The source bounds Intent. Note that any activity options associated with the pendingIntent may get overridden before starting the intent. When setting the on-click action of items within collections eg. Instead this method should be used to set a single PendingIntent template on the collection, and individual items can differentiate their on-click behavior using setOnClickFillInIntent int, Intent. Can only be used for App Widgets. Content and code samples on this page are subject to the licenses described in the Content License.
Last updated June 6, RemoteViews A class that describes a view hierarchy that can be displayed in another process. RemoteViews is limited to support for the following layouts: Summary Nested classes class RemoteViews. RemoteView This annotation indicates that a subclass of View is allowed to be used with the RemoteViews mechanism. Inherited constants From interface android. Object Object clone Creates and returns a copy of this object. String toString Returns a string representation of the object.
Parcelable abstract int describeContents Describe the kinds of special objects contained in this Parcelable instance's marshaled representation. Filter abstract boolean onLoadClass Class clazz Hook to allow clients of the LayoutInflater to restrict the set of Views that are allowed to be inflated. RemoteViews added in API level 1.
RemoteViews added in API level ActionException Exception to send when something goes wrong executing an action. Creator that instantiates RemoteViews objects.
RemoteView
RemoteViews String packageName, int layoutId Create a new RemoteViews object that will display the views contained in the specified layout file. RemoteViews RemoteViews landscape, RemoteViews portrait Create a new RemoteViews object that will inflate as the specified landspace or portrait RemoteViews, depending on the current configuration. Name of the package that contains the layout resource.
The RemoteViews to inflate in landscape configuration. The RemoteViews to inflate in portrait configuration. The id of the parent ViewGroup to add child into. RemoteViews that describes the child. Parent that the resulting view hierarchy will be attached to. This method does not attach the hierarchy. The caller should do so when appropriate. The class object for the View that is about to be inflated. The view to apply the actions to. This should be the result of the apply Context, ViewGroup call.
The id of the parent ViewGroup to remove all children from. The id of the view whose after view in accessibility traversal to set. The id of the next in the accessibility traversal.
RemoteViews
The id of the view whose before view in accessibility traversal to set. The id of the Chronometer to change. The time at which the timer would have read 0: This time should be based off of SystemClock. The Chronometer format string, or null to simply display the timer value. True if you want the clock to be started, false if not.
True if you want the chronometer to count down to base instead of counting up. The id of the view whose content description should change. The new content description for the view. The id of the view on which to call AdapterViewAnimator. The Icon to pass the method. The Intent to pass the method. The id of a view for which this view serves as a label.
The id of the view on which to set the fillInIntent. The intent which will be combined with the parent's PendingIntent in order to determine the on-click behavior of the view specified by viewId. The id of the view that will trigger the PendingIntent when clicked. The PendingIntent to send when user clicks.
The id of the collection who's children will use this PendingIntent template when clicked. The PendingIntent to be combined with extras specified by a child of viewId and executed when that child is clicked. The id of the ProgressBar to change. Typically a remote viewer is expected to give information about an object, event, person or location that is hidden from physical view and separated at some distance.
Physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff , parapsychology researchers at Stanford Research Institute SRI , are generally credited with coining the term "remote viewing" to distinguish it from the closely related concept of clairvoyance , [9] [10] although according to Targ, the term was first suggested by Ingo Swann in December during an experiment at the American Society for Psychical Research in New York City.
- Remote viewing.
- RemoteView™ Pro.
- Remote View;
The program was terminated in after it failed to produce any actionable intelligence information. In early occult and spiritualist literature, remote viewing was known as telesthesia and travelling clairvoyance. Rosemary Guiley described it as "seeing remote or hidden objects clairvoyantly with the inner eye, or in alleged out-of-body travel. The study of psychic phenomena by major scientists started in the mid-nineteenth century. Their work predominantly involved carrying out focused experimental tests on specific individuals who were thought to be psychically gifted. Reports of apparently successful tests were met with much skepticism from the scientific community.
In the s, J. Rhine expanded the study of paranormal performance into larger populations, by using standard experimental protocols with unselected human subjects. But, as with the earlier studies, Rhine was reluctant to publicize this work too early because of the fear of criticism from mainstream scientists. This continuing skepticism, with its consequences for peer review and research funding, ensured that paranormal studies remained a fringe area of scientific exploration.
However, by the s, the prevailing counterculture attitudes muted some of the prior hostility. The emergence of New Age thinking [ clarification needed ] and the popularity of the Human Potential Movement provoked a mini-renaissance that renewed public interest in consciousness studies and psychic phenomena and helped to make financial support more available for research into such topics.
In the late s, the physicists John Taylor and Eduardo Balanovski tested the psychic Matthew Manning in remote viewing and the results proved "completely unsuccessful". One of the early experiments, lauded by proponents as having improved the methodology of remote viewing testing and as raising future experimental standards, was criticized as leaking information to the participants by inadvertently leaving clues.
The viewers' advice in the " Stargate project " was always so unclear and non-detailed that it has never been used in any intelligence operation. Funding dissipated in late and the program went into decline. Reviewers included Ray Hyman and Jessica Utts. The AIR report concluded that no usable intelligence data was produced in the program.
In — the UK government performed a study on 18 untrained subjects. The experimenters recorded the E field and H field around each viewer to see if the cerebral activity of successful viewings caused higher-than-usual fields to be emitted from the brain. However, the experimenters did not find any evidence that the viewers had accessed the targets in the data collection phase, the project was abandoned, and the data was never analyzed since no RV activity had happened.
Some "narrow-band" E-fields were detected during the viewings, but they were attributed to external causes. The experiment was disclosed in after a UK Freedom of Information request. They created an analytical judgment methodology to replace the human judging process that was criticized in past experiments, and they released a report in They felt the results of the experiments were consistent with the SRI experiments.
In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years. A variety of scientific studies of remote viewing have been conducted.
RemoteView | Award winning remote desktop access service | RSUPPORT
Early experiments produced positive results but they had invalidating flaws. Science writers Gary Bennett , Martin Gardner , Michael Shermer and professor of neurology Terence Hines describe the topic of remote viewing as pseudoscience. Hansel who evaluated the remote viewing experiments of parapsychologists such as Puthoff, Targ, John B.
Dunne noted that there were a lack of controls and precautions were not taken to rule out the possibility of fraud. He concluded the experimental design was inadequately reported and "too loosely controlled to serve any useful function.
Remote Access
The psychologist Ray Hyman says that, even if the results from remote viewing experiments were reproduced under specified conditions, they would still not be a conclusive demonstration of the existence of psychic functioning. He blames this on the reliance on a negative outcome—the claims on ESP are based on the results of experiments not being explained by normal means. He says that the experiments lack a positive theory that guides as to what to control on them and what to ignore, and that "Parapsychologists have not come close to having a positive theory as yet".
Hyman also says that the amount and quality of the experiments on RV are way too low to convince the scientific community to "abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles", due to its findings still not having been replicated successfully under careful scrutiny. Martin Gardner has written that the founding researcher Harold Puthoff was an active Scientologist prior to his work at Stanford University, and that this influenced his research at SRI.
In , the Church of Scientology published a notarized letter that had been written by Puthoff while he was conducting research on remote viewing at Stanford. The letter read, in part: Michael Shermer investigated remote viewing experiments and discovered a problem with the target selection list. According to Shermer with the sketches only a handful of designs are usually used such as lines and curves which could depict any object and be interpreted as a "hit".
Shermer has also written about confirmation and hindsight biases that have occurred in remote viewing experiments. Various skeptic organizations have conducted experiments for remote viewing and other alleged paranormal abilities, with no positive results under properly controlled conditions. In a series of 35 studies, they were unable to replicate the results so investigated the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page.
They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates. Examination of the few actual transcripts published by Targ and Puthoff show that just such clues were present. To find out if the unpublished transcripts contained cues, Marks and Kammann wrote to Targ and Puthoff requesting copies. It is almost unheard of for a scientist to refuse to provide his data for independent examination when asked, but Targ and Puthoff consistently refused to allow Marks and Kammann to see copies of the transcripts.
Marks and Kammann were, however, able to obtain copies of the transcripts from the judge who used them. The transcripts were found to contain a wealth of cues. Most of the material in the transcripts consists of the honest attempts by the percipients to describe their impressions.
- Next.
- Hoist Up Your Muffintop And Show Me Your New Belt: Prose For A Politically Incorrect Society.
- Musical Torture!
- Lelettricista suona sempre 220 volt (Haddock & Parrish: in due sindaga peggio) (Italian Edition).
However, the transcripts also contained considerable extraneous material that could aid a judge in matching them to the correct targets. In particular, there were numerous references to dates, times and sites previously visited that would enable the judge to place the transcripts in proper sequence Astonishingly, the judges in the Targ-Puthoff experiments were given a list of target sites in the exact order in which they were used in the tests!
According to Marks, when the cues were eliminated the results fell to a chance level. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues that had inadvertently been included in the transcripts. Marks and Kamman concluded: As previously concluded, remote viewing has not been demonstrated in the experiments conducted by Puthoff and Targ, only the repeated failure of the investigators to remove sensory cues.
The information from the Stargate Project remote viewing sessions was vague and included a lot of irrelevant and erroneous data, it was never useful in any intelligence operation, and it was suspected that the project managers in some cases changed the reports so they would fit background cues. Marks in his book The Psychology of the Psychic discussed the flaws in the Stargate Project in detail. The possibility of cues or sensory leakage was not ruled out, no independent replication , some of the experiments were conducted in secret making peer-review impossible.
Marks noted that the judge Edwin May was also the principal investigator for the project and this was problematic making huge conflict of interest with collusion, cuing and fraud being possible. Marks concluded the project was nothing more than a "subjective delusion" and after two decades of research it had failed to provide any scientific evidence for remote viewing. Marks has also suggested that the participants of remote viewing experiments are influenced by subjective validation , a process through which correspondences are perceived between stimuli that are in fact associated purely randomly.
However, he indicated the importance of its process-oriented approach and of its refining of remote viewing methodology, which meant that researchers replicating their work could avoid these problems. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the parapsychology claim of abilities similar to telepathy.
For the use of technology to see a remote scene, see Television.