Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

EGGS and blackboxes.

Comments

  • #2
    Peanut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    Hobbes wrote:
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/display?id=126649

    Anyone looked into this at all? Sounds like hokum.

    Yep I've looked at it, it's been around for a while now.

    Not very useful as a test methodology for what it's trying to do as essentially the device is just outputting a single value (it's a simple binary random number generator, based on electronic noise as the random source
    (details here) ).

    The only thing you can do with that is see how far from a standard random distribution it is at given points in time, and try to correlate this with whatever your hypothesis is. It's definitely an honest attempt though, and was worth trying.

    The article makes it sound like it has proved positive correlations, however I think the other "image response" studies mentioned are far more definitive in terms of being able to correlate the results with the test setup (results can be tied to a specific event - i.e. galvanic skin response readings during (before/after) exposure to emotional imagery).


Advertisement