" Fissile does not equal radioactive. All uranium isotopes are radioactive. And for the 238 isotope the term applies - fissionable, which means the fission can be brought on by high energy neutrons.

Comment: Re:Predictions? (Score 1) 183

by h5inz (#46515365) Attached to: Is DIY Brainhacking Safe?
In a research done by Liebetanz on rats, it appeared that it would take tDCS current density of 142.9A/m2 for durations greater than 10 minutes to cause lesions in rats brains. So if we take a tDCS device that has relatively small electrodes, like 3x3cm, we would need at least 128.61mA current for more than 10 minutes to cause any brain damage. Given that even 2mA (most typical) sessions can cause skin burns when the electrodes have been poorly prepared, the currents above 127.8mA would probably feel torturous. I think the user would figure out that there is something really wrong fairly quickly. Typical DIY device uses a 9V convenient store battery as a power source, its capacity could be around 400-1200mAh, which means the subject would only get less than 10 seconds of 129mA "fun" if everything goes wrong, in case the internal resistance of the battery would allow that high current, but it won't.

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai