(Discovery News) Mind-controlled applications and drones have been quite in vogue as of late, wouldn’t you say? We’ve told you about scads of brain-computer interfaces and our list of drone-related projects stretches as far as the finger can click.
So, naturally, it came as no surprise when this landed in our lap: a brain-controlled quadcopter drone.
Researchers at Zhejian University in Hangzhou, China, developed the quadcopter with the intent to give those with impaired motor skills a new way to interact.
By wearing an emotiv electroencephalography (EEG) headset, the researchers showed how they can pilot the drone simply by thinking “left hard” to have quadcopter take off and land, “left lightly” to rotate, “right” to move it forward and “push” to have it fly up. If users clench their teeth, the drone descends. Blinking the eyes causes the on-board camera to snap a photo.
The EEG headset first relays commands from Bluetooth to a laptop, then via Wi-Fi to the drone. The quadcopter, named Flying Buddy 2, also live streams video footage of the flight back to the laptop to give users better control.
Researchers will present their mind-controlled drone this week at the 14th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp 2012) in Pittsburgh, Pa. Check out the team’s demo video below. Make sure to stick around until the end, where there’s some pretty wicked drone-on-drone combat, a fight almost as fierce as the time Daniel LaRusso battled Johnny Lawrence for the All Valley Karate Tournament.
Anti-organic “study” is not news, rather, coordinated propaganda campaign. by Tony Cartalucci
September 5, 2012 – Harry Wallop of the London Telegraph ends his anti-organic food editorial with the following sentence:
“Tomorrow, the baby is going to get an extra dollop of pesticide-sprayed carrots.”
Whether or not Wallop is as brain-addled as he leads on to being, the point of his editorial is to encourage similar attitudes amongst the Telegraph’s readership, attempting to manipulate public perception in the wake of a recent Stanford University “study” regarding organic food.
Image: Conflict of interest? Strange that Stanford University is partnered with agricultural giant Cargill and just so happens to come out with a study that suggests organic food is no better than its big-agri competition. According to Stanford University, Cargill has donated at least 5 million dollars for the creation of a Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). Cargill’s website has a page describing its partnership with Stanford which can be found here. Cargill and many others also are listed as donors by Standford University in their 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf).
….
Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agri’s bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks its good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen.
The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support England’s latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study.
A Flawed “Study”
When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.
Two news cycles have already been dedicated to trashing organic food. Organic food is free of pesticides and genetic manipulation, both of which are proven to cause learning disabilities, decreased IQ, sterility, and a myriad of other health problems including a wide variety of cancers.
This most recent anti-organic food campaign began with a Stanford study (and here) out of its Center for Health Policy (a subsidiary of Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), examining the nutritional value of organic food versus non-organic. Food with pesticides on it had nearly the same nutritional value, the study claims, as organic food – completely skipping over the whole point of eating organic.
Indeed, the nutritional value would be similar – but the entire point of eating organic is not because of vastly superior nutritional value, but to avoid the “extras” included with products from big-agri corporations.
The Stanford study intentionally dismisses concerns regarding the presence of pesticides by simply claiming levels were within legal tolerances. No discussion was made on whether legal tolerances equated to safe tolerances, nor was there any mention made of the harmful effects of genetically modified organisms (GMO) or other controversial food additives found in non-organic food products.
So why the strawman argument?
A Corporate-funded “Study”
The Stanford Center for Health Policy states the following on its own website:
“The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institute’s research, teaching and outreach activities.”
The Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). So who are these “friends,” national and international foundations and corporations funding the research of FSI and its subsidiary, the Stanford Center for Health Policy?
Image: From Stanford Center for Health Policy’s own website it is admitted that ” national and international foundations and corporations” fund its research and “outreach activities.” This confirms the suspicions of an increasingly aware public who saw the “study” as biased, contradictory of both logic and ethics, and the result of insidious corporate-funding.
….
According to FSI’s 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf) Agricultural giant Cargill, British Petroleum (BP), the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), the Ford Foundation, Google, Goldman Sachs, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and many other corporate-financier, Fortune 500 special interests.
Image: From Stanford’s 2011 FSI Annual Report (page 38, .pdf), of which the Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary, is funded by Cargill, the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), and a myriad of other Fortune 500 corporate-financier special interests. The report at face value is throwaway propaganda, but its funding reveals a more insidious, coordinated effort to manipulate public perception, stretching across academia, mass media, government, and big business. (click image to enlarge)
….
That none of this is mentioned, and the lack of independence and transparency involved in the study and its presentation to the public, overturns the credibility of both Stanford, and the Western media machine that so eagerly shoveled the results out to the public. Combined with the fact that the study itself is flawed, and the concerted, disingenuous nature with which it is being promoted to the public, a premeditated public relations campaign, bought and paid for by Stanford’s FSI sponsors, most notably Cargill and the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation is self-evident.
What to Do?
Quite obviously, one should continue eating organic. Additionally, the duplicitous nature exhibited by academia, the mass media, and the vast corporate interests overtly driving them both, demands from us to redouble our efforts at implementing full-spectrum boycotts aimed at big-agri as well as other Fortune 500 corporate-financier monopolies. This includes other processed food makers such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola, Kraft, and the myriad of subsidiaries they maintain.
We should also redouble our efforts at supporting local farmers, attending and contributing to local farmers markets, and investigating the possibility of growing, if only a small percentage, our own herbs, fruits, and vegetables.
Freedom and self-determination come from economic independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. The most fundamental form of economic independence is having a safe, secure, and local food supply operated for, by, and of the people. Cementing this emerging paradigm, in spite of the crass, juvenile, even criminally irresponsible editorials like that of the Telegraph’s Harry Wallop, and multimillion dollar “studies” subsidized by Cargill and the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation, is the first step on extending this paradigm shift to other areas required for maintaining and advancing modern civilization.
VLADIVOSTOK, Russia – Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he’s cutting ties with Iran amid worries about the safety of Canadian diplomats in the country.
Baird says the Canadian embassy in Tehran will close immediately and Iranian diplomats in Canada have been given five days to leave.
He says he’s worried about the safety of diplomats in Tehran following recent attacks on the British embassy there.
He’s also warning ordinary Canadians to avoid travel to Iran.
Michel Chossudovsky, a prominent analyst and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, says Western powers are after a war of aggression in Syria by supporting and arming insurgents and terrorists, Press TV reports.
“It is well-understood that this is not a civil war; this is a war of aggression where forces of some NATO countries have entered the country; I am talking about elite SAS, MI6, US CIA, French and American forces, forces from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, mercenaries… the aggressors are the NATO countries and the FSA [the so-called Free Syrian Army] terrorists are their foot soldiers,” Michel Chossudovsky said in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday.
He went on to say that there is a breakdown of UN diplomacy because “the Secretary General (Ban Ki-moon) is in fact blaming the victims in the name of the aggressors.”
“He is blaming the victims in the name of the aggressors; it is well-documented that these atrocities directed against the Syrian people have been committed by FSA mercenaries and terrorists and these terrorists are supported by the Western military alliance,” the Canadian analyst noted.
Chossudovsky further argued that the underlying objective of the actions of the Western powers in Syria is to “destroy the Syrian nation.”
“What is happening now is a whole series of acts of intimidation, of threats, not to mention economic sanctions. The underlying objective is to destroy a nation; it is to kill a nation, to destabilize its economy, to trigger a humanitarian crisis and then send in the NGOs to pick up the pieces and so on and so forth or send in NATO,” he explained.
Many people, including large numbers of security forces, have been killed in the turmoil that began in Syria in March 2011.
Damascus says outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorists are the driving force behind the unrest and deadly violence, but the opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the killings.
The Syrian government says that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the armed militants are foreign nationals.
Satellite companies Nilesat and Arabsat have stopped broadcasting Syrian television stations.
Satellite companies Nilesat and Arabsat have stopped broadcasting Syrian television stations in a clear act of hostility against the Damascus government.
The operators took Syria’s state television channel as well as pro-government channels al-Ekhbaryah and al-Dunya off air on Wednesday shortly after a meeting of Arab League ministers in Cairo.
In June, the Arab League asked satellite operators Nilesat and Arabsat to shut down Syrian TV signals.
The operators, however, continue broadcasting Syria’s anti-Damascus television channels.
The Syrian government has slammed the move as an attempt to silence the Syrians, stressing that it is in violation of media ethics.
It is believed that by removing Syrian channels from Nilesat and Arabsat, Western-backed anti-Syria channels will gain absolute control of media with regard to covering events unfolding in Syria.
Syria has been the scene of deadly unrest since mid-March, 2011 and many people, including large numbers of army and security personnel, have been killed in the violence.
While the West and the Syrian opposition accuse the government of being behind the violence, Damascus blames ”outlaws, saboteurs and armed terrorist groups” for the unrest, insisting that it is being orchestrated from abroad.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said on August 1 that the country is engaged in a ”crucial and heroic” battle that will determine the destiny of the nation.
Current Geo Political Developments – And reading their true goals.
The Jews could live in the Middle East – if they could just get rid of their paranoia and anti social behaviour.
Britain has already given £5 million in aid to opposition groups in Syria, and its special envoy to the Syrian opposition, John Wilks, has remained in contact with FSA members in Istanbul. Western powers continue to change the regimes of countries which cannot defend themselves and they do it too often and too brazenly.
It is strange for the Arab League, which also contains repressive monarchies and dynastic emirates, to declare one of its member-states tyrannical.
====
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are engaged in a proxy war at the behest of the United States to destabilise Syria and change the regime in Damascus. Saudi Arabia bankrolls the insurgency, Qatar plays a role similar to the one it played in the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, and Turkey provides bases to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighting President Bashar al-Assad. It is incredible how the FSA irregulars inflict heavy casualties on the battle-hardened Syrian army and knock out its tanks and helicopter-gunships.
The United States, Britain and France have thrown their might behind the Syrian rebels by providing them intelligence support and sophisticated weapons. The clandestine operation going on for the last 17 months against Syria is meant to weaken the influence of Iran in the region.
The Iranian leadership refuses to acquiesce to imperial designs in the Middle East, unlike the oil-rich sheikdoms. The pattern of Western intervention in Syria is all too familiar. It is the same old pretext of weapons of mass destruction as it was in Iraq, and the same powers – mainly the US, the UK and France.
The Iraq invasion in March 2003 was fresh in people’s minds when Libya was attacked by Western forces and its leader Muammar Qaddafi lynched. The new candidate for regime change is Syria and its leader Bashar al-Assad. In Libya the opposition was the Transitional National Council (TNC), and in Syria it is the Syrian National Council (SNC). Tony Blair played out the US agenda in Iraq, and David Cameron is faithfully doing the same in Syria.
Britain has already given £5 million in aid to opposition groups in Syria, and its special envoy to the Syrian opposition, John Wilks, has remained in contact with FSA members in Istanbul. Western powers continue to change the regimes of countries which cannot defend themselves and they do it too often and too brazenly.
The recently held summit of the OIC in Mecca has suspended Syria’s membership and backed calls for arming Syrian rebels to launch offensives against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has accused Assad of acts of repression against his own people. It is strange for the Arab League, which also contains repressive monarchies and dynastic emirates, to declare one of its member-states tyrannical. Who knows the scenario could change for the worse for Muslim countries which are now instigating rebellion in Syria.
For instance, what would happen if the Western media suddenly began to advocate the arrival of democracy in, say, Saudi Arabia, asking it to hold elections? And CNN and The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, known for influencing US foreign policy, could take up the sensitive issue of emancipation of women in the ultra-conservative Saudi society and insist that Saudi Arabia granted them the right to vote. Ridding Afghan women of their blue cloak was part of the lofty agenda of the US invasion in Afghanistan, although the cloak stays when the invaders pack up to leave.
It is sad that the Muslim countries allow themselves to be part of campaigns against other Muslim countries because of sectarian prejudices. Iran has always assured Saudi Arabia and the emirates that it has no ill will towards them. Without outside support Qatar can hardly face Iran. In fact, Qatar is so vulnerable on its own that if threatened by Iran it would have to back off…
The writer is a freelance columnist based in Lahore.
By wearing an emotiv electroencephalography (EEG) headset, the researchers showed how they can pilot the drone simply by thinking “left hard” to have quadcopter take off and land, “left lightly” to rotate, “right” to move it forward and “push” to have it fly up. If users clench their teeth, the drone descends. Blinking the eyes causes the on-board camera to snap a photo.
