StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Implanting chips in humans. What do you think of this shit?

Rather obvious that I don't like the idea in any way shape or form. What do I look like, cattle?

Curses on the fuckers who came up with this idea...

What is ADS? Aggressive Defense System? Automatic Diaper Switch? Anti-Diarrhea Suppository? Implanting chips is pretty weird, but if it's a locator beacon to find me if I'm buried in an avalanche I don't mind?

Once it becomes advanced enough in the future. I think it would be cool to have some kind of neural implant that would allow you to connect to the net through your brain and even communicate with people live.

As for current stuff. I obviously don't feel like being a guinea pig but im all for the advancement of technology and science in whatever form regardless of the risks involved.

I'm studying cybernetics at Reading University in England, the guy who founded the cyberinetics faculty (Prof. Kevin Warrick) has been doing these kinds of experiments for a few years.

It started with very basic things such as a chip in his arm that would signal automatic doors to open, but its progressed to the point where he had a chip inplanted in his wrist that allowed him to maipulate a robotic hand and he can use his hand to interface with a computer simulation (looked really freaky he just had a single wire coming from his wrist, none of the usual haptics armitures or tangled masses of wires). The simulation was in a virtual house and he could open doors, turn on taps/lights etc... all by simply moving his hand in a natural way.

One of the more interesting applications of this technology is the ability to store personal info on a chip in your hand, you could use this to unlock your house, car, as proof of identity or even for paying for things. Miniturisation and wireless technology may soon allow you to have things implanted like small data storage devices, so you could keep important documents/files on it without risk of losing them. You could have mobile phones built into your ear that would only be audible to you, it may even be possible (though this is still a way off) to have images projected directly into your vision allowing you to have a (simple) information display in your eye.

And if your worried about evil facist governments putting mind-control chips in your head dont' be, the length of time it would take to implant everybody with a chip means it would be far easier to simply use good old fashioned terror tactics to subdue the population rather than try and carry out a delicate, time consuming and expensive opertaion on millions of people. Even with the example applications I have given you will definately have a choice whther you want such a procedure and you will certainly have to part with a substanstial sum of money to have them done.

Not sure, but I think that it has already been done! My sister was telling me about some of the case studies she had to revise for her exam... Scary stuff.

i dont see a big difference to contact lenses.
there´s basicly something that´s connected to your body to improve it´s abilities. compare it to upgrading your pc.

i´d take sight improvement, such as nightsight, radar, heat signals, zoom...

improved body strength

one of aaron´s data chips and a communication chip

and i want to have improved hearing functions

Aaron Ash wrote:I'm studying cybernetics at Reading University in England, the guy who founded the cyberinetics faculty (Prof. Kevin Warrick) has been doing these kinds of experiments for a few years.

Small world. I'm doing Computer Sciences there

So is this Warrick any good for anything, or just a nutcase? I'm curious, because I have seen mostly negative press about him.

Aaron, so how practicable are any of these concepts you speak of? Judging by what I know of today's situation, they sound like something that may in some distant future become a reality, but are for now just a pipe dream.

Edi

CmdrSweevo, what are the chances of that? we have to meet up sometime, I'll be in the Cyb lab friday morning from 10:00-10:45.

Edi, Warrick gets bad press from some of the cybernetics community mostly because he is a shameless self publicist, but thats hardly a reflection on the validity of his research (style over substance fallacy). He is also unpopular for his belief that one day robots will succede us as the main form of "life" on earth, or will at least outlast us and inherit it when we become extinct (something I don't totally agree with). As for the concepts being practicle, technological concepts by their very nature are not yet totally practicle, but they could be implemented right now with current technology if we had the infastructure to accomodate them. For example car manufactures would need to begin adding electronically activated locks to car doors and standardise how they would work with all the manufacturers, otherwise every time you bought a new make of car you would need to have a new chip implanted. It's not the technolgy thats holding these developments up, it's the infasrtucture they need to be used within.

Yes the tech has potential but these days I don't trust anything, especially something like this.

Aaron Ash wrote:CmdrSweevo, what are the chances of that? we have to meet up sometime, I'll be in the Cyb lab friday morning from 10:00-10:45.

I've got a programming practical then. Then a functional programming practical, a lecture, then home (Kintbury) and up the pub

I can't wait for the day when it's common to store personal information on chips imbedded in your hands. Then shady groups will cut off hands and have a hand trade.
This is going to be sweet. Bring on the future!

Aaron, have you ever taken a look at what Vulture Central (The Register) thinks of Warrick? Given that I read that site a lot and have found that most of what they say makes sense, I don't have a very good impression of him. The interviews of him I've seen haven't helped in that regard, he comes across as an idiotic lunatic.

I'm not denying that the field of research is valid, nor am I commenting on Warrick's contributions to it (given that my only source for that is Vulture Central and they're hardly unbiased), but the stuff he keeps saying (at least in public) is often ridiculous and seems to me to do more harm than good to the whole field of study in general. At least among those who have some grasp of science, especially biology and human physiology. Maybe the ignorant are happier in this respect. I'm not saying most of that is impossible in the future, but for now Warrick's statements generate a lot of hype, inevitably followed by disgust or disappointment or both.

Edi

As I said he is a shameless self publicist, and even though some of the lecturers here disagree strongly with some of his ideas, none dispute that without him the cybernetics faculty would have gone under long ago due of lack of funding. He actively goes to newspapers to sell them stories, and being in mainstream publications those stories are not aimed towards the scientific community so they are written in very basic language and inevitably sound stupid and exagerrated to anyone with a vague idea what they're talking about ("Worlds First Cyborg" for example), but the bottom line is they bring in cold, hard cash in the form of research sponsors that allows all of the members the faculty to produce a steady stream of scientific papers. You should read some of his papers first hand, rather than passing judgement on him based on some newspaper stories and the, by your own admission biased, Vulture Central.

It depends what you mean.

If you mean "cyborg" enhancements that increase the physical capabilities/survivability etc. of the body and don't store info of any kind, and are VOLUNTARY, then cool.

If you mean a compulsory implantation of a subdermal ID chip, then FUCK NO. If anybody tried to implant such a chip into me against my will I would kill them.

They can implant a chip in my cold dead body if they want, cause it's the only fuckin way they will and I'll be past caring obviously.