If you read this article (see page 2), it's clear that his medical condition is nothing more than the removal of his wearable computer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/at-airport-gate-a-cyborg-unplugged.html
I bet his doctor is even the same guy named in the article.
Transiently implies that the image data would fade/dissapear passively over time. No, the images are written into a (circular) buffer for processing. The images he takes would not dissapear unless they were over-written by subsequent images.
No, you're being too narrow. Transient only means that in the context of physics or math. In English it simply means temporary, and a circular buffer is exactly what I meant when I used the term. No semantic games please.
Also, you have no insight on how his device actually works. Your statement also shows a complete lack of understanding of how digital image/signal processing work.
Wrong again. I'm a senior software developer for a company that builds medical image processing software. I am intimately familiar with both digital imaging and signal processing. You need to be careful about your assumptions.
How can you assert that the device was clearly running fine after the initial impact. It could have loosened some pins or wires to the power supply, causing juice to drain out slowly, but still allowing the data acquisition part of the device to collect more data.
Perhaps "fine" was a too ambiguous, but this is exactly my point, the device was still running and did not come to a "hard stop". In his post he makes it sound like the latter situation occurred, which it clearly did not. I could understand how recording could be called accidental if the device suffered a complete failure, and later he went in and retrieved the photos from the circular buffer. However, this is obviously NOT the case because many of the photos are from *after* when the impact to the device occurred, if the above "circular buffer" scenario were the correct one, it would only have images from *before* the impact.
The scenario you suggest is, I believe, precisely what actually happened. If so, then the recording cannot be construed as "accidental". If the damage was minor (e.g. loose cable disconnecting data acquisition from data processing as you suggest), and the system records images in this condition for later retrieval - THEN IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED THAT WAY. Since he designed the system, he would have known that it would be recording after the impact. As such, he cannot claim that the images were captured accidentally. It was entirely deliberate and intentional on his part because he DESIGNED THE SYSTEM TO DO SO. In this circumstance, most systems I have ever seen with a similar feature will record the images to a more permanent backup location until connection to the data processor is restored. They certainly *don't* record them to the transient circular buffer used for processing during normal functioning.
This is a prosthetic sight and memory augmentation device he wears due to a medical condition ! Throwing that out is no better than throwing out a paraplegic because you worry his prosthetic leg may scratch the floor tiles.
No, this is a false analogy. The only "medical condition" Mann has is NOT wearing the device - the alleged disorientation he experiences when the device is removed. This is allegedly caused by his using the device nearly constantly for 13 years. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, and in other articles about Mann, many of his students have routinely seen him get along just fine without wearing it during this period.
A better analogy would be tossing out someone who wears powerbock shoes constantly, and claims that because he has worn them for many years, not wearing them is a medical condition which reduces his mobility and speed.
While I respect Steve's research, there are a number of things about this alleged "assault" that don't seem right.
1) First off, it's debatable whether someone trying to snatch your glasses is really a physical attack. Attempted theft sure, but they weren't trying to physically injure him or knock his teeth out. Crying wolf, exaggerating, and misconstruing attempted petty theft as physical assault are not good ways to promote your cause. When the headline reads something like "Researcher physically assaulted at McDonald's" what comes to mind for most people is him being punched in the face, or knocked down and kicked etc... When you then read the article and find that the only "physical assault" was just someone trying to take his glasses off without permission - it's pretty clear where the sensationalism lies.
2) I'd like to hear the story from the other side. I don't doubt Steve's sincerity, but I do doubt his objectivity. He has a known public history of deliberately provoking this kind of confrontation. I find it highly unlikely that anyone - especially a restaurant employee - would just walk over and grab his glasses without first at least asking him to remove them. This gap in the narrative is ruining my suspension of disbelief.
3) Who makes wearable computers that are not easily removable?!? The moniker "wearable" implies the devices can be easily "unworn". The guy is a brilliant engineer - making this sort of system modular and removable would be trivial. If his system is not easily removable, it's not because of any technical barrier, it's because he *deliberately chose* to make it so. The problem is, there's no real reason to have such a device permanently attached unless you are trying to make a political statement. By permanently attaching recording devices to your body, you are deliberately provoking conflict in areas of society where such recording is disallowed. I've read a lot of Steve's writing on "Sousveillance", and it's quite clear that he *is* deliberately trying to make a political statement and provoke a wider conversation on privacy issues, human rights etc... While I agree with a lot of his positions on the matter (everyone should be allowed to record all aspects of their personal experiences, and pervasive recording equipment should be equally available and accessible to individuals as well as groups), I just can't sympathize with someone who intentionally and deliberately puts himself into conflict with "the powers that be" and then complains about the results publicly.
4) I don't buy the story of the images being accidentally captured because of the jolt to the system when the restaurant employee tried to remove it. Sure - if the system was constantly buffering as it was running and was hit so hard it shutdown - then I might believe the "these are just images I luckily managed to retrieve from the buffer" story. But the shoe doesn't fit. The system was clearly running fine *after* whatever impact it took - many of the images he displays on his blog correspond to the parts of the narrative *after* the alleged blow - so the images he displays would not have been in the buffer when that occurred. If the system only stores images transiently during normal operation, why were images retained after the system obviously regained full functionality?
We should all reserve judgement until we can hear the other side of the story - innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone. I addition, Steve needs to:
I did make a good faith effort to get the custom configs I was used to, but when I couldn't figure out how to do so, the responses I got were much as you say:
"That's stupid."
"No one does that"
"Why would you even want to do that?"
etc...
So now I use Gnome.
It used to be that if you wanted configurability and customizability, you went with KDE. If you wanted a slick looking, unified, intuitive UI, you went with Gnome.
When they rolled out KDE 4, I found that a lot of the custom config changes that I always applied to KDE to get it just the way I wanted were suddenly no longer available or just didn't work. Additionally, KDE 4 made my system basically slow to a crawl and none of the hardware accelerated eye candy worked properly anymore (I simply could not get both stable video playback and desktop effects to work together).
So I switched to Gnome. I have since learned how to use gconf-editor to implement most of the custom UI config I like. It's a bit harder to do than it was in KDE 3.X, but what choice do I have?
Are the current versions of KDE any good? I haven't even test driven it since KDE 4 because that experience was so bad...
You mean like in the Babylon 5 season 3 finale, where Sheridan jumps to his death on Z'ha'dum and is brought back to life to lead the alliance against the Shadows and Vorlons?
Oh wait, that's the opposite of what you were trying to say.
And Babylon 5 was the best SF to ever hit TV...
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
