Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Medicine Science

Brain Will Be Battlefield of the Future, Warns US 257

Posted by Soulskill
from the encrypt-all-mental-notes dept.
Anti-Globalism sends this except from the Guardian: "In a report commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency, leading scientists were asked to examine how a greater understanding of the brain over the next 20 years is likely to drive the development of new medicines and technologies. They found several areas in which progress could have a profound impact, including behaviour-altering drugs, scanners that can interpret a person's state of mind and devices capable of boosting senses such as hearing and vision. ...The report highlights one electronic technique, called transcranial direct current stimulation, which involves using electrical pulses to interfere with the firing of neurons in the brain and has been shown to delay a person's ability to tell a lie."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brain Will Be Battlefield of the Future, Warns US

Comments Filter:
  • by aedan (196243) on Friday August 15, 2008 @05:54PM (#24622325) Homepage

    So George Bush has lost that one already.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I bet it also puts a hurting on your ability to tell the truth. Or tell anything.

    This stuff promises to get ugly, but any contractors that claim enough info to disriminate between connections firing during lies vs truth is overselling their tech.

    • by db32 (862117) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:59PM (#24622923) Journal
      The sales demonstrations certainly would be fun. Hook up the sales rep and then start asking questions about the product. :)
      • by Anonymous Coward

        > Re:Delay a person's ability to tell a lie

        > The sales demonstrations certainly would be fun. Hook up the sales rep and then start asking questions about the product. :)

        It wouldn't be as interesting as you're imagining. It would just make the demonstration take a lot longer...

      • by espressojim (224775) <eris@NOsPam.tarogue.net> on Friday August 15, 2008 @10:26PM (#24623937)

        If the product works, then he tells the truth and you think the product works great. If the product doesn't work, then he lies and says the product works great.

        Hooking the salesman up proves nothing.

        • by flyingsquid (813711) on Friday August 15, 2008 @11:57PM (#24624319)
          In a way, the brain has always been the battlefield. The ancient Chinese military expert Sun Tzu gives an example. On the first night, a general has his troops build 100,000 campfires. On the second night, they build 50,000 campfires. And on the third night, they build 20,000. Watching the fires on the horizon dwindle over three nights, the opposing general believes that the enemy forces are deserting, and so he marches into battle confident that he faces a small, demoralized army. He marches straight into an army 100,000 strong and is soundly defeated.

          Sun Tzu argued that you have to know your enemy in detail, but prevent your enemy from knowing you: pretend that you are weak where you are strong, and pretend that you are strong where you are weak. Information and deception have always been integral to warfare, and always will be. More modern examples include the Allies managing to trick Hitler into believing that they will invade at Calais, rather than Normandy, and Saddam Hussein pretending that his WMD programs are much stronger than they are (a ploy that backfired, in his case). But I'm not sure technology really changes this that much. It changes how we can collect and disseminate information, but at the end of the day, you need to have smart, educated, capable guys sifting through this information with their brains and giving good advice to their Commander-in-Chief... and a Commander-in-Chief with the brains to listen.

        • by db32 (862117)
          If you can't tell when a sales guy is lying to you without a machine like this then nothing can help you anyways. The biggest hint is that their lips are moving.

          In all seriousness, I have NEVER dealt with a sales guy that could actually speak very intelligently about the product they are selling. The big difference is that some try to and that pretty much costs them the sale. The good ones will immediately get their technical folks on the phone. Then you know you are dealing with a real tech guy when
    • by TechForensics (944258) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @12:55AM (#24624525) Homepage Journal

      Delaying a person's ability to tell a lie is only part of it. My wife, a neuropsychologist and former med school instructor tells me it has been shown that application of a magnetic field to one particular part of the brain makes the subject "aware of the presence of God", or gives him or her the experience of God's presence. Pardon the pun, but this is heady stuff.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 15, 2008 @05:58PM (#24622359)
    Time to start working on improving tinfoil hat technology!
    We'll make millions!
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:26PM (#24622675) Homepage Journal

      Amusing, but for the fact that the brain has been the "battlefield", at least in the US, for the last few decades.

      Go read the Wikipedia entry on Frank Luskin, the Republican pollster, to see what I mean.

      The people Luskin works for, and the people they work for, and the media that works for them, are the enemy on this battlefield. It's taken a while for us to realize that. And the playing field is anything but even, but when I read about things like TED, I find that we've got a few good minds on our side, too.

      The biggest weapon they're pointing at us right now could be neutralized if we would just pass a fucking Net Neutrality law.

    • by jacquesm (154384)

      jay for scientists without a conscience. I always wonder how big the pile of money or the amount of glory would be for me to change sides.

      I like to think I'd rather die than to help projects such as these along, but that's on the days I have food on the table (which fortunately is most of them).

      News like this is really making me wish for some kind of ethics oversight for science in general, not just for medicine.

      The excuse that there will always be somebody to do the work and that's why you might as well do

      • Yeah principles are expensive, but why do you think that people who don't agree with you don't have a conscience? - Have you ever thought their concience may be based on different principles?
  • by Red Samurai (893134) on Friday August 15, 2008 @05:58PM (#24622363)
    *Said in my best Revolver Ocelot impersonation*

    AC-tivate it!!
    • The Metal Gear Solid 4 synopsis is the most accurate prediction of what that kind of crap will lead to, though they were all controlled by nanomachines.
      • by Sockatume (732728)
        Man, I hope not. Bush-Blair is one thing, but if their successors spend 90 minutes out of every 5 hours talking about how the war economy leads to a proxy battle between nanonmachines for green collars to the E-I-E-I-O, I'm going to kill myself.
    • by Pichu0102 (916292)

      *places finger to head*

      "BANG!"

  • Semper Psi (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tackhead (54550) on Friday August 15, 2008 @05:59PM (#24622379)
    "The Corps is mother, the Corps is father."

    Hey, we've already got our own homegrown versions of the Nightwatch, so why not go the rest of the way?

  • by poetmatt (793785) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:02PM (#24622407) Journal

    "called transcranial direct current stimulation, which involves using electrical pulses to interfere with the firing of neurons in the brain and has been shown to delay a person's ability to tell a lie"

    Why yes, if I'm being electrocuted, I 'm pretty sure it will delay the ability to think coherently, let alone lie.

    Sheesh, why don't they just call it electrocution and call it a day here? I'm sure it was just accidental that they only tested the lie part.

  • by Sockatume (732728)
    So this is what they meant by "hearts and minds".
  • ... appear as though both sides have gone to tactical nukes early in the war.
  • by postbigbang (761081) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:11PM (#24622507)

    The temptation will be too great. Crowd control? Voter control? Don't like the price of fuel? Easy. A way will be found to change your mind.

    At what price? Chemical weapons developed in the 1950s-1980s cost billions to destroy. Are mind-control weapons going to be equally as horrible? Historical trends would say so.

    • by plutoXL (1314421) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:17PM (#24622565)
      They will not be horrible. You will learn to like them.
    • What bothers me most is that the figure of speach, "changing your mind", will become quite literally.

      Freedom of speech? Our problem will be freedom of will.

    • Go buy yourself a copy of 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'.

      You'll find that control of the mind, and thus the population through mood adjustment on demand, and communal broadcast 'hallucination', play a big part.

      I haven't described it perfectly, don't want to ruin the book. Suffice it to say none of this made it into the film. Not that I don't think the film is awesome, its just different in ultimate message.

    • by mrraven (129238)

      An old joke used to be, "just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you," now it doesn't seem so funny. :(

    • I doubt that they'll cost billions to destroy; atomic and chemical weapons created something that was toxic.

      Mind control weapons shouldn't be any more costly to dispose of than a tank or gun. If it's electronic, it'll likely be things already found in today's electronics. Not exactly great for the environment, but not immediately toxic.

      Now if it's a drug in gaseous form, it may be a bit worse, but even then something that is mostly safe for human consumption probably won't hurt the environment too much.

      • It's the potential superfluity of them, as they're probably short range devices. In the wrong hands, we'll all be buying crunchy peanut butter.

    • Well, there's always tinfoil hats. And the fact that someone modded you up for "insightful" is proof that my tinfoil hat buisness should start advertising on /.

      Or maybe it's just proof that some people confuse "insightful" with "paranoia parading as wisdom."

  • by Thiez (1281866) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:13PM (#24622521)

    From the article:

    > On the battlefield, bullets may be replaced with "pharmacological land mines" that release drugs to incapacitate soldiers on contact

    How likely is that? Someone will invent a drug to make you immune to incapacitating drugs, and we'll go back to bullets and explosions.

    > "The concept of torture could also be altered by products in this market. It is possible that some day there could be a technique developed to extract information from a prisoner that does not have any lasting side effects," the report states.

    I hope not. I imagine the police could give you the stuff and ask you if you ever commited any crimes. It'll be a routine thing, just like taking your fingerprint and DNA and firstborn, when you are arrested.

    > "In the intelligence community, there is an extremely small number of people who understand the science and without that it's going to be impossible to predict surprises. This is a black hole that needs to be filled with light," Green told the Guardian.

    There's a dumb analogy if I ever saw one. Let's shine light on the black hole!

    > The technologies will one day have applications in counter-terrorism and crime-fighting. The report says brain imaging will not improve sufficiently in the next 20 years to read peoples' intentions from afar and spot criminals before they act, but it might be good enough to help identify people at a checkpoint or counter who are afraid or anxious.

    Do we really need a brainscan for that, though? People who are afraid or anxious are easy to spot, and being afraid or anxious hardly makes you a criminal.

    > "We're not going to be reading minds at a distance, but that doesn't mean we can't detect gross changes in anxiety or fear, and then subsequently talk to those individuals to see what's upsetting them," Green said.

    Will that talk involve one of those lie-detector brainscan-things?

    > The development of advanced surveillance techniques, such as cameras that can spot fearful expressions on people's faces, could lead to some inventive ways to fool them, the report adds, such as Botox injections to relax facial muscles.

    Dude, enough about anxious people alright. People are afraid and nervous all the time about all sorts of things, and the thought that some asshole security guy is going to detect that with some sort of remote brainscan and invite them to have a chat will only make that worse. How many of these people will turn out to be innocent? Many.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:23PM (#24622635) Journal
      Silly optimist. I assure you that we'll take all necessary care to make sure that nobody "turns out to be innocent".
    • by camperdave (969942) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:26PM (#24622671) Journal
      People who are afraid or anxious are easy to spot, and being afraid or anxious hardly makes you a criminal.

      Exactly. It is the cool, collected ones you have to worry about.
      • by geeknado (1117395) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:45PM (#24622817)
        Yes, exactly. A well coached individual isn't going to be anxious when they're executing a plan. "Stage Fright" happens /before/ you go on-stage. Once you're there, especially if things are going smoothly, you aren't nervy, you're just executing. I'd imagine that the same is true of a professional operative of any kind-- nervous until go time, cool once you're moving, maybe /after/ you're done. IMO, therefore, you're going to catch the amateurs, not the ones that you really care about.
        • ...you're going to catch the amateurs, not the ones that you really care about.

          Absolutely correct, and depending on the sophistication of the operation, they'll throw some sacrificial amateurs to the authorities as a distraction while the professionals go on about their business. If they feed the sacrificial lambs disinformation about the true objective (but just enough info to be credible), it will tie up investigative resources.

        • by pipingguy (566974) *
          I think your post is discriminatory against truly cool, non-brainwashed good guys like myself.
    • Innocent? Really? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > How many of these people will turn out to be innocent? Many.

      What do you mean by "innocent"? I'm pretty sure you'll find that everyone subjected to police scrutiny with devices like that will be found guilty of something.

    • by cryptoluddite (658517) on Friday August 15, 2008 @07:41PM (#24623211)

      How likely is that? Someone will invent a drug to make you immune to incapacitating drugs, and we'll go back to bullets and explosions.

      It'll be like Syndicate where some guy at a computer jacks up your squad's adrenaline levels and compels you to run around in leather trenchcoats killing people and blowing up vehicles, not even feeling the machine gun fire and flamethrower blasts the rival squads are hitting you with. And a cyberpunk background track pounds in your head to set the mood.

      In other words... freakin' awesome.

    • by sdpuppy (898535)

      I hope not. I imagine the police could give you the stuff and ask you if you ever commited any crimes. It'll be a routine thing, just like taking your fingerprint and DNA and firstborn, when you are arrested.

      ...I think many people who commit crimes would answer honestly (in their mind) that they did not. I think the thing will show that you're lying only if you think that you're lying. Many criminals have some rational for what they do .

    • by Zirnike (640152)

      "I hope not. I imagine the police could give you the stuff and ask you if you ever committed any crimes. It'll be a routine thing, just like taking your fingerprint and DNA and firstborn, when you are arrested."

      You'd have to be REAL careful with that. For example, if someone asked me that, I could say no, I haven't committed any crimes. Because I don't consider speeding to keep up with traffic, not coming to a COMPLETE stop at a stop sign at 3:00 in the morning on a weekday, etc. to be crimes. Even if I

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by interstellar_donkey (200782) <(pathighgate) (at) (hotmail.com)> on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:16PM (#24622555) Homepage Journal

    As someone recently diagnosed with a neurological condition, given drugs to treat it, given drugs to deal with the side effects, and now am on drugs to treat my psychological reaction to it, I've seen first hand how certain drugs can alter your mood and even change your perspective.

    One drug they have me on makes it impossible for me to get upset about anything. If we could isolate what it is that makes the brain do that, put it into an airborne form and spray it over an enemy, then we could simply march in and say "We are taking your land, your government and your freedom", and their response would be (in a semi-zombie state) "Oh. Okay. I hope you enjoy it".

    All without firing a shot.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Shados (741919)

      Wow, I knew about drugs being able to totally flip over someone's personality, but I wasn't aware of that one. How is it called? Seriously messed up though... Once you stop taking the drug, can you then get upset about things that happened while you were on it?

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by camperdave (969942) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:30PM (#24622705) Journal
      One drug they have me on makes it impossible for me to get upset about anything. If we could isolate what it is that makes the brain do that, put it into an airborne form and spray it over an enemy, then we could simply march in and say "We are taking your land, your government and your freedom", and their response would be (in a semi-zombie state) "Oh. Okay. I hope you enjoy it".

      All without firing a shot.


      But we already have that. It's called television.
      • If the Nazis had, had color television and Gobbel's version of Fox news, we'd probably all be giving the Hitler salute, those of us alive that is. :(

    • Sounds a bit like marijuana or just like when you're really drunk. In both states it's fairly hard to get upset about something (or well, to get upset about the right things).

      Having the "upset blockade" without the other side-effects of the aforementioned drugs does indeed sound scary, though. Although I wonder a bit how you even know what things you "should have been upset" about. Do you realize it after the drug fades?

  • 20 Years? (Score:5, Funny)

    by taustin (171655) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:23PM (#24622631) Homepage Journal

    So, in 20 years, we'll have various forms of mind control, so we can force immortal (available in 20 years) enemy soldiers to steal the (available in 20 years) fusion powered (available in 20 years) flying cars (available in 20 years) and attack the space elevator (available in 20 years) that supplies our permanent colonies on the moon (available in 20 years)?

    The future's looking bright!

  • Transmet Reference (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bieeanda (961632)
    "I haven't worked without insurance since that time the Red Catholics dropped the auto-cannibalism meme on Karel Square..."
  • Training (Score:3, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:27PM (#24622687)

    From TFA:

    On the battlefield, bullets may be replaced with "pharmacological land mines" that release drugs to incapacitate soldiers on contact, ....

    Fortunately, our youth appear to have gotten a head start at familiarizing themselves with the effects of such drugs and the training necessary to deal with such tactics.

    Imagine the dismay of an enemy that, when interrogating a prisoner using extreme methods is answered every time with,

    "Dave's not here."

  • That had this: Veteran of the Psychic Wars - Blue Oyster Cult http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dnrd2xf5DIlU [technorati.com] run through their head when they read the headline?

  • scanners that can interpret a person's state of mind

    yay, now as soon as you walk in the door: "i'm sorry, but you don't meet our requirements for cookie-cutter-state-of-mind-x, good luck getting hired elsewhere, but it's now a 'standard practice' in the industry, and we make money selling data about this scan"

    • by Reziac (43301) *

      Sell enough scans, and you'll never need to hire anyone -- except to make more scans!

  • Just who are they conducting them on?

    Is this even legal?

    What is to stop them from controlling us all?

  • by Brickwalljon (725944) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:47PM (#24622837)

    "The human mind: 600 miles of synaptic fiber, 5 and half ounces of cranial fluid, 1500 grams of complex neural matter. A three pound pile of dreams. But I'll tell you what it really is! It is the ultimate battlefield and the ultimate weapon.

    The wars of this modern age, the Psychic Age, are all fought somewhere between these damp, curvaceous, undulations.

    From this day forward, you are all psychic soldiers, paranormal paratroopers, mental marines who are about to ship out on the adventure of their lives. THIS is our beachhead! And THIS is your landing craft! You shall engage the enemy in his own mentality! You shall chase his dreams! You shall fight his demons! You shall live his nightmares!

    And those of you fight well, you will find yourselves on the path to be international secret agents. In other words:
    PSYCHONAUTS!"

    -Morceau Oleander

  • by Virtualetters (980728) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:50PM (#24622853)
    In this book, Sharon Moalem writes about the scary ways diseases, parasites and bacteria alter human behavior. Genital herpes, for example, might just influence people to be more promiscuous (but not TOO promiscuous). There was also a discussion of some parasites, like a wasp that stings a spider to embed its eggs in the spider. The larvae then alters the spider's brain activity to reroute its web-making routine such that it creates a cocoon for the larvae. Similarly, parasites that thrive in sheep cause ants to become focused on running to the top of grass strands to be easy targets. This allows the parasites' eggs to be excreted in the sheep feces and still end up back in the sheep. The number of hypothetical cases of bacteria, parasites or viruses altering human mental activity is frightening at first. That said, I don't know how well-backed any of these hypotheses are.
  • by ancientt (569920) <ancientt@yahoo.com> on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:53PM (#24622881) Homepage Journal

    TFA focuses on war, but lets talk about the causes, not just the effects of war.

    On the battlefield, bullets may be replaced with "pharmacological land mines" that release drugs to incapacitate soldiers on contact, while scanners and other electronic devices could be developed to identify suspects from their brain activity and even disrupt their ability to tell lies when questioned, the report says.

    What if instead of "disrupting their ability to tell lies when questions" were applied to political candidates instead of to soldiers? I believe there is a time and a place to wage war, but I'd be more supportive if the motives of our leaders were "filled with light" before they were elected and before we went to war. I'd like to see each political candidate for federal office asked to undergo a standard screen before they were allowed to accept any party nomination. I can even throw out a list of questions that I'd love to see the voters of the US get honest answers to:

    • Do you intend to protect the interests of the people of the United States?
    • What is your primary goal if you are elected to office?
    • Would you lie to the people you represent in order to achieve that goal?
    • Have you ever accepted bribes for political favors?
    • Do you really agree with your party's platform?
    • Do you really agree with all of the Constitution?
    • Is freedom or safety for the American people more important to you?
    • Have you lied during your campaign?
    • What is worth going to war over?

    It might be assumed from these questions that I'm against the wars and the policies of current elected officials, but the truth is that I agree with some of the policies and actions we've seen from our representatives in the house, senate and president, I'm even proud of them from time to time. At the same time I'm terribly disappointed in their lack of consistency and the feeling I always get that there are reasons and motivations that they hide from the people they are supposed to represent. I'd love to get honest answers about their motivations.

    • by sedmonds (94908)
      I don't think that most of the douchebags that run for public office actually believe that they're lying to achieve goals, making impossible promises (lies) during a campaign, or taking bribes (or future career options) for political favors. And they seem to really believe that creating a nanny/police state is the SAME as freedom. If their brains don't think there's any lying going on, will any truth serum or truth-zapping make a difference?
      • by Reziac (43301) *

        I think you're right. Some of 'em are downright pathological. In their minds, they are correct and everyone else is either a tool or an impediment. They tell no lies, at least not by their lights.

        However, if one puts the questions carefully, this attitude could still be found out.

  • Shock Value: (Score:2, Informative)

    by jkiller (1030766)
    You can't call it electrocution when they're not dying from electrical shock.
  • total BS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by v(*_*)vvvv (233078)

    I love how military innovation is so "innovative."

    Behavior altering drugs? What drug could possibly top what suicide bombers do now.

    Drug land mines? What mine could top blowing the guy up.

    If murder is the goal, murder is easily done already.

    And there are plenty of drugs and torture methods that help people say truthy things.

  • Last time I checked the brain had a lot to do with biology. Would developing weapons to manipulate multiple brains constitute developing biological weapons of mass destruction.
  • by gyrogeerloose (849181) on Friday August 15, 2008 @07:26PM (#24623115) Journal

    Judging by the people I deal with on a daily basis, I think that this battle of the minds could take place on the head of a pin.

  • ... and in that iteration the weapon of choice was LSD. (Both the US and the CSR worked on developing it as a weapon, and IIRC Ken Keasey was first exposed to it as an Air Force volunteer. I wonder from time to time what happened to the tons of it the Czechs synthesized for the Warsaw pact.)

    You would think people would be able to learn from the past. I would suggest that Barefoot in the Head by Brian Aldiss be required reading at the DIA.

  • Coach Morceau Oleander: The Human Mind: 600 miles of synaptic fiber, five and a half ounces of cranial fluid, 1500 grams of complex neural matter...a three-pound pile of dreams. But I'll tell you what it really is. It is the ultimate battlefield--and, the ultimate weapon. The wars of this modern age--The Psychic Age--are fought somewhere between these damp, curvaceous undulations. From this day forward, you are all psychic soldiers. Paranormal paratroopers! Mental marines who are about to ship out on the ad

  • There goes the likelihood of ever seeing another recruit again.

  • 1984 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ghostunit (868434) on Friday August 15, 2008 @07:58PM (#24623289)
    According to the novel 1984, one of the ultimate goals of a dictatorship is devising a way to read people's minds. In the novel, this translates to entire scientific research sections dedicated to such projects, as well as the constant use of psychological techniques (illustrated in the book) for the surveillance and interrogation of the general populace.

    This is not surprising. It derives from becoming paranoid and losing trust on your fellow human beings: "what if someone is secretly thinking of killing us? we ought to have a way to tell!". I hope no one ever gains such understanding, as it would be a serious threat to freedom.
  • We are all screwed.

  • Rule of Thumb. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Friday August 15, 2008 @08:43PM (#24623489)

    When the military or a collective of enough industry voices declare where we're going to be in twenty years, you can safely bet that those advancements are already here in some dark lab someplace.

    My reasoning is this: When you have developed a super-advanced technology in secret, then when it is out-moded and no longer useful because it is being replaced by an even more super-advanced secret technology, what do you do with it? Why you sell the heck out of it. Profit, profit, profit. The bad guys understand and live in the frequency of all things one can be fearful of. A big one is the Fear of Want. --Will I be safe from being homeless on the streets? Better make enough money to get a house. Will I be safe from a mortgage collapse? Better own a house and lots of extra money on top of that to see me through the hard times. Ooh, but the natives are growing restless. I better make sure my house is gated with armed guards on the walls. How much does that cost? Oh, and what if the economy collapses altogether? I'd better have enough resources saved up to be REALLY safe.

    It never ends, and so greed never ends. You need more to protect what you have, which in turn needs protecting. Fear, fear, fear.

    And so. . , you find schemes to make lots and lots of money. Keeping the economy running on new tech advancements; keep the people chasing after new and better stuff to replace old and outmoded stuff. So when your secret technologies which multiple agencies sworn to secrecy have been working on in compartmentalized areas with talk-and-die non-disclosure agreements signed and filed. . , when those technologies no longer serve to protect you directly because of newer and better items, you sell them! Yay!

    But hold on. You can't just dump a super-advanced technology on the market just like that. People will ask, "But where did it come from? Hey! Are you making secret technologies? With tax money? Well we want some of that!"

    So you need a narrative. You need to establish a logical development path for a new technology to sprout from for people to see. It doesn't have to be true, but just true enough. Think of all those poor busy-work developers re-inventing stuff in a guided manner so that their 'new' stuff lines up with the prescribed flow of stuff which you want to drop on the market in ten or twenty years time. Stuff, stuff, stuff!

    A silly game. Enjoy your iPods.

    -FL

    • The untapped market (Score:2, Interesting)

      by zazenation (1060442)

      The secondary market for this has to be HUGE.

      Possible Spin-off:

      Can you imagine the female "Does He Really Love Me" market segment? Half the people on the planet. I'm serious. Can you imagine the first person that marketed shoes? Rolling in the big Fortuna now. All those aspiring brides-to-be who need to know the truth.
  • Fortunately, a steady diet of US Weekly, People, and OK! will make us the world leaders in this "brain" battlefield of the future.
  • and the result was a guy on LSD jumping out of a building through plate glass. Sounds like a boondoggle for big Pharma though. More worthless, tested for 3 weeks, $20 pills.

  • Now where was that brochure for the Psychonauts training camp...

  • Who Did They Ask? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @12:28AM (#24624437) Journal

    Obviously they asked a panel of, at least primarily, neuroscientists. TFA doesn't mention that the report wasn't an all-around technology assessment, but rather is from the outset a futurism projection of neuroscience: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12177&page=R1 [nap.edu]
    They didn't come to the conclusion, as implied by the tone of TFA, rather it was their starting point and working boundary.

    Had they asked a panel of archeologists, the battlefield of the future would probably be inside the Great Pyramid, but The Guardian would fail to note the profession of the report writers, instead simply calling them "leading scientists".

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.

Working...