DARPA Has a Simple Solution to Authentication: Reading Users' Minds

What if you are not within your right mind?

"Firefox" was come to reality!!! Yes!!! "DasveedAnja"

"Basically, you cant fake a heatmap of someones face." . . .

. . . YET

yeah couldn't i take a high resolution thermal picture of your face and then run wires in a ski mask to mimic your blood vessels?

this is much better, first of all if your not within the right frame of mind to use a computer then you shouldn't be allowed to use a computer. instant gratification for every it grunt out there.

also if you were in fact maniacal or some other form of head screws being loose then would you really want that kind of mind to be able to access your profiles and everything like that?

really though the technology's flaw is in it's operation, it has to record a base to how you act then it has to overwrite that base every time it logs how you act. a very enterprising hacker could install a key logger and a mouse logger to "learn" the way you act. then he puts the feed to a computer that is just a good emulation fulfilling whatever it is the program needs to know. he goes in does his stuff, gets out, cuts the feed back to the computer and bob's your uncle.

it'd be even easier if they made the mistake of putting the files in an unsecure and downright common folder. like the c./ drive or something. just download the file, plug it into the emulator and your in.

to mars or bust!

A truly fool proof device would be to require you to input a drop of your blood, which would be verified against records, a retinal scan, fingerprint scan, minimum 73 character password changed every 3 hours and, in order to access the computer, you'd have to unlock it physically with a key and continue unlocking it every 3.5 minutes thereafter.

You'd also have to personally drive to the internet security office and request access from Steve, who would require 3 pieces of photo ID, your SIN (SSN) and full birth certificate. He would then grant you a 15-minute "all-access pass" to youtube.

Honestly guys, the point of this isn't because it's fool proof. The point is that it's simple, and can be installed on every computer or electronic device via a software patch.

So unless your face heat map can be installed through an online download, it's just no use comparing the two.

I do think the technology won't fly, for many of the mentioned criticisms of it (not that I think it would be a bad thing to remove drunken idiots on psychotropic drugs, aka Trolls, from the internet). But some of your suggested technologies to replace it are, well, kind of absurd.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I'd love to see the followup to this in a year or so. I suspect that it will have more than a few holes.

I believe that the issue will be unwanted 'logoffs'. Your computer will not believe that you are you. There would just seem to be a lot of variance in the data being presented. All security systems face the tradeoff of 'false positives'( alarms) vs ' false negatives' (missed alarms)

Given the environment that this will be operating in, I expect more false positives. Popsci, how about an anniversery followup? :)

And please --DARPA did NOT invent the net. ARPA had a large hand in constructing a network to satisfy their own needs.
As far as I know, they had no ambitions beyond that. The protocol worked pretty well and it expanded. I don't even know if they were part of the html stuff that took it out of the geek stage.

D13, I love how you debated against my joke-protection system. Too good.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Granite.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I can see it now. You are at your work station trying to wrap your brain around a particularly perplexing problem. When your thinking is radically altered and for a briefest of moments... you have an epiphany. Understanding that comprehension of the solution you have glimpsed is fleeting, you turn to your computer to record what you can before the knowledge is lost for all time. Too late. You have been automatically logged out of your work station, "USER NOT RECOGNIZED".

As with the sign of the beast, all will be given a number and protected.

Those without a number shall not be recognized and shall be ostracized...

Quote the beast!

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

Actually, the sign of the beast, 666, was a direct numeralogical reference to Nero. The letters of his names were each associated with a number and, when added up, equal 666.

There's a Wikipedia entry on this, although my actual source is Professor Bart Ehrman.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Ah, D13, you're in over your head this time. Though, I have a feeling you're just jumping into this argument for the sake of it, rather than because you actually believe what you're saying. But I find this fun, so I'm happy to oblige.

You answered your own statement, "On the flip-side, many skeptics said that such sequences could be run through any book and such "coincidences" would appear."

Now your point that "So they did run the same sequences through books like "war and peace" (a monster huge book), and others, and found little to nothing" isn't completely lost on me, either.

Unfortunately it proves little. I can assure you they did not put the same amount of time and money into looking into the numerological sequences and meaning of "war and peace" as they did the Bible, because no other book on the planet can boast that -- not even Shakespere's plays or Nostradamus' "prophecies."

You see, for every "successful" numerological sequence that has found a pattern in the bible, there has been a thousand failures. And, if you know anything about psychology at all, you'll know that people tend to remember the hits more than the failures.

Our thinking that because a small few correlations can be drawn outweighs the vast majority of sequences that find no pattern at all is a failure in logical reasoning, not evidence of a true claim.

You should read Shermer's book on "Why people believe weird things."

Now, let's also talk about what translation of the Bible you used. Who translated it? Was it based on 4th century techniques?

Did you know the original Bible -- the first version ever written -- doesn't exist? The problem with sequential data like this is that it's a repeating pattern. But if, let's say, in Mark 2 a particular word was replaced with two words depending on which version you read, the whole remaining sequencing gets screwed up. How do you know which sequence to use?

Did they do the sequencing in the original Greek for the new testment and Hebrew for the Old? But Jesus didn't speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic. Does your sequencing account for that?

You ask me to please research for myself. As it turns out, a good part of my degree was on Religious Studies and this particular field is exactly my interest.

So on this matter, I'll say I've done my homework: do yours.

I also mentioned my source: Bart Ehrman. Confront him, not me. And as ever, provide your sources: "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" is not a source. At least, not at any University I know of.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Believe in a number, artifact, statue or any type of particular thing to save you and give you protection is what the mark of the beast is about.

When the beast arrives in the world; he or she or both will speak elegantly and in a style complimenting all religions. It will be charm and convincing style to beguile a number, an artifact or thing will give a person some type of protection. This is a trap, that leads to nothing.

God loves and forgives.
Jesus loves and forgives.
The Holy Spirit is all about and lives inside us.
Show contempt to any of these and lose your salvation.
We cannot be hypocrites and ask for forgiveness and not feel it sincere in our heart or have something evil in our heart. The Holy Spirit lives in our heart and will know the deception and then will be seen as contempt. We must be sincere in our love and forgiveness.

Our Dear Lord gave us intelligent brains. It is ok to be scientific and understand the world about us and all that God has made. It is also ok to realize the stories in the bible are about nurturing your soul.
The bible is not a science text book and was never to be thought of that way.
The bible and scriptures as books to nurture your soul and that is all.

How old is the earth? How old is humankind? Where do humans live on earth? How old are religions? How many religions exist since the beginning? There is such a larger variety in all I suggest. The point of hating anyone for being different culture, religion is pointless. We 7 billion on earth and all past peoples are having a unique experience of time as we pass on Earth and our personal religious experience. We are all responsible individual for its passage. Each of us is valuable and our experience on Earth is important too!

Oh, I am just a little o'robot and it seems my circuits could go on and on and on. See ya! ;)

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

Curiously, religion offers answers none of the questions you ask, Robot.

If only we had a system that could systematically provide correct and verifyably true interpretations and predictions about the universe in which we reside, including those questions. But whatever could a system like that look like?

Oh right. This is a *science* journal.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Canadian_Skeptic,
You sir are traveling through life own experience and are responsible for your own journey as am I. I wish you the best of luck in your journey and interpretation of it. Perhaps as you identify with some human system to answer all your questions, you and the beast will have much in common.

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.