I was rather surprised to see this application of Alderbaran's Nao robot. Considering the previous research that shows people are less comfortable interacting with robots, putting robots with autistic kids that have trouble interacting at all seems counter-intuitive.
But it turns out that having a humanoid shape that can talk without any facial expression, complex interactions, or difficult to learn social cues, shallows the learning curve for autistic children. Also, robots don't judge when you screw up or make you feel bad which allows these children to become a lot more comfortable with holding a conversation and maintaining eye contact.
Once the children become accustomed to basic conversation and eye contact, their teachers can move on to more complicated human interactions without as much anxiety.
Just one more way robotics is improving all our lives.
I just watched two drive through window pranks perpetrated by the same guy. The first left me gasping for breath from laughter and the second made me sick to my stomach. Then it occurred to me that because so many of the variables are kept the same in both videos (drive through, unsuspecting late shift workers, prankster, etc) that we have a semi-scientific experiment here. What are the key variables that make one prank hilarious and the other cruel and inhuman?
Prank number 1: Expertly crafted car seat costume that makes car appear driverless.
Invisible Driver Prank: Hilarious
Prank number 2: Static shock generator zaps the worker followed by the driver either passing out or going into convulsions, usually driving the car in the process.
Static Shock Fainting Prank: Cruel and Inhuman
What's the difference? I see two big ones.
The first is the role of the prankster. In the invisible driver prank, the prankster merely sets up the situation and watches the action as a passive observer. In static shock, the prankster is an actor who creates the illusion of a very serious problem. In this case, the prankster actively misleads the victim (and they are truly victims in this case) into thinking they have caused serious harm and possibly killed a man.
The second is the response the prankster is hoping to illicit. The response in the invisible man prank is the hallmark of a good prank in my mind: confusion. The staffers are shocked, confused, question their state of mind in some cases, but always end up laughing at themselves and bring other people in to enjoy the moment.
But in the static shock prank, the emotions inflicted are fear, terror, distress, shock, and anguish. There's no moment in which he reveals the prank, he maintains the illusion that he's in great distress caused by the victim throughout the video. He leaves the scene with the victim still believing he/she has seriously hurt someone. I find no humor in this whatsoever.
This isn't to say a prank shouldn't scare someone, but if the prank creates a victim rather than a participant it should never have been perpetrated. The best pranks leaves everyone involved laughing.
When I heard that Louie Giglio was invited by the president to pray at the inauguration, I said to myself "self, where have you heard that name before."
This is the same moron who got excited that a protein in our bodies kinda looks like a cross, and he gets invited to speak at the president's inauguration.
Not just speak, pray.
Fortunately, he has reportedly removed himself from the role following some controversial anti-gay statements he made years ago. Including the gay movement is aggressively taking over the family:
We must lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but of many in the homosexual community. … Underneath this issue is a very powerful and aggressive moment. That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family.
You weren't born gay and it's more like alcoholism or addictive behavior.
I would refer you maybe just to the article “Born gay?” by Joe Dallas, who is the president of a ministry that helps with homosexuals in “recovery.” It was found in Christianity Today in June of 1992. It really unfolds for us that the evidence that they say is there, that the media wants to tell us is there really isn’t there at all. But I want to tell you this tonight. Even if it was there… How do you respond to that? How do you respond to the news reports that we’re hearing in the last few months that there is a genetic tendency to be an over-eater and it’s been supposedly proved by the scientists? That there is a genetic tendency to addictive behavior. Alcoholics by and large have a genetic tendency to addictive behavior. I predict in our lifetimes and not a very long period of time from now, scientists and geneticists will have found a way to prove a gene theory for every malfunction in sinful society. And do you know why? We talked about it the very first week—because we do not want responsibility for our choices.
And the only way to cure the gay is to pray it away with Jesus today.
As the church of Jesus Christ, we cannot sit on the sidelines, we cannot sit back inside our churches, but we must reach out and we must aggressively move toward the homosexual community because we have a message and we’ve got something to say… our message is we know Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is powerful enough to do anything and to do everything. And the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle, the only way out of a relationship that has been engrained over years of time, is through the healing power of Jesus.
While it's extremely discouraging that this paramount of Christian love was invited by the White House, I take heart in the fact that these statements are now considered so controversial that even evangelical Christians are shying away from it.
Think about it, would Louie have declined the invitation 10 years ago because of these statements? 15? 20? Sure there would have been plenty of people calling foul and being upset about it, but you would never have seen him withdraw himself from consideration due to public pressure. Reading his official statement it's clear that he still holds his anti-gay views, so why is he backing down on the issue? Because it would "distract from the things we focus on."
Making anti-gay statements now generates enough outrage to derail the ministry of a very popular evangelical mega-pastor. That's change I can believe in.
Today is the first day of the Spring 2013 semester here at Penn, and I'm looking ahead to a full range of classes and opportunities.
The downside is I'll have less time to dedicate to the blog, so my posts will be fewer and far between. At the same time there will be so many more robotics new items that cross my metaphorical desk (I'm not important enough to have a real desk yet) and will try my utmost to pass them on.
I intend to keep going strong as long as I am able, it's just going to be tough for the next few months.
Researchers at UMPC have tested a brain-computer interface (BCI) that allows a woman with spinocerebellar degeneration to feed herself using a robotic arm. Her first meal? A chocolate bar.
We still have a long way to go before we can replicate these results without invasive brain surgery, but we are inching closer to sophisticated cyborgs every year.
