<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_23_1511251</id>
	<title>Typing With Your Brain</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1261590000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>destinyland writes <i>"This article asks, 'Why bother to type a document using a keyboard when you can write it by <a href="http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/neuro/thought-alone-mind-over-keyboard">simply thinking about the letters?</a>' A brain wave study presented at the 2009 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society shows that people with electrodes in their brains can 'type' using just their minds. The study involved electrocorticography &mdash; a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull. ('We were able to consistently predict the desired letters for our patients at or near 100 percent accuracy,' explains one Mayo clinic neurologist.) And besides typing, there's new brain wave applications that can now turn brain waves into music and even Twitter status updates &mdash; by thought alone."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>destinyland writes " This article asks , 'Why bother to type a document using a keyboard when you can write it by simply thinking about the letters ?
' A brain wave study presented at the 2009 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society shows that people with electrodes in their brains can 'type ' using just their minds .
The study involved electrocorticography    a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull .
( 'We were able to consistently predict the desired letters for our patients at or near 100 percent accuracy, ' explains one Mayo clinic neurologist .
) And besides typing , there 's new brain wave applications that can now turn brain waves into music and even Twitter status updates    by thought alone .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>destinyland writes "This article asks, 'Why bother to type a document using a keyboard when you can write it by simply thinking about the letters?
' A brain wave study presented at the 2009 annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society shows that people with electrodes in their brains can 'type' using just their minds.
The study involved electrocorticography — a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull.
('We were able to consistently predict the desired letters for our patients at or near 100 percent accuracy,' explains one Mayo clinic neurologist.
) And besides typing, there's new brain wave applications that can now turn brain waves into music and even Twitter status updates — by thought alone.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30540826</id>
	<title>Free Hand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259762760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No more typing with one hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No more typing with one hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more typing with one hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30540522</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259760120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, the first time you tried to type was a lot of work, too.  There's nothing saying that there isn't a way to get good at typing like this...  Nobody has even tried yet.</p></div><p>Horseshit, this has been discussed several times on slashdot. There are multiple companies already doing research, and there are even a couple with consumer level devices that will hit shelves in the next year. All using head-cap tech, not requiring surgery, etc.</p><p>It's not that big a deal- this isn't reading your mind, thoughts, desires, etc. Essentially what it's doing is keying off the pattern of activity that your brain generates when it's firing the electrical impulse down your nerves. It's closer to reading the electrical signals from your nerves than anything.. the difference being it's picking up on it just before it sends them. So with a little feedback training the test subjects were quickly able to train themselves AND the software so they didn't need to move their muscles. They don't "just think" about moving them, although laymen might describe it as such.<br>Test subjects have been able, after working with programmers, training themselves, and the software, to be able to generate the right pattern in their brain consistently so the computer can pick up on it.</p><p>So when someone sits down for the first time with one of these, it goes something like this:-<br>1. First you have to train the software to the specific user. This is done by passively monitoring as the user types on a normal keyboard.<br>2. Once the software has been trained enough, the keyboard is then removed, and the user types on a template. This allows the user to start learning how to do it without the keyboard.<br>3. After a surprisingly short period, the user will learn to generate the proper pattern that the computer is expecting, and can stop actually moving his fingers.</p><p>Voila, typing by "thought".</p><p>The next step, which is also not tough for the humans to learn to do, is to move from individual letters to words. Same concept- the user trains himself to generate the same pattern every time he types a complete word, the computer learns this pattern, and then the user can simply generate the pattern for the word instead of the individual letters. This can, of course, be extended to the concept of any kind of "macro" concept.</p><p>Oh, and this is all being done without the use of surgical implants, did I mention that? The difficulty right now is twofold- the speed and accuracy of detection.</p><p>I'd post citations but there's this nifty thing called Google that you can use to research this, from the early studies out of Duke University with the monkeys through present.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the first time you tried to type was a lot of work , too .
There 's nothing saying that there is n't a way to get good at typing like this... Nobody has even tried yet.Horseshit , this has been discussed several times on slashdot .
There are multiple companies already doing research , and there are even a couple with consumer level devices that will hit shelves in the next year .
All using head-cap tech , not requiring surgery , etc.It 's not that big a deal- this is n't reading your mind , thoughts , desires , etc .
Essentially what it 's doing is keying off the pattern of activity that your brain generates when it 's firing the electrical impulse down your nerves .
It 's closer to reading the electrical signals from your nerves than anything.. the difference being it 's picking up on it just before it sends them .
So with a little feedback training the test subjects were quickly able to train themselves AND the software so they did n't need to move their muscles .
They do n't " just think " about moving them , although laymen might describe it as such.Test subjects have been able , after working with programmers , training themselves , and the software , to be able to generate the right pattern in their brain consistently so the computer can pick up on it.So when someone sits down for the first time with one of these , it goes something like this : -1 .
First you have to train the software to the specific user .
This is done by passively monitoring as the user types on a normal keyboard.2 .
Once the software has been trained enough , the keyboard is then removed , and the user types on a template .
This allows the user to start learning how to do it without the keyboard.3 .
After a surprisingly short period , the user will learn to generate the proper pattern that the computer is expecting , and can stop actually moving his fingers.Voila , typing by " thought " .The next step , which is also not tough for the humans to learn to do , is to move from individual letters to words .
Same concept- the user trains himself to generate the same pattern every time he types a complete word , the computer learns this pattern , and then the user can simply generate the pattern for the word instead of the individual letters .
This can , of course , be extended to the concept of any kind of " macro " concept.Oh , and this is all being done without the use of surgical implants , did I mention that ?
The difficulty right now is twofold- the speed and accuracy of detection.I 'd post citations but there 's this nifty thing called Google that you can use to research this , from the early studies out of Duke University with the monkeys through present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the first time you tried to type was a lot of work, too.
There's nothing saying that there isn't a way to get good at typing like this...  Nobody has even tried yet.Horseshit, this has been discussed several times on slashdot.
There are multiple companies already doing research, and there are even a couple with consumer level devices that will hit shelves in the next year.
All using head-cap tech, not requiring surgery, etc.It's not that big a deal- this isn't reading your mind, thoughts, desires, etc.
Essentially what it's doing is keying off the pattern of activity that your brain generates when it's firing the electrical impulse down your nerves.
It's closer to reading the electrical signals from your nerves than anything.. the difference being it's picking up on it just before it sends them.
So with a little feedback training the test subjects were quickly able to train themselves AND the software so they didn't need to move their muscles.
They don't "just think" about moving them, although laymen might describe it as such.Test subjects have been able, after working with programmers, training themselves, and the software, to be able to generate the right pattern in their brain consistently so the computer can pick up on it.So when someone sits down for the first time with one of these, it goes something like this:-1.
First you have to train the software to the specific user.
This is done by passively monitoring as the user types on a normal keyboard.2.
Once the software has been trained enough, the keyboard is then removed, and the user types on a template.
This allows the user to start learning how to do it without the keyboard.3.
After a surprisingly short period, the user will learn to generate the proper pattern that the computer is expecting, and can stop actually moving his fingers.Voila, typing by "thought".The next step, which is also not tough for the humans to learn to do, is to move from individual letters to words.
Same concept- the user trains himself to generate the same pattern every time he types a complete word, the computer learns this pattern, and then the user can simply generate the pattern for the word instead of the individual letters.
This can, of course, be extended to the concept of any kind of "macro" concept.Oh, and this is all being done without the use of surgical implants, did I mention that?
The difficulty right now is twofold- the speed and accuracy of detection.I'd post citations but there's this nifty thing called Google that you can use to research this, from the early studies out of Duke University with the monkeys through present.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30540972</id>
	<title>Praying With Your Brain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259764200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not type with your brain? why not rub one off with your brain? just announce the evil mark which may not even be an rfid chip but some type of borg-unifying chip where everyone will connect to the internet with a brain or hand implant and we'll all be connected and fackbook/myspace/twitter won't be optional anymore because you'll be branded like a useless cow for milking. just fsckin get it over with we know this is where it's leading, stop all the foreplay so we (who believe) can reject it. enough mind manipulation with avatar and other films/media messages which IMO shit on the human being and convince him another beastly body or conciousness is preferable over humanity. Call them "lizards" (David Icke), aliens, or evil spirits, I call upon all Christians to reject all of this brain washing and awaken and prepare for when this mark is introduced.</p><p>Hebrews 4:12 - the Word is more powerful when you put it into practice than any external entity.<br>Eph 5:11 + 1 John 4:4<br>Matt 18:20 - don't feel you have to bow in front of statues, kiss icons, or fret over which church is right</p><p>God is there despite the hordes of FSM and other clowns who mock. You can discover the power for yourself. Everything around us, especially the brainwashing of the mass media, is a distraction to separate us from God. The signs are all around us, no need for panic, just trust in the Word. The time is coming where, after all the good reminders of God are removed from the landscape and they've gone so far as to rush all churches off of the land and we're huddled into each other's houses reading the Bible (along with poor cigarette smokers who were convinced second hand smoke was the most terrible curse in the world while people dance in exhaust fumes of vehicles everywhere in ignorance), when the last few will probably awaken and see through the b.s. of the world.</p><p>The Word is there, seek God and you shall find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not type with your brain ?
why not rub one off with your brain ?
just announce the evil mark which may not even be an rfid chip but some type of borg-unifying chip where everyone will connect to the internet with a brain or hand implant and we 'll all be connected and fackbook/myspace/twitter wo n't be optional anymore because you 'll be branded like a useless cow for milking .
just fsckin get it over with we know this is where it 's leading , stop all the foreplay so we ( who believe ) can reject it .
enough mind manipulation with avatar and other films/media messages which IMO shit on the human being and convince him another beastly body or conciousness is preferable over humanity .
Call them " lizards " ( David Icke ) , aliens , or evil spirits , I call upon all Christians to reject all of this brain washing and awaken and prepare for when this mark is introduced.Hebrews 4 : 12 - the Word is more powerful when you put it into practice than any external entity.Eph 5 : 11 + 1 John 4 : 4Matt 18 : 20 - do n't feel you have to bow in front of statues , kiss icons , or fret over which church is rightGod is there despite the hordes of FSM and other clowns who mock .
You can discover the power for yourself .
Everything around us , especially the brainwashing of the mass media , is a distraction to separate us from God .
The signs are all around us , no need for panic , just trust in the Word .
The time is coming where , after all the good reminders of God are removed from the landscape and they 've gone so far as to rush all churches off of the land and we 're huddled into each other 's houses reading the Bible ( along with poor cigarette smokers who were convinced second hand smoke was the most terrible curse in the world while people dance in exhaust fumes of vehicles everywhere in ignorance ) , when the last few will probably awaken and see through the b.s .
of the world.The Word is there , seek God and you shall find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not type with your brain?
why not rub one off with your brain?
just announce the evil mark which may not even be an rfid chip but some type of borg-unifying chip where everyone will connect to the internet with a brain or hand implant and we'll all be connected and fackbook/myspace/twitter won't be optional anymore because you'll be branded like a useless cow for milking.
just fsckin get it over with we know this is where it's leading, stop all the foreplay so we (who believe) can reject it.
enough mind manipulation with avatar and other films/media messages which IMO shit on the human being and convince him another beastly body or conciousness is preferable over humanity.
Call them "lizards" (David Icke), aliens, or evil spirits, I call upon all Christians to reject all of this brain washing and awaken and prepare for when this mark is introduced.Hebrews 4:12 - the Word is more powerful when you put it into practice than any external entity.Eph 5:11 + 1 John 4:4Matt 18:20 - don't feel you have to bow in front of statues, kiss icons, or fret over which church is rightGod is there despite the hordes of FSM and other clowns who mock.
You can discover the power for yourself.
Everything around us, especially the brainwashing of the mass media, is a distraction to separate us from God.
The signs are all around us, no need for panic, just trust in the Word.
The time is coming where, after all the good reminders of God are removed from the landscape and they've gone so far as to rush all churches off of the land and we're huddled into each other's houses reading the Bible (along with poor cigarette smokers who were convinced second hand smoke was the most terrible curse in the world while people dance in exhaust fumes of vehicles everywhere in ignorance), when the last few will probably awaken and see through the b.s.
of the world.The Word is there, seek God and you shall find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537686</id>
	<title>Solving the wrong problem</title>
	<author>MasTRE</author>
	<datestamp>1259784300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it's an accomplishment (overlooking the obvious health concerns), this is a good example of applying technology to solving the wrong problem.  Why do we type, why do we use letters?  To communicate.  If we no longer need to type (the mechanical equivalent of writing with a pen), we might not need to use letters anymore.  To better visualize this, say you have the above system installed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. er, onto your brain (ouch!).  Why not just save the raw outputs and allow the data to be processed in other ways?  It would be one step closer to saving and communicating thoughts directly.  A legacy interface to the data would be to spit out letters/words/sentences.<br>
<br>
Making humans think about letters is a huge waste of potential, it's like trying to kill a fly with a bomb.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's an accomplishment ( overlooking the obvious health concerns ) , this is a good example of applying technology to solving the wrong problem .
Why do we type , why do we use letters ?
To communicate .
If we no longer need to type ( the mechanical equivalent of writing with a pen ) , we might not need to use letters anymore .
To better visualize this , say you have the above system installed .. er , onto your brain ( ouch ! ) .
Why not just save the raw outputs and allow the data to be processed in other ways ?
It would be one step closer to saving and communicating thoughts directly .
A legacy interface to the data would be to spit out letters/words/sentences .
Making humans think about letters is a huge waste of potential , it 's like trying to kill a fly with a bomb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's an accomplishment (overlooking the obvious health concerns), this is a good example of applying technology to solving the wrong problem.
Why do we type, why do we use letters?
To communicate.
If we no longer need to type (the mechanical equivalent of writing with a pen), we might not need to use letters anymore.
To better visualize this, say you have the above system installed .. er, onto your brain (ouch!).
Why not just save the raw outputs and allow the data to be processed in other ways?
It would be one step closer to saving and communicating thoughts directly.
A legacy interface to the data would be to spit out letters/words/sentences.
Making humans think about letters is a huge waste of potential, it's like trying to kill a fly with a bomb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30540816</id>
	<title>Needs Shortcuts</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1259762700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I type, with my fingers, very quickly and accurately. I do not think about the individual letters. My hands are trained to short cuts. There are many things that I type frequently and those I type even faster, about 300 wpm. I love the idea, but it can't be based on letters. A keyboard may look like it is based on letters but it has a very good short hand / short cut system between it and my thinking. Thinking about the individual letters would slow me down considerably.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
-Walter<br>
Sugar Mountain Farm<br>
in the mountains of Vermont<br>
Save 30\% off Pastured Pork with free processing in our <a href="http://sugarmtnfarm.com/csa" title="sugarmtnfarm.com" rel="nofollow">CSA Pre-Buy</a> [sugarmtnfarm.com] <br>
Read about our <a href="http://sugarmtnfarm.com/butchershop" title="sugarmtnfarm.com" rel="nofollow">on-farm butcher shop project</a> [sugarmtnfarm.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I type , with my fingers , very quickly and accurately .
I do not think about the individual letters .
My hands are trained to short cuts .
There are many things that I type frequently and those I type even faster , about 300 wpm .
I love the idea , but it ca n't be based on letters .
A keyboard may look like it is based on letters but it has a very good short hand / short cut system between it and my thinking .
Thinking about the individual letters would slow me down considerably .
Cheers -Walter Sugar Mountain Farm in the mountains of Vermont Save 30 \ % off Pastured Pork with free processing in our CSA Pre-Buy [ sugarmtnfarm.com ] Read about our on-farm butcher shop project [ sugarmtnfarm.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I type, with my fingers, very quickly and accurately.
I do not think about the individual letters.
My hands are trained to short cuts.
There are many things that I type frequently and those I type even faster, about 300 wpm.
I love the idea, but it can't be based on letters.
A keyboard may look like it is based on letters but it has a very good short hand / short cut system between it and my thinking.
Thinking about the individual letters would slow me down considerably.
Cheers

-Walter
Sugar Mountain Farm
in the mountains of Vermont
Save 30\% off Pastured Pork with free processing in our CSA Pre-Buy [sugarmtnfarm.com] 
Read about our on-farm butcher shop project [sugarmtnfarm.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538864</id>
	<title>An Awesome Development</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1259748300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a great development for those too disabled to be able to use a keyboard directly.
<br>
<br>
Imagine Stephen Hawking being able to <i>directly</i> write out his ideas rather than them having to go through a translator.  Imagine being able to give folks stuck in a bed because they're paralyzed from the neck down a way to interact with family, friends, the Internet at large.
<br>
<br>
 Awesome, excellent discovery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great development for those too disabled to be able to use a keyboard directly .
Imagine Stephen Hawking being able to directly write out his ideas rather than them having to go through a translator .
Imagine being able to give folks stuck in a bed because they 're paralyzed from the neck down a way to interact with family , friends , the Internet at large .
Awesome , excellent discovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great development for those too disabled to be able to use a keyboard directly.
Imagine Stephen Hawking being able to directly write out his ideas rather than them having to go through a translator.
Imagine being able to give folks stuck in a bed because they're paralyzed from the neck down a way to interact with family, friends, the Internet at large.
Awesome, excellent discovery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539300</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259751360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened when canadians say about (read: aboot)?  I wonder if thier brain thinks of the preposition/adverb about or just pictures a boot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened when canadians say about ( read : aboot ) ?
I wonder if thier brain thinks of the preposition/adverb about or just pictures a boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened when canadians say about (read: aboot)?
I wonder if thier brain thinks of the preposition/adverb about or just pictures a boot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538014</id>
	<title>Re:This is your brain typing.</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259786340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sad thing is, that post was more intelligible than most slashdot posts...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing is , that post was more intelligible than most slashdot posts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing is, that post was more intelligible than most slashdot posts...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537156</id>
	<title>Re:oh god</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1259780940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, lets face the facts. They were really just trying to avoid mentioning the internet porn industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , lets face the facts .
They were really just trying to avoid mentioning the internet porn industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, lets face the facts.
They were really just trying to avoid mentioning the internet porn industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30543526</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1261666980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hail for the cyberbrain !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hail for the cyberbrain !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hail for the cyberbrain !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537222</id>
	<title>Actually, I find the act of typing helpful.</title>
	<author>BaronHethorSamedi</author>
	<datestamp>1259781300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think between the time I think of something to type, and the time I use my fingers to put it on the screen, I'm forced to focus a little more to put my thought into a communicable form that will make sense to someone else.<br>
<br>
And really, actually having to think of each individual letter (something my brain sends to my fingers in a fairly automatic fashion) seems like more effort to me than just pushing a button and having the letter pop up on the screen.<br>
<br>
And as to making surgical incisions in my skull to lay sheets of electrodes on my brain, well...I'll stick with my keyboard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think between the time I think of something to type , and the time I use my fingers to put it on the screen , I 'm forced to focus a little more to put my thought into a communicable form that will make sense to someone else .
And really , actually having to think of each individual letter ( something my brain sends to my fingers in a fairly automatic fashion ) seems like more effort to me than just pushing a button and having the letter pop up on the screen .
And as to making surgical incisions in my skull to lay sheets of electrodes on my brain , well...I 'll stick with my keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think between the time I think of something to type, and the time I use my fingers to put it on the screen, I'm forced to focus a little more to put my thought into a communicable form that will make sense to someone else.
And really, actually having to think of each individual letter (something my brain sends to my fingers in a fairly automatic fashion) seems like more effort to me than just pushing a button and having the letter pop up on the screen.
And as to making surgical incisions in my skull to lay sheets of electrodes on my brain, well...I'll stick with my keyboard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30541166</id>
	<title>Nervous twitch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259766360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I've said before, you just need nerves, not brains. There's no need to stick electrodes into someone's head for this sort of stuff. An arm implant would be sufficient; just set up the signal lines first, and the brain can work out what nerve twitch combinations make what letters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I 've said before , you just need nerves , not brains .
There 's no need to stick electrodes into someone 's head for this sort of stuff .
An arm implant would be sufficient ; just set up the signal lines first , and the brain can work out what nerve twitch combinations make what letters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I've said before, you just need nerves, not brains.
There's no need to stick electrodes into someone's head for this sort of stuff.
An arm implant would be sufficient; just set up the signal lines first, and the brain can work out what nerve twitch combinations make what letters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537650</id>
	<title>Voice recognition software?</title>
	<author>drdrgivemethenews</author>
	<datestamp>1259784000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of folks say voice recognition software sucks, but maybe it's not so bad after all.  Imagine having to spell out every word. <br> <br>

-----<br> <br>

Theory blazes the trail, but it can't pave the road.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of folks say voice recognition software sucks , but maybe it 's not so bad after all .
Imagine having to spell out every word .
----- Theory blazes the trail , but it ca n't pave the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of folks say voice recognition software sucks, but maybe it's not so bad after all.
Imagine having to spell out every word.
----- 

Theory blazes the trail, but it can't pave the road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537122</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1259780760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The rest of our body could have a role to play in cognition.</i></p><p>It cracks me up that AI people are just getting around to noticing this.  I guess they've never ridden a bicycle, threaded a needle, or done any of the myriad other complex tasks that require intelligence in the fingers or other parts of the body:  the processing power may be in the brain, but a huge amount of the work is being done via complex multi-sensorial feedback from the whole body.</p><p>It's also a little weird that all of these "do X with JUST your brain" stories have statements like this:  "people with electrodes in their brains can 'type' using just their minds."</p><p>That's like saying, "People who are in automobiles can increase their speed by just flexing their toes."  Sure they can, so long as they have a <b>huge complex machine</b> doing the work that the rest of the body would normally do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of our body could have a role to play in cognition.It cracks me up that AI people are just getting around to noticing this .
I guess they 've never ridden a bicycle , threaded a needle , or done any of the myriad other complex tasks that require intelligence in the fingers or other parts of the body : the processing power may be in the brain , but a huge amount of the work is being done via complex multi-sensorial feedback from the whole body.It 's also a little weird that all of these " do X with JUST your brain " stories have statements like this : " people with electrodes in their brains can 'type ' using just their minds .
" That 's like saying , " People who are in automobiles can increase their speed by just flexing their toes .
" Sure they can , so long as they have a huge complex machine doing the work that the rest of the body would normally do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of our body could have a role to play in cognition.It cracks me up that AI people are just getting around to noticing this.
I guess they've never ridden a bicycle, threaded a needle, or done any of the myriad other complex tasks that require intelligence in the fingers or other parts of the body:  the processing power may be in the brain, but a huge amount of the work is being done via complex multi-sensorial feedback from the whole body.It's also a little weird that all of these "do X with JUST your brain" stories have statements like this:  "people with electrodes in their brains can 'type' using just their minds.
"That's like saying, "People who are in automobiles can increase their speed by just flexing their toes.
"  Sure they can, so long as they have a huge complex machine doing the work that the rest of the body would normally do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1259780520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, the first time you tried to type was a lot of work, too.  There's nothing saying that there isn't a way to get good at typing like this...  Nobody has even tried yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the first time you tried to type was a lot of work , too .
There 's nothing saying that there is n't a way to get good at typing like this... Nobody has even tried yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the first time you tried to type was a lot of work, too.
There's nothing saying that there isn't a way to get good at typing like this...  Nobody has even tried yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538120</id>
	<title>Think your Email</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of a ruse some years ago executed by Red Herring magazine.  They ran a story entitled, "Think Your Email," that elaborated a CIA Study commerical spinoff whereby technology (non-invasive) enabled a MMI to receive input from brain waves as keystrokes.  As noted it was a total farce article, but I and many others were initially taken in by the CIA connection.</p><p>So humor me as I challenge this piece:  Are you pulling my synapse on this one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of a ruse some years ago executed by Red Herring magazine .
They ran a story entitled , " Think Your Email , " that elaborated a CIA Study commerical spinoff whereby technology ( non-invasive ) enabled a MMI to receive input from brain waves as keystrokes .
As noted it was a total farce article , but I and many others were initially taken in by the CIA connection.So humor me as I challenge this piece : Are you pulling my synapse on this one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of a ruse some years ago executed by Red Herring magazine.
They ran a story entitled, "Think Your Email," that elaborated a CIA Study commerical spinoff whereby technology (non-invasive) enabled a MMI to receive input from brain waves as keystrokes.
As noted it was a total farce article, but I and many others were initially taken in by the CIA connection.So humor me as I challenge this piece:  Are you pulling my synapse on this one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537294</id>
	<title>Re:Regrettably...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259781780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bluetooth is a bad idea.  You'd get BlueJacked, and then you'd get a BSOD.  Not pretty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bluetooth is a bad idea .
You 'd get BlueJacked , and then you 'd get a BSOD .
Not pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bluetooth is a bad idea.
You'd get BlueJacked, and then you'd get a BSOD.
Not pretty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537316</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259782020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you think the memory from 'muscle memory' resides?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you think the memory from 'muscle memory ' resides ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you think the memory from 'muscle memory' resides?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536862</id>
	<title>For slashdotters...</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1259779440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>typing *without* your brain might be more convenient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>typing * without * your brain might be more convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>typing *without* your brain might be more convenient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538492</id>
	<title>Re:I think it would be too slow</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1259745960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're confusing thinking about letters, with actively sounding out one letter at a time in your mind.  You really think that when you're typing, you don't think about what letters you're pushing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing thinking about letters , with actively sounding out one letter at a time in your mind .
You really think that when you 're typing , you do n't think about what letters you 're pushing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing thinking about letters, with actively sounding out one letter at a time in your mind.
You really think that when you're typing, you don't think about what letters you're pushing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537488</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1259782920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, I also can type purely by using my mind. I just think what I want to type, and my fingers type it. I don't have to think about which muscles to activate in which sequence, I don't even have to think about muscles, or about nerve pulses, or anything like that. I don't even explicitly command my fingers to press keys. I use my mind, and my body just does what I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , I also can type purely by using my mind .
I just think what I want to type , and my fingers type it .
I do n't have to think about which muscles to activate in which sequence , I do n't even have to think about muscles , or about nerve pulses , or anything like that .
I do n't even explicitly command my fingers to press keys .
I use my mind , and my body just does what I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, I also can type purely by using my mind.
I just think what I want to type, and my fingers type it.
I don't have to think about which muscles to activate in which sequence, I don't even have to think about muscles, or about nerve pulses, or anything like that.
I don't even explicitly command my fingers to press keys.
I use my mind, and my body just does what I want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537780</id>
	<title>Dasher</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259784780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder why they didn't try something like <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/" title="cam.ac.uk">Dasher</a> [cam.ac.uk]. This uses simple two-axis control to choose letters as they fly by. I would think this kind of method would be better than having to train for each individual letter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why they did n't try something like Dasher [ cam.ac.uk ] .
This uses simple two-axis control to choose letters as they fly by .
I would think this kind of method would be better than having to train for each individual letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why they didn't try something like Dasher [cam.ac.uk].
This uses simple two-axis control to choose letters as they fly by.
I would think this kind of method would be better than having to train for each individual letter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537342</id>
	<title>random brainwaves?</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1259782140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they've found here is that they can map certain patterns of brainwaves to known facts when they are expecting one of a small set of patterns at a specific time. There are obvious applications for this with people who can't communicate any other way, but beyond that they fall into the same trap AI and speech recognition is already in. Picking out a letter, word, or thought from all the other noise inside a person's head has to be orders of magnitude more difficult that understanding spoken text.</p><p>Reminds me of an old joke:</p><p>Fortune Teller: No</p><p>Interviewer: Is it true that you can actually read a person's mind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 've found here is that they can map certain patterns of brainwaves to known facts when they are expecting one of a small set of patterns at a specific time .
There are obvious applications for this with people who ca n't communicate any other way , but beyond that they fall into the same trap AI and speech recognition is already in .
Picking out a letter , word , or thought from all the other noise inside a person 's head has to be orders of magnitude more difficult that understanding spoken text.Reminds me of an old joke : Fortune Teller : NoInterviewer : Is it true that you can actually read a person 's mind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they've found here is that they can map certain patterns of brainwaves to known facts when they are expecting one of a small set of patterns at a specific time.
There are obvious applications for this with people who can't communicate any other way, but beyond that they fall into the same trap AI and speech recognition is already in.
Picking out a letter, word, or thought from all the other noise inside a person's head has to be orders of magnitude more difficult that understanding spoken text.Reminds me of an old joke:Fortune Teller: NoInterviewer: Is it true that you can actually read a person's mind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538630</id>
	<title>Silly Q and A time</title>
	<author>iliketrash</author>
	<datestamp>1259746980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This article asks, 'Why bother to type a document using a keyboard when you can write it by simply thinking about the letters?'"</p><p>And then the article answers:</p><p>[It requires] "a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This article asks , 'Why bother to type a document using a keyboard when you can write it by simply thinking about the letters ?
' " And then the article answers : [ It requires ] " a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This article asks, 'Why bother to type a document using a keyboard when you can write it by simply thinking about the letters?
'"And then the article answers:[It requires] "a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537464</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>SpeedyDX</author>
	<datestamp>1259782800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True enough. I made a <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1488242&amp;threshold=1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30537122#30537318" title="slashdot.org">reply</a> [slashdot.org] to one of your sibling posts that relates to this. If this technology were to be implemented, it would also require something to provide input for your normal brain-body feedback loops in order to be functionally effective. Without those feedback loops, your cognition in typing may be severely impaired, because you're essentially taking away (actually making invisible) the interface through which you communicate with your environment.</p><p>Try, for example, to type on an imaginary keyboard with your fingers in the air. For me, and for most people who are adept at typing I would imagine, it's much more difficult to do so than to type at an actual keyboard. That's because we're taking away the tactile input for the feedback loop, and thus taking away a major part of the cognitive process for typing.</p><p>Now of course this technology isn't directly analogous to typing. You're actually thinking of letters. So try to imagine just thinking of letters instead of typing. It's a lot slower, isn't it? You have to think of the words, then you have to think about how you spell it, and then you think about the actual letters themselves. A much more effective technology would be one that can read your brainwave patterns in a way that it can read what WORDS you're thinking about. This letter-based tech is an important stepping stone towards a word-based tech. But even then, I'm somewhat sceptical of how well it would work without providing sufficient input for your brain-body feedback loops which are a big part of your cognitive capacities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough .
I made a reply [ slashdot.org ] to one of your sibling posts that relates to this .
If this technology were to be implemented , it would also require something to provide input for your normal brain-body feedback loops in order to be functionally effective .
Without those feedback loops , your cognition in typing may be severely impaired , because you 're essentially taking away ( actually making invisible ) the interface through which you communicate with your environment.Try , for example , to type on an imaginary keyboard with your fingers in the air .
For me , and for most people who are adept at typing I would imagine , it 's much more difficult to do so than to type at an actual keyboard .
That 's because we 're taking away the tactile input for the feedback loop , and thus taking away a major part of the cognitive process for typing.Now of course this technology is n't directly analogous to typing .
You 're actually thinking of letters .
So try to imagine just thinking of letters instead of typing .
It 's a lot slower , is n't it ?
You have to think of the words , then you have to think about how you spell it , and then you think about the actual letters themselves .
A much more effective technology would be one that can read your brainwave patterns in a way that it can read what WORDS you 're thinking about .
This letter-based tech is an important stepping stone towards a word-based tech .
But even then , I 'm somewhat sceptical of how well it would work without providing sufficient input for your brain-body feedback loops which are a big part of your cognitive capacities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True enough.
I made a reply [slashdot.org] to one of your sibling posts that relates to this.
If this technology were to be implemented, it would also require something to provide input for your normal brain-body feedback loops in order to be functionally effective.
Without those feedback loops, your cognition in typing may be severely impaired, because you're essentially taking away (actually making invisible) the interface through which you communicate with your environment.Try, for example, to type on an imaginary keyboard with your fingers in the air.
For me, and for most people who are adept at typing I would imagine, it's much more difficult to do so than to type at an actual keyboard.
That's because we're taking away the tactile input for the feedback loop, and thus taking away a major part of the cognitive process for typing.Now of course this technology isn't directly analogous to typing.
You're actually thinking of letters.
So try to imagine just thinking of letters instead of typing.
It's a lot slower, isn't it?
You have to think of the words, then you have to think about how you spell it, and then you think about the actual letters themselves.
A much more effective technology would be one that can read your brainwave patterns in a way that it can read what WORDS you're thinking about.
This letter-based tech is an important stepping stone towards a word-based tech.
But even then, I'm somewhat sceptical of how well it would work without providing sufficient input for your brain-body feedback loops which are a big part of your cognitive capacities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537824</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1259785080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your hands are also controlled by your brain and you don't have any trouble controlling those during work...  do you?

<p>
Ultimately this is just disintermediation - replacing nerves, muscles, and keyboard with a different type of transducer.  Arguably the computer then becomes part of your body, though there is little point debating definitions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your hands are also controlled by your brain and you do n't have any trouble controlling those during work... do you ?
Ultimately this is just disintermediation - replacing nerves , muscles , and keyboard with a different type of transducer .
Arguably the computer then becomes part of your body , though there is little point debating definitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your hands are also controlled by your brain and you don't have any trouble controlling those during work...  do you?
Ultimately this is just disintermediation - replacing nerves, muscles, and keyboard with a different type of transducer.
Arguably the computer then becomes part of your body, though there is little point debating definitions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536966</id>
	<title>"I can type to you with my brain"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.  Just doesn't have the same impact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
Just does n't have the same impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
Just doesn't have the same impact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537710</id>
	<title>'Cause I think of words, not letters</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1259784480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When writing a document, I don't think of individial letters, I think of the word, because I automatically know how to write it.  With this method, I'll be thinking of letters and I might lose track of the words, conjugation, pluralization, or even the entire sentence.  This method seems unproductive unless you can get it to recognize entire words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When writing a document , I do n't think of individial letters , I think of the word , because I automatically know how to write it .
With this method , I 'll be thinking of letters and I might lose track of the words , conjugation , pluralization , or even the entire sentence .
This method seems unproductive unless you can get it to recognize entire words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When writing a document, I don't think of individial letters, I think of the word, because I automatically know how to write it.
With this method, I'll be thinking of letters and I might lose track of the words, conjugation, pluralization, or even the entire sentence.
This method seems unproductive unless you can get it to recognize entire words.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537178</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>SirGarlon</author>
	<datestamp>1259781120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I only speak for myself here, but it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is probably true for anyone who has use of at least one functional limb.  Similarly, typing by dictation is easier for anyone who can speak.  For people who have neither the use of a limb nor speech (total paralysis for example), typing with brain waves may be an attractive interface.</p><p>Though the article's recorded rate of "up to" 8 characters per <i>minute</i> means it will be quite a while before we see the next Great American Novel come out of a neurology ward.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I only speak for myself here , but it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard.This is probably true for anyone who has use of at least one functional limb .
Similarly , typing by dictation is easier for anyone who can speak .
For people who have neither the use of a limb nor speech ( total paralysis for example ) , typing with brain waves may be an attractive interface.Though the article 's recorded rate of " up to " 8 characters per minute means it will be quite a while before we see the next Great American Novel come out of a neurology ward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only speak for myself here, but it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard.This is probably true for anyone who has use of at least one functional limb.
Similarly, typing by dictation is easier for anyone who can speak.
For people who have neither the use of a limb nor speech (total paralysis for example), typing with brain waves may be an attractive interface.Though the article's recorded rate of "up to" 8 characters per minute means it will be quite a while before we see the next Great American Novel come out of a neurology ward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536890</id>
	<title>Brilliant</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1259779560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing. Why there are no<b>(*)</b> downsides at all! This will sweep the world!
</p><p>Soon we will all use this, and the keyboard will be dead. Imagine what computers could look like without the needing keyboard. Almost like... tablets of some kind. We'll call them "portable blackboard computers".
</p><p>(*) Only known downsides:
</p><ul> <li>Slow</li><li>Needs craniotomy</li><li>Needs lame wool cap to keep shaved head warm</li><li>Slow</li><li>Only handles 36 characters</li><li>Doesn't zap you for using texting shorthand</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing .
Why there are no ( * ) downsides at all !
This will sweep the world !
Soon we will all use this , and the keyboard will be dead .
Imagine what computers could look like without the needing keyboard .
Almost like... tablets of some kind .
We 'll call them " portable blackboard computers " .
( * ) Only known downsides : SlowNeeds craniotomyNeeds lame wool cap to keep shaved head warmSlowOnly handles 36 charactersDoes n't zap you for using texting shorthand</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing.
Why there are no(*) downsides at all!
This will sweep the world!
Soon we will all use this, and the keyboard will be dead.
Imagine what computers could look like without the needing keyboard.
Almost like... tablets of some kind.
We'll call them "portable blackboard computers".
(*) Only known downsides:
 SlowNeeds craniotomyNeeds lame wool cap to keep shaved head warmSlowOnly handles 36 charactersDoesn't zap you for using texting shorthand</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30540616</id>
	<title>Just give me my cyberdeck.</title>
	<author>VTMarik</author>
	<datestamp>1259760900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take one of these and a jack behind my eye please!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take one of these and a jack behind my eye please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take one of these and a jack behind my eye please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536936</id>
	<title>Very interesting</title>
	<author>jocabergs</author>
	<datestamp>1259779800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm curious as to whether or not this will be able to help patients with locked in disorder.  Recently in the news there was an story about a man who had been "locked-in", unable to communicate with others for nearly 20 years.  The Science-Based Medicine blog did a big write up of this story (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3122) and some of the inherent problems with the way in which they made contact with the patient "facilitated communication".  If the accuracy rate is truly as good as claimed this could really be a huge help for individuals who are otherwise unable to communicate with the outside world, a considerably step up from the blink once for yes, twice for no based communication standard.  (though if you knew binary code you could be a much more effective blinker)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious as to whether or not this will be able to help patients with locked in disorder .
Recently in the news there was an story about a man who had been " locked-in " , unable to communicate with others for nearly 20 years .
The Science-Based Medicine blog did a big write up of this story ( http : //www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ ? p = 3122 ) and some of the inherent problems with the way in which they made contact with the patient " facilitated communication " .
If the accuracy rate is truly as good as claimed this could really be a huge help for individuals who are otherwise unable to communicate with the outside world , a considerably step up from the blink once for yes , twice for no based communication standard .
( though if you knew binary code you could be a much more effective blinker )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious as to whether or not this will be able to help patients with locked in disorder.
Recently in the news there was an story about a man who had been "locked-in", unable to communicate with others for nearly 20 years.
The Science-Based Medicine blog did a big write up of this story (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3122) and some of the inherent problems with the way in which they made contact with the patient "facilitated communication".
If the accuracy rate is truly as good as claimed this could really be a huge help for individuals who are otherwise unable to communicate with the outside world, a considerably step up from the blink once for yes, twice for no based communication standard.
(though if you knew binary code you could be a much more effective blinker)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539860</id>
	<title>I tried typing with my brain ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259755500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but every time I wind up with a bleeding frontal lobe.</p><p>Must be a better way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but every time I wind up with a bleeding frontal lobe.Must be a better way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but every time I wind up with a bleeding frontal lobe.Must be a better way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30541874</id>
	<title>Sign me up!</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1259776860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been wanting this for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been wanting this for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been wanting this for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538342</id>
	<title>Too slow. Touch typing is faster because...</title>
	<author>vulpinemac</author>
	<datestamp>1259745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... you don't 'think' the letters as you type, you 'think' the words. Every time you 'think' the letters, your typing speed slows down significantly, but by 'thinking' the words, you can type at 120wpm or faster. In my own case, when copying text, my typing speed is approximately 70wpm, and I am not a trained clerk/typist, but merely an amateur author trying to get his stories published. What's really interesting is that I know of clerk/typists from the time of the IBM Selectric and even older, manual typewriters who could push 140 and even higher word counts. They all told me the same thing: "Don't try to spell the words, just think the word and let your fingers spell it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... you do n't 'think ' the letters as you type , you 'think ' the words .
Every time you 'think ' the letters , your typing speed slows down significantly , but by 'thinking ' the words , you can type at 120wpm or faster .
In my own case , when copying text , my typing speed is approximately 70wpm , and I am not a trained clerk/typist , but merely an amateur author trying to get his stories published .
What 's really interesting is that I know of clerk/typists from the time of the IBM Selectric and even older , manual typewriters who could push 140 and even higher word counts .
They all told me the same thing : " Do n't try to spell the words , just think the word and let your fingers spell it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you don't 'think' the letters as you type, you 'think' the words.
Every time you 'think' the letters, your typing speed slows down significantly, but by 'thinking' the words, you can type at 120wpm or faster.
In my own case, when copying text, my typing speed is approximately 70wpm, and I am not a trained clerk/typist, but merely an amateur author trying to get his stories published.
What's really interesting is that I know of clerk/typists from the time of the IBM Selectric and even older, manual typewriters who could push 140 and even higher word counts.
They all told me the same thing: "Don't try to spell the words, just think the word and let your fingers spell it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537292</id>
	<title>Piracy Problems</title>
	<author>lostandthedamned</author>
	<datestamp>1259781780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long before U have to declare that i've had this sort of surgery before going into a bookshop?
<br>
If I can go in, take a book off the shelf, take it to the instore coffee shop and read it into my phone by bluetooth with one of these then i'm set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before U have to declare that i 've had this sort of surgery before going into a bookshop ?
If I can go in , take a book off the shelf , take it to the instore coffee shop and read it into my phone by bluetooth with one of these then i 'm set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before U have to declare that i've had this sort of surgery before going into a bookshop?
If I can go in, take a book off the shelf, take it to the instore coffee shop and read it into my phone by bluetooth with one of these then i'm set.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537196</id>
	<title>ad;giajdgadga</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259781240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a;dlgijaopuq495u290ga;lkfnhasfp09u8tq34</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ; dlgijaopuq495u290ga ; lkfnhasfp09u8tq34</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a;dlgijaopuq495u290ga;lkfnhasfp09u8tq34</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537584</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>El Nigromante</author>
	<datestamp>1259783580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old idea of controlling your computer with minimal effort is of course interesting (i.e. Homer Simpson-Compatible).</p><p>I hope it would work better than some speech recognition systems, as you sometimes become tired and bored trying to emulate the appropriate tone of a snooty BBC speaker for being correctly understood.</p><p>On the other hand, it poses the new problem of what to do with your hands, while you are in front of your computer screen, typing with your brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old idea of controlling your computer with minimal effort is of course interesting ( i.e .
Homer Simpson-Compatible ) .I hope it would work better than some speech recognition systems , as you sometimes become tired and bored trying to emulate the appropriate tone of a snooty BBC speaker for being correctly understood.On the other hand , it poses the new problem of what to do with your hands , while you are in front of your computer screen , typing with your brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old idea of controlling your computer with minimal effort is of course interesting (i.e.
Homer Simpson-Compatible).I hope it would work better than some speech recognition systems, as you sometimes become tired and bored trying to emulate the appropriate tone of a snooty BBC speaker for being correctly understood.On the other hand, it poses the new problem of what to do with your hands, while you are in front of your computer screen, typing with your brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539818</id>
	<title>Mind reading is early 1970s technology</title>
	<author>Roark Meets Dent</author>
	<datestamp>1259755200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is nothing more than the public unveiling of a technology that has existed in the classified world since at least the early 1970's.   Try the following Google search for more information:  <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=utah+prison+inmate+\%22synthetic+telepathy\%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=utah+prison+inmate+\%22synthetic+telepathy\%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing more than the public unveiling of a technology that has existed in the classified world since at least the early 1970 's .
Try the following Google search for more information : http : //www.google.com/search ? q = utah + prison + inmate + \ % 22synthetic + telepathy \ % 22&amp;ie = utf-8&amp;oe = utf-8&amp;aq = t&amp;rls = org.mozilla : en-US : official&amp;client = firefox-a [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing more than the public unveiling of a technology that has existed in the classified world since at least the early 1970's.
Try the following Google search for more information:  http://www.google.com/search?q=utah+prison+inmate+\%22synthetic+telepathy\%22&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538290</id>
	<title>Proto cyber brain....</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1259744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am thinking the first generation "cyber brain" will be a small implantable blue tooth device powered by your body heat or blood glucose that can link to your phone and behave as a "Texting Keyboard".   It will be nothing more than an array of implantable electrodes under the scalp that can pickup the brain waves and replay them to the body powered CPU chip.   The wires under the scalp will be made of a bio-compatible carbon fiber and as thick as a human hair which will be implanted with only one 1/4 inch incision into the scalp.</p><p>This will allow people to use phones that may not even have a keyboard and would make the iPhone even more popular.</p><p>It will solve the problem of having to wear a bulky brainwave helmet and dealing with the sensors moving around.</p><p>It will be an output only device, the ones with brain inputs will take a little longer due to figuring out how to interface the brain directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am thinking the first generation " cyber brain " will be a small implantable blue tooth device powered by your body heat or blood glucose that can link to your phone and behave as a " Texting Keyboard " .
It will be nothing more than an array of implantable electrodes under the scalp that can pickup the brain waves and replay them to the body powered CPU chip .
The wires under the scalp will be made of a bio-compatible carbon fiber and as thick as a human hair which will be implanted with only one 1/4 inch incision into the scalp.This will allow people to use phones that may not even have a keyboard and would make the iPhone even more popular.It will solve the problem of having to wear a bulky brainwave helmet and dealing with the sensors moving around.It will be an output only device , the ones with brain inputs will take a little longer due to figuring out how to interface the brain directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am thinking the first generation "cyber brain" will be a small implantable blue tooth device powered by your body heat or blood glucose that can link to your phone and behave as a "Texting Keyboard".
It will be nothing more than an array of implantable electrodes under the scalp that can pickup the brain waves and replay them to the body powered CPU chip.
The wires under the scalp will be made of a bio-compatible carbon fiber and as thick as a human hair which will be implanted with only one 1/4 inch incision into the scalp.This will allow people to use phones that may not even have a keyboard and would make the iPhone even more popular.It will solve the problem of having to wear a bulky brainwave helmet and dealing with the sensors moving around.It will be an output only device, the ones with brain inputs will take a little longer due to figuring out how to interface the brain directly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536988</id>
	<title>Re:This is good?</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1259780100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't read the article, but what kinds of speeds are they getting?</p><p>Reading Words per minute is supposed to go up when you stop subvocalizing the words as you read them. For the same reasons is thinking about writing going to be faster than typing?</p><p>Are your fingers the bottleneck? or is the speed you're thinking about the words the theorhetical top speed?</p><p>Certainly there are applications for people with disabilities, but once you acknowledge that, the next question is, is it better than the old way for non-disabled folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't read the article , but what kinds of speeds are they getting ? Reading Words per minute is supposed to go up when you stop subvocalizing the words as you read them .
For the same reasons is thinking about writing going to be faster than typing ? Are your fingers the bottleneck ?
or is the speed you 're thinking about the words the theorhetical top speed ? Certainly there are applications for people with disabilities , but once you acknowledge that , the next question is , is it better than the old way for non-disabled folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't read the article, but what kinds of speeds are they getting?Reading Words per minute is supposed to go up when you stop subvocalizing the words as you read them.
For the same reasons is thinking about writing going to be faster than typing?Are your fingers the bottleneck?
or is the speed you're thinking about the words the theorhetical top speed?Certainly there are applications for people with disabilities, but once you acknowledge that, the next question is, is it better than the old way for non-disabled folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537560</id>
	<title>Copy-paste</title>
	<author>buruonbrails</author>
	<datestamp>1259783340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about mindless copy-paste? That's exactly how most of the content is "typed".</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about mindless copy-paste ?
That 's exactly how most of the content is " typed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about mindless copy-paste?
That's exactly how most of the content is "typed".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537340</id>
	<title>Before Typing, Try To</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259782140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think.</p><p>Enjoy the U.S. economic collapse.</p><p>Yours In Riga,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think.Enjoy the U.S. economic collapse.Yours In Riga,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think.Enjoy the U.S. economic collapse.Yours In Riga,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536964</id>
	<title>Paralysis, we've got an app for that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, when will this happen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , when will this happen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, when will this happen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537700</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but</title>
	<author>mcbagpipes</author>
	<datestamp>1259784420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey...I suspect the level of conversation around here might improve if peoples brains were involved in the typing process<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey...I suspect the level of conversation around here might improve if peoples brains were involved in the typing process : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey...I suspect the level of conversation around here might improve if peoples brains were involved in the typing process :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537008</id>
	<title>Characters, not words...</title>
	<author>gzearfoss</author>
	<datestamp>1259780160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though it's great for people with no other means of communication, there are two main obstacles I see for everyday use: Speed, and words.<br>Speed: "I've seen people do up to eight characters per minute," Wilson says.  Nothing else needs to be said.<br>Words: When I type, I don't think about typing individual letters, so much as I think about typing the words in the sentence.  I'm no neuroscientist, but I would wager that this doesn't trigger the part of the brain that they're reading the letters from - or if it does, it triggers them too quickly to be read.</p><p>In other words, it's a great step in technology, and it's wonderful for those who need to use it, but I don't see it becoming practical for everyday use in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though it 's great for people with no other means of communication , there are two main obstacles I see for everyday use : Speed , and words.Speed : " I 've seen people do up to eight characters per minute , " Wilson says .
Nothing else needs to be said.Words : When I type , I do n't think about typing individual letters , so much as I think about typing the words in the sentence .
I 'm no neuroscientist , but I would wager that this does n't trigger the part of the brain that they 're reading the letters from - or if it does , it triggers them too quickly to be read.In other words , it 's a great step in technology , and it 's wonderful for those who need to use it , but I do n't see it becoming practical for everyday use in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though it's great for people with no other means of communication, there are two main obstacles I see for everyday use: Speed, and words.Speed: "I've seen people do up to eight characters per minute," Wilson says.
Nothing else needs to be said.Words: When I type, I don't think about typing individual letters, so much as I think about typing the words in the sentence.
I'm no neuroscientist, but I would wager that this doesn't trigger the part of the brain that they're reading the letters from - or if it does, it triggers them too quickly to be read.In other words, it's a great step in technology, and it's wonderful for those who need to use it, but I don't see it becoming practical for everyday use in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30542498</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1261645560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>M-x telepathy-mode</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>M-x telepathy-mode</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M-x telepathy-mode</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537522</id>
	<title>Teh</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1259783160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now lots of people type "teh" instead of "the" because the letters are in some kind of unfavorable sequence (at least on qwerty...on dvorak I type "cmo" instead of "com" a lot). I wonder what kind of neuro-misspellings brain-typing would cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now lots of people type " teh " instead of " the " because the letters are in some kind of unfavorable sequence ( at least on qwerty...on dvorak I type " cmo " instead of " com " a lot ) .
I wonder what kind of neuro-misspellings brain-typing would cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now lots of people type "teh" instead of "the" because the letters are in some kind of unfavorable sequence (at least on qwerty...on dvorak I type "cmo" instead of "com" a lot).
I wonder what kind of neuro-misspellings brain-typing would cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537452</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1259782680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you used your brain to type on a key board I would think they'd all get sticky.</p><p>ewww, brain goo on the keyboard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you used your brain to type on a key board I would think they 'd all get sticky.ewww , brain goo on the keyboard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you used your brain to type on a key board I would think they'd all get sticky.ewww, brain goo on the keyboard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536954</id>
	<title>ALS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume this type of technology could be VERY beneficial to those individuals that suffer from ALS, or would the condition cause some sort of interference with the brain's patterns?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume this type of technology could be VERY beneficial to those individuals that suffer from ALS , or would the condition cause some sort of interference with the brain 's patterns ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume this type of technology could be VERY beneficial to those individuals that suffer from ALS, or would the condition cause some sort of interference with the brain's patterns?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538010</id>
	<title>Reminds me of speech-to-text...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of when speech recognition (i.e. speech to text) was all the rage and was going to make keyboards obsolete.</p><p><b> <i>Until reality sinks in... </i> </b><br>Accuracy matter - 95\% accuracy is not good enough unless you didn't mind coming across as an idiot in your dictations (i.e. "the patient was prepped and draped for surgery" becomes "the patient was ripped and raped forcible").<br>An office full of workers all dictating at the same time begins to sound like your local pub on super bowl day.<br>Workman's comp claims for repetitive stress injuries are replaced by claims for laryngitis.</p><p>I'm sure, (once a workaround for the need to get a crainiotomy is found - that sort of a real show stopper in my book), this technology will find a niche role, but nothing to date has been found to replace the simple feedback loop that occurs between getting your thoughts on paper (or screen, or stone tablet for that matter) and reading them back to yourself before moving on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of when speech recognition ( i.e .
speech to text ) was all the rage and was going to make keyboards obsolete .
Until reality sinks in... Accuracy matter - 95 \ % accuracy is not good enough unless you did n't mind coming across as an idiot in your dictations ( i.e .
" the patient was prepped and draped for surgery " becomes " the patient was ripped and raped forcible " ) .An office full of workers all dictating at the same time begins to sound like your local pub on super bowl day.Workman 's comp claims for repetitive stress injuries are replaced by claims for laryngitis.I 'm sure , ( once a workaround for the need to get a crainiotomy is found - that sort of a real show stopper in my book ) , this technology will find a niche role , but nothing to date has been found to replace the simple feedback loop that occurs between getting your thoughts on paper ( or screen , or stone tablet for that matter ) and reading them back to yourself before moving on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of when speech recognition (i.e.
speech to text) was all the rage and was going to make keyboards obsolete.
Until reality sinks in...  Accuracy matter - 95\% accuracy is not good enough unless you didn't mind coming across as an idiot in your dictations (i.e.
"the patient was prepped and draped for surgery" becomes "the patient was ripped and raped forcible").An office full of workers all dictating at the same time begins to sound like your local pub on super bowl day.Workman's comp claims for repetitive stress injuries are replaced by claims for laryngitis.I'm sure, (once a workaround for the need to get a crainiotomy is found - that sort of a real show stopper in my book), this technology will find a niche role, but nothing to date has been found to replace the simple feedback loop that occurs between getting your thoughts on paper (or screen, or stone tablet for that matter) and reading them back to yourself before moving on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537512</id>
	<title>muscle memory is a lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259783100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me be the first to say that muscle memory, in the form you have implied, is pure garbage. Muscles, by themselves, are only capable of contracting and relaxing as the result of a chemical-based stimulation brought on by the nervous system; there is no built-in cognition or post-processing. The only thing muscles do besides move is grow and atrophy in response to usage patterns and nutrient availability. To think that there is anything more than that to our muscular system is laughable. What you are describing as "muscle memory" is really the result of a nervous system rewiring that takes place entirely within the brain, creating pathways that result in the nearly autonomous execution of a learned movement pattern.</p><p>Regardless, even if your description of muscle memory were true, the choice to execute a memorized movement pattern still occurs within the brain, so this technology tree still applies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me be the first to say that muscle memory , in the form you have implied , is pure garbage .
Muscles , by themselves , are only capable of contracting and relaxing as the result of a chemical-based stimulation brought on by the nervous system ; there is no built-in cognition or post-processing .
The only thing muscles do besides move is grow and atrophy in response to usage patterns and nutrient availability .
To think that there is anything more than that to our muscular system is laughable .
What you are describing as " muscle memory " is really the result of a nervous system rewiring that takes place entirely within the brain , creating pathways that result in the nearly autonomous execution of a learned movement pattern.Regardless , even if your description of muscle memory were true , the choice to execute a memorized movement pattern still occurs within the brain , so this technology tree still applies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me be the first to say that muscle memory, in the form you have implied, is pure garbage.
Muscles, by themselves, are only capable of contracting and relaxing as the result of a chemical-based stimulation brought on by the nervous system; there is no built-in cognition or post-processing.
The only thing muscles do besides move is grow and atrophy in response to usage patterns and nutrient availability.
To think that there is anything more than that to our muscular system is laughable.
What you are describing as "muscle memory" is really the result of a nervous system rewiring that takes place entirely within the brain, creating pathways that result in the nearly autonomous execution of a learned movement pattern.Regardless, even if your description of muscle memory were true, the choice to execute a memorized movement pattern still occurs within the brain, so this technology tree still applies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537498</id>
	<title>Re:Regrettably...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1259783040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Using a computer with just keys could be harsh these days.</p></div><p>It's a lot easier than you think, unless you're surfing the web with lynx/links.  The number of hidden clickables has risen greatly, and you have to tab through them all to get to the link you want to activate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using a computer with just keys could be harsh these days.It 's a lot easier than you think , unless you 're surfing the web with lynx/links .
The number of hidden clickables has risen greatly , and you have to tab through them all to get to the link you want to activate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using a computer with just keys could be harsh these days.It's a lot easier than you think, unless you're surfing the web with lynx/links.
The number of hidden clickables has risen greatly, and you have to tab through them all to get to the link you want to activate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537858</id>
	<title>The Eventual Path This Is Taking</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1259785260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And maybe, someone will figure out a whole new technology where you just open your mouth and words come out and they only have to be in the room to download what you sent to them. Maybe they could even figure out how to do that with wires and maybe some kind of thing that goes on your ears and maybe in front of your mouth. No more typing at all ever..That would be really cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And maybe , someone will figure out a whole new technology where you just open your mouth and words come out and they only have to be in the room to download what you sent to them .
Maybe they could even figure out how to do that with wires and maybe some kind of thing that goes on your ears and maybe in front of your mouth .
No more typing at all ever..That would be really cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And maybe, someone will figure out a whole new technology where you just open your mouth and words come out and they only have to be in the room to download what you sent to them.
Maybe they could even figure out how to do that with wires and maybe some kind of thing that goes on your ears and maybe in front of your mouth.
No more typing at all ever..That would be really cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536934</id>
	<title>If you thought Twitter was bad now...</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1259779740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In addition to the ability to &ldquo;mind read&rdquo; vowels, consonants, and individual letters, brain wave applications also include algorithms to turn brain waves into music and even &ldquo;tweeting&rdquo; (using the popular Twitter Internet application) by thought alone.</p></div><p>Expect to see millions of tweets saying, "I'm tweeting about what I'm thinking of tweeting next!" In succession. For a week. And then there's Music Monday, Thinking Tuesday, and Lord knows what else...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to the ability to    mind read    vowels , consonants , and individual letters , brain wave applications also include algorithms to turn brain waves into music and even    tweeting    ( using the popular Twitter Internet application ) by thought alone.Expect to see millions of tweets saying , " I 'm tweeting about what I 'm thinking of tweeting next !
" In succession .
For a week .
And then there 's Music Monday , Thinking Tuesday , and Lord knows what else.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to the ability to “mind read” vowels, consonants, and individual letters, brain wave applications also include algorithms to turn brain waves into music and even “tweeting” (using the popular Twitter Internet application) by thought alone.Expect to see millions of tweets saying, "I'm tweeting about what I'm thinking of tweeting next!
" In succession.
For a week.
And then there's Music Monday, Thinking Tuesday, and Lord knows what else...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537034</id>
	<title>This is your brain typing.</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1259780340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Th1whkjahds isaasdk yourasdfr brainalskdf typingalskjd onasd druggs3s.</p><p>Any questions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Th1whkjahds isaasdk yourasdfr brainalskdf typingalskjd onasd druggs3s.Any questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Th1whkjahds isaasdk yourasdfr brainalskdf typingalskjd onasd druggs3s.Any questions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536910</id>
	<title>Because...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't think 120WPM, but I can sure type it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think 120WPM , but I can sure type it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think 120WPM, but I can sure type it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537750</id>
	<title>Re:If you thought Twitter was bad now...</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1259784660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the (lack of) coherent thought in the trending topics will be even worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the ( lack of ) coherent thought in the trending topics will be even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the (lack of) coherent thought in the trending topics will be even worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536882</id>
	<title>I'll be out of the office a week from Tuesday...</title>
	<author>sprior</author>
	<datestamp>1259779500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got a little elective brain surgery scheduled...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got a little elective brain surgery scheduled.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got a little elective brain surgery scheduled...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538944</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1259748840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying you need 'brain-body feedback loops' to think about words is just silly. You're absolutely right that for typing the body requires certain kinds of feedback from the keyboard, but this has to do with keeping your proprioception up to date with where your fingers actually are, and is not necessary for the formation of words in your brain. You can't type in the air, because in order to know which direction to twitch your finger, you must first know where it is, and that location is easily lost when your fingers are just flopping about with no solid reference point.</p><p>So, the current system is basically: think of word -&gt; generate muscle stimulus -&gt; adapt stimulus based on current position versus memorized one -&gt; stimulate muscles -&gt; update current finger position. Feedback definitely necessary.</p><p>The mind-reading system would be: think of word -&gt; generate muscle stimulus -&gt; !!! machine detects muscle stimulus !!! -&gt; cancel stimulus 'cause you didn't want to move your fingers anyways.</p><p>In the article the process is like: see letter in box -&gt; record stimulus -&gt; think of letter in box, generating the same stimulus -&gt; !!! machine detects stimulus !!!.</p><p>No feedback is necessary, because you're not actively manipulating the world. Sure, your thoughts will enact changes on the screen, but you won't have to adapt the way you think every time the screen changes. Feedback would only be necessary if, say, the letter associated with each box changed every time you thought of it.</p><p>A pretty good analogy would be music. I doubt the best pianist in the world could play on an 'air keyboard', yet it's clearly possible to play/compose music in your head. Hell, lots of times the music gets STUCK in your head! Where's the feedback loop in that cognitive capacity?</p><p>tl;dr<br>Feedback is only necessary because of the imperfect translation between thoughts and actions: brain configuration X is the word 'puppy', but brain configuration Y is the one that makes your hand write it, and Y will never be the same; it relies on feedback. When you can directly read the thoughts the translation can be perfect from the start: brain configuration X is the word 'puppy', no changes or adjustments necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying you need 'brain-body feedback loops ' to think about words is just silly .
You 're absolutely right that for typing the body requires certain kinds of feedback from the keyboard , but this has to do with keeping your proprioception up to date with where your fingers actually are , and is not necessary for the formation of words in your brain .
You ca n't type in the air , because in order to know which direction to twitch your finger , you must first know where it is , and that location is easily lost when your fingers are just flopping about with no solid reference point.So , the current system is basically : think of word - &gt; generate muscle stimulus - &gt; adapt stimulus based on current position versus memorized one - &gt; stimulate muscles - &gt; update current finger position .
Feedback definitely necessary.The mind-reading system would be : think of word - &gt; generate muscle stimulus - &gt; ! ! !
machine detects muscle stimulus ! ! !
- &gt; cancel stimulus 'cause you did n't want to move your fingers anyways.In the article the process is like : see letter in box - &gt; record stimulus - &gt; think of letter in box , generating the same stimulus - &gt; ! ! !
machine detects stimulus ! !
! .No feedback is necessary , because you 're not actively manipulating the world .
Sure , your thoughts will enact changes on the screen , but you wo n't have to adapt the way you think every time the screen changes .
Feedback would only be necessary if , say , the letter associated with each box changed every time you thought of it.A pretty good analogy would be music .
I doubt the best pianist in the world could play on an 'air keyboard ' , yet it 's clearly possible to play/compose music in your head .
Hell , lots of times the music gets STUCK in your head !
Where 's the feedback loop in that cognitive capacity ? tl ; drFeedback is only necessary because of the imperfect translation between thoughts and actions : brain configuration X is the word 'puppy ' , but brain configuration Y is the one that makes your hand write it , and Y will never be the same ; it relies on feedback .
When you can directly read the thoughts the translation can be perfect from the start : brain configuration X is the word 'puppy ' , no changes or adjustments necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying you need 'brain-body feedback loops' to think about words is just silly.
You're absolutely right that for typing the body requires certain kinds of feedback from the keyboard, but this has to do with keeping your proprioception up to date with where your fingers actually are, and is not necessary for the formation of words in your brain.
You can't type in the air, because in order to know which direction to twitch your finger, you must first know where it is, and that location is easily lost when your fingers are just flopping about with no solid reference point.So, the current system is basically: think of word -&gt; generate muscle stimulus -&gt; adapt stimulus based on current position versus memorized one -&gt; stimulate muscles -&gt; update current finger position.
Feedback definitely necessary.The mind-reading system would be: think of word -&gt; generate muscle stimulus -&gt; !!!
machine detects muscle stimulus !!!
-&gt; cancel stimulus 'cause you didn't want to move your fingers anyways.In the article the process is like: see letter in box -&gt; record stimulus -&gt; think of letter in box, generating the same stimulus -&gt; !!!
machine detects stimulus !!
!.No feedback is necessary, because you're not actively manipulating the world.
Sure, your thoughts will enact changes on the screen, but you won't have to adapt the way you think every time the screen changes.
Feedback would only be necessary if, say, the letter associated with each box changed every time you thought of it.A pretty good analogy would be music.
I doubt the best pianist in the world could play on an 'air keyboard', yet it's clearly possible to play/compose music in your head.
Hell, lots of times the music gets STUCK in your head!
Where's the feedback loop in that cognitive capacity?tl;drFeedback is only necessary because of the imperfect translation between thoughts and actions: brain configuration X is the word 'puppy', but brain configuration Y is the one that makes your hand write it, and Y will never be the same; it relies on feedback.
When you can directly read the thoughts the translation can be perfect from the start: brain configuration X is the word 'puppy', no changes or adjustments necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537718</id>
	<title>Neural electrodes still don't work well</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1259784480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an old desire. The amount of electrical noise in a nervous system is very large, compared to the relevant signals. The result is that no matter what you do with all the processing, you have to monitor for roughly 500 msec to detect a real signal. So unless you type less than two characters/second, and don't care about having to do lots of corrections, it's not worth the effort and expense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an old desire .
The amount of electrical noise in a nervous system is very large , compared to the relevant signals .
The result is that no matter what you do with all the processing , you have to monitor for roughly 500 msec to detect a real signal .
So unless you type less than two characters/second , and do n't care about having to do lots of corrections , it 's not worth the effort and expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an old desire.
The amount of electrical noise in a nervous system is very large, compared to the relevant signals.
The result is that no matter what you do with all the processing, you have to monitor for roughly 500 msec to detect a real signal.
So unless you type less than two characters/second, and don't care about having to do lots of corrections, it's not worth the effort and expense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537582</id>
	<title>useless and slow...?</title>
	<author>kj\_kabaje</author>
	<datestamp>1259783580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I have to think about the letters one at a time, I'll be able to type faster than this will work still.  Be true to myself, I didn't bother to RTA or the summary either much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I have to think about the letters one at a time , I 'll be able to type faster than this will work still .
Be true to myself , I did n't bother to RTA or the summary either much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I have to think about the letters one at a time, I'll be able to type faster than this will work still.
Be true to myself, I didn't bother to RTA or the summary either much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537754</id>
	<title>Re:This is good?</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1259784660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of what it could do for the quality of youtube comments.... no wait.... does it come with audio feedback?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of what it could do for the quality of youtube comments.... no wait.... does it come with audio feedback ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of what it could do for the quality of youtube comments.... no wait.... does it come with audio feedback?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537680</id>
	<title>Think, man, Think!</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1259784300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"I don't really think about what letters I'm pressing when I type<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't think the word "think" means what you think it means<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><blockquote><div><p>"Further, it's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain."</p></div></blockquote><p>It doesn't matter where the cognitive process happens.  You are essentially saying that keyboards might not work to cause characters to appear on the display, since the CPU doesn't exist in the keyboard.  They are talking about tapping into and extending I/O, not processing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't really think about what letters I 'm pressing when I type ... " I do n't think the word " think " means what you think it means ; - ) " Further , it 's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain .
" It does n't matter where the cognitive process happens .
You are essentially saying that keyboards might not work to cause characters to appear on the display , since the CPU does n't exist in the keyboard .
They are talking about tapping into and extending I/O , not processing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't really think about what letters I'm pressing when I type ..."I don't think the word "think" means what you think it means ;-)"Further, it's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain.
"It doesn't matter where the cognitive process happens.
You are essentially saying that keyboards might not work to cause characters to appear on the display, since the CPU doesn't exist in the keyboard.
They are talking about tapping into and extending I/O, not processing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537424</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Frigo</author>
	<datestamp>1259782560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8u99sss9 gh56  bv8ur 5t bv29 rtjk wa gtfghujzhhjnmuuuuuuu</p><p>I don't think it works.<br>I might be doing it wrong though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8u99sss9 gh56 bv8ur 5t bv29 rtjk wa gtfghujzhhjnmuuuuuuuI do n't think it works.I might be doing it wrong though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8u99sss9 gh56  bv8ur 5t bv29 rtjk wa gtfghujzhhjnmuuuuuuuI don't think it works.I might be doing it wrong though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539628</id>
	<title>Love the icon!</title>
	<author>msevior</author>
	<datestamp>1259753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hadn't noticed the slashdot icon associated with this story before. It's very cool<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had n't noticed the slashdot icon associated with this story before .
It 's very cool : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hadn't noticed the slashdot icon associated with this story before.
It's very cool :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539218</id>
	<title>So, I have to think EACH letter?</title>
	<author>dbuttric</author>
	<datestamp>1259750700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well,</p><p>This strikes me as time consuming to have to think the letters to type a word. I want to be able to think the word and have it appear. When do we get a semantic, bi-directional neural interface?</p><p>Think about this: When a person starts to think about a document I bet there is a planning part of my brain that is forming an outline of the document, before I even start to come up with the actual content in it. I'd LOVE to tap into that planning, and be able to lay out an outline, just by thinking about it, and then be able to fill that outline with content through thought alone.</p><p>Imagine applying this to code generation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well,This strikes me as time consuming to have to think the letters to type a word .
I want to be able to think the word and have it appear .
When do we get a semantic , bi-directional neural interface ? Think about this : When a person starts to think about a document I bet there is a planning part of my brain that is forming an outline of the document , before I even start to come up with the actual content in it .
I 'd LOVE to tap into that planning , and be able to lay out an outline , just by thinking about it , and then be able to fill that outline with content through thought alone.Imagine applying this to code generation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well,This strikes me as time consuming to have to think the letters to type a word.
I want to be able to think the word and have it appear.
When do we get a semantic, bi-directional neural interface?Think about this: When a person starts to think about a document I bet there is a planning part of my brain that is forming an outline of the document, before I even start to come up with the actual content in it.
I'd LOVE to tap into that planning, and be able to lay out an outline, just by thinking about it, and then be able to fill that outline with content through thought alone.Imagine applying this to code generation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536962</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but</title>
	<author>Wrexs0ul</author>
	<datestamp>1259779920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always figured the final system would require a series of specific thoughts before entering "read" mode, kinda like a login/logoff to the keyboard once your hands no longer serve that purpose.</p><p>Not so concerned right now though. Reading letters only means only the dirty thoughts you literally spell out will be displayed. All those "wish I was playing WOW" (or other 15 second occurrences) won't make it into the email to your boss since our brain uses a mesh of stimuli and and language to convey thoughts. A wicked first step though even if it's only letters.</p><p>I always pictured reading thoughts was comparing the output of a black box with a dataset of known values. But if many unknowns mean chicken, what happens if they got chicken wrong?</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always figured the final system would require a series of specific thoughts before entering " read " mode , kinda like a login/logoff to the keyboard once your hands no longer serve that purpose.Not so concerned right now though .
Reading letters only means only the dirty thoughts you literally spell out will be displayed .
All those " wish I was playing WOW " ( or other 15 second occurrences ) wo n't make it into the email to your boss since our brain uses a mesh of stimuli and and language to convey thoughts .
A wicked first step though even if it 's only letters.I always pictured reading thoughts was comparing the output of a black box with a dataset of known values .
But if many unknowns mean chicken , what happens if they got chicken wrong ? -Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always figured the final system would require a series of specific thoughts before entering "read" mode, kinda like a login/logoff to the keyboard once your hands no longer serve that purpose.Not so concerned right now though.
Reading letters only means only the dirty thoughts you literally spell out will be displayed.
All those "wish I was playing WOW" (or other 15 second occurrences) won't make it into the email to your boss since our brain uses a mesh of stimuli and and language to convey thoughts.
A wicked first step though even if it's only letters.I always pictured reading thoughts was comparing the output of a black box with a dataset of known values.
But if many unknowns mean chicken, what happens if they got chicken wrong?-Matt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537520</id>
	<title>Re:Very interesting</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1259783160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this story very perplexing.  The Science-Based Medicine article claims that they were getting yes-no answers from him using a toe he could control, but other sources don't seem to mention that part.</p><p>If it's true, it should be easy enough to ask, "So, is this facilitated communication actually any good, or just a load of hooey?" and get a direct, unfacilitated answer.  If he gives an unambiguous yes, then FC is validated and you get the rest out that way.</p><p>From what I've heard the FC seems extremely dubious, in this case as in all of the others.  The inconsistencies in the story contribute to my wariness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this story very perplexing .
The Science-Based Medicine article claims that they were getting yes-no answers from him using a toe he could control , but other sources do n't seem to mention that part.If it 's true , it should be easy enough to ask , " So , is this facilitated communication actually any good , or just a load of hooey ?
" and get a direct , unfacilitated answer .
If he gives an unambiguous yes , then FC is validated and you get the rest out that way.From what I 've heard the FC seems extremely dubious , in this case as in all of the others .
The inconsistencies in the story contribute to my wariness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this story very perplexing.
The Science-Based Medicine article claims that they were getting yes-no answers from him using a toe he could control, but other sources don't seem to mention that part.If it's true, it should be easy enough to ask, "So, is this facilitated communication actually any good, or just a load of hooey?
" and get a direct, unfacilitated answer.
If he gives an unambiguous yes, then FC is validated and you get the rest out that way.From what I've heard the FC seems extremely dubious, in this case as in all of the others.
The inconsistencies in the story contribute to my wariness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</id>
	<title>Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>SpeedyDX</author>
	<datestamp>1259779800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only speak for myself here, but it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard. I don't really think about what letters I'm pressing when I type, I just think of the words and the vast majority of the time, it's just muscle memory doing its thing. Perhaps for novel words or words that I don't quite remember how to spell, I'll think of the letters individually. Sounds like more trouble than it's worth.</p><p>Further, it's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain. The rest of our body could have a role to play in cognition. It could be the case that when we're typing, a big part of our typing cognitive process actually depends on our body executing typing actions. For more info, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied\_Embedded\_Cognition" title="wikipedia.org">Embodied Embedded Cognition</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism\_(psychology)" title="wikipedia.org">Enactivism</a> [wikipedia.org], and other related philosophy of mind or AI theories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only speak for myself here , but it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard .
I do n't really think about what letters I 'm pressing when I type , I just think of the words and the vast majority of the time , it 's just muscle memory doing its thing .
Perhaps for novel words or words that I do n't quite remember how to spell , I 'll think of the letters individually .
Sounds like more trouble than it 's worth.Further , it 's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain .
The rest of our body could have a role to play in cognition .
It could be the case that when we 're typing , a big part of our typing cognitive process actually depends on our body executing typing actions .
For more info , see Embodied Embedded Cognition [ wikipedia.org ] , Enactivism [ wikipedia.org ] , and other related philosophy of mind or AI theories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only speak for myself here, but it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard.
I don't really think about what letters I'm pressing when I type, I just think of the words and the vast majority of the time, it's just muscle memory doing its thing.
Perhaps for novel words or words that I don't quite remember how to spell, I'll think of the letters individually.
Sounds like more trouble than it's worth.Further, it's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain.
The rest of our body could have a role to play in cognition.
It could be the case that when we're typing, a big part of our typing cognitive process actually depends on our body executing typing actions.
For more info, see Embodied Embedded Cognition [wikipedia.org], Enactivism [wikipedia.org], and other related philosophy of mind or AI theories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539140</id>
	<title>Re:oh god</title>
	<author>Benzido</author>
	<datestamp>1259750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who bitch about how stupid twitter is Do Not Get Twitter. Twitter is not for broadcasting the fact that you're on the toilet. It's for disseminating news (and yes, this includes advertising and PR) more quickly than any other medium, ever. Twitter is quickly obsoleting one particular hook of 24-hour cable news networks: the ability to be the first to report a major event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who bitch about how stupid twitter is Do Not Get Twitter .
Twitter is not for broadcasting the fact that you 're on the toilet .
It 's for disseminating news ( and yes , this includes advertising and PR ) more quickly than any other medium , ever .
Twitter is quickly obsoleting one particular hook of 24-hour cable news networks : the ability to be the first to report a major event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who bitch about how stupid twitter is Do Not Get Twitter.
Twitter is not for broadcasting the fact that you're on the toilet.
It's for disseminating news (and yes, this includes advertising and PR) more quickly than any other medium, ever.
Twitter is quickly obsoleting one particular hook of 24-hour cable news networks: the ability to be the first to report a major event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537428</id>
	<title>Workplace Awkwardness</title>
	<author>palmerj3</author>
	<datestamp>1259782560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Customer service emails will be so much more honest now.
<br>
"Yes, you raging fucktard, it needs to be plugged in first!  Shit fuckin piss how do I delete this shit?!  Control, Alt, Delete... FUCK!  I don't even care."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Customer service emails will be so much more honest now .
" Yes , you raging fucktard , it needs to be plugged in first !
Shit fuckin piss how do I delete this shit ? !
Control , Alt , Delete... FUCK ! I do n't even care .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Customer service emails will be so much more honest now.
"Yes, you raging fucktard, it needs to be plugged in first!
Shit fuckin piss how do I delete this shit?!
Control, Alt, Delete... FUCK!  I don't even care.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536878</id>
	<title>oh god</title>
	<author>darkitecture</author>
	<datestamp>1259779500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes, because what we need is more twitter.<br>
<br>
whenever i hear about groundbreaking advancements in the neurosciences, i for one automatically think about how it can improve my twitter feed.<br>
<br>
sigh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , because what we need is more twitter .
whenever i hear about groundbreaking advancements in the neurosciences , i for one automatically think about how it can improve my twitter feed .
sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, because what we need is more twitter.
whenever i hear about groundbreaking advancements in the neurosciences, i for one automatically think about how it can improve my twitter feed.
sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536854</id>
	<title>Wetware</title>
	<author>cbs4385</author>
	<datestamp>1259779380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I suppose as long as it's a wire, I'm OK with it.  I draw the line at wireless access though.  I don't want anyone to be able to war-drive my frontal cortex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I suppose as long as it 's a wire , I 'm OK with it .
I draw the line at wireless access though .
I do n't want anyone to be able to war-drive my frontal cortex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I suppose as long as it's a wire, I'm OK with it.
I draw the line at wireless access though.
I don't want anyone to be able to war-drive my frontal cortex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537062</id>
	<title>Still pretty slow</title>
	<author>musicalmicah</author>
	<datestamp>1259780460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The videos I've seen of this make it look very tedious. The patients seemed to be brain-typing around 1 character every few seconds. I'll be excited when I can use my brain to output to a computer at over 100 wpm... and without invasive surgery, for that matter!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The videos I 've seen of this make it look very tedious .
The patients seemed to be brain-typing around 1 character every few seconds .
I 'll be excited when I can use my brain to output to a computer at over 100 wpm... and without invasive surgery , for that matter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The videos I've seen of this make it look very tedious.
The patients seemed to be brain-typing around 1 character every few seconds.
I'll be excited when I can use my brain to output to a computer at over 100 wpm... and without invasive surgery, for that matter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539138</id>
	<title>Still years until we jack-in to computers</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1259750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>8 characters per second, and thats once the user are trained and
adjusted to the equipment. It this point it might just be useful
for the totally disabled, e.g. Stephen Hawking, but for everybody
else these no point. Having demostrated that its possible to
interact with a computer via brainwaves, i wonder how much
more it will take to produce a userable high speed connection,
perphaps it can only be down with new-borns or the very young
if the brain need to grow into the interface.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Human\%20Computer\%20Interfaces/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Human Computer Interfaces</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8 characters per second , and thats once the user are trained and adjusted to the equipment .
It this point it might just be useful for the totally disabled , e.g .
Stephen Hawking , but for everybody else these no point .
Having demostrated that its possible to interact with a computer via brainwaves , i wonder how much more it will take to produce a userable high speed connection , perphaps it can only be down with new-borns or the very young if the brain need to grow into the interface .
--- Human Computer Interfaces [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8 characters per second, and thats once the user are trained and
adjusted to the equipment.
It this point it might just be useful
for the totally disabled, e.g.
Stephen Hawking, but for everybody
else these no point.
Having demostrated that its possible to
interact with a computer via brainwaves, i wonder how much
more it will take to produce a userable high speed connection,
perphaps it can only be down with new-borns or the very young
if the brain need to grow into the interface.
---

Human Computer Interfaces [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537262</id>
	<title>Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer...</title>
	<author>kvap</author>
	<datestamp>1259781540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can brainwaves have accents or slurring?<br> <br>

I'd be a bit skeptical considering how speech recognition has worked out: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472#" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472#</a> [google.com] <br> <br>

I'm just saying...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can brainwaves have accents or slurring ?
I 'd be a bit skeptical considering how speech recognition has worked out : http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = -1123221217782777472 # [ google.com ] I 'm just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can brainwaves have accents or slurring?
I'd be a bit skeptical considering how speech recognition has worked out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472# [google.com]  

I'm just saying...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537986</id>
	<title>Re:If you thought Twitter was bad now...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259786160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Lord knows what else...</i> Twitter Shitter Saturday...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lord knows what else... Twitter Shitter Saturday.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lord knows what else... Twitter Shitter Saturday...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538298</id>
	<title>Re:Because...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259744760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You misspelled "typo".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You misspelled " typo " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You misspelled "typo".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30541356</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259769240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the question is whether this device detects what letter the people are thinking of, or merely some arbitrary neural firings. If it's the latter, then you can probably make it into a habit. Buf it you have to think of each letter, how can you ever speed that up? You wouldn't ever be able to do anything shorthand, because this device would be wired up to the wrong thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the question is whether this device detects what letter the people are thinking of , or merely some arbitrary neural firings .
If it 's the latter , then you can probably make it into a habit .
Buf it you have to think of each letter , how can you ever speed that up ?
You would n't ever be able to do anything shorthand , because this device would be wired up to the wrong thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the question is whether this device detects what letter the people are thinking of, or merely some arbitrary neural firings.
If it's the latter, then you can probably make it into a habit.
Buf it you have to think of each letter, how can you ever speed that up?
You wouldn't ever be able to do anything shorthand, because this device would be wired up to the wrong thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537636</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>commodore73</author>
	<datestamp>1259783940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; On the other hand<br> <br>

I think you mean "from the other lobe"</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; On the other hand I think you mean " from the other lobe "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; On the other hand 

I think you mean "from the other lobe"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844</id>
	<title>Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I can think of a whole lot of ways where broadcasting what I'm thinking could be highly, ah, embarrassing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm stating the obvious , but I can think of a whole lot of ways where broadcasting what I 'm thinking could be highly , ah , embarrassing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I can think of a whole lot of ways where broadcasting what I'm thinking could be highly, ah, embarrassing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537252</id>
	<title>Re:This is good?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1259781540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My iPhone is a good device for output (I can read nearly all the webpages I want) but is awful to input, taking up much more time to, say, making a post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. than it would with a desktop or laptop.  I don't think a miniature keyboard will fix this issue.  Making the phone bigger is not an option, nor is carry around a fullsize keyboard (even those roll up flexible ones).</p><p>So this will be good for that.  Though I suspect a front-side facing camera that can track your eyemovements down to the key on screen keyboard it's staring at and counting an extended blink as a type might be closer to reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My iPhone is a good device for output ( I can read nearly all the webpages I want ) but is awful to input , taking up much more time to , say , making a post on / .
than it would with a desktop or laptop .
I do n't think a miniature keyboard will fix this issue .
Making the phone bigger is not an option , nor is carry around a fullsize keyboard ( even those roll up flexible ones ) .So this will be good for that .
Though I suspect a front-side facing camera that can track your eyemovements down to the key on screen keyboard it 's staring at and counting an extended blink as a type might be closer to reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My iPhone is a good device for output (I can read nearly all the webpages I want) but is awful to input, taking up much more time to, say, making a post on /.
than it would with a desktop or laptop.
I don't think a miniature keyboard will fix this issue.
Making the phone bigger is not an option, nor is carry around a fullsize keyboard (even those roll up flexible ones).So this will be good for that.
Though I suspect a front-side facing camera that can track your eyemovements down to the key on screen keyboard it's staring at and counting an extended blink as a type might be closer to reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537708</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259784420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing you have to think pretty hard to get it to type; I doubt if you're thinking about <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1488242&amp;cid=30536874" title="slashdot.org">boobies</a> [slashdot.org] nobody's going to know.</p><p>BUT... I don't think I want anybody sticking wires in my brain.</p><blockquote><div><p>The study involved electrocorticography -- a sheet of <b>electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, I let the docs stick needles in my eye, but that was to prevent going blind. The only way I'm letting them open up my head is if it will prevent death, blindness, brain damage, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing you have to think pretty hard to get it to type ; I doubt if you 're thinking about boobies [ slashdot.org ] nobody 's going to know.BUT... I do n't think I want anybody sticking wires in my brain.The study involved electrocorticography -- a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull.Yeah , I let the docs stick needles in my eye , but that was to prevent going blind .
The only way I 'm letting them open up my head is if it will prevent death , blindness , brain damage , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing you have to think pretty hard to get it to type; I doubt if you're thinking about boobies [slashdot.org] nobody's going to know.BUT... I don't think I want anybody sticking wires in my brain.The study involved electrocorticography -- a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull.Yeah, I let the docs stick needles in my eye, but that was to prevent going blind.
The only way I'm letting them open up my head is if it will prevent death, blindness, brain damage, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538018</id>
	<title>'company for your thoughts'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look for mainstream interviews with Woz circa 1978-82. They ask him what people will do with computers and he gets tongue-tied. This is true of all the pioneers, but Woz is the most charming. These guys<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/know/ personal computers are going to be really big, but they completely fail to come up with concrete examples that make any sense in contemporary terms.</p><p>The internet hit the same thing around 1995. We'd always get that really lame example of hitching your refrigerator to the net.</p><p>So yes, you're exactly right. It's dumbass to say we're going to type this way. This is the frige all over again. Obviously, efficient thought-typing is going to take as much careful training as finger-typing. Obviously if we're that busy, we might as well just use our hands in most situations, rather than leave them folded in our laps.</p><p>Typing with your brain is a foolish example. This tech is going to be foundational to exceptionally useful and likely pervasive things that we cannot see yet, but this terrible example is the best we can come up with right now to make headlines.</p><p>There's a kind of <i>Law of Prometheus</i> here. Prometheus can never enumerate all the really cool things we're going to do with the breakthrough in any way that's going to make sense to the immediate recipients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look for mainstream interviews with Woz circa 1978-82 .
They ask him what people will do with computers and he gets tongue-tied .
This is true of all the pioneers , but Woz is the most charming .
These guys /know/ personal computers are going to be really big , but they completely fail to come up with concrete examples that make any sense in contemporary terms.The internet hit the same thing around 1995 .
We 'd always get that really lame example of hitching your refrigerator to the net.So yes , you 're exactly right .
It 's dumbass to say we 're going to type this way .
This is the frige all over again .
Obviously , efficient thought-typing is going to take as much careful training as finger-typing .
Obviously if we 're that busy , we might as well just use our hands in most situations , rather than leave them folded in our laps.Typing with your brain is a foolish example .
This tech is going to be foundational to exceptionally useful and likely pervasive things that we can not see yet , but this terrible example is the best we can come up with right now to make headlines.There 's a kind of Law of Prometheus here .
Prometheus can never enumerate all the really cool things we 're going to do with the breakthrough in any way that 's going to make sense to the immediate recipients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look for mainstream interviews with Woz circa 1978-82.
They ask him what people will do with computers and he gets tongue-tied.
This is true of all the pioneers, but Woz is the most charming.
These guys /know/ personal computers are going to be really big, but they completely fail to come up with concrete examples that make any sense in contemporary terms.The internet hit the same thing around 1995.
We'd always get that really lame example of hitching your refrigerator to the net.So yes, you're exactly right.
It's dumbass to say we're going to type this way.
This is the frige all over again.
Obviously, efficient thought-typing is going to take as much careful training as finger-typing.
Obviously if we're that busy, we might as well just use our hands in most situations, rather than leave them folded in our laps.Typing with your brain is a foolish example.
This tech is going to be foundational to exceptionally useful and likely pervasive things that we cannot see yet, but this terrible example is the best we can come up with right now to make headlines.There's a kind of Law of Prometheus here.
Prometheus can never enumerate all the really cool things we're going to do with the breakthrough in any way that's going to make sense to the immediate recipients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537422</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1259782560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I s n apostrophe t space t h a t space h o w space e v e r y o n e space t h i n k s questionmark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I s n apostrophe t space t h a t space h o w space e v e r y o n e space t h i n k s questionmark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I s n apostrophe t space t h a t space h o w space e v e r y o n e space t h i n k s questionmark</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537436</id>
	<title>Sign me up.</title>
	<author>Sebilrazen</author>
	<datestamp>1259782620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pair some machine learning up with this to figure out what fires when I'm typing something, perhaps <em>The quick red fox jumped over the lazy brown dog?</em> or the dictionary.  </p><p>And, hell, have me look at and read a visual dictionary or encyclopaedia, similar to Leeloo in <em>The Fifth Element,</em> that way when I think of an image or concept it's typed.  Anything that I can't specifically correlate to something I've seen I'd need to think about how to spell it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pair some machine learning up with this to figure out what fires when I 'm typing something , perhaps The quick red fox jumped over the lazy brown dog ?
or the dictionary .
And , hell , have me look at and read a visual dictionary or encyclopaedia , similar to Leeloo in The Fifth Element , that way when I think of an image or concept it 's typed .
Anything that I ca n't specifically correlate to something I 've seen I 'd need to think about how to spell it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pair some machine learning up with this to figure out what fires when I'm typing something, perhaps The quick red fox jumped over the lazy brown dog?
or the dictionary.
And, hell, have me look at and read a visual dictionary or encyclopaedia, similar to Leeloo in The Fifth Element, that way when I think of an image or concept it's typed.
Anything that I can't specifically correlate to something I've seen I'd need to think about how to spell it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536904</id>
	<title>It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains. The stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</p><p>And Electrodes in the brain.</p><p>Right...</p><p>It is by will and electrodes in my brain I set my mind in motion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is by will alone I set my mind in motion .
It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed , the lips acquire stains .
The stains become a warning .
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.And Electrodes in the brain.Right...It is by will and electrodes in my brain I set my mind in motion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains.
The stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.And Electrodes in the brain.Right...It is by will and electrodes in my brain I set my mind in motion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537226</id>
	<title>Useful for for some...</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1259781300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A related <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news180620740.html" title="physorg.com">breakthrough</a> [physorg.com]</p><p>FTFA</p><p>"By implanting an electrode into the brain of a person with locked-in syndrome, scientists have demonstrated how to wirelessly transmit neural signals to a speech synthesizer. The "thought-to-speech" process takes about 50 milliseconds - the same amount of time for a non-paralyzed, neurologically intact person to speak their thoughts. The study marks the first successful demonstration of a permanently installed, wireless implant for real-time control of an external device."</p><p>It's just a few vowels at the moment, but still...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A related breakthrough [ physorg.com ] FTFA " By implanting an electrode into the brain of a person with locked-in syndrome , scientists have demonstrated how to wirelessly transmit neural signals to a speech synthesizer .
The " thought-to-speech " process takes about 50 milliseconds - the same amount of time for a non-paralyzed , neurologically intact person to speak their thoughts .
The study marks the first successful demonstration of a permanently installed , wireless implant for real-time control of an external device .
" It 's just a few vowels at the moment , but still.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A related breakthrough [physorg.com]FTFA"By implanting an electrode into the brain of a person with locked-in syndrome, scientists have demonstrated how to wirelessly transmit neural signals to a speech synthesizer.
The "thought-to-speech" process takes about 50 milliseconds - the same amount of time for a non-paralyzed, neurologically intact person to speak their thoughts.
The study marks the first successful demonstration of a permanently installed, wireless implant for real-time control of an external device.
"It's just a few vowels at the moment, but still...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536974</id>
	<title>Remember the movie "What Women Want"?</title>
	<author>judolphin</author>
	<datestamp>1259779980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We'll be about 3 steps away from that if this comes through. I don't know about you, but personally, I'm wary of a computer being able to read my thoughts... Though it would be amazing for disabled people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll be about 3 steps away from that if this comes through .
I do n't know about you , but personally , I 'm wary of a computer being able to read my thoughts... Though it would be amazing for disabled people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll be about 3 steps away from that if this comes through.
I don't know about you, but personally, I'm wary of a computer being able to read my thoughts... Though it would be amazing for disabled people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537112</id>
	<title>Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259780640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there such a thing as a sticky key when you are thinking about it?<br>Youuuuuuuuu do know what I am talking abouuuuuuuuuuut, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there such a thing as a sticky key when you are thinking about it ? Youuuuuuuuu do know what I am talking abouuuuuuuuuuut , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there such a thing as a sticky key when you are thinking about it?Youuuuuuuuu do know what I am talking abouuuuuuuuuuut, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536876</id>
	<title>Regrettably...</title>
	<author>InfinityWpi</author>
	<datestamp>1259779500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... it turns out that they used an old AT-style connector, so you're only able to use your thoughts to type on a 386DX2/40 at best. Wuich is okay, I guess, still runs Linux.</p><p>Seriously, tho, combine this with Bluetooth, and we've got ourselves a winner. Connect to your PC, cell phone, PS3, whatever. I'll go in for the surgery as soon as it's availa... wait. Can I also move a mouse with my thoughts? Using a computer with just keys could be harsh these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... it turns out that they used an old AT-style connector , so you 're only able to use your thoughts to type on a 386DX2/40 at best .
Wuich is okay , I guess , still runs Linux.Seriously , tho , combine this with Bluetooth , and we 've got ourselves a winner .
Connect to your PC , cell phone , PS3 , whatever .
I 'll go in for the surgery as soon as it 's availa... wait. Can I also move a mouse with my thoughts ?
Using a computer with just keys could be harsh these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it turns out that they used an old AT-style connector, so you're only able to use your thoughts to type on a 386DX2/40 at best.
Wuich is okay, I guess, still runs Linux.Seriously, tho, combine this with Bluetooth, and we've got ourselves a winner.
Connect to your PC, cell phone, PS3, whatever.
I'll go in for the surgery as soon as it's availa... wait. Can I also move a mouse with my thoughts?
Using a computer with just keys could be harsh these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537202</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1259781240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was <em>so much funnier</em> when I thought that by &ldquo;sticky&rdquo; you meant... um... something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was so much funnier when I thought that by    sticky    you meant... um... something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was so much funnier when I thought that by “sticky” you meant... um... something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537248</id>
	<title>Oh Great...</title>
	<author>cdoggyd</author>
	<datestamp>1259781480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Now my wife will misspell every word in the dictionary even faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Now my wife will misspell every word in the dictionary even faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Now my wife will misspell every word in the dictionary even faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852</id>
	<title>This is good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already thought Twitter required more filtering between brain and keyboard, but now this?</p><p>Then again, who on Slashdot hasn't at least once dreamed about hands-free typing.</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already thought Twitter required more filtering between brain and keyboard , but now this ? Then again , who on Slashdot has n't at least once dreamed about hands-free typing.-Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already thought Twitter required more filtering between brain and keyboard, but now this?Then again, who on Slashdot hasn't at least once dreamed about hands-free typing.-Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536930</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1259779740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if they can differentiate between what I mentally &ldquo;type&rdquo; (which implies focus of some sort) and every random thought that happens to zip through my mind. I&rsquo;d expect there to be some sort of difference &ndash; if not in the region of the brain involved then at least in the level of activity.</p><p>(My workplace categorizes TFA as &ldquo;entertainment&rdquo;, so I&rsquo;m not sure whether this was given mention... so if it was, then no, I didn&rsquo;t RTFA, but at least I have an excuse.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if they can differentiate between what I mentally    type    ( which implies focus of some sort ) and every random thought that happens to zip through my mind .
I    d expect there to be some sort of difference    if not in the region of the brain involved then at least in the level of activity .
( My workplace categorizes TFA as    entertainment    , so I    m not sure whether this was given mention... so if it was , then no , I didn    t RTFA , but at least I have an excuse .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if they can differentiate between what I mentally “type” (which implies focus of some sort) and every random thought that happens to zip through my mind.
I’d expect there to be some sort of difference – if not in the region of the brain involved then at least in the level of activity.
(My workplace categorizes TFA as “entertainment”, so I’m not sure whether this was given mention... so if it was, then no, I didn’t RTFA, but at least I have an excuse.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537060</id>
	<title>Letters, not words</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1259780400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For normal people could be slower than typing. You should think on a letter, and for long enough. Alone letters usually dont have associations that could make very complex determining in which one is thinking,</htmltext>
<tokenext>For normal people could be slower than typing .
You should think on a letter , and for long enough .
Alone letters usually dont have associations that could make very complex determining in which one is thinking,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For normal people could be slower than typing.
You should think on a letter, and for long enough.
Alone letters usually dont have associations that could make very complex determining in which one is thinking,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537356</id>
	<title>Re:This is good?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259782200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I already thought Twitter required more filtering between brain and<br>&gt; keyboard, but now this?</p><p>It's Twitter.  No need to involve the brain at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I already thought Twitter required more filtering between brain and &gt; keyboard , but now this ? It 's Twitter .
No need to involve the brain at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I already thought Twitter required more filtering between brain and&gt; keyboard, but now this?It's Twitter.
No need to involve the brain at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537274</id>
	<title>"Why bother" ?</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1259781660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because of this:<br> <i>a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull</i>
<br> <br>You go first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of this : a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull You go first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of this: a sheet of electrodes laid directly on the surface of the brain after a surgical incision into the skull
 You go first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537738</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1259784600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It [p0rn] would [p0rn] be [p0rnp0rnp0rn] be [p0rn] interesting [p0rnp0rn] to see [p0rn] how [p0rn] well this would work [p0rnp0rnp0rn] compared to [p0rn] technologies [p0rn] like voice [p0rn] recognition [p0rnp0rn].</htmltext>
<tokenext>It [ p0rn ] would [ p0rn ] be [ p0rnp0rnp0rn ] be [ p0rn ] interesting [ p0rnp0rn ] to see [ p0rn ] how [ p0rn ] well this would work [ p0rnp0rnp0rn ] compared to [ p0rn ] technologies [ p0rn ] like voice [ p0rn ] recognition [ p0rnp0rn ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It [p0rn] would [p0rn] be [p0rnp0rnp0rn] be [p0rn] interesting [p0rnp0rn] to see [p0rn] how [p0rn] well this would work [p0rnp0rnp0rn] compared to [p0rn] technologies [p0rn] like voice [p0rn] recognition [p0rnp0rn].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538150</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259787000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Further, it's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain. </i></p><p>It's entirely clear that cognitive capacities <b>don't</b> reside solely in the brain, as anyone who has ever seen a decapitated chicken can attest. The head will lay on the chopping block blinking and opening and closing its beak while the body runs away until it collapses from lack of blood.</p><p>Reflexive actions need no input from the brain, as anyone who has ever hit thair crazy bone can attest.</p><p>If I'm trying to think of a phone number, it's always easier to let my fingers remember.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , it 's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain .
It 's entirely clear that cognitive capacities do n't reside solely in the brain , as anyone who has ever seen a decapitated chicken can attest .
The head will lay on the chopping block blinking and opening and closing its beak while the body runs away until it collapses from lack of blood.Reflexive actions need no input from the brain , as anyone who has ever hit thair crazy bone can attest.If I 'm trying to think of a phone number , it 's always easier to let my fingers remember .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, it's not entirely clear that our cognitive capacities reside solely in our brain.
It's entirely clear that cognitive capacities don't reside solely in the brain, as anyone who has ever seen a decapitated chicken can attest.
The head will lay on the chopping block blinking and opening and closing its beak while the body runs away until it collapses from lack of blood.Reflexive actions need no input from the brain, as anyone who has ever hit thair crazy bone can attest.If I'm trying to think of a phone number, it's always easier to let my fingers remember.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539148</id>
	<title>Revolutionary</title>
	<author>edraven</author>
	<datestamp>1259750160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because this represents the first time the human brain has been involved in the process of updating Twitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because this represents the first time the human brain has been involved in the process of updating Twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because this represents the first time the human brain has been involved in the process of updating Twitter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537458</id>
	<title>Why bother to type a document using a keyboard?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1259782740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because I can type faster than I can consciously think of all the letters involved, and I'd rather not have the unconscious do the selection of letters, since it nnlk2f0 momsosbsbg 30jmgmgea0kaa kms9oj3f smov amsalk s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I can type faster than I can consciously think of all the letters involved , and I 'd rather not have the unconscious do the selection of letters , since it nnlk2f0 momsosbsbg 30jmgmgea0kaa kms9oj3f smov amsalk s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I can type faster than I can consciously think of all the letters involved, and I'd rather not have the unconscious do the selection of letters, since it nnlk2f0 momsosbsbg 30jmgmgea0kaa kms9oj3f smov amsalk s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538638</id>
	<title>Re:I think it would be too slow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right, it should be words, not letters. To make it more universal and useful, if they can read brain waves, it should record word or thought glyphs. The thought patterns could then be translated into any of several languages, or perhaps the glyphs could be used directly. The output could be adapted to idioms or preferred slang. If this thing can read your brain, it shouldn't be wasted on clumsy spellings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right , it should be words , not letters .
To make it more universal and useful , if they can read brain waves , it should record word or thought glyphs .
The thought patterns could then be translated into any of several languages , or perhaps the glyphs could be used directly .
The output could be adapted to idioms or preferred slang .
If this thing can read your brain , it should n't be wasted on clumsy spellings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right, it should be words, not letters.
To make it more universal and useful, if they can read brain waves, it should record word or thought glyphs.
The thought patterns could then be translated into any of several languages, or perhaps the glyphs could be used directly.
The output could be adapted to idioms or preferred slang.
If this thing can read your brain, it shouldn't be wasted on clumsy spellings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536996</id>
	<title>I think it would be too slow</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1259780100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about "normal people" but for me, if I had to think of each letter, I would probably forget what I was thinking in the first place.  When I type, I simply think of the words I want to say and they come out through my finger movements.  So, if this technique of mind reading becomes more advanced and entire words can be recognized, then we would have something useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about " normal people " but for me , if I had to think of each letter , I would probably forget what I was thinking in the first place .
When I type , I simply think of the words I want to say and they come out through my finger movements .
So , if this technique of mind reading becomes more advanced and entire words can be recognized , then we would have something useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about "normal people" but for me, if I had to think of each letter, I would probably forget what I was thinking in the first place.
When I type, I simply think of the words I want to say and they come out through my finger movements.
So, if this technique of mind reading becomes more advanced and entire words can be recognized, then we would have something useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537434</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but</title>
	<author>Verdatum</author>
	<datestamp>1259782620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>*Shakes fist at Websense*</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Shakes fist at Websense *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Shakes fist at Websense*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539250</id>
	<title>Letters? Really?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1259750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I type, I do not think about letters. I imagine entire words. I do not think about spelling. People do not achieve high typing rates by working consciously at the level of letters. Having said that, this would be a godsend for people who do not have the use of their hands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I type , I do not think about letters .
I imagine entire words .
I do not think about spelling .
People do not achieve high typing rates by working consciously at the level of letters .
Having said that , this would be a godsend for people who do not have the use of their hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I type, I do not think about letters.
I imagine entire words.
I do not think about spelling.
People do not achieve high typing rates by working consciously at the level of letters.
Having said that, this would be a godsend for people who do not have the use of their hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30541046</id>
	<title>Umm, because I can do two things at once</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1259765160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about because when I type, I'm typing something.  That something is often highly involved.  If I were typing something from memory, then sure, I guess I could save my fingers some effort.  But more often than not, I'm thinking about what I'm typing -- which is very different than thinking about typing.  Moving my fingers as a good typist doesn't require that I stop thinking about the actual subject matter.  In fact, it's often as easy as talking -- and often faster than actually speaking.  This is not surprising since I have one tongue and ten fingers.</p><p>So really, for as long as I have fingers, typing letter by letter will be easier than thinking letter by letter.  That goes without saying. (:</p><p>People forget that keys on a keyboard aren't for inputting letters.  Hand-writing could do that too.  Keys on a keyboard are for focussing human motion into quantized key-presses.  Now you want to focus my thinking into letters?  That's inane.  That's insane.  That's not my brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about because when I type , I 'm typing something .
That something is often highly involved .
If I were typing something from memory , then sure , I guess I could save my fingers some effort .
But more often than not , I 'm thinking about what I 'm typing -- which is very different than thinking about typing .
Moving my fingers as a good typist does n't require that I stop thinking about the actual subject matter .
In fact , it 's often as easy as talking -- and often faster than actually speaking .
This is not surprising since I have one tongue and ten fingers.So really , for as long as I have fingers , typing letter by letter will be easier than thinking letter by letter .
That goes without saying .
( : People forget that keys on a keyboard are n't for inputting letters .
Hand-writing could do that too .
Keys on a keyboard are for focussing human motion into quantized key-presses .
Now you want to focus my thinking into letters ?
That 's inane .
That 's insane .
That 's not my brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about because when I type, I'm typing something.
That something is often highly involved.
If I were typing something from memory, then sure, I guess I could save my fingers some effort.
But more often than not, I'm thinking about what I'm typing -- which is very different than thinking about typing.
Moving my fingers as a good typist doesn't require that I stop thinking about the actual subject matter.
In fact, it's often as easy as talking -- and often faster than actually speaking.
This is not surprising since I have one tongue and ten fingers.So really, for as long as I have fingers, typing letter by letter will be easier than thinking letter by letter.
That goes without saying.
(:People forget that keys on a keyboard aren't for inputting letters.
Hand-writing could do that too.
Keys on a keyboard are for focussing human motion into quantized key-presses.
Now you want to focus my thinking into letters?
That's inane.
That's insane.
That's not my brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536916</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but</title>
	<author>Kamokazi</author>
	<datestamp>1259779680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't be embarrassed, but the sexual harassment lawsuits would be unrelenting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be embarrassed , but the sexual harassment lawsuits would be unrelenting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be embarrassed, but the sexual harassment lawsuits would be unrelenting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538088</id>
	<title>Re:Very interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like Captain Pike? Personally, I'd rather be dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like Captain Pike ?
Personally , I 'd rather be dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like Captain Pike?
Personally, I'd rather be dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537200</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking about letters?</title>
	<author>Rigrig</author>
	<datestamp>1259781240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard.</p></div><p>You need a keyboard though, thinking about letters might be more convenient than typing them into something like a mobile phone.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't really think about what letters I'm pressing when I type, I just think of the words and the vast majority of the time, it's just muscle memory doing its thing.</p></div><p>I could imagine something similar happening while using this, it just cuts out the letter-to-key-translation and finger-movement neurons.<br> <br>

Not that I'd sign up for having my head opened up now though(I'll wait till they can integrate those electrodes into my tinfoil hat), but it sound like good news for disabled people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard.You need a keyboard though , thinking about letters might be more convenient than typing them into something like a mobile phone.I do n't really think about what letters I 'm pressing when I type , I just think of the words and the vast majority of the time , it 's just muscle memory doing its thing.I could imagine something similar happening while using this , it just cuts out the letter-to-key-translation and finger-movement neurons .
Not that I 'd sign up for having my head opened up now though ( I 'll wait till they can integrate those electrodes into my tinfoil hat ) , but it sound like good news for disabled people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it seems like thinking about letters is actually harder than typing on a keyboard.You need a keyboard though, thinking about letters might be more convenient than typing them into something like a mobile phone.I don't really think about what letters I'm pressing when I type, I just think of the words and the vast majority of the time, it's just muscle memory doing its thing.I could imagine something similar happening while using this, it just cuts out the letter-to-key-translation and finger-movement neurons.
Not that I'd sign up for having my head opened up now though(I'll wait till they can integrate those electrodes into my tinfoil hat), but it sound like good news for disabled people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539062</id>
	<title>Re:Teh</title>
	<author>Trinn</author>
	<datestamp>1259749620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These sorts of typos tend to happen because one hand gets "ahead" of the other in the output buffer, leading to migrating letters/punctuation.  I'm not quite sure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/why/ this particular glitch happens, but it seems the brain isn't quite capable of syncing the hands to the same clock 100\% of the time when moving at high speed (it doesn't happen as much to slower typists I've noticed, it seems to be far more prevalent among people who type rather fast, perhaps its a glitch in sequencing the macro output, since the muscle movements actually have to be laid out and predicted beforehand to execute that fast, gliding into one another, rather than being execute-then-return-to-home for each individual key)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These sorts of typos tend to happen because one hand gets " ahead " of the other in the output buffer , leading to migrating letters/punctuation .
I 'm not quite sure /why/ this particular glitch happens , but it seems the brain is n't quite capable of syncing the hands to the same clock 100 \ % of the time when moving at high speed ( it does n't happen as much to slower typists I 've noticed , it seems to be far more prevalent among people who type rather fast , perhaps its a glitch in sequencing the macro output , since the muscle movements actually have to be laid out and predicted beforehand to execute that fast , gliding into one another , rather than being execute-then-return-to-home for each individual key )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These sorts of typos tend to happen because one hand gets "ahead" of the other in the output buffer, leading to migrating letters/punctuation.
I'm not quite sure /why/ this particular glitch happens, but it seems the brain isn't quite capable of syncing the hands to the same clock 100\% of the time when moving at high speed (it doesn't happen as much to slower typists I've noticed, it seems to be far more prevalent among people who type rather fast, perhaps its a glitch in sequencing the macro output, since the muscle movements actually have to be laid out and predicted beforehand to execute that fast, gliding into one another, rather than being execute-then-return-to-home for each individual key)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537124</id>
	<title>Re:oh god</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259780760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>yes, because what we need is more twitter.</p><p>whenever i hear about groundbreaking advancements in the neurosciences, i for one automatically think about how it can improve my twitter feed.</p><p>sigh.</p></div><p>Quite true.  And imagine the learning curve of not ONLY typing with your brain, but also "think-typing" using the SHIFT key.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , because what we need is more twitter.whenever i hear about groundbreaking advancements in the neurosciences , i for one automatically think about how it can improve my twitter feed.sigh.Quite true .
And imagine the learning curve of not ONLY typing with your brain , but also " think-typing " using the SHIFT key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, because what we need is more twitter.whenever i hear about groundbreaking advancements in the neurosciences, i for one automatically think about how it can improve my twitter feed.sigh.Quite true.
And imagine the learning curve of not ONLY typing with your brain, but also "think-typing" using the SHIFT key.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536878</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30541356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30540522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30543526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1511251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30543526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30541356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537464
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30540522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30538298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30536988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1511251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30537522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1511251.30539062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
