if you're bored, you're not paying attention
My first freelance article since leaving Mobile last month is out, and it’s for Technology Review:
Eyes on the Prize
If hefty technology prizes like DARPA’s $2 million Grand Challenge prize push technology forward faster, why not create more of them?
When Stanford University’s robotic Volkswagen Touareg, “Stanley,” won the Grand Challenge last week, robot enthusiasts everywhere cheered. By completing a 210-kilometer course over difficult desert terrain in just under seven hours, Stanley set an unprecedented milestone for autonomous vehicles.
Even more amazingly, four other teams’ vehicles also completed the course, with slightly slower times.
“It’s kind of like if you had challenged people to fly across the Atlantic, and instead of one guy [making it], just Lindbergh, you had five guys flying across at the same time,” says Sebastian Thrun, an associate professor of computer science at Stanford and the leader of the Stanford team.
The Lindbergh analogy is apt. Both the famed aviator and the Stanford team were motivated to accomplish their feat by the tantalizing promise of prize money. In Charles Lindbergh’s case, it was a $25,000 purse that wealthy hotelier Raymond Orteig offered, in 1919, for the first nonstop aircraft flight between New York and Paris. In 1927, a 25-year-old Lindbergh finally captured the prize, by taking off from Long Island and landing in Paris 33 1/2 hours later, in a $10,000, custom-built monoplane named after his financial backers’ hometown, St. Louis.
For the Stanford team, winning the Grand Challenge meant collecting the $2 million prize put up by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) earlier this year. Not a bad return on a project that Thrun estimates cost about $500,000.
The Grand Challenge is just the latest example of how prize money can be an effective — and extremely efficient — way to stimulate rapid technological development. And while prizes might not work in every field of technological research, observers say it might be time to explore the prize model more deeply, particularly as the United States launches several multibillion-dollar projects, such as replacing the Space Shuttle, returning to the Moon, and sending humans to Mars.
DARPA’s mission is to stimulate research in defense-related areas, then leave development of viable applications to others. That’s exactly how this year’s Grand Challenge played out, with 195 teams entering the competition, five teams successfully completing the course — and a whole new crop of inventors, engineers, computer scientists, entrepreneurs, and even high-school students stimulated to enter the field of autonomous vehicles.
That will undoubtedly pay dividends for the military in the future, since many of the universities and corporations that fielded Grand Challenge teams also work on DARPA projects. Thrun’s work, for instance, has been attracting DARPA funding for more than eight years, and he intends to continue applying for defense grants in the future.
Competing in the Challenge offered benefits to the teams and their sponsors, too, even for those that didn’t win, says Jon Feiber, a managing partner at Menlo Park, CA-based Mohr Davidow Ventures, a venture capital firm that cosponsored the Stanford team. Among the payoffs were educating students, raising the level of interest in (and funding for) robotics, forging partnerships between academic engineering departments and industry, and making connections among researchers, students, and DARPA personnel.
Of course the Grand Challenge isn’t the only recent feat of engineering inspired by the tantalizing promise of a pot of lucre for the victors. Last year’s Ansari X Prize paid $10 million to aircraft designer Burt Rutan’s SpaceShipOne team for completing two suborbital space flights at an altitude of at least 100 kilometers in the span of two weeks.
It’s hard to argue with the success of the X Prize, without which private space flight might still be languishing in an embryonic state. Indeed, several entrepreneurial ventures are now planning commercial space flights, including Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, PayPal founder Elon Musk’s SpaceX, video-game developer John Carmack’s Armadillo Aerospace, and Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin.
The Federal Aviation Administration even opened an Office of Commercial Space Transportation after SpaceShipOne’s historic flight, and has begun drafting regulations for commercial space travel that it expects to begin in 2007 or 2008.
If prizes are so effective at motivating research and pushing innovators to new heights, why not offer more of them? DARPA estimates that it spent $22 million on the Grand Challenge, which included the $2 million prize and the cost of organizing, hosting, and publicizing the event. That’s a drop in the bucket compared with DARPA’s 2005 budget of $3 billion. The rest of the agency’s money is doled out primarily through grants and contracts.
“The prize approach is particularly useful in energizing a community and giving people an incentive to become involved in researching a technology area of interest to DOD,” says Jan Walker, a spokesman for DARPA. In fact, DARPA officials are so pleased with the results, says Walker, that they plan to sponsor another Grand Challenge in the future, in a yet-to-be-named field.
Yet contests may be appropriate for only some kinds of research or take research only so far. The highly successful Grand Challenge and the X Prize were both built around a well-defined problem, had clear objectives, and presented challenges that were both difficult and rewarding for a wide variety of contenders to tackle.
“I don’t think the contest model works broadly,” says Mohr Davidow Venture’s Feiber. “It works for certain objectives, but you couldn’t grossly restructure research around this kind of system. But when it does work, it has enormous benefits.”
Stanford’s Thrun agrees. “You could not do everything by a competition of this type, because it’s entirely unsustainable,” Thrun says. “It was an important part of my fundraising that this was a unique event, and that it was really big.” If this year’s event had been the fifth, or the 25th, Grand Challenge instead of the second, Thrun says, he would have been unable to raise the $500,000 to build the machine. In other words, part of the attraction of the Grand Challenge was its uniqueness and headline-worthiness — qualities that could fade fast if similar contests happen every year.
Still, considering the salutary effects of the Grand Challenge and X Prize, it’s reasonable to believe that a few more such contests might be useful for advancing research in key areas.
Here’s a modest proposal: NASA has a five-year, $12 billion budget for creating new spacecraft that can take humans safely to the Moon and, eventually, Mars. Why not devote just one percent of that budget to a prize aimed at encouraging parallel research by private industry?
Although NASA has set up a “Centennial Challenges” program to stimulate innovation by offering prizes, all of the contests so far are relatively minor, such as a $250,000 prize for developing the best new glove for astronauts.
A much larger bounty — say, $120 million for sending humans to orbit the Moon and returning them safely — would be a powerful stimulus to space research. Certainly, it would generate innovation, and it might also produce some commercial spacecraft, launch vehicles, or other tools that NASA would find useful in achieving its own goals. Perhaps most importantly, it would likely boost popular opinion of space travel, turning it from a federal boondoggle into a shared vision and common goal. In short, it might be a winner for an enterprising team of engineers — and NASA.
Link: Eyes on the Prize
Link broken? Try the Wayback Machine.
Andrew Orlowski is unusually clear-headed this week, pointing out the phony slump in movie revenues:
Listening to our old friend Lawrence Lessig and former MPAA boss Jack Valenti debate each other on National Public Radio last week, it became clear. The dears sounded like a couple of senior citizens grumbling their way a cold day trip to Brighton Beach – but in reality the phony crisis suits them both.
The newly-discovered 10th planet, Xena, turns out to have a moon. They’re calling it Gabrielle, of course.
If you prefer the McDonald’s dollar menu to dining at the Ritz, Friday night TV movies to Broadway shows, and big blocks of Velveeta to imported French Brie, then the SanDisk Sansa e130 is the perfect audio player for you. Just don’t ask it to deliver top-drawer audio quality or usability.
There’s a lot to like about the Sansa e130. It’s among the lightest players we’ve tested. It handles a wide variety of file formats. There’s a built-in FM tuner. And despite its low price, it comes with accessories that most manufacturers make you pay extra for, including an arm strap, a cheap protective vinyl pouch, and a variety of different-size tips for the earbuds.
An SD slot lets you expand the player’s capacity beyond its internal 512MB, and if you’ve preloaded a card with music, the Sansa will automatically create a new playlist that includes audio files on both the card and the internal memory.
Unfortunately, sound quality is not great, with slight but noticeable background hiss and a tendency to distort higher frequencies. Bass response is lightweight, despite the audio-enhancing electronics. The interface is clunky and occasionally slow, and the Sansa e130’s lightweight plastic casing screams chintz at the top of its lungs.
Still, for just $75, you may be willing to overlook these limitations. Stuff the player in your thrift-store corduroys, jam the white headphones into your ears, and from a distance you’ll look just like any other iPod-wearing poseur. Unless you’re spotted standing in the soup kitchen line, that is. -Dylan Tweney
Best Feature: Easily expandable via SD slot
Worst Feature: Flimsy construction and substandard audio
SanDisk Sansa e130
Price: $75
Weight: 1.8 ounces
Size: 2.9 x 2.1 x 0.5 inches
Specs: 512MB; 1.3-inch LCD; plays MP3, WAV, and WMA audio; SD slot; FM tuner; USB 2.0; uses one AAA battery
www.sandisk.com
* * *
Link: SanDisk Sansa e130
Link broken? Try the Wayback Machine.
To some, the Tablet PC operating system ranks right up there with Microsoft Bob, Clippy the Office Wizard, and Steve Ballmer as one of Microsoft’s most obnoxious, useless creations. The IBM ThinkPad X41 Tablet is unlikely to change the minds of the haters. But for more open-minded folks, the X41 shows that it is possible to make a tablet that’s usable, functional, well built, and even attractive.
Granted, IBM is late to the tablet game, and the X41 may not break the Curse of the Tablet: high prices, slow sales, and general public apathy. But IBM has clearly been watching and learning from the missteps of earlier tablet manufacturers.
For starters, the X41 Tablet doesn’t look goofy, and it’s not flimsily put together. At first glance, it’s black, serious, and a bit on the dull side — a typical ThinkPad. The keyboard is stiff and slightly cramped, but solid. The swiveling hinge is the first hint that something’s different. Spin the screen around, fold it back, and the notebook converts to a slab. Tablet-specific controls, including scroll and rotation buttons, line one side of the 12.1-inch screen’s bezel. And the X41 is light, tipping the scales at just over 4 pounds (4.9 pounds with the charger), although its lack of an optical drive is a big drawback.
The display is where the X41 really stands out. Though it’s small, the screen is clear and has remarkably wide viewing angles in all four directions. This is what makes us miss the optical drive more: Watching DVDs on this sweet screen would have been great for cross-country flights, especially since you can lay the tablet flat so that it doesn’t get crushed by the lummox in front of you when he reclines his seat all the way back. The screen also has just the right degree of friction for comfortable onscreen writing and scribbling with the stylus.
In one corner of the display is the X41’s other secret weapon: A fingerprint scanner. IBM’s security software makes short work of scanning your fingertips and then, optionally, tying them into the Windows login. It works well, correctly identifying you with just one or two swipes of your finger and denying access to your evil nemeses.
The X41’s performance is decent for a tablet, with a middling Sysmark score of 134 and a surprisingly good Unreal benchmark score of 60.4 fps. Not that you’re likely to take it to any LAN parties — but if you did, the X41 would at least let you stay in the game.
Honestly, though, this is a tool for browsing the web, reading e-mail, and taking notes, and for that, it’s a dream machine. The icing on the cake is its five-plus hours of battery life, enabling the X41 to go the distance on most jobs — unless you’re taking notes at a Castro speech or trying to work all the way through a flight to New Zealand. Add in the great screen, security, and performance, and you’ve got a machine that’s a pleasure to use as a tablet and as a more conventional notebook. If it were about $300 cheaper, we’d love it all the more. -Dylan Tweney
Best Feature: Terrific display for viewing and writing
Worst Feature: No optical drive for watching DVDs
IBM ThinkPad X41 Tablet
Price: $2,058
Weight: 4.1 pounds
Size: 10.8 x 10.5 x 1.3 inches
Specs: 1.5GHz Pentium M; 512MB of RAM; 40GB hard drive; integrated graphics; 1,204 x 768-pixel, 12.1-inch TFT; SD slot; 802.11g; fingerprint reader; Windows XP Tablet 2005
www.pc.ibm.com
* * * *
Link: IBM ThinkPad X41 Tablet
Link broken? Try the Wayback Machine.
Sony’s slimmest Cyber-shot, the DSC-T7, is more than just a camera. It’s skinny enough that you could use it to shim up a wobbly kitchen table or to wedge a door shut. Or you could weld on a little extra hardware and wear it as a belt buckle.
The DSC-T7’s body is barely 0.4 inches thick, making it easily the thinnest digital camera we’ve seen. A sliding lens cover increases the overall thickness to a bit more than half an inch. To turn the camera on, just slide this cover down. If you’re a hipster, you’ll do it using one hand, like a street tough flicking open a pocketknife. Shooting one-handed is similarly easy, thanks to a simple zoom control and shutter button on top.
To change among the nine preset shooting modes or to adjust the camera’s settings, you use the menu button plus a five-way controller on the back face. That’s it — there are almost no other buttons to worry about on this camera. If you’ve got big fingers, you might find the DSC-T7 a bit awkward to manipulate, but otherwise this is one simple point-and-shoot camera.
The DSC-T7 captures 5-megapixel stills or 640 x 480-pixel video with sound. Although the videos are ostensibly 30 frames per second, their quality falls far short of what you’d expect. This camera’s movies are as jerky and jumpy as an old Charlie Chaplin flick, except blurrier, and without the piano soundtrack. You can’t zoom while filming, and the focus has a disturbing tendency to drift in and out. If you want to feel nostalgic for last weekend’s pool party, these old-timey videos are just the ticket.
No matter: The DSC-T7’s best and highest purpose is taking still images, and it does that like a natural. And unlike other supercompact cameras, the DSC-T7 has a 3x optical zoom, so you won’t sacrifice image quality when you zero in on distant celebrities at a movie premiere.
Pictures look very good in a variety of lighting conditions, from low light to full sunlight, although the camera has the most trouble with very dark and very bright scenes. The flash is adequate, despite its small size, and yet it won’t blind your subjects when you point it at them. The clarity score of 2.3 is better than any other ultracompact but the Fuji FinePix F450, so you aren’t trading image quality for portability with the DSC-T7.
The DSC-T7 uses Sony’s somewhat expensive Memory Stick Duo media and lacks standard cable connectors (you must use the included dongle to connect the camera to a computer or to a TV for image playback). Also, its onscreen menus can be cryptic, and the manual is confusingly organized. But these are small prices to pay for having the skinniest camera on the block. With cameras, as in Hollywood, the thinnest starlets get the best parts — and get to go to the most exotic locations. We predict a brilliant career for this streamlined newcomer. -Dylan Tweney
Best Feature: Amazingly small size
Worst Feature: Amazingly crummy video
Sony DSC-T7 Cyber-shot
Price: $475
Weight:
Size: 3.9 x 2.4 x 0.6 inches
Specs: 5.1 megapixels; 3x optical zoom; 640 x 480-pixel, 30-fps video recording with audio; 2.4-inch LCD; Memory Stick Duo slot (32MB card included)
www.sony.com
* * * *
Link: Sony DSC-T7 Cyber-shot
Link broken? Try the Wayback Machine.
“There is a design revolution going on. And it’s not about the winner of round 5 of the console wars. This is about moving our devices out into free space, no longer constrained by their own form factor. This is about how we start using our bodies for communication, commerce and play in a digital world.”
— frogdesign’s David Merkoski, on Gizmodo
My story about Palm Inc. for the November issue of Mobile (on newsstands next week) turns out to be right on the money. My analysis: Palm better switch from Palm OS to Windows Mobile soon, or face oblivion. Today, confirmation: Engadget shows the Windows-based Treo 700w.
Well, I should have lots more time for blogging now that my days won’t be taken up with the agonizing work of producing the world’s most entertaining, authoritative magazine on mobile technology. Yes, it’s true: Mobile magazine has folded. Despite having far better-written, more accurate, and better edited copy than the competition, despite having a respectably large monthly circulation, and despite selling nearly 40 pages of quite expensive ads every month, we somehow never managed to crawl out of the money pit we dug for ourselves in the early days. Or so they told me. I just wrangled words; somebody else blew all the money. Honest.
Look for our last issue (November’s) on newsstands in early October, god willing. As for me, I will be dusting off my work gloves and laying in to the plumbing, the walls, and the windows for awhile. Or maybe I’ll just go surfing. Meanwhile, look for my latest writings here. There’s some good stuff in there.
© 2024 dylan tweney
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑