Here are ten quick tips on how to improve memory:
1. Use Repetition - Repeating to yourself the thing you want to remember may be simple, but it really does work. Repeat a phone number several times, for example, and you should remember it for a short while. This works even better if you "sing" it in your mind to engage other parts of the brain. To remember things long-term, repeat or review them several times upon learning them, then the next day, the day after that, the the next week and the week after that.
2. Write It Down - Let the paper remember for you. The point is to have use of the information later, and if that's more easily done by way of an "external memory device" like pen and paper, why not take advantage of these tools? Also, writing things down is another way to more strongly "fix" something in our minds.
3. Clear Your Mind - Sometimes to recall something you just need to relax and empty your mind of all the other stuff going on in there. Take three deep and slow breaths through your nose and relax your muscles. Pay attention to the air moving in and out of your nostrils. Afterwards return to whatever it is you need to recall or work on.
4. Feed Your Brain - This means feeding your body of course. Your brain needs a lot of energy, and will generally function better if you eat some good proteins and complex carbohydrates. Trail mix, with nuts and dried fruit works well for some. Fish has been shown to immediately speed up brain function, as well as improve memory and other brain functions long-term improvement if eaten regularly. Also, the distraction caused by hunger can interfere with your concentration and ability to recall things.
5. Drink Enough Fluids - Dehydration is not always recognized, and can both distract you in ways that get in the way of clear thinking and memory, as well as more directly impacting the functioning of the brain. You can experiment to see if this is happening in your case. Just drink a glass of water and note whether your mind seems to work better.
6. Exercise - Physical exercise has been shown to improve brain function both immediately (after ten minutes on a treadmill, for example), and long term. The short-term effect is because of the immediate increase in blood flow and therefore oxygen to the brain. The long-term improvement in memory and other brain functions that come from regular exercise may also be due to the physical improvement of the brain and body that comes from this repeated increase in blood flow and oxygen.
7. Learn A Mnemonic Technique - There are many good memory techniques for remembering names, numbers, lists of things and more. A simple list of items can be "fixed" in your memory, for example, by linking them together in a crazy story that you visualize. You can find some of these techniques (as well as other memory tips) covered here on the website and in the Brainpower Newsletter.
8. Imagine The Use - If you think about how you will use information, you're more likely to remember it. For example if after learning a new algorithm in a math class you imagine using it during a test, you'll probably remember it better - particularly when taking a test. Imagine meeting someone again in the future and using his name, and you'll likely recall it when that does happen.
9. Avoid Toxins - Smoking is the obvious one here. Although it may actually help a person concentrate in the short-term, the damage smoking does may later hurt brain function in general, including memory. Many prescription drugs and of course illegal drugs can also have a negative effect.
10. Reduce Stress - When you're stressed, your body releases cortisol, which at high levels interferes with the part of the brain that handles recent memories. Chronic stress has even been shown to cause brain shrinkage. Meditate or do other self-work to learn how not to be stressed out. This may be the most important of these tips on how to improve memory, good not only for the brain but for your whole body and life experience.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Asteroid explosion over Indonesia raises fears about Earth's defences
On 8 October, the rock crashed into the atmosphere above South Sulawesi, Indonesia. The blast was heard by monitoring stations 10,000 miles away, according to a report by scientists at the University of Western Ontario.
Scientists are concerned that it was not spotted by any telescopes, and that had it been larger it could have caused a disaster.
The asteroid, estimated to have been around 10 metres (30ft) across, hit the atmosphere at an estimated 45,000mph. The sudden deceleration caused it to heat up rapidly and explode with the force of 50,000 tons of TNT.
Luckily, due to the height of the explosion – estimated at between 15 and 20 km (nine to 12 miles) above sea level – no damage was caused on the ground.
However, if the object had been slightly larger – 20 to 30 metres (60 to 90ft) across – it could easily have caused extensive damage and loss of life, say researchers.
Very few objects smaller than 100 meters (300ft) across have been spotted and catalogued by astronomers.
Tim Spahr, director of the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, warned that it was inevitable that minor asteroids would go unnoticed. He said: "If you want to find the smallest objects you have to build more, larger telescopes.
"A survey that finds all of the 20-metre objects will cost probably multiple billions of dollars."
The fireball was spotted by locals in Indonesia, and a YouTube video taken that day "appears to show a large dust cloud consistent with a bright, daylight fireball", according to the Ontario researchers.
An asteroid or comet fragment around 60 meters across is believed to have been behind the Tunguska Event, a powerful explosion that took place over Russia in 1908. The blast has been estimated at equivalent to 10-15 million tons of TNT – enough to destroy a large city.
The White House is to develop a policy on the space object impact threat by October next year.
Scientists are concerned that it was not spotted by any telescopes, and that had it been larger it could have caused a disaster.
The asteroid, estimated to have been around 10 metres (30ft) across, hit the atmosphere at an estimated 45,000mph. The sudden deceleration caused it to heat up rapidly and explode with the force of 50,000 tons of TNT.
Luckily, due to the height of the explosion – estimated at between 15 and 20 km (nine to 12 miles) above sea level – no damage was caused on the ground.
However, if the object had been slightly larger – 20 to 30 metres (60 to 90ft) across – it could easily have caused extensive damage and loss of life, say researchers.
Very few objects smaller than 100 meters (300ft) across have been spotted and catalogued by astronomers.
Tim Spahr, director of the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, warned that it was inevitable that minor asteroids would go unnoticed. He said: "If you want to find the smallest objects you have to build more, larger telescopes.
"A survey that finds all of the 20-metre objects will cost probably multiple billions of dollars."
The fireball was spotted by locals in Indonesia, and a YouTube video taken that day "appears to show a large dust cloud consistent with a bright, daylight fireball", according to the Ontario researchers.
An asteroid or comet fragment around 60 meters across is believed to have been behind the Tunguska Event, a powerful explosion that took place over Russia in 1908. The blast has been estimated at equivalent to 10-15 million tons of TNT – enough to destroy a large city.
The White House is to develop a policy on the space object impact threat by October next year.
Monday, October 19, 2009
All About Space Tourism
Space tourism is no longer just the outlandish vision of science fiction writers. While still only affordable to the very wealthy, space tourism offers a unique type of adventure that is sought after by a large percent of the traveling population. From the mind-boggling thrill of looking at Earth from space to the feeling of weightlessness, space trips offer the experience of a lifetime to well-funded travelers.
Through Space Adventures, Ltd. and the Russian Soyuz program, American Dennis Tito became the first fee-paying tourist in space. He was later followed by South African Mark Shuttlework and American entrepreneur/scientist Gregory Olsen. Soon after, private space traveling for paying tourists was temporarily put on hold when Soyuz vehicles became the only available transport to the International Space Station after the Columbia disaster.
Private companies in Russia, Europe and the United States are competing to become future leaders of space tourism. Even though analysts envision space tourism travel becoming more and more popular, development is a slow process. Analysts say floating space hotels are on the horizon, but until space travel is more affordable, there will not be a substantial market for the hotels.
Through Space Adventures, Ltd. and the Russian Soyuz program, American Dennis Tito became the first fee-paying tourist in space. He was later followed by South African Mark Shuttlework and American entrepreneur/scientist Gregory Olsen. Soon after, private space traveling for paying tourists was temporarily put on hold when Soyuz vehicles became the only available transport to the International Space Station after the Columbia disaster.
Private companies in Russia, Europe and the United States are competing to become future leaders of space tourism. Even though analysts envision space tourism travel becoming more and more popular, development is a slow process. Analysts say floating space hotels are on the horizon, but until space travel is more affordable, there will not be a substantial market for the hotels.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Did Man Really Walk On The Moon
Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne? The greater lunar lie. feetIn the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.
“How can the flag be fluttering,” the 47 year old American kept asking himself, “when there’s no wind on the atmosphere free Moon?” That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self-taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.
It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it’s being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.
The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race.
At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars. And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born.
Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13–whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway–being the only casualties.
But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they’re fake. For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film “man’s greatest achievement” from a TV screen in Houston–a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.
By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that’s just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out, that’s not all:
• The cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.
• Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.
• They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers. .
Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows:
• The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.
• The American flag and the words “United States” are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.
• Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
• The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.
David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by “whistle blowers”, who were keen for the truth to one day get out. If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we’ve only NASA’s word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?
The questions don’t stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth’s Van Allen belt. But the Moon is 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, “about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil”. How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn’t rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer–not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started.
“They should have been fried,” says Rene. Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn’t one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one defect could have blown the whole thing. “The odds against this are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot,” says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin “the second man on the Moon”–was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface.
Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. “It strikes me he’s suffering from trying to live out a very big lie,” says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut, was due to pilot Apollo 1. In January 1967, he baited the Apollo program by hanging a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: “if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it’s likely to be me.”
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded. Scientists couldn’t believe NASA’s carelessness–even a chemistry student in high school knows high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate.
“One wonders if these ‘accidents’ weren’t NASA’s way of correcting mistakes,” says Rene. “Of saying that some of these men didn’t have the sort of ‘right stuff’ they were looking for.”
NASA won’t respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a lunar landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape.
“The purpose of this film,” Scheer told the enthralled group, “is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception.” He then invited his audience to “come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon”. A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the rocket exploded. “It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn’t left with three astronauts who ought to be dead,” he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn’t what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.
And now NASA is planning another giant step–project Outreach, a one trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. “Think what they’ll be able to mock up with today’s computer graphics,” says Rene chillingly. “Special effects was in its infancy in the 60’s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth.”
Space oddities:
• Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
• A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16’s Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
• One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
• The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
• The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn’t America make a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
• Text from pictures in the article show only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
• The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn’t match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering?
• How can the flag be brightly lit when its not facing any light ?
• And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
• The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.
• The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it’s never been fired…
http://krishna.org/did-man-really-walk-on-the-moon/
“How can the flag be fluttering,” the 47 year old American kept asking himself, “when there’s no wind on the atmosphere free Moon?” That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self-taught engineer from New Jersey. He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.
It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it’s being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.
The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race.
At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars. And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born.
Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13–whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway–being the only casualties.
But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they’re fake. For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol threw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film “man’s greatest achievement” from a TV screen in Houston–a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.
By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that’s just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. As Rene points out, that’s not all:
• The cameras had no white meters or view finders. So the astronauts achieved this feat without being able to see what they were doing.
• Their film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless.
• They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized clubs. It should have been almost impossible to bend their fingers. .
Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows:
• The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.
• The American flag and the words “United States” are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.
• Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
• The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.
David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by “whistle blowers”, who were keen for the truth to one day get out. If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we’ve only NASA’s word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?
The questions don’t stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth’s Van Allen belt. But the Moon is 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, “about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil”. How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn’t rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer–not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started.
“They should have been fried,” says Rene. Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn’t one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one defect could have blown the whole thing. “The odds against this are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot,” says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin “the second man on the Moon”–was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface.
Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. “It strikes me he’s suffering from trying to live out a very big lie,” says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut, was due to pilot Apollo 1. In January 1967, he baited the Apollo program by hanging a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: “if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it’s likely to be me.”
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded. Scientists couldn’t believe NASA’s carelessness–even a chemistry student in high school knows high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate.
“One wonders if these ‘accidents’ weren’t NASA’s way of correcting mistakes,” says Rene. “Of saying that some of these men didn’t have the sort of ‘right stuff’ they were looking for.”
NASA won’t respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a lunar landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape.
“The purpose of this film,” Scheer told the enthralled group, “is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception.” He then invited his audience to “come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon”. A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the rocket exploded. “It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn’t left with three astronauts who ought to be dead,” he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn’t what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.
And now NASA is planning another giant step–project Outreach, a one trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. “Think what they’ll be able to mock up with today’s computer graphics,” says Rene chillingly. “Special effects was in its infancy in the 60’s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth.”
Space oddities:
• Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
• A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16’s Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
• One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
• The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
• The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn’t America make a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
• Text from pictures in the article show only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
• The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn’t match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering?
• How can the flag be brightly lit when its not facing any light ?
• And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
• The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.
• The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it’s never been fired…
http://krishna.org/did-man-really-walk-on-the-moon/
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Robots In Future Wars
(NaturalNews) While civilian consumers can get a taste of the Jetsons' lifestyle with iRobot's Roomba vacuuming, floor washing and floor sweeping robots, the military is also taking advantage of the company's technology, but not to clean the barracks.
The iRobot line of military robots includes scout robots that can reconnoiter unknown territory or inaccessible areas; an explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) robot able to disarm bombs without risking human lives; and an unmanned all-purpose ATV. The robots have been used in recent conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the response from military personnel has been positive. The testimonials displayed on the iRobot site display a general consensus that iRobot products save lives.
"When a robot dies you don't have to write a letter to its mother," a Navy chief is quoted as saying after a iRobot PackBot EOD model was destroyed in the field.
The ethics statement at the iRobot site states, "We are committed to making the world a better place by building robots that are used by people everyday. Our home robots clean your house and our mobile tactical robots help protect our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan." But critics are still wary of giving robots to Uncle Sam.
"At what point will these military robots start being equipped with automatic weapons, grenades or high explosives?" said Mike Adams, a technology ethicist. "At that point, the U.S. military becomes a human/machine hybrid killing system, where armed, automated robots might be unleashed upon some civilian population in order to maximize enemy casualties while minimizing American casualties.
"Consumers who buy Roomba robots should realize they are financially supporting a company that is deeply engaged in military operations," he said.
On Nov. 16, iRobot received $1.6 million in funding from the U.S. government's Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) in order to develop, field test and train in the use of the iRobot Warrior. The Warrior is already used in combat situations as an EOD robot, and it can also be used to transport ammunition and supplies to troops, even in the middle of a firefight, or extract injured troops from the battlefield. However, a press release on the iRobot web site also states that the Warrior "has the potential to be a co-combatant" alongside soldiers. Joe Dyer, President of iRobot Government & Industrial Robots said in the email that, in response to customer requests, the company was also considering arming the iRobot PackBot with a shotgun.
However, Dyer said that armed iRobot products are not going to be allowed to make their own life-or-death decisions any time soon.
"If a weapons payload is attached, it is important to ensure extreme safety and that there is a human making all critical decisions," he said in an email interview. "IRobot robots have safety systems to ensure correct usage and it always puts a human in the decision-making process.
"Robots give soldiers the ability to understand what they're getting into, before they put themselves in harm's way," Dyer said. "Future robots will carry military equipment as payloads including weapons, thermal imagers, cameras, mine detectors, chemical and biological agent detectors."
Yet, the concept of an autonomous robot armed with lethal weaponry is far from paranoia, as at least one has already gone into production. Samsung recently unveiled its Intelligent Surveillance and Guard Robot, a stationary sentry robot armed with a 5.5-millimeter K3 machine gun and an optical system, intended for deployment along the heavily fortified South Korean border. The robot is able to track human targets up to 2.5 miles away and can be programmed to respond to a spoken password. If the password is incorrect, the robot can sound an alarm or shoot at its target.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021301_robot_robots_iRobot.html
The iRobot line of military robots includes scout robots that can reconnoiter unknown territory or inaccessible areas; an explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) robot able to disarm bombs without risking human lives; and an unmanned all-purpose ATV. The robots have been used in recent conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the response from military personnel has been positive. The testimonials displayed on the iRobot site display a general consensus that iRobot products save lives.
"When a robot dies you don't have to write a letter to its mother," a Navy chief is quoted as saying after a iRobot PackBot EOD model was destroyed in the field.
The ethics statement at the iRobot site states, "We are committed to making the world a better place by building robots that are used by people everyday. Our home robots clean your house and our mobile tactical robots help protect our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan." But critics are still wary of giving robots to Uncle Sam.
"At what point will these military robots start being equipped with automatic weapons, grenades or high explosives?" said Mike Adams, a technology ethicist. "At that point, the U.S. military becomes a human/machine hybrid killing system, where armed, automated robots might be unleashed upon some civilian population in order to maximize enemy casualties while minimizing American casualties.
"Consumers who buy Roomba robots should realize they are financially supporting a company that is deeply engaged in military operations," he said.
On Nov. 16, iRobot received $1.6 million in funding from the U.S. government's Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) in order to develop, field test and train in the use of the iRobot Warrior. The Warrior is already used in combat situations as an EOD robot, and it can also be used to transport ammunition and supplies to troops, even in the middle of a firefight, or extract injured troops from the battlefield. However, a press release on the iRobot web site also states that the Warrior "has the potential to be a co-combatant" alongside soldiers. Joe Dyer, President of iRobot Government & Industrial Robots said in the email that, in response to customer requests, the company was also considering arming the iRobot PackBot with a shotgun.
However, Dyer said that armed iRobot products are not going to be allowed to make their own life-or-death decisions any time soon.
"If a weapons payload is attached, it is important to ensure extreme safety and that there is a human making all critical decisions," he said in an email interview. "IRobot robots have safety systems to ensure correct usage and it always puts a human in the decision-making process.
"Robots give soldiers the ability to understand what they're getting into, before they put themselves in harm's way," Dyer said. "Future robots will carry military equipment as payloads including weapons, thermal imagers, cameras, mine detectors, chemical and biological agent detectors."
Yet, the concept of an autonomous robot armed with lethal weaponry is far from paranoia, as at least one has already gone into production. Samsung recently unveiled its Intelligent Surveillance and Guard Robot, a stationary sentry robot armed with a 5.5-millimeter K3 machine gun and an optical system, intended for deployment along the heavily fortified South Korean border. The robot is able to track human targets up to 2.5 miles away and can be programmed to respond to a spoken password. If the password is incorrect, the robot can sound an alarm or shoot at its target.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021301_robot_robots_iRobot.html
Monday, July 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
