Thursday, May 7, 2009

Ex-Time Watch Projects Time On Arm


The Ex-Time Watch, a conceptual watch by Rong Yong, projects the current time and date onto your arm/hand with the push of a button. So when someone asks what time it is, you push a button, and then point your arm in their direction. I like the concept, because I hate listening to people. Just show me your watch, I can tell the time myself. Besides, you'll probably round off to the closest five minutes or something. I want the exact time. This watch is not for me. My wrists are too fat.

Botley: What time is it when an elephant sits on your watch?
Harry: Time to get a new watch?
Botley: No, time to get a new arm!

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Proving that things were way cooler back in the day, is the world's first computer mouse. Made by Douglas Engelbart in 1964, it "consisted of two gear-wheels positioned perpendicular to each other -- allowing movement on one axis." Just look at this thing. Ergonomic shape, great button placement -- and it's made of wood. If that ain't style, then I don't know what is. Sure the front has rotted out, but who cares. My mouse looks like that, and it's brand new. That's just what happens when your page doesn't download fast enough and you start slamming the mouse on the desk.


Botley: My mouse has suddenly stopped working.
Harry: Is it an optical mouse?
Botley: I don't know?
Harry: Does it have a ball or light?
Botley: Oh, it's got a light on top.
Harry: On top? Are you sure?
Botley: Yes. It was underneath before, but it looks better when it's on top.
Harry: Ok, try turning it around so the light points down on the desk.
Botley: Amazing! It works now!

Cell Phone For Man's Best Friend

Petscell is a cell phone that attaches to your dog's collar so you can stay in contact during those long days at the cubicle. Of course, if you want something a little cooler you could go with this. The thing costs $499, which is freaking ridiculous for the most basic cell phone ever (minus being waterproof), and doesn't include activation or service. It automatically answers calls from a list you set, so your pet won't kill itself listening to telemarketers. Lassie! Come home!

Botley: What do you get if you cross a dog with a computer?
Harry: A computer with lots of bites.

Robot takes over nursery

“Children treat nursery robot as human”, according to the Telegraph today.

It sounds a bit over the top, but the sentiment does come directly from a study of a Sony robot (called QRIO) placed in a nursery environment, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week. The paper tells us: “Initially, the children treated the robot very differently than the way they treated each other. By the last session, 5 months later, they treated the robot as a peer rather than a toy.”

The robot – which stands at half-toddler height and was assisted in its actions (dancing, giggling, walking) by a human operator that sent it instructions every few minutes (which sounds like cheating to me, but the researchers say this mainly stopped it from hitting walls) – spent a total of 5 months in a classroom of toddlers. After bouts of “full behavioural repetoire” the kids really bonded with QRIO, say the researchers: they touched it in the way that they touch other kids, with an emphasis on hands and arms, hugged it, put a blanket over it when it ‘went to sleep’ on low batteries, and cried if it fell over.

Well… I have seen toddlers treat inanimate dolls like ‘peers’, and cry when their tamagotchi ‘dies’, despite the fact that these virtual pets consist of an unmoving chunk of plastic whose “full repetoire” of behaviour consists of bleeping.

But, as New Scientist and others point out, these kids did behave differently to QRIO than to an inanimate robot named Robby or other toys, like teddy bears.

It’s hardly surprising for kids to respond more to things that seem to respond to them. But whether they’ll really treat a robot exactly as they do another child, and whether a robot will really ever become an invaluable teaching assistant in the classroom, are debatable.

Apparently other robots have only been able to hold a child’s attention span for less than 10 hours, by telling stories (though I wonder how this compares to the ultimate story-teller, television, which seems to have an endless fascination for kids). By contrast this robot inspired "long-term bonding and socialization" (paper).

"The authors are drawing general conclusions ... beyond what the data alone suggest," technologist and social scientist Nathan Freier told Science – who also host the videos, from which you can draw your own conclusions.

Botley: That would be a good job for you.
Harry: You know I don't like children.
Botley: Hehehe!

Friday, May 1, 2009

Robot Animals Snare U.S. Poachers

Maryann Mott
for National Geographic News
May 1, 2009

On a remote U.S. Forest Service road in Arizona a few years ago, the driver of a white minivan slowly rolls to a stop, sticks a rifle out the window, and starts firing at what look to be wild turkeys.

State officers hiding in nearby bushes emerge, running toward the vehicle and shouting: "Game and Fish Department! Cease fire! Put down your weapon!"

The driver speeds off, but is caught a short distance down the dirt road by another officer. The hunter is cited for discharging a weapon from a vehicle—a U.S. $500 fine.

Unbeknownst to the driver, the turkey is actually a robotic decoy designed to catch such outdoor outlaws. Other robots include swimming moose, white-tailed deer and black bear.

Conservationists estimate that, for every animal killed legally in a hunting season, one animal is lost to poaching.

But year-round sting operations—like the one conducted near Young, Arizona, and in nearly every other U.S. state—are helping to level the playing field by saving wildlife from being illegally killed or captured for the pet trade.

"I consider it like a bait car that police departments use to apprehend people who are stealing vehicles," explains Arizona Game and Fish Department officer Ken Dinquel.

For nearly 20 years, the Oregon State Police Department's Fish and Wildlife Division has run a decoy operation targeting violators who hunt off-season from their cars and roadways or at night with the aid of a spotlight.

Under state law, firing at a wildlife enforcement decoy is considered the same as firing at a live animal. All the same penalties apply.

"The people that shoot at decoys are wildlife thieves," said Lt. Steve Lane. "They're not hunters."

Robot Animals

These animals look and act just like the real things.

Molded-fiberglass animals are wrapped in genuine hides obtained by government officers through donations or illegal kills.

(Related: "Robot Fish to Detect Ocean Pollution.")

Inside the bodies are radio-controlled motors—the same type found in toy cars or planes—allowing wildlife officers to remotely move a decoy's head, ears, and tail. Special reflective eyes glow at night when light is shined on them.

The robots don't come cheap: Prices range from $500 for turkey to $5,500 for a grizzly bear.

But Bob Koons, executive director of the Humane Society of the United States's Wildlife Land Trust, feels the price is well worth it.

That's because decoys put law enforcement officers and poachers in the same spot at the same time, leading to more convictions.

Koons, whose trust donates the high-tech decoys to law enforcement agencies nationwide, said the program has "been extremely successful."

Illegal Immigrants

In Arizona, wildlife officers are stepping up efforts against the rising number of illegal immigrants hunting at night for meat to feed their families, and, in some cases, entire neighborhoods.

(Related: "African Refugees Spurring Bush-Meat Trade.")

Dinquel, a 20-year veteran with the game-and-fish department, said poaching cases—which include illegal collection of protected species of reptiles for the pet trade—are a huge problem statewide.

The department runs about 12 decoy operations annually, he said, nabbing violators about 80 percent of the time. But not everyone who is caught knows they've done something wrong.

"Oftentimes there's just some disconnect with people on the wildlife laws," Dinquel said.

"They know that buying drugs on the streets of Phoenix is illegal, but they don't view shooting a deer as that big of a deal."

Botley: What do you think about that?
Harry: I tell you, if I was the one making those robots, I would make one that would jump out of the woods and chase those guys down and eat them!
Botley: A poacher-eating turkey?
Harry: Why not? That would keep everyone guessing at Thanksgiving!

Robot Nearly Kills Man; Owner Pays $3,000 Fine

A Swedish company has been fined 25,000 kronor ($3,000) after a malfunctioning robot attacked and almost killed one of its workers at a factory north of Stockholm.

Public prosecutor Leif Johansson mulled pressing charges against the firm but eventually opted to settle for a fine.

"I've never heard of a robot attacking somebody like this," he told news agency TT.

The incident took place in June 2007 at a factory in Bålsta, north of Stockholm, when the industrial worker was trying to carry out maintenance on a defective machine generally used to lift heavy rocks. Thinking he had cut off the power supply, the man approached the robot with no sense of trepidation.

But the robot suddenly came to life and grabbed a tight hold of the victim's head. The man succeeded in defending himself but not before suffering serious injuries.

"The man was very lucky. He broke four ribs and came close to losing his life," said Leif Johansson.

The matter was subject to an investigation by both the Swedish Work Environment Authority (Arbetsmiljöverket) and the police.

Prosecutor Johansson chastised the company for its inadequate safety procedures but he also placed part of the blame on the injured worker.

Botley: Why don't they ever have a news story about a man killing a robot.
Harry: Because you can't "kill" a robot. You can only power it off.
Botley: OK, how about "man unplugs robot"?

Chemical 'caterpillar' points to electronics-free robots

A chemical gel that can walk like an inchworm, or looper caterpillar has been demonstrated in a Japanese robotics lab.

It was created in the Shuji Hashimoto applied physics laboratory at Waseda University, Tokyo.

Shingo Maeda and colleagues made the colour-changing, motile gel by combining polymers that change in size depending on their chemical environment. This is based on an oscillating chemical reaction called the Belousov–Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction. The result is an autonomous material that moves without electronic stimulation.

The BZ reaction is one of a class of chemical systems in which the concentration of one or more compounds periodically increases and decreases. As well as producing stunning patterns (video), it can even be used to perform calculations using a dish containing the pulsing patterns as a chemical brain.
Force amplifier

Polymers used in the gel shrink and grow in response to ruthenium bipyridine ions, alternately losing and gaining electrons in the cyclical reaction. That effect has been known for some time, but hasn't been used to make a self-locomoting material on such a scale before, says Maeda.

"In previous work, the displacement of the mechanical oscillation of the gel was very small in comparison with the gel size," he told New Scientist.

Maeda and colleagues created a gel that magnifies the small changes in size by building tension into it. That produces its curved shape as well as amplifying the material's response to the oscillating reaction inside itself.

The gel shown in the video above is able to move thanks to a notched surface. But Maeda is now working on a new version that lies flat on a normal surface and moves using a peristaltic motion, like an earthworm or snail.
Lab worm

Like the inchworm, this incarnation of the gel will still be limited to the lab bench, but these experiments demonstrate the potential of using oscillating chemical systems like the BZ reaction for tasks engineers usually achieve using electronics, says Maeda.

"Mechanical systems need complex fabricated circuits or external control devices because the mechanical motion is driven by on-off switching of external signals," he explains.

By comparison, chemical systems can be "self organised" and generate their own control and mechanical signals from within, he says. Those abilities could be used to make some components of a future robot, while more conventional engineering is used for the parts for which only electronics will do.

Journal reference: Advanced Robotics (DOi: 10.1109/IROS.2007.4399392)