Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!

Telescopic grapping devices. Zoom for the optical sensors. Adjusting 
sensitivity of the optical sensors (the sensors itself, not just the 
iris). Manual focus possibility (both full and basic settings) for the 
optical sensors. Shapeshifting. Built-in cash printer. Telekinetics.

Should I list more? :)

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Thu, 01 May 2008 16:58:55 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>>
>> Well, as I understand it, if they don't physically have your card, 
>> knowing your PIN isn't much help anyway...

One can just write in the number of the card (which is usually fully 
visible for a moment while when you pay your shoppings) and use the PIN 
(or better yet, *only* sign a piece of paper). Sure, the system will 
check for problems with your card, but since it hasn't been stolen or 
anything, there seems to be no problem.

> That's not to mention the cloning devices that can be affixed to the 
> front of readers etc.

Luckily that's still very hard with EMV-system (the cards with chips), 
while it's trivial with the magnetic cards.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escribió:
> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!

Documentation. Particularly about the female version.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> Do you think we already have all the planned features now or are there 
>> new ones still to be added later?
> 
> Hmm, let me see...
> 
> - MTBF: approx 50 years.
it is in the range 60-80 and many people like to increase that.
> - Operating conditions:
>   -8°C to +45°C air temparature
>   0% to 100% humidity
>   0.8 to 2.6 atmospheres of external pressure
>   10% to 100% gasseous O2 environment
> - Can endure [without damage] impacts that would dent plate steel.
> - Can survive accelerations in excess of 4G.
> - Can survive impact shocks in excess of 4,000G.
> - Can survive brief contact with extreme temparatures (down to -4°C and 
> up to +80°C).
> - 0-maintenance on all components. (!)
Just a couple of words: hairdressers, toothpaste, the gym.
> - Most non-fatal injuries automatically repaired while unit remains 
> operational. (!!!)
The two major mission critical systems (the heart and brain) can not 
repair damage.
> - Multiple redundant subsystems:
>   Dual waste filtration systems.
>   Dual gas exchange systems.
>   Dual acoustic sensors. [Also provide enhanced data when combined.]
>   Dual optical sensors. [Also provide enhanced data when combined.]
> - Many systems feature extreme fault-tolerance:
>   Can survive with less than 50% of normal blood volume.
>   Can survive with less than 50% of the liver intact.
>   Can survive with less than 25% of the bone marrow intact.
>   etc.
> - Resistant to a wide variety of inactive and active threats. [Violent 
> shock, extreme temparatures, corrosive chemicals, toxins, microrganisms, 
> virii, etc.]
> - Central nervous system with cognative abilities unrivalled by any 
> organism on Earth, as far as we know.
You forget the mice.
> - Ability to procreate. (!!!!!)
Well, not everybody can do that, especially those that use too much 
exclamation marks may be seriously impaired.
> 
> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
>
The age at which woman can give birth is rather low. The age where there 
is an increases change of getting children with birth defects still 
lower. In some countries that age is coming close to the age of getting 
the first child. Furthermore I think the interfacing (both to other 
humans and to equipment) leaves a lot to be desired. But the question 
was not what I want but if there is improvement planned but not 
realized. Just to decide whether we are in alpha or in early beta.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> - Ability to procreate. (!!!!!)

  That makes it a Von Neumann machine.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   In software the usual versioning terminology is that an "alpha" version
> is one which still doesn't have all the planned features, ie. features are
> still being added, while a "beta" version is a version of the software which
> has all the features but still lacks complete bug testing (ie. it "should
> work" but there may be still bugs left).

That isn't what it used to mean, mind. Back when you had actual products 
you actually needed to work, "alpha" meant the version the QA department 
was testing, "beta" meant the version selected customers were testing 
for you, and "release" was what you actually put on the shelves.

Since people apparently don't do any QA any more, I guess someone 
decided to change the meaning for code that you publish via nightly CVS 
snapshots.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   In software the usual versioning terminology is that an "alpha" version
> is one which still doesn't have all the planned features, ie. features are
> still being added, while a "beta" version is a version of the software which
> has all the features but still lacks complete bug testing (ie. it "should
> work" but there may be still bugs left).

Interesting. I always thought alpha means "completely untested, might 
not even compile", whereas beta means "well, gee, I *think* it works, 
but I haven't tested it that much yet..."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:

> Shapeshifting.

Dude, what would you *use* that for? Really?

> Built-in cash printer.

Yeah. Try that one. Now watch the value of your cash plummet. ;-) Life 
isn't that simple...

> Telekinetics.

Now _that_ would genuinely be useful. And also make crime detection 
essentially impossible...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
> 
> Documentation. Particularly about the female version.

Bahahahaha!

Oh God, what an excellent start to my morning... :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> - Ability to procreate. (!!!!!)
> 
>   That makes it a Von Neumann machine.

Correct.

http://www.xkcd.com/387/

[Check out the alt-text...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> That's not to mention the cloning devices that can be affixed to the 
>> front of readers etc.
> 
> Luckily that's still very hard with EMV-system (the cards with chips), 
> while it's trivial with the magnetic cards.

I think until it becomes impossible to use the magnetic cards with a 
signature, having chip & PIN won't help.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> - 0-maintenance on all components. (!)
> Just a couple of words: hairdressers, toothpaste, the gym.

Non-essential cosmetics. ;-)

[And toothpaste is unecessary if you eat the diet the human body was 
actually designed for.]

>> - Most non-fatal injuries automatically repaired while unit remains 
>> operational. (!!!)
> The two major mission critical systems (the heart and brain) can not 
> repair damage.

I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage. 
Similarly, you can't regrow brain cells, but the brain has an impressive 
capacity to reassign functions and regain normal functioning after 
fairly serious injury.

>> - Central nervous system with cognative abilities unrivalled by any 
>> organism on Earth, as far as we know.
> You forget the mice.

Is this a Douglas Adams reference?


> But the question 
> was not what I want but if there is improvement planned but not 
> realized. Just to decide whether we are in alpha or in early beta.

Heh. Well, that would depend on who the "designer" is, no? ;-) Let's not 
even get into that one...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 01 May 2008 19:50:11 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

> andrel wrote:
>
>> Do you think we already have all the planned features now or are there  
>> new ones still to be added later?
<snip>
> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
>
> ;-)

The ability to use my nipples to tune into JazzFM and control my  
temperature.

An enhanced EM sense would be nice, possibly another thumb, rewiring of  
our eyes, separation of waste and procreation organs, a lower error rate  
on cell duplication, separation of food and air intakes, extra nictitating  
membrane on eyes and nostrils, concious control of pain receptors as  
standard, better waste disposal management. Give me time and I'm sure I  
could come up with many more.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
> 
> The ability to use my nipples to tune into JazzFM and control my 
> temperature.

...the hell...? 0_0

> An enhanced EM sense would be nice

Like what? The ability to see with your tongue?

> possibly another thumb

You have two essentially unused fingers as it is!

> rewiring of our eyes

You can rewrite your eyes if you want. :-P

> separation of waste and procreation organs

Hmm... that *is* going to involve creating additional holes in the 
structural reinforcement of the abdonom. I'm just saying... ;-)

> a lower error rate on cell duplication

That's going to significantly lower upper limit on the speed of cell 
division.

> separation of food and air intakes

OK, that's probably a good idea. In fact it would probably be beneficial 
if all that pipework didn't have to go through your neck... it's kind of 
vulnerable.

> extra nictitating membrane on eyes and nostrils

Wuh? Dictionary time...

> concious control of pain receptors as standard

That's probably a Very Bad Idea. To quote Madonna, "pain is a warning 
that something's wrong".

> Give me time and I'm sure I could come up with many more.

Indubitably...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 09:32:41 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
>>  The ability to use my nipples to tune into JazzFM and control my  
>> temperature.
>
> ...the hell...? 0_0

Red Dwarf reference (see Kryten)

>> An enhanced EM sense would be nice
>
> Like what? The ability to see with your tongue?

More like the homing sense of birds.. or elves.

>> possibly another thumb
>
> You have two essentially unused fingers as it is!

Two? Anyway I just thought an extra thumb couldcome in handy fro gripping.

>> rewiring of our eyes
>
> You can rewrite your eyes if you want. :-P

reverse the receptors and get rid of the blind spot and filtering caused  
by the connectors.

>> separation of waste and procreation organs
>
> Hmm... that *is* going to involve creating additional holes in the  
> structural reinforcement of the abdonom. I'm just saying... ;-)

No not really we already have two holes down there, just one for one  
process and transfer one to the other. As an added bonus women will stop  
complaining about men leaving the lid up or how there's always only a  
queue outside the ladies loo.

>> a lower error rate on cell duplication
>
> That's going to significantly lower upper limit on the speed of cell  
> division.

True, but if we can decrease the rate of decay that should compensate.

>> separation of food and air intakes
>
> OK, that's probably a good idea. In fact it would probably be beneficial  
> if all that pipework didn't have to go through your neck... it's kind of  
> vulnerable.

Although I'll admit some reports I've seen suggest that our ability to  
make complex noises derives from this cross over.

>> extra nictitating membrane on eyes and nostrils
>
> Wuh? Dictionary time...

An extra transparent eyelid on our eyes to protect against dust etc. think  
crocodiles. And the ability to seal our nostrils shut which we seem to  
lose from our infancy.

>> concious control of pain receptors as standard
>
> That's probably a Very Bad Idea. To quote Madonna, "pain is a warning  
> that something's wrong".

But it's much easier to think if someone shut off those bloody klaxons.  
Hence my use of "conscious control" - Yes I know that is hurting, but  
unless the level of pain increases or decreases then stop telling me every  
microsecond.

>> Give me time and I'm sure I could come up with many more.
>
> Indubitably...

Dictionary time :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>> separation of food and air intakes
>>
>> OK, that's probably a good idea. In fact it would probably be 
>> beneficial if all that pipework didn't have to go through your neck... 
>> it's kind of vulnerable.
> 
> Although I'll admit some reports I've seen suggest that our ability to 
> make complex noises derives from this cross over.

For some reason, when I read "complex noises" I immediately thought of 
Blur's "Song 2".

I guess it seemed a fitting counter-example or something... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
> 
> Adjusting sensitivity of the optical sensors (the sensors itself, not just the 
> iris). 

Isn't that what dark adaptation is? Essentially your brain increases the 
amount of gain when there are low levels of light.

 > Manual focus possibility (both full and basic settings) for the
> optical sensors. 

You can't do this? I've always been able to adjust the focal point of my 
eyes on command.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> Shapeshifting.
> 
> Dude, what would you *use* that for? Really?
> 

Wouldn't it be nice to literally be a "Fly on the wall" sometimes? Or 
what about squeezing under that closed door to the server room? :D

>> Telekinetics.
> 
> Now _that_ would genuinely be useful. And also make crime detection 
> essentially impossible...
> 

"There is no spoon" ... hee hee..

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 escribió:
>> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
> 
> Documentation. Particularly about the female version.

Don't worry, they're also self-documenting. :D (Just look at Wikipedia 
for examples ...)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> You forget the mice.

And dolphins, don't forget the dolphins :)

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> a lower error rate on cell duplication

Resistance to ionizing radiation would be nice, too.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> - MTBF: approx 50 years.
> - Operating conditions:
>   -8°C to +45°C air temparature
>   0% to 100% humidity
>   0.8 to 2.6 atmospheres of external pressure
>   10% to 100% gasseous O2 environment
> - Can endure [without damage] impacts that would dent plate steel.
> - Can survive accelerations in excess of 4G.
> - Can survive impact shocks in excess of 4,000G.
> - Can survive brief contact with extreme temparatures (down to -4°C and 
> up to +80°C).
> - 0-maintenance on all components. (!)
> - Most non-fatal injuries automatically repaired while unit remains 
> operational. (!!!)
> - Multiple redundant subsystems:
>   Dual waste filtration systems.
>   Dual gas exchange systems.
>   Dual acoustic sensors. [Also provide enhanced data when combined.]
>   Dual optical sensors. [Also provide enhanced data when combined.]
> - Many systems feature extreme fault-tolerance:
>   Can survive with less than 50% of normal blood volume.
>   Can survive with less than 50% of the liver intact.
>   Can survive with less than 25% of the bone marrow intact.
>   etc.
> - Resistant to a wide variety of inactive and active threats. [Violent 
> shock, extreme temparatures, corrosive chemicals, toxins, microrganisms, 
> virii, etc.]
> - Central nervous system with cognative abilities unrivalled by any 
> organism on Earth, as far as we know.
> - Ability to procreate. (!!!!!)

All very nice features indeed, but I would like an upgrade to my visual 
system. Being able to adjust FOV optically, and quadra or possibly 
pentachromatic (or more) visual sense expanding into the ultraviolet and 
  infrared portions of the EM spectrum. Thought it would be nice to have 
sensitivities in IR, R, Y, G, B, V, UVA, UVB (octachromatic) or have the 
color sensors in our eyes work like our ears (many, many different 
frequencies are detected individually in small increments) Though that 
would be impractical. The upshot is we'd be less susceptible to metamerism.

Post a reply to this message

>> Adjusting sensitivity of the optical sensors (the sensors itself, not 
>> just the iris). 
> 
> Isn't that what dark adaptation is? Essentially your brain increases the 
> amount of gain when there are low levels of light.

The human eye features two systems for adapting to light levels. One is 
the iris, which can adjust the amount of light that enters the eye. But 
in really low-light conditions, a second set of light receptors in the 
retina which respond to much lower light levels. (And don't distinguish 
colour. That's why in the dark, everything seens monochrome.)

>> Manual focus possibility (both full and basic settings) for the
>> optical sensors. 
> 
> You can't do this? I've always been able to adjust the focal point of my 
> eyes on command.

Likewise. I can also adjust the convergence...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 
> The human eye features two systems for adapting to light levels. One is 
> the iris, which can adjust the amount of light that enters the eye. But 
> in really low-light conditions, a second set of light receptors in the 
> retina which respond to much lower light levels. (And don't distinguish 
> colour. That's why in the dark, everything seens monochrome.)
> 

Yes. But, interestingly because of the chemistry of the eyes, it takes 
quite a while before night vision is effective.

> 
> Likewise. I can also adjust the convergence...
> 

So can I. As a teenager I got swept up in the whole stereogram thing. I 
used to look at pages and pages of them, and eventually went to try my 
own. Then I went for a vision test to renew my drivers license. I 
couldn't seem to match the center set of numbers normally, it actually 
took me a couple tries before I could get it right.

Post a reply to this message

>> The human eye features two systems for adapting to light levels. One 
>> is the iris, which can adjust the amount of light that enters the eye. 
>> But in really low-light conditions, a second set of light receptors in 
>> the retina which respond to much lower light levels. (And don't 
>> distinguish colour. That's why in the dark, everything seens monochrome.)
> 
> Yes. But, interestingly because of the chemistry of the eyes, it takes 
> quite a while before night vision is effective.

More precisely, because the photosensitive chemicals used for low-light 
vision get utterly saturated under normal lighting conditions, and once 
they are depleted, it takes a while to manufacture more. (Under 
low-light conditions, it gets depleted so slowly that the speed of 
manufacture isn't an issue.)

Yeah, it could possibly be improved. But given that homo sapiens is not 
a nocturnal species, the fact that we can see in the dark at all is 
fairly impressive. *Realy* nocturnal animals like cats have a wide range 
of special adaptations for low-light conditions...

>> Likewise. I can also adjust the convergence...
> 
> So can I. As a teenager I got swept up in the whole stereogram thing.

I only caught on once I finally figured out how they're actually 
supposed to work. The whole "look into it, not at it" thing didn't make 
any sense to me. When I finally realised they meant your eyes are 
supposed to hyperconverge, it suddenly made much more sense.

And now I draw my own using Notepad...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 13:31:54 +0100, Mike Raiford  
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>  > Manual focus possibility (both full and basic settings) for the
>> optical sensors.
>
> You can't do this? I've always been able to adjust the focal point of my  
> eyes on command.

But can you do it independently for each eye?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 14:04:21 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

>>> Adjusting sensitivity of the optical sensors (the sensors itself, not  
>>> just the iris).
>>  Isn't that what dark adaptation is? Essentially your brain increases  
>> the amount of gain when there are low levels of light.

Try the link below to demonstrate how the brain also adjusts contrast.

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_contrast-adapt/index.html

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 14:41:52 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

<snip>
>>  Yes. But, interestingly because of the chemistry of the eyes, it takes  
>> quite a while before night vision is effective.
>
> More precisely, because the photosensitive chemicals used for low-light  
> vision get utterly saturated under normal lighting conditions, and once  
> they are depleted, it takes a while to manufacture more. (Under  
> low-light conditions, it gets depleted so slowly that the speed of  
> manufacture isn't an issue.)

This is also the reason night-vision or night-lighting is traditonally  
red. The rods don't respond to that frequency as sharply and thus aren't  
saturated allowing you to switch from a red-illuminated scene to a  
non-illuminated scene without losing your night vision or waiting for it  
to return.

> Yeah, it could possibly be improved. But given that homo sapiens is not  
> a nocturnal species, the fact that we can see in the dark at all is  
> fairly impressive.

Not really, some degree of night vision is optimal for any species that  
operates in varied lighting conditions; we've just never needed to  
specialise.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> 
> And now I draw my own using Notepad...
> 


I used to draw on paper stereo pairs of images.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> - 0-maintenance on all components. (!)
>> Just a couple of words: hairdressers, toothpaste, the gym.
> 
> Non-essential cosmetics. ;-)
gym <-> cosmetics ?
> 
> [And toothpaste is unecessary if you eat the diet the human body was 
> actually designed for.]
> 
>>> - Most non-fatal injuries automatically repaired while unit remains 
>>> operational. (!!!)
>> The two major mission critical systems (the heart and brain) can not 
>> repair damage.
> 
> I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage. 
No, if you loose a heart muscle cell e.g. because of an infarct it is 
lost and won't be replaced by another muscle cell but by fibrous tissue 
or fat. Though some reports exist that might indicate that sometimes 
cells are replaced, but never enough to make the piece of tissue 
contract again.
> Similarly, you can't regrow brain cells, but the brain has an impressive 
> capacity to reassign functions and regain normal functioning after 
> fairly serious injury.
That is why I said repair and not recover
> 
>>> - Central nervous system with cognitive abilities unrivaled by any 
>>> organism on Earth, as far as we know.
>> You forget the mice.
> 
> Is this a Douglas Adams reference?
might be, might be.
> 
> 
>> But the question was not what I want but if there is improvement 
>> planned but not realized. Just to decide whether we are in alpha or in 
>> early beta.
> 
> Heh. Well, that would depend on who the "designer" is, no? ;-) Let's not 
> even get into that one...
Or if there is one to begin with. And indeed let's no get into that one 
again.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 09:32:41 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>>>> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
>>>  The ability to use my nipples to tune into JazzFM and control my 
>>> temperature.
>>
>> ...the hell...? 0_0
> 
> Red Dwarf reference (see Kryten)

Is that the episode with the two photographs?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 16:00:05 +0100, andrel  
<a_l### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 02 May 2008 09:32:41 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>  
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>>>> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
>>>>  The ability to use my nipples to tune into JazzFM and control my  
>>>> temperature.
>>>
>>> ...the hell...? 0_0
>>  Red Dwarf reference (see Kryten)
>
> Is that the episode with the two photographs?

Yep the famous double polaroid.

"It was a triple-bag easy-glide vac with turbo-suction and a self-emptying  
dustbag" waggles eyebrows.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:32:41 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> rewiring of our eyes
> 
> You can rewrite your eyes if you want. :-P

Oh, good, my wife will be pleased to hear this....

(She's got ocular albinism, which means the rods and cones aren't fully 
developed, she lacks pigment in her iris, and the wiring to her brain is 
different than everyone else's - what this means is that she has very 
poor depth perception and the combination of the wiring problem and the 
lack of pigment in her iris results in high contrast changes (usually 
dark->light) will literally blind her for anywhere from 10 seconds to 2 
minutes.

Which makes driving at night a real pain the ass for her.

Not to mention the nystagmus - though for many this is a problem, my wife 
actually has managed to harness this somehow and as a result reads very 
fast.  But she wonders how other people actually see words on the page 
because she knows she's not reading the text linearly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>
>>> Seriously... WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?!
>>
>> Adjusting sensitivity of the optical sensors (the sensors itself, not 
>> just the iris). 
> 
> Isn't that what dark adaptation is? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_purple

 > Essentially your brain increases the
> amount of gain when there are low levels of light.

No. It's actually a photosynthetic chemical in your retina that builds 
up as long as light isn't strong enough to break it down. It's what 
microbes used before chlorophyll. It's not something in your brain.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> An enhanced EM sense would be nice, 

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mods/news/2006/06/71087

You can also add absolute direction sense in a similar way.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

>>>> - 0-maintenance on all components. (!)
>>> Just a couple of words: hairdressers, toothpaste, the gym.
>>
>> Non-essential cosmetics. ;-)
> gym <-> cosmetics ?

Going to the gym isn't necessary. [E.g., I've never been to one in my 
entire life.]

>>>> - Most non-fatal injuries automatically repaired while unit remains 
>>>> operational. (!!!)
>>> The two major mission critical systems (the heart and brain) can not 
>>> repair damage.
>>
>> I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage. 
> No, if you loose a heart muscle cell e.g. because of an infarct it is 
> lost and won't be replaced by another muscle cell but by fibrous tissue 
> or fat. Though some reports exist that might indicate that sometimes 
> cells are replaced, but never enough to make the piece of tissue 
> contract again.

Interesting. I didn't know what.

Does anybody know *why* normal muscle can rebuild itself, but the heart 
can't?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Resistance to ionizing radiation would be nice, too.

Well, the human body is already pretty *resistant* as it is. (You know 
you're currently surrounded by the stuff, right?) Higher resistance 
would obviously be nice, but hey...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> - 0-maintenance on all components. (!)
>>>> Just a couple of words: hairdressers, toothpaste, the gym.
>>>
>>> Non-essential cosmetics. ;-)
>> gym <-> cosmetics ?
> 
> Going to the gym isn't necessary. 
I meant it as an example of exercise.

> [E.g., I've never been to one in my entire life.]

The fact that you don't do maintenance on your muscles and skeleton does 
not imply that it is not necessary. Some people don't maintain their 
cars and in general those cars don't live as long and healthy as other cars.

>>>>> - Most non-fatal injuries automatically repaired while unit remains 
>>>>> operational. (!!!)
>>>> The two major mission critical systems (the heart and brain) can not 
>>>> repair damage.
>>>
>>> I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage. 
>> No, if you loose a heart muscle cell e.g. because of an infarct it is 
>> lost and won't be replaced by another muscle cell but by fibrous 
>> tissue or fat. Though some reports exist that might indicate that 
>> sometimes cells are replaced, but never enough to make the piece of 
>> tissue contract again.
> 
> Interesting. I didn't know what.
> 
> Does anybody know *why* normal muscle can rebuild itself, but the heart 
> can't?
> 
Skeletal muscle can also grow by increasing the size of the muscle cells 
(as can the heart cells). I should know if skeletal muscle cells can 
still divide in adults or not, but I don't. GIMF, but I don't feel like 
meeting a friend now, perhaps later.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:32:41 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>>> rewiring of our eyes
>> You can rewrite your eyes if you want. :-P
> 
> Oh, good, my wife will be pleased to hear this....
> 
> (She's got ocular albinism, which means the rods and cones aren't fully 
> developed, she lacks pigment in her iris, and the wiring to her brain is 
> different than everyone else's - 

I always found it fascinating how two seemingly unrelated things as how 
the eyes connect to the left and right brain and pigmentation defects go 
hand in hand. But that is as a scientist with an interest in 
development. For the person involved it is probably slightly less 
fascinating.

> what this means is that she has very 
> poor depth perception and the combination of the wiring problem and the 
> lack of pigment in her iris results in high contrast changes (usually 
> dark->light) will literally blind her for anywhere from 10 seconds to 2 
> minutes.

I think that is mainly the lack of pigment, that makes light enter the 
eye via other paths than the lens and not being able to regulate the 
amount of light. So she has to rely on slower chemical processes to 
adjust the rods and cones to the level of light.

> Which makes driving at night a real pa in the ass for her.

So, just like me, you are the one that drives home after parties?

> Not to mention the nystagmus 
Wikitime
> - though for many this is a problem, my wife 
> actually has managed to harness this somehow and as a result reads very 
> fast.  But she wonders how other people actually see words on the page 
> because she knows she's not reading the text linearly.

Less serious a problem, but I always wondered how the world would look 
if it was out of focus. Whatever trick I used I was never able to not 
focus. Well, time solved this one. Now to find out how the world looks 
if you have a dominant eye. Possibly like walking with one eye closed, 
but I guess it may be subtly different.

Post a reply to this message

In article <481ace9d$1@news.povray.org>, voi### [at] devnull says...
> I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage. 
> Similarly, you can't regrow brain cells, but the brain has an impressive
 
> capacity to reassign functions and regain normal functioning after 
> fairly serious injury.
> 
Well, actually, the brain can grow new cells, it just doesn't do so 
much, and it wouldn't help in some cases, since the *data* is encoded 
into the existing cells. It might, in theory, repair itself with new 
tissue, but the result would tend to be a blank slate, with no means to 
relearn the correct responses. Its likely that there is some genetic 
markers that strongly inhibit new growth, precisely due to how it could 
destabilize the existing pattern.

> >> - Central nervous system with cognative abilities unrivalled by any 
> >> organism on Earth, as far as we know.
> > You forget the mice.
> 
> Is this a Douglas Adams reference?
> 
Yeah.

As for unrivaled. In scope yes, in function.. Not so much. A lot of 
animals have recently proven to have "some" of the same key capacities 
we do, and some may even have ones we don't, but our unique mix of the 
ones we do have give us the abilities we do. Things like a single gene 
knocked out, like one group in the UK, and the capacity to form symbolic 
links in speech is greatly impaired, resulting in badly slurred speech 
and comprehension issues. A single gene whose mutant form (very few 
species, including other primates "have" a version like ours) also 
exists in parrots, who *have* the same symbolic capacity we do, while 
missing other things.
 
> > But the question 
> > was not what I want but if there is improvement planned but not 
> > realized. Just to decide whether we are in alpha or in early beta.
> 
> Heh. Well, that would depend on who the "designer" is, no? ;-) Let's not
 
> even get into that one...
> 
Not even mentioning that the genetic code is such a bloody mess that.. 
Well, its almost like, if someone designed it, they let it start out 
real simple, then rewrite itself over billions of years, without any 
intervention. lol 

-- 
void main () {
  If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 May 2008 21:10:47 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> (She's got ocular albinism, which means the rods and cones aren't fully
>> developed, she lacks pigment in her iris, and the wiring to her brain
>> is different than everyone else's -
> 
> I always found it fascinating how two seemingly unrelated things as how
> the eyes connect to the left and right brain and pigmentation defects go
> hand in hand. But that is as a scientist with an interest in
> development. For the person involved it is probably slightly less
> fascinating.

Oh, we both have found it very fascinating - her ophthalmologist took 
pictures of her eyes - most people you get a bright center (from the 
reflection off the retina), but for those with this condition, it's not 
uncommon for the iris to "leak" light and for the photo to show a "spoke" 
pattern outside the pupil area.

>> what this means is that she has very
>> poor depth perception and the combination of the wiring problem and the
>> lack of pigment in her iris results in high contrast changes (usually
>> dark->light) will literally blind her for anywhere from 10 seconds to 2
>> minutes.
> 
> I think that is mainly the lack of pigment, that makes light enter the
> eye via other paths than the lens and not being able to regulate the
> amount of light. So she has to rely on slower chemical processes to
> adjust the rods and cones to the level of light.

That could well be the case.

>> Which makes driving at night a real pa in the ass for her.
> 
> So, just like me, you are the one that drives home after parties?

Pretty much, yeah.  She very occasionally will drive at night to pick our 
son up, but never on the freeway or unfamiliar roads.

>> Not to mention the nystagmus
> Wikitime

Rapid eye movement - a kind of spasm.  Essentially what it means is that 
her eyes "jump" randomly, which normally makes it difficult to read 
anything for an extended period of time.  I don't know for sure, but it's 
probably not uncommon for people who have nystagmus to be slower readers 
as a result.  My wife doesn't have that issue - she's managed to train 
herself to keep up - I don't think I've ever seen anyone read books as 
quickly as she does, and she definitely is taking in what she's reading.

>> - though for many this is a problem, my wife actually has managed to
>> harness this somehow and as a result reads very fast.  But she wonders
>> how other people actually see words on the page because she knows she's
>> not reading the text linearly.
> 
> Less serious a problem, but I always wondered how the world would look
> if it was out of focus. Whatever trick I used I was never able to not
> focus. Well, time solved this one. Now to find out how the world looks
> if you have a dominant eye. Possibly like walking with one eye closed,
> but I guess it may be subtly different.

Well, the thing is, even when using just one eye, if your brain has had 
practice at determining how far away stuff is, even with one eye you 
adjust and still have depth perception.  I asked my wife about this (my 
dad also had vision problems and I never understood the lack of depth 
perception) - she explained it as a calculation problem - she can tell 
how large something is compared to the surroundings, and if it's 
something she knows how large it is relative to, say, her hand, that 
helps - but her brain doesn't have enough practice at calculating the 
distance of an object moving based on those two reference points, and as 
a result, she has very poor eye-hand coordination when it comes to 
catching something thrown in her direction, because in order to figure 
out how far away something is, she actually has to think about it, while 
those who don't have the problem don't have to think about it.  According 
to her doctor, it comes back to things not being hooked up correctly 
between the optics and the brain.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 May 2008 20:46:52 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> [E.g., I've never been to one in my entire life.]
> 
> The fact that you don't do maintenance on your muscles and skeleton does
> not imply that it is not necessary. Some people don't maintain their
> cars and in general those cars don't live as long and healthy as other
> cars.

Absolutely true.  The only physical activity I used to get was walking to 
the car and back and the occasional bike ride.  Started going to the gym 
about 18 months ago (Andy, keep in mind that I'm 38 this year), and I've 
had much better energy levels, been able to walk further than before, and 
overall have felt better.

I could well have continued with no physical activity, and probably would 
have been fine, but I am - without a doubt - better off now that I'm 
getting regular exercise.

You want something that's good for stress management?  Go outside and go 
for a run or a bike ride.  Or get a gym membership and go down and lift 
weights for 30 minutes.  Physical activity is a *great* way to relieve 
stress - and if you'd have told me that 2 years ago, I'd have said you 
were nuts.

Before you say "but I don't know how to lift weights", I didn't either.  
That's one of the benefits of going to a gym; you can ask people who know 
these things for help.  That's what they get paid to do.  I've worked 
with trainers a couple of times (note that this isn't a cheap thing to do 
- working with a trainer, that is - the gym membership costs us about £10/
month, and gives us access 24x7 to one location.

One important note, though - if you do start exercising, you need to be 
sure you're eating well as well.  Just like when you run out of petrol in 
the car, if you haven't taken in enough calories, you'll run out of gas.  
One thing that surprised me was that when working with a trainer, I was 
eating *5* times a day, but I was *losing* weight.  As one of my trainers 
put it to me "in order to burn fat, you've got to feed the engine".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage. 
>> Similarly, you can't regrow brain cells, but the brain has an impressive 
>> capacity to reassign functions and regain normal functioning after 
>> fairly serious injury.
>>
> Well, actually, the brain can grow new cells, it just doesn't do so 
> much, and it wouldn't help in some cases, since the *data* is encoded 
> into the existing cells. It might, in theory, repair itself with new 
> tissue, but the result would tend to be a blank slate, with no means to 
> relearn the correct responses. Its likely that there is some genetic 
> markers that strongly inhibit new growth, precisely due to how it could 
> destabilize the existing pattern.

I find it interesting that every single person's brain appears to be 
organised in roughly the same way. As in, there's a specific part of the 
brain that does function X, and it's in the same place in [almost] 
everybody's brain. Clearly much of the brain's structure must be 
hard-coded genetically or something.

Anyway, as I was saying, apparently the brain has the capacity to move 
those functions of other regions in case of damage. To an impressive 
degree...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:19:43 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> - Central nervous system with cognative abilities unrivalled by any
>>> organism on Earth, as far as we know.
>> You forget the mice.
> 
> Is this a Douglas Adams reference?

Heh, you'd better believe it. ;-)

Best laid plans of mice....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> The fact that you don't do maintenance on your muscles and skeleton does 
> not imply that it is not necessary. Some people don't maintain their 
> cars and in general those cars don't live as long and healthy as other 
> cars.

...or again, one could argue that humans are designed for a mode of 
living which happens to involve lots of moving around. The fact that 
people need to go to the gym at all is just an artifact of our modern 
lifestyle rather than a design flaw in our body plan.

> Skeletal muscle can also grow by increasing the size of the muscle cells 
> (as can the heart cells). I should know if skeletal muscle cells can 
> still divide in adults or not, but I don't. GIMF, but I don't feel like 
> meeting a friend now, perhaps later.

I was under the impression that you can basically grow (or catabolise) 
arbitrary amounts of muscle fiber as conditions necessitate...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Is this a Douglas Adams reference?
> 
> Heh, you'd better believe it. ;-)

May I have my geek license back now? :-P

> Best laid plans of mice....

I have never actually heard that figure of speech except in the book.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 May 2008 21:28:11 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Is this a Douglas Adams reference?
>> 
>> Heh, you'd better believe it. ;-)
> 
> May I have my geek license back now? :-P

I think we could arrange a provisional return. ;-)

>> Best laid plans of mice....
> 
> I have never actually heard that figure of speech except in the book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Mice_and_Men

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_a_Mouse

Honestly, I've never heard anyone say it either (that I can recall), but 
these are the origins. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 21:10:47 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> (She's got ocular albinism, which means the rods and cones aren't fully
>>> developed, she lacks pigment in her iris, and the wiring to her brain
>>> is different than everyone else's -
>> I always found it fascinating how two seemingly unrelated things as how
>> the eyes connect to the left and right brain and pigmentation defects go
>> hand in hand. But that is as a scientist with an interest in
>> development. For the person involved it is probably slightly less
>> fascinating.
> 
> Oh, we both have found it very fascinating - her ophthalmologist took 
> pictures of her eyes - most people you get a bright center (from the 
> reflection off the retina), but for those with this condition, it's not 
> uncommon for the iris to "leak" light and for the photo to show a "spoke" 
> pattern outside the pupil area.
I think that also the white of the eye may transmit more.
[..]

> 
>>> - though for many this is a problem, my wife actually has managed to
>>> harness this somehow and as a result reads very fast.  But she wonders
>>> how other people actually see words on the page because she knows she's
>>> not reading the text linearly.
>> Less serious a problem, but I always wondered how the world would look
>> if it was out of focus. Whatever trick I used I was never able to not
>> focus. Well, time solved this one. Now to find out how the world looks
>> if you have a dominant eye. Possibly like walking with one eye closed,
>> but I guess it may be subtly different.
> 
> Well, the thing is, even when using just one eye, if your brain has had 
> practice at determining how far away stuff is, even with one eye you 
> adjust and still have depth perception.  I asked my wife about this (my 
> dad also had vision problems and I never understood the lack of depth 
> perception) - she explained it as a calculation problem - she can tell 
> how large something is compared to the surroundings, and if it's 
> something she knows how large it is relative to, say, her hand, that 
> helps - 
I'd imagine that all normal depth cues (you know, the ones we use when 
composing a good POV scene) should be available to her, some less 
because of the other visual problems.
> but her brain doesn't have enough practice at calculating the 
> distance of an object moving based on those two reference points, and as 
> a result, she has very poor eye-hand coordination when it comes to 
> catching something thrown in her direction, because in order to figure 
> out how far away something is, she actually has to think about it, while 
> those who don't have the problem don't have to think about it.  According 
> to her doctor, it comes back to things not being hooked up correctly 
> between the optics and the brain.

Makes sense. With the two images far away in disjoint parts of the 
visual cortex it would be hard to combine the information. Hmm, I wonder 
if the condition is more severe in man. IIRC the two halves of the brain 
do communicate more in women.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:42:53 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> Oh, we both have found it very fascinating - her ophthalmologist took
>> pictures of her eyes - most people you get a bright center (from the
>> reflection off the retina), but for those with this condition, it's not
>> uncommon for the iris to "leak" light and for the photo to show a
>> "spoke" pattern outside the pupil area.
> I think that also the white of the eye may transmit more. [..]

Possibly.

>> Well, the thing is, even when using just one eye, if your brain has had
>> practice at determining how far away stuff is, even with one eye you
>> adjust and still have depth perception.  I asked my wife about this (my
>> dad also had vision problems and I never understood the lack of depth
>> perception) - she explained it as a calculation problem - she can tell
>> how large something is compared to the surroundings, and if it's
>> something she knows how large it is relative to, say, her hand, that
>> helps -
> I'd imagine that all normal depth cues (you know, the ones we use when
> composing a good POV scene) should be available to her, some less
> because of the other visual problems.

Oh, probably, relative size of an object to environment, shadows and such 
are all a factor in determining position; but as I said (below), 
processing that data properly is an issue.  This is why she'd never been 
good at team sports - it's hard to catch a softball if you can't tell 
where it is until after it's hit you in the head.

>> but her brain doesn't have enough practice at calculating the distance
>> of an object moving based on those two reference points, and as a
>> result, she has very poor eye-hand coordination when it comes to
>> catching something thrown in her direction, because in order to figure
>> out how far away something is, she actually has to think about it,
>> while those who don't have the problem don't have to think about it. 
>> According to her doctor, it comes back to things not being hooked up
>> correctly between the optics and the brain.
> 
> Makes sense. With the two images far away in disjoint parts of the
> visual cortex it would be hard to combine the information. Hmm, I wonder
> if the condition is more severe in man. IIRC the two halves of the brain
> do communicate more in women.

From the wikipedia article on OA, there are variants that affect men that 
don't affect women.  

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:42:53 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>>> Oh, we both have found it very fascinating - her ophthalmologist took
>>> pictures of her eyes - most people you get a bright center (from the
>>> reflection off the retina), but for those with this condition, it's not
>>> uncommon for the iris to "leak" light and for the photo to show a
>>> "spoke" pattern outside the pupil area.
>> I think that also the white of the eye may transmit more. [..]
> 
> Possibly.
Drawing from what I heard from someone studying scattering of light in 
the eye. People with less pigment had more light coming in from all 
sides than people with more pigment. i.e. blue eyed people having more 
problems with headlight of cars approaching.
> 
> 
>>> but her brain doesn't have enough practice at calculating the distance
>>> of an object moving based on those two reference points, and as a
>>> result, she has very poor eye-hand coordination when it comes to
>>> catching something thrown in her direction, because in order to figure
>>> out how far away something is, she actually has to think about it,
>>> while those who don't have the problem don't have to think about it. 
>>> According to her doctor, it comes back to things not being hooked up
>>> correctly between the optics and the brain.
>> Makes sense. With the two images far away in disjoint parts of the
>> visual cortex it would be hard to combine the information. Hmm, I wonder
>> if the condition is more severe in man. IIRC the two halves of the brain
>> do communicate more in women.
> 
> From the wikipedia article on OA, there are variants that affect men that 
> don't affect women.  

That's not what I meant. I meant that if the image of the left eye ends 
up in the right visual cortex and vice versa, you need to communicate 
between the two brain halves to match them. BTW I see now that the 
problem with the optic nerve is only mentioned somewhere low on the 
page. For some reason I remembered it as being quite common.

Post a reply to this message