Check out this crazy dog-like robot video made by MA-based Boston Dynamics. The idea is to use the robot in battle situations to transport heavy equipment through rough terrain. Looks like they really tested this guy out, getting someone try to kick it over and making it cross over a particularly icy patch of ground, then replaying both situations in slow-mo (not unlike an action film battle scene).
Now it looks like this 'BigDog' robot now has some competition from another Boston area company called Vecna. They are making a similar robot called BEAR that they promoting as "the robot that can save your skin." Unlike BigDog, BEAR stands on two legs. You can see for yourself on Vecna's website.
-GR
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Ground control to Stephen Colbert
It's a crazy, mixed-up world out there, folks.
NASA held a contest to name a new "node" being added to the International Space Station next year. NASA tried to guide voters in the right direction.
But instead, two hundred thousand of the Colbert Report faithful voted for their own write-in nomination, "Colbert," over NASA's genteel suggestions, Earthrise, Legacy, Serenity and Venture.
Lesson learned: NASA's latest Name The Rover contest, which is running all this week, isn't taking write-ins.
Of course, NASA doesn't actually have to yield to the power of the people. We'll have to wait and see how they wiggle out of this sticky PR situation. And next time, perhaps they'll remember leave the big naming decisions in the capable hands of Siberian orphan children.
NASA held a contest to name a new "node" being added to the International Space Station next year. NASA tried to guide voters in the right direction.
The name should reflect the spirit of exploration and cooperation embodied by the space station, and follow in the tradition set by Node 1- Unity- and Node 2- Harmony.
But instead, two hundred thousand of the Colbert Report faithful voted for their own write-in nomination, "Colbert," over NASA's genteel suggestions, Earthrise, Legacy, Serenity and Venture.
Lesson learned: NASA's latest Name The Rover contest, which is running all this week, isn't taking write-ins.
Of course, NASA doesn't actually have to yield to the power of the people. We'll have to wait and see how they wiggle out of this sticky PR situation. And next time, perhaps they'll remember leave the big naming decisions in the capable hands of Siberian orphan children.
Monday, March 23, 2009
One shining moment (for mathematicians)
Basketball is a spectator sport. Mathematics is not.
Or is it? This month, hoops-loving statisticians get to ply their craft on the dunking, dribbling, alley-ooping data set which is the NCAA men's basketball tournament. Yes, mathematicians have the March Madness, too.
Scientific American obliges with a quick rundown of scientists who are getting in on the game, including University of Illinois computer scientist Sheldon Jacobson, who argues that seeding is irrelevant when it comes to picking winners in the Elite Eight and beyond. His study was published in the Journal of Gambling Business and Economics--the very existence of which merits a study of its own.
But if you really want to get your brain in a bunch, try figuring out the probability of picking an exactly correct bracket. The American Institute of Physics puts the odds at one in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808. That's one in 2 to the 63rd power. Thanks, combinatorics, for busting my bracket!
But Georgia Tech professor Joel Sokol thinks he has the secret to beating those odds, and it's called a Logistic Regression/Markov Chain. Didn't hear about it on PTI? The system uses scoreboard data from the regular season to pick likely winners on a neutral court, giving less weight to photo-finishes than to routs. Last year, it led him to a perfect Final Four, championship game, and tournament winner pick. Stay tuned to see how he'll fare this year.
You may now return to checking your bracket, which thankfully doesn't use up as many productive hours as you thought it did.
Or is it? This month, hoops-loving statisticians get to ply their craft on the dunking, dribbling, alley-ooping data set which is the NCAA men's basketball tournament. Yes, mathematicians have the March Madness, too.
Scientific American obliges with a quick rundown of scientists who are getting in on the game, including University of Illinois computer scientist Sheldon Jacobson, who argues that seeding is irrelevant when it comes to picking winners in the Elite Eight and beyond. His study was published in the Journal of Gambling Business and Economics--the very existence of which merits a study of its own.
But if you really want to get your brain in a bunch, try figuring out the probability of picking an exactly correct bracket. The American Institute of Physics puts the odds at one in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808. That's one in 2 to the 63rd power. Thanks, combinatorics, for busting my bracket!
But Georgia Tech professor Joel Sokol thinks he has the secret to beating those odds, and it's called a Logistic Regression/Markov Chain. Didn't hear about it on PTI? The system uses scoreboard data from the regular season to pick likely winners on a neutral court, giving less weight to photo-finishes than to routs. Last year, it led him to a perfect Final Four, championship game, and tournament winner pick. Stay tuned to see how he'll fare this year.
You may now return to checking your bracket, which thankfully doesn't use up as many productive hours as you thought it did.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Old School
Is rap the ideal medium for spreading scientific knowledge? You be the judge:
Large Hadron Collider Rap Let the particles fly
Gregor Mendel Rap Rapping monks
Scientific Method Rap It all starts with a question
Chemistry Rap: (Gas) Laws of the Streets PV=nRT!
Respiration Rap Just breathe
Large Hadron Collider Rap Let the particles fly
Gregor Mendel Rap Rapping monks
Scientific Method Rap It all starts with a question
Chemistry Rap: (Gas) Laws of the Streets PV=nRT!
Respiration Rap Just breathe
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Rapping Science
Kudos to John Tierney for finding this awesome rap on Evo Devo (the science of Evolutionary Developmental Biology):
Tierney Lab.
For those who haven't heard of Evo Devo before, this is the science that looks at how we and all the species on earth evolved by looking through the lens of development (i.e. how an animal grows up from an embryo). So by understanding how an embryo grows into its complex adult form, we can find clues in the animal's genes as to how new limbs and body function arise (e.g. by looking at what genes are turned on to make a limb, we get an idea of the pathway that evolved in order to make limbs).
Also note in the rap one of the rappers is wearing an old Toronto Blue Jays hat - my home team! (Though now living in Boston I am of course a Red Sox fan :)
-GR
Tierney Lab.
For those who haven't heard of Evo Devo before, this is the science that looks at how we and all the species on earth evolved by looking through the lens of development (i.e. how an animal grows up from an embryo). So by understanding how an embryo grows into its complex adult form, we can find clues in the animal's genes as to how new limbs and body function arise (e.g. by looking at what genes are turned on to make a limb, we get an idea of the pathway that evolved in order to make limbs).
Also note in the rap one of the rappers is wearing an old Toronto Blue Jays hat - my home team! (Though now living in Boston I am of course a Red Sox fan :)
-GR
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Under the sea
I was starting to think this whole "spookfish" thing might be a hoax. A deep-sea fish with a see-through head and tubular eyes? These marine biologists think we'll swallow anything!
But now I see that the spookfish--a.k.a. barrelfish--is as real as you and me. How do I know? It's on YouTube!
Prepare for some aquatic weirdness.
-KB
But now I see that the spookfish--a.k.a. barrelfish--is as real as you and me. How do I know? It's on YouTube!
Prepare for some aquatic weirdness.
-KB
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Creativity Google-Style
Google has a lot of things going for it, as we all know. But one thing I think they really got right was that they allow their employees one day a week – that’s 20% of their time – the luxury of working on new, innovative projects for the company. This could be anything their hearts desire, no matter how wacky or overly ambitious. They then have the option to post and test out some those crazy ideas on Google Labs.
And the results are pretty telling. Without this 20% ideas policy we wouldn’t have applications like Google Books, Google Scholar, Google Earth, Gmail… the list goes on.
As a story researcher, I am lucky enough to spend lots of time being creative and coming up with ideas for stories. Of course it would always be great to have more time, but everyday more immediate tasks often keep me too busy – like working on a show that needs to go on the air right away.
But on the rare occasions I have to really think about the embryo of an idea and see what could come of it… I can’t tell you how satisfying that is. These are often pretty hair-brained ideas that may not go anywhere, but just being able to think about such things seems to enhance and foster my creativity.
So wouldn’t it be great if everyone who worked at a company that valued creativity could have some time to just think? Of course it also helps to a have a forum and place to test out these ideas, such as Google Labs. But even if those ideas go no further than the water cooler, think about how great it is to get those creative juices flowing – regardless of where it leads.
-GR
And the results are pretty telling. Without this 20% ideas policy we wouldn’t have applications like Google Books, Google Scholar, Google Earth, Gmail… the list goes on.
As a story researcher, I am lucky enough to spend lots of time being creative and coming up with ideas for stories. Of course it would always be great to have more time, but everyday more immediate tasks often keep me too busy – like working on a show that needs to go on the air right away.
But on the rare occasions I have to really think about the embryo of an idea and see what could come of it… I can’t tell you how satisfying that is. These are often pretty hair-brained ideas that may not go anywhere, but just being able to think about such things seems to enhance and foster my creativity.
So wouldn’t it be great if everyone who worked at a company that valued creativity could have some time to just think? Of course it also helps to a have a forum and place to test out these ideas, such as Google Labs. But even if those ideas go no further than the water cooler, think about how great it is to get those creative juices flowing – regardless of where it leads.
-GR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
