From: Psytrix Yahoo (psytrix_v_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 2001-06-08 12:44:34
Despite formal and law related issues about EEG term ( and we should be the most inteligent and cautions about that ), we should not forgetthe philosophical perspective : what we are doing is not only an EEG , but also the best project of EEG already imagined in actual civilization ,including all the features already available and the those which are not yet , from medical purposes ( including the diagnosis and extending chemical concept of therapies for the signal or brain stimulation therapies ) , passing by Virtual Reality (forming new means usable by information engineering ) , by children and home user ( usually restricted to dummy games )to alternative medicine therapist, and the old-new class of prophets that ever appear to show us how "re-gain" the worth of Living and Being .
Excuse me: I am too humble , but the openEEG isn't .
And just to dare think and develop that idea is our privilege. And if one day our idea will be
stolen from our use by one profit or professional corporation is becausewe had success
in giving our share for better the world. Do we not be too afraid in follow ahead .
Yaniv's idea of taking a lawyer is only to allow us to put on side our fears ( althought we have learning
a lot duscussing it ) and think in going on in biggest ideas yet.
Congratulations for all ,
Waldemar
<Thatīs also the reason why I didnīt want to call it openly an EEG device. This
name could confuse people to use our device like an EEG and use it for
declaring somebody braindead (in the worst case). If we call it EEG, we canīt
say itīs not a medical device and it doesnīt need certification. There are also
lots of rules especially about medical measurement devices regarding
calibration and so on. To avoid confusion about the goal our device was
designed for, we should maybe not use the term EEG.
Moritz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:30 BST