Remote View

Remote viewing

---

Causes the current thread to wait until another thread invokes the notify method or the notifyAll method for this object, or some other thread interrupts the current thread, or a certain amount of real time has elapsed. Causes the current thread to wait until either another thread invokes the notify method or the notifyAll method for this object, or a specified amount of time has elapsed.

Causes the current thread to wait until another thread invokes the notify method or the notifyAll method for this object. This allows users to build "nested" RemoteViews. In cases where consumers of RemoteViews may recycle layouts, use removeAllViews int to clear any existing children. Inflates the view hierarchy represented by this object and applies all of the actions. Returns a deep copy of the RemoteViews object.

Remote Access

The RemoteView may not be attached to another RemoteView -- it must be the root of a hierarchy. Returns the layout id of the root layout associated with this RemoteViews. In the case that the RemoteViews has both a landscape and portrait root, this will return the layout id associated with the portrait layout. Applies all of the actions to the provided view. When using collections eg. ListView , StackView etc.

Search form

Instead a single PendingIntent template can be set on the collection, see setPendingIntentTemplate int, PendingIntent , and the individual on-click action of a given item can be distinguished by setting a fillInIntent on that item. The fillInIntent is then combined with the PendingIntent template in order to determine the final intent which will be executed when the item is clicked.

This works as follows: The rest of the PendingIntent template will then be filled in with the associated fields that are set in fillInIntent. 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.

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

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.

RemoteView™ Pro

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: 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.

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.

Manage a variety of devices from any location with RemoteView.

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. United Kingdom United States World. Death and culture Parapsychology Scientific literacy. While this was appropriate in that situation, it makes it impossible to interpret the role of the paranormal phenomena independently. Also, it raises some doubts about some well-publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues.

In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome—the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means. But an infinite variety of normal possibilities exist and it is not clear than one can control for all of them in a single experiment.

You need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet. Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal: Marks and Kammann argued that the 'cues' - clues to the order in which sites had been visited—provided sufficient information for the results, without any recourse to extrasensory perception.

Indeed Marks himself was able to achieve percent accuracy in allocating some transcripts to sites without visiting any of the sites himself, purely on the ground basis of the cues. From Occam's razor, it follows that if a straightforward natural explanation exists, there is no need for the spectacular paranormal explanation: Targ and Puthoff's claims are not justified". A Dictionary of Hallucinations. Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. The Psychology of the Psychic. A critical reevaluation" PDF.

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Science Confronts the Paranormal.

The Reality of ESP: A Physicist's Proof of Psychic Abilities. Harper's Encyclopedia of Mystical and Paranormal Experience. A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology. A tutorial review and critical appraisal". Proceedings of the IEEE. The incredible in search of credibility". How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival. Science and the Supernatural: A reply to May" PDF. James Randi Educational Foundation. An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning. Archived from the original on 13 May Journal of Society for Scientific Exploration.

Society for Scientific Exploration. Archived from the original on June 3, UK's Ministry of Defence.

• The 5:2 Diet Complete Guide and Cookbook; Lose Weight and Eat What You Like
• À la mémoire des morts: 5 (Grands détectives) (French Edition)
• Geschichten für Erwachsene - Vol. 1 (German Edition)
• Soil Conservation Aids Soybean Production
• Social Media Holocaust
• NYC: Mission to Die For (Summer Winter Mystery Book 1)
• Not in Front of the Corgis: Secrets of Life Behind the Royal Curtains