Neural Wave Machines: Who Should Regulate Them?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

As a child of a parent who worked on the Manhattan Project, I have always been concerned about technical advancements getting into the wrong hands. The knee-jerk American mindset would want the "international community" to restrict advanced technology for use only by those nations that kowtow to Washington and her allies. Another school of thought is that Washington is a rogue regime that should not be allowed to control advanced technology. Given Washington's poor track record and her theocratic tendencies, some members of the international community feel that the US should be prevented from developing advanced technologies altogether.

Neural wave technology is at the forefront of this debate. It has an array of civilian applications in the fields of telecommunication and health care, but it is also something that Washington's military planners want to use for their own ends. It would be very easy for civilian use to be usurped by sinister forces or even suppressed altogether with restrictions to a select class of paying customers possessing political connections.

The technology is not as complex as is rocket engineering. It works on the same principle as a holographic projection. Rather than using the visible frequencies of the spectrum, it uses radio frequencies that can be directed and focused toward a fixed or moving position. When the projected pattern is a neural pattern, it is experienced by the person or persons at the focal point as a projection into their own thought space. The content of the projected pattern could be auditory, visual, even kinetic. (Naturally the military is very much interested in the kinetic applications. Imagine a directed energy weapon that could turn the enemy's guns against their own position.)

Who do you feel would be the ideal authority to regulate this technology? Do you believe it should be open to market forces? Do you trust Washington to "do the right thing?"

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Ahead of their time:

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Geek mating rituals are so incredibly quaint.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

True fact -- typing "neural wave technology" into google, gets me this page. (http://www.neuroneal.com/index-0.htm)

I don't suppose you have more interesting links to discussions about an actual "neural wave technology" that doesn't sound quite that fucking stupid?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The Internet is the domain of the lowest common denominator.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

You win the internet for today.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Oh good. I thought for a moment I was having a breakdown and had lost all capacity for mental processes.

Thus proving the post.

*freaks out*

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Apriori regulation of a discovery is always a silly idea, especially when the reasons for doing so are likely to be nonsense. We would have banned lasers because of the belief that they were death rays. The US made this mistake with stem cell research because of dubious ethical claims by moralistic pricks.

If this technology is even plausible then we should wait to see how a particular use can successfully be implemented and think it through before deciding if or how to regulate it.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Given the rate of technical advancement, waiting and seeing will result in sitting on the sidelines as the game is played by others.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Regulations should be determined by precedent. Regulating something based on a hypothetical is a horrible idea and has disastrous results historically.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Maybe we should determine whether or not something even exists yet before considering regulating it.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

In that case, brace yourself for weapons of mass deception.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Why do I feel like you've already fallen victim to neural wave technology every time I read one of your posts.

Oh, wait.... MAYBE IT'S ME!! ZOMG!!!!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

You're kidding, right?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Only if you want me to.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

What do rocket engineers find complex? I bet it's something like talking to girls.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Software. They just don't get it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

As an aspiring Aerospace engineer, ^ this ^ times a thousand.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

This isn't brain surgery, is the popular quote.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So your solution is to ensure that only the "right sort of people" possess this hypothetical technology, and by "right sort of people" we mean those who already share your attitudes and worldview amiright?

What could possibly go wrong?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Also...



We never see any time travelers because they all discover it's a huge mistake. This is also why your friend at the lab suddenly looked about a year older recently.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

People who share my worldview would not work on a weapons system.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

uhm

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Binbeats2.ogg

[foolsguinea.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with sophia, actually. At some point, the attitude of "wait until something is an immanent problem" will prove not to be sufficient to stave off disaster.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The answer of course, is to proceed with caution.

The kids were commenting above about time travel/machines. But the physics are already laid out neatly on graphs.

(On a graph the X axis represents time and the Y axis represents distance, so plotting a line for acceleration has a curve sloping up so tremendous amounts of distance takes virtually no time. The speed of light is when that line is plotted practically straight up at at 299792.458 km/s. But beyond that, where does the plotted graph line go? Logic says it can only go infinite km/s. But beyond that, it has to go backwards in time.)

So time travel is theoretically possible, but practically impossible. But then there's this French-Swiss particle accelerator doing something. Should we regulate it? The black hole is gonna get us anyways!