Adrian Tymes Wrote:
| ...and cite the upcoming experiment of one Prof. Warwick, who wishes to
| hook a device to his and a willing partner's (his wife's) nervous
| system, such that signals which one device detects are played back in
| the other's.
|
Interesting!
|
| You'd need to be able to develop bio-safe implants. Main problem:
| infections around breached skin (as in, where the skin meets the plug or
| the display screen). Not a problem in rooms where surgery performed
| (allows temporary breach to insert devices); major problem for
| day-to-day use in public spaces.
I've been thinking in terms of physiological (genetic) modification to the
nervous system, and possibly nanotechnology to create the physical
interfaces on an "as-needed" basis (I know - I'm not in a hurry).
Consider a dedicated neural "processing" center for i/o and decoding (becaue
it's bidirectional communication) - similiar to speech centers? Add a "high
capacity" nerve which connects this center to an ending in, say, your left
wrist. When a physical interface is required to an external machine, the
nano-entities create microscopic electronic passageways to the surface of
the skin, which interact directly with hardware. Advantages to this: 1) you
might not need a "standard" physical interface to connect to (nanotech
adaptability), 2) probably no infection worries, 3) the nanotech could
probably insulate the body from any raw electricity or radiation. Also,
since I've got nano-entities in my world - they might as well repair any
tissue damage that does occur. :-) Primary disadvantage: this all depends
on currently nonexistent technology.
| * Tymes, Adrian. Direct Sensory Feedback from Prostheses. Diss.
| UCLA, 1996.)
:')
| Both problems are already being worked on. Perhaps a good first product
| - tackling only the first issue, not the second - would be a hard drive
| implanted in one's arm, with an I/O plug or minicomputer worn around it
| and communicating via induction. The plug/computer could get stolen,
| but stealing the data would not be a pickpocket's work, as opposed to
| (say) a laptop.
I like it! You'd also have one foot in the door on more "complex" projects
(see above).
| Remember, business plans are about *business*. Funders don't care about
| submissions of proposals to standards bodies - at least, not directly.
My logic on this: The development of a standard contributes to acceptance
and validation of your business model. From a risk perspective: theory is
cheaper than application. From an economic and sociological perspective:
society is going to require a period of adjustment to even the most trivial
of "AHCI" applications - the standards process is a good start. There are
many people who would view even this conversation as immoral/dangerous.
| The most overriding question you'll have to address: how are you going
| to make money off of this? There are many ways you can do this, but you
| have to look to find them.
|
I suppose I would look forward to a decent salary for the next ten years,
develop a working prototype in late 2009, go into production in 2010, retire
in 2012.
Snickering softly,
Ian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:21 MDT