> Rather than leave it to NASA scientists I'd > rather just make the whole
> remote more intelligent. It anticipates the > function you MEANT to hit,
> then sends that command no matter which button > you pressed. Take this
> concept a but farther, and you realize the > remote only needs one button.
> Hmmm... sounds kinda MacIntosh to me. Probably > won't sell well.
> Dave

If you're serious here, then it sounds like what
you want is a "communicable remote", or a remote
you can talk to. Not unlike the SmartTalk I mentioned, but more advanced. Something you could
just speak the function you want and it would operate it. That's certainly possible if you're
one of those people that never quite got the hang
of pushing buttons on a telephone, for example...
So unless you're operating your remote drunk,
you couldn't screw up the operation. It's also a lot more possible than expecting the remote to enact a command you are merely "thinking", unless you're willing to act as a guinea pig in pioneering biotechnology experiments. Another thing that's more possible down the road is the ability to look at a key on the remote and select the function based on your eye or head movement.
Have you got $3,000 dollars to pay for a remote, by the way?

I guess the SmartTalk concept *is* a lot like a
Mac computer. As far as I can tell, it never sold
in any significant number (and is probably discontinued), it is alone in its class, as I've never seen any competitor make a similar device, and its very much a niche market kind of product, it would seem. This all despite the approvcal of John Cleese, go figure...