Future humans may look back on this mind-controlled stabbing robot as a forerunner to battle mechs and Gundams. But the one-armed stabber failed to win out in the latest Robo-One competition held in Toyama, Japan over the weekend.
Am I the only one wondering why they're playing "auld lang sine" in the background, Is it Christmas there or something?
In a paper published last week, MIT physicist Lorenzo Maccone hypothesizes that, yes, quantum physics is messing with our minds. The laws of physics work just as well if time is running forwards or backwards. But we all seem to experience time running in only one direction, and in the same direction as everyone else -- a mystery of physics that's yet to be solved.
Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what the term 'quantum entanglement' means or my basic understanding of quantum physics is totally off, this article doesn't seem to make much sense at all. Quantum entanglement (as far as I know) means the linking of two particles quantum states (spin etc.). How can a 'memory' a complex firing pattern of neurons be quantum entangled with anything? It's like saying that two hyrdogen atoms can make a molecular bond with my sense of self esteem. Am I missing something here?
According to the Entertainment Software Association, 40 percent of video game players are female, while women over 18 represent a larger built-in audience than even teenage boys. But where are the titles which speak to this diversity, and intelligently at that? One glance at store shelves and online portals -- crowded by childish outings (My Fashion Studio), self-help programs (Jillian Michaels Fitness Ultimatum 2009) and cutesy diversions (Diaper Dash) -- and it's hard to tell.
40% sounds very reasonable. Do you have any idea how many women flood to pogo.com or one of it's ilk? Casual gaming meccas for women (and men, but mostly women). It's huge especially with the stay-at-home crowd. Most of the women I know play those casual games for at least an hour a day. As for the intent of the article... *sigh*. I've heard this kind of thing talked about since at least the early 90s. The problem is the sexist approach used by people who want more 'girly' games (as they define it). They think women can only be interested in a certain set of topics. As mentioned above women are obviously already interested in the games being produced today. If you want to see a new type of game on the market. Make it yourself! Even on a small scale. If it's fun, it will succeed (or at least be copied and start a trend). Good Games can't be made by people who don't want to play them or don't understand them. Stop asking game designers to make games they wouldn't be interested in playing, there's no way they can make that fun.
The tag line "Americans' tax dollars at work" is usually a snide reference to some project or application that's an unwise or unworthy expenditure. I see nothing about this to suggest it isn't worth the money. It could even save lives. This tag line seems about as short-sited as Jindal's "Volcano Monitoring" comment.
San Jose State University is soon going to start offering a class called "Physics of Animation," that aims to teach future animators the proper way to render a leaf falling to the ground or a person walking with a realistic gait. Or a kung-fu fighting panda getting launched into the air by a furry little creature. Physics is a key element of realism, says the course's professor, physicist Alejandro Garcia. Any movie-viewer can spot bad physics, though they might not always recognize what's bothering them. And for all the progress that has been made in animation in the last decade, and all the science homework that effects experts say they do prior to creating scenes, most movies still let through a glitch or two that makes the attentive viewer wince.
I sure wish I had this course available to me in college. I agree with its application towards physical simulation: IE Waves, explosions, etc. I disagree with necessarily applying realistic character animation towards something like Kung Fu Panda. Stylized characters require stylized motion. This is why motion-capture fails horribly in movies like Monster House. It looks creepy.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.