From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 20:33:57 MDT
Phil Osborn wrote:
> Is size a problem?
Unlike in sex, size really does matter for many things.
> Adrian Tymes wrote: "A small rover is simply too
> tiny to accomplish these manipulation tasks."
>
> So, make it the size of one of those things that kids
> haul around behind them, with a tall plastic box on
> top that you unlock for the clerk and automatically
> locks when he shuts it over your merchandise.
Doesn't solve the problem of getting the merchandise and bringing it to
the clerk in the first place - at least, without a *lot* of extra
accomodation from the clerk, which most clerks won't be willing to do
on a regular basis without incentive (at which point, why not just pay
someone to deliver it to your doorstep). Plus, making an RC 'bot that
large, with scaled up motors and power systems and so forth, increases
the cost. Even those foot-long plastic "trucks" that kids can drive
around go for way over a nickel a pop...though they could possibly be a
good base for something like this.
Add standard robot arms and pincers, a camera/microphone/speaker suite
at least four - preferably five to seven - feet off the ground, joints
and servos so the camera can look around without budging the wheels, and
RC, and you might be good to go, at least to handicapped-accessible
places like most of urbana. Might be interesting to see someone try
this, though from my own experience I'd reccomend a *lot* of practice at
the exact tasks one expects to do at the store: getting something off a
shelf, grabbing money from a container on the 'bot, putting money into
said container, and moving around in general. Do it well the first time
you do it for real, and you may create a good enough impression on the
clerk that you can do it again and again as the months go by, impressing
those who look on (and perhaps eventually getting the press interested).
Do it poorly the first time you do it for real, and the clerk likely
won't put up with your "stunt" (and kick your 'bot out of the store if
it ever shows up there again) even if you're 100% certain you could do
it flawlessly on take 2 - which would irrecoverably kill this idea, at
least for that clerk (and anyone he advises not to put up with it...and
word does spread).
> Put
> some soft foam or bubble bumpers all round so it can't
> hurt anyone - plastic with all the weight down low,
> anyway. Payment? Ever hear of this thing called the
> internet?
Yep. Ever hear of this thing called cash registers? Stores are
required to accept legal tender (which is partly why it's called that),
at least in the US; other forms of payment are not mandated, and even
today, not all vendors have the equipment to accept credit card
payments. Most, but not all.
> Alternatively, many years ago it occurred to me to
> wire dogs or other animals with video and sound and a
> control mechanism. Why restrict that seeing eye or
> paralyzed assist dog to only doing what it can hear
> you tell it to in its limited vocabulary? Teach it to
> follow the direction of little buzzers in its head
> gear. You see what it sees, hear what it hears, via
> RF or cellular cams on the headgear. A big dog like a
> husky or German Sheppard can carry a sizeable pack,
> and beware anyone foolish enuf to try to rob the
> contents.
At least, without knowing how to use the same trainer's tricks to
make the dog (temporarily) obey the robber, instead of its owner.
Or if the dog starts chasing cats. Organic intelligence is *much*
harder to control than simple RC bots.
> In either case, the teleshopper will be seeing
> whatever is going on and presumeably recording it as
> well in case its needed, with an autodelete timestamp
> likely, and he or she will be conversing with the
> clerk just like they were there.
Just so long as you keep the design hidden. A number of stores
object to the appearance of people (other than the store) recording
what goes on inside the store...but so long as you don't mention
that you're recording, and the camera is not obvious (as in, if one
thinks about it, one knows there's a camera the 'bot is seeing
through, but one doesn't automatically know it's being used for
recording since it has a legitimate function of ordinary sight),
you can often get away with this.
> Here's another thought. Given the hysteria that the
> media have generated over the child-snatchers of late,
> even though the numbers have remained steady for many
> years at about 100 kids taken by strangers in the U.S.
> per year, why not use the cellular network for
> distress signals? Give the kids a phone that
> autoactivates if they stray outside the home cellular
> zones and has an easy to reach panic button as well
> that sends a message to the police, school personel,
> parents, etc., all giving the time and location, and
> pointing to the home site or a data site with pictures
> of the kid, etc., all encripted and available only to
> specific people who you want to know. Combined with
> the new video phones out there, this would give
> serious pause to any would-be molestors.
People are working on this. One problem is that kids tend to lose and
abuse any equipment they're given that isn't of obvious direct benefit
(and "preventing kidnapping" doesn't count, even after you explain it -
heck, *because* you have to explain it, i.e. it's not something they
think about, so they're not usually cognizant of why they shouldn't use
it as a hammer). Possible solution: implant...but that raises problems
of battery life (difficult/expensive to implant really big batteries)
and transmission/reception capability from within the human body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:49 MST