Venture capitalists are the latest group showing more confidence in an economic recovery that will revive business, according to a quarterly survey released Thursday.
For the second quarter, the Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist Confidence Index showed an uptick, hitting 3.37 on a 5-point scale, up from the previous quarter's mark of 3.03. This is the second consecutive rise since the index dropped to a five-year low in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Based on an ongoing survey of San Francisco Bay Area venture capitalists, the index measures their confidence level in the market for initial public offerings and entrepreneurs over the next 6 to 18 months.
A report of the latest results from the June survey of 42 venture capitalists was released by its author Mark Cannice, associate professor with the University of San Francisco School of Business and Professional Studies.
"Venture capitalists expect that the worst of the financial crisis is behind us," said Cannice in his report. "While the effects of the financial market disruption on the venture industry will linger for some time, most VCs observed an increasingly determined and talented pool of entrepreneurs and a continuing march of innovation."
Although IPO funding has been scarce, the second quarter was boosted by the reopening of the market for venture-backed firms after two down quarters, noted Cannice. VCs believe their underlying business model is recovering.
Among the VCs questioned for the survey, Sandy Miller of Institutional Venture Partners said: "There has been a stabilization in the environment generally in the last two months...While we are by no means out of the woods, the tone for both entrepreneurs and investors has improved."
Kurt Keilhacker of TechFund Capital added: "There are definite signs of stabilization and hints of increased activity, especially in clean-energy sectors. Innovation is not dependent on a certain unemployment rate or stock index. Rather, innovation is often catalyzed by times of uncertainty."
Cannice noted that the lack of money has forced venture capitalists to identify and work with only the "most resilient and creative entrepreneurs." But this has instilled a sense of efficiency in these new firms, which should help them sustain over the longer haul.
VC Bill Byun of Samsung Ventures said: "In today's environment, when I meet a team of start-ups with compelling business ideas, I witness more than passion. I hear hunger to succeed and solve real problems versus testing out a business concept with an investor." Echoing that sentiment, Jim Marshall of Selby Ventures added, "Times like these truly separate the real entrepreneurs from the 'get rich quick' folks."
In summing up his findings, Cannice said in his report: "When the public capital markets right themselves fully, there will exist a healthy supply of innovative and efficient venture-backed enterprises ready to refresh their ranks."
The full report of the June survey is available at the USF Entrepreneurship Program Web site.
Robotics engineer Ronald Arkin
(Credit: Georgia Tech Mobile Robot Lab)Can robots be more humane than humans in fighting wars? Robotics engineer Ronald Arkin of the Georgia Institute of Technology believes this is a not-too-distant possibility. He has just finished a three-year contract with the U.S. Army designing software to create ethical robots.
As robots are increasingly being used by the U.S. military, Arkin has devoted his lifework to configuring robots with a built-in "guilt system" that eventually could make them better at avoiding civilian casualties than human soldiers. These military robots would be embedded with internationally prescribed laws of war and rules of engagement, such as those in the Geneva Conventions.
Arkin talked with CNET News about how robots can be ethically programmed and some of the philosophical questions that come up when using machines in warfare. Below is an edited excerpt of our conversation.
Q: What made you first begin thinking about designing software to create ethical robots?
Arkin: I'd been working in robotics for almost 25 years and I noticed the successes that had been happening in the field. Progress had been steady and sure and it started to dawn on me that these systems are ready, willing, and able to begin going out into the battlefield on behalf of our soldiers. Then the question came up--what is the right ethical basis for these systems? How are we going to ensure that they could behave appropriately to the standards we set for our human war fighters?
In 2004, at the first international symposium on roboethics in Sanremo, Italy, we had speakers from the Vatican, the Geneva Conventions, the Pugwash Institute, and it became clear that this was a pressing problem. Trying to view myself as a responsible scientist, I felt it was important to do something about it and that got me embarked on this quest.
What do you mean by an ethical robot? How would a robot feel empathy?
Arkin: I didn't say it would feel empathy, I said ethical. Empathy is another issue and that is for a different domain. We are talking about battlefield robots in the work I am currently doing. That is not to say I'm not interested in those other questions and I hope to move my research, in the future, in that particular direction.
Right now, we are looking at designing systems that can comply with internationally prescribed laws of war and our own codes of conduct and rules of engagement. We've decided it is important to embed in these systems with the moral emotion of guilt. We use this as a means of downgrading the robots' ability to engage targets if it is acting in ways which exceed the predicted battle damage in certain circumstances.
You've written about a built-in "guilt system." Is this what you're talking about?
Arkin: We have incorporated a component called an "ethical adaptor" by studying the models of guilt that human beings have and embedding those within a robotic system. The whole purpose of this is very focused and what makes it tractable is that we're dealing with something called "bounded morality," which is understanding the particular limit of the situation that the robot is to operate in. We have thresholds established for analogs of guilt that cause the robot to eventually refuse to use certain classes of weapons systems (or refuse to use weapons entirely) if it gets to a point where the predictions it's making are unacceptable by its own standards.
You, the engineer, decide the ethics, right?
Arkin: We don't engineer the ethics; the ethics come from treaties that have been designed by lawyers and philosophers. These have been codified over thousands of years and now exist as international protocol. What we engineer is translating those laws and rules of engagement into actionable items that the robot can understand and work with.
Autonomous robots can be programmed with information that allows them to avoid areas where civilians may be--like cemeteries, hospitals and apartment buildings.
(Credit: Georgia Tech Mobile Robot Lab)Arkin: We actually just finished, as of (July 1), the three-year project we had for the U.S. Army, which was designing prototype software for the U.S. Army Research Office. This isn't software that is intended to go into the battlefield anytime soon--it is all proof of concept--we are striving to show that the systems can potentially function with an ethical basis. I believe our prototype design has demonstrated that.
Robot drones like land mine detectors are already used by the military, but are controlled by humans. How would an autonomous robot be different in the battlefield?
Arkin: Drones usually refer to unmanned aero vehicles. Let me make sure we're talking about the same sort of thing--you're talking about ground vehicles for detecting improvised explosive devices?
Either one, either air or land.
Arkin: Well, they'd be used in different ways. There are already existing autonomous systems that are either in development or have been deployed by the military. It's all a question of how you define autonomy. The trip-wire for how we talk about autonomy, in this context, is whether an autonomous system (after detecting a target) can engage that particular target without asking for any further human intervention at that particular point.
There is still a human in the loop when we tell a squad of soldiers to go into a building and take it using whatever force is necessary. That is still a high-level command structure, but the soldiers have the ability to engage targets on their own. With the increased battlefield tempo, things are moving much faster than they did 40 or 100 years ago, and it becomes harder for humans to make intelligent, rational decisions. As such, it is my contention that these systems, ultimately, can lead to a reduction in non-combatant fatalities over human level performance. That's not to say that I don't have the utmost respect for our war fighters in the battlefield, I most certainly do and I'm committed to provide them with the best technical equipment in support of their efforts as well.
In your writing you say robots can be more humane than humans in the battlefield, can you elaborate on this?
Arkin: Well, I say that's my thesis, it's not a conclusion at this point. I don't believe unmanned systems will be able to be perfectly ethical in the battlefield, but I am convinced (at this point in time) that they can potentially perform more ethically than human soldiers are capable of. I'm talking about wars 10 to 20 years down the field. Much more research and technology has to be developed for this vision to become a reality.
But, I believe it's an important avenue of pursuit for military research. So, if warfare is going to continue and if autonomous systems are ultimately going to be deployed, I believe it is crucial that we must have ethical systems in the battlefield. I believe that we can engineer systems that perform better than humans--we already have robots that are stronger than people, faster than people, and if you look at computers like Deep Blue we have robots that can be smarter than people.
I'm not talking about replacing a human soldier in all aspects; I'm talking about using these systems in limited circumstances such as counter sniper operations or taking buildings. Under those circumstances we can engineer enough morality into them that they may indeed do better than human beings can--that's the benchmark I'm working towards.
Pioneer robots in multi-robot teams used in previous research for a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency project.
(Credit: Georgia Tech Mobile Robot Lab)Arkin: Well, a lot of this has been sharpened by debates with my colleagues in philosophy, computer science, and computer professionals for social responsibility. There are a lot of things that could potentially go wrong. One of the big questions (much of this is derived from what's called "just war theory") is responsibility--if there is a war crime, someone must be to blame. We have worked hard within our system to make sure that responsibility attribution is as clear as possible using a component called the "responsibility advisor." To me, you can't say the robot did it; maybe it was the soldier who deployed it, the commanding officer, the manufacturer, the designer, the scientist (such as myself) who conceived of it, or the politicians that allowed this to be used. Somehow, responsibility must be attributed.
Another aspect is that technological advancement in the battlefield may make us more likely to enter into war. To me it is not unique to robotics--whenever you create something that gives you any kind of advantage, whether it is gun powder or a bow and arrow, the temptation to go off to war is more likely. Hopefully our nation has the wherewithal to be able to resist such temptation.
Some argue it can't be done right, period--it's just too hard for machines to discriminate. I would agree it's too hard to do it now. But with the advent of new sensors and network centric warfare where all this stuff is wired together along with the global information grid, I believe these systems will have more information available to them than any human soldier could possibly process and manage at a given point in time. Thus, they will be able to make better informed decisions.
The military is concerned with squad cohesion. What happens to the "band of brothers" effect if you have a robot working alongside with a squad of human soldiers, especially if it's one that might report back on moral infractions it observes with other soldiers in the squad? My contention is that if a robot can take a bullet for me, stick its head around a corner for me and cover my back better than Joe can, then maybe that is a small risk to take. Secondarily it can reduce the risk of human infractions in the battlefield by its mere presence.
The military may not be happy with a robot with the capability of refusing an order. So we have to design a system that can explain itself. With some reluctance, I have designed an override capability for the system. But the robot will still inform the user on all the potential ethical infractions that it believes it would be making, and thus force the responsibility on the human. Also, when that override is taken, the aberrant action could be sent immediately to command for after-action review.
There is a congressional mandate requiring that by 2010, one third of all operational deep-strike aircraft be unmanned and, by 2015, one third of all ground combat vehicles be unmanned. How soon could we see this autonomous robot software being used in the field?
Arkin: There is a distinction between unmanned systems and autonomous unmanned systems. That's the interesting thing about autonomy--it's kind of a slippery slope, decision making can be shared.
First, it can be under pure remote control by a human being. Next, there's mixed initiative where some of the decision making rests in the robot and some of it rests in the human being. Then there's semi-autonomy where the robot has certain functions and the human deals with it in a slightly different way. Finally, you can get more autonomous systems where the robot is tasked, it goes out and does its mission, and then returns (not unlike what you would expect from a pilot or a soldier).
The congressional mandate was marching orders for the Pentagon and the Pentagon took it very seriously. It's not an absolute requirement but significant progress is being made. Some of the systems are far more autonomous than others--for example the PackBot in Iraq is not very autonomous at all. It is used for finding improvised explosive devices by the roadside, many of these have saved the lives of our soldiers by taking the explosion on their behalf.
You just came out with a book called "Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots." Do you want to explain in a bit more detail what it's about?
Arkin: Basically the book covers the space of this three-year project that I just finished. It deals with the basis, motivation, underlying philosophy, and opinions people have based on a survey we did for the Army on the use of lethal autonomous robots in the battlefield. It provides the mathematical formalisms underlying the approach we take and deals with how it is to be represented internally within the robotic system. And, most significantly, it describes several scenarios in which I believe these systems can be used effectively with some preliminary prototype results showing the progress we made in this period.
This cross section shows two rings of light-sensitive semiconductor material in the fiber. The eight thicker parts are electrodes to carry signals.
(Credit: Massachusetts Institute of Technology)And you thought it was a problem when folks went into the locker room toting cell phones with cameras.
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have developed a fabric made of a mesh of light-sensitive fibers that collectively act like a rudimentary camera. The fibers, which each can detect two frequencies of light, produced signals that when amplified and processed by a computer reproduced an image of a smiley face near the mesh.
"This is the first time that anybody has demonstrated that a single plane of fibers, or 'fabric,' can collect images just like a camera but without a lens," said Yoel Fink, an associate professor of materials science, who along with colleagues described the approach in a the journal Nano Letters.
MIT suggested that the technology, if developed further, could give a soldier a uniform that would help him see threats in all directions. Optical fiber webs, by distributing the chore across a large area, would be less susceptible to damage in one area.
The technology uses fibers less than a millimeter in diameter, stretched into thin form from a thicker cylinder. Within the fibers are two cylindrical shells of semiconductor material, each connected to the outside world with four built-in metal electrodes.
The grid that will process data from the Large Hadron Collider has undergone stress-testing, as CERN and other groups try to gauge its limits.
The tests, called Scale Testing for the Experiment Program '09, threw huge amounts of data around the distributed computing project, which uses dedicated optical-fiber networks to distribute data from CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) to 11 main computer centers in Europe, Asia, and North America.
From these centers, data is dispatched to over 140 centers in 33 countries around the globe, where the LHC data is managed and processed. The recent grid tests, which lasted for two weeks, were completed before the beginning of July.
Click image for gallery on the Large Hadron Collider.
(Credit: Maximilien Brice for CERN)LHC computing-grid project leader Ian Bird said Friday that CERN had tried to break the grid but had not succeeded.
"People were trying to break the system by seeing how much data we could push through it, but we didn't (break it)," Bird told ZDNet UK. "The test was successful."
Data from all the experiments running at CERN--including analyses from the Atlas particle accelerator, which is linked to the LHC--were processed through the grid, according to Bird. While the amount of data expected from the LHC will be in the area of 1.3GB per second, the grid systems were bombarded with 4GB per second. "The data volume got to a much larger scale than is needed," Bird said.
CERN plans to restart the LHC in October, following an incident last September that halted the experiment. A fault, caused by imperfect welding, led to a leak of liquid helium that caused damage when it heated and expanded.
At present, the LHC itself is not generating any data, as no experiments are being conducted, Bird said. However, the experiment was gathering data from cosmic rays hitting the experiment until testing of the machine stopped the collection. This data is due to be collected again "in a few weeks," Bird added.
Bird did not rule out a further major test of the computing grid before the LHC's October restart, as some parts of the grid had been offline during the testing due to scheduled downtime.
Tom Espiner of ZDNet UK reported from London.
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, launched June 18 from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, has beamed back its first pictures of the moon as engineers continue instrument checkout and calibration prior to the start of its primary mission.
The LRO spacecraft braked into a highly elliptical orbit around the moon June 23. A series of rocket firings have now placed the satellite in its so-called commissioning orbit, one with a low point of about 19 miles and a high point of 124 miles. Later this summer, it will be maneuvered into a circular 31-mile-high orbit around the moon's poles.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, or LROC, was turned on June 30. The first test images showed cratered terrain in the lunar highlands south of the Sea of Clouds. Each picture represents a square measuring 0.87 miles wide.
A test image from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter showing cratered terrain near the southern lunar highlands south of the Sea of Clouds.
(Credit: NASA)
Sensors near a repaired hydrogen vent line attached to the shuttle Endeavour's external tank detected only the slightest traces of free hydrogen during a critical fueling test Wednesday, officials said, clearing the way for another launch attempt July 11.
The 7-inch vent line and the ground umbilical carrier plate used to connect it to a port on the side of the external tank will remain in their current configuration and engineers are confident the system will be leak-free when Endeavour is fueled for launch on a space station assembly mission.
"We're in really good shape," said Mike Moses, the shuttle program launch integration manager at the Kennedy Space Center. "We're going to try on the 11th...We got it lined up just right and it doesn't leak."
The shuttle Endeavour during a fueling test Wednesday at the Kennedy Space Center. A leak in a hydrogen vent line umbilical, visible to the left, grounded Endeavour twice in June. During Wednesday's test, the repaired vent line worked normally, setting the stage for another launch try July 11.
(Credit: NASA TV)The vent line is used to carry excess hydrogen gas away from the shuttle when the tank is filled with super-cold propellant. A valve used to route hydrogen to the vent line is closed a few minutes before launch when the tank is pressurized for flight.
Endeavour was grounded June 13 and 17 when sensors near the umbilical attachment plate detected hydrogen concentrations of more than 60,000 parts per million, or 6 percent. The allowable concentration near the shuttle is 4 percent.
After the second launch scrub, engineers collected detailed measurements and concluded the problem was caused by an alignment issue between the hydrogen vent port on the tank and the vent line interface. To ensure a tight fit, engineers replaced a rigid Teflon seal with a more flexible design, modified the umbilical plate mounting pins, and installed washer-like shims to counteract the alignment issue.
... Read moreEurope's GPS project has been severely criticized by European Commission auditors for running over budget and deadline.
The Galileo satellite-network project, which aims to provide a European civilian rival to the U.S. military's GPS system, was launched in the mid-1990s, and due to be completed by 2013. The European Court of Auditors said in a special report on Monday that the project had seen "substantial delays and cost overruns."
The Galileo satellite-network project aims to provide a European civilian rival to the U.S. military's GPS system.
(Credit: ESA- J.Huart)The auditors' report covered the period from 2003 to 2006, when the project was managed by the Galileo Joint Undertaking (GUJ), a body set up by the European Commission and the European Space Agency.
The court concluded that management by the GUJ during this time period was inadequate. According to the auditors, the Galileo program experienced problems at different levels, including a failure to adequately negotiate and carry through a public-private partnership (PPP).
"The GJU's most important task was to negotiate a public-private partnership under which the private sector would invest, in partnership with the European Commission, in the creation and use of the Galileo infrastructure," said the report. "Negotiations with the private sector on a concession agreement stalled in early 2007."
The audit found that the partnership plan was inadequately prepared and conceived. As a result, the GJU was required to negotiate a PPP that the auditors described as unrealistic. The court said that the GJU's task of supervising technological development was seriously constrained by governance issues and an incomplete budget.
The Galileo project was initially budgeted at 3 billion euros ($4.24 billion), but a UK Transport Subcommittee estimated in 2007 that this could rise to 14.2 billion euros ($20.06 billion).
Also in their report, the auditors pointed out that the integration of European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (Egnos) into Galileo was only partially successful. Egnos is a joint venture with the U.S. and Japan to use ground infrastructure to track satellites.
The auditors also found that the Commission did not provide adequate leadership in developing and managing Galileo.
A Commission spokesperson was unavailable for comment at the time of writing.
Tom Espiner of ZDNet UK reported from London.
(Credit: Signet)Adherence to the Three Laws of Robotics as put forth by Isaac Asimov has been, until now, entrusted to whoever held the joystick. That may change.
A robotics engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology has developed an "ethical governor," which could be used to program military robots to act ethically when deciding when, and whom, to shoot or bomb.
Ron Arkin has demonstrated the system using attack UAVs and actual battlefield scenarios and maps from recent U.S. military campaigns in Afghanistan. (videos)
In one scenario, a drone spots Taliban soldiers, but holds its fire because they're in a cemetery--fighting there is against international law.
In another, the UAV identifies an enemy convoy close to a hospital, but limits itself to shooting up the vehicles so as to avoid collateral damage to the hospital. The mindful bot would also house a built in "guilt system," which would force it to behave more cautiously, after making a mistake.
While the work shows promise, it also draws attention to the inadequacy of trying to program machines with morals, especially ones expected to perform in a complex battlefield environment, according to experts.
"Robots don't get angry or seek revenge but they don't have sympathy or empathy either," Noel Sharkey, a roboticist at Sheffield University, U.K., told New Scientist. "Strict rules require an absolutist view of ethics, rather than a human understanding of different circumstances and their consequences."
Arkin acknowledges that it may take a while before we can trust predators and other unmanned killers with life and death decisions.
"These ideas will not be used tomorrow, but in the war after next, and in very constrained situations." Arkin is quoted in New Scientist. "The most important outcome of my research is not the architecture, but the discussion that it stimulates."
(Credit: PopSci.com)Last week, we told you about Mindflex, a Mattel toy that lets players move objects with their brains. This week comes word that the same technology is making its way into a more functional application--a wheelchair that users can maneuver with thought alone.
Toyota has developed the wheelchair in collaboration with researchers in Japan. The system analyzes brain wave data using signal-processing technology and delivers neuro-feedback to the driver.
Brain wave-detecting technology, or electroencephalography (EEG), isn't new. In layman's terms, a device, usually a cap wired with sensors, detects a person's brain waves. That information is analyzed by a computer and applied to the device in question. Scientists have pursued the technology for decades, but have had difficulty achieving short response times, explains the Associated Press.
Toyota's mind-controlled wheelchair, however, has what appears to be the quickest response time yet: 125 milliseconds, or 125 thousandths of a second. The user can almost instantly steer right, left, and forward. To stop, the person in the chair must puff up a cheek, a motion that's then detected by the headpiece.
Because of this quick response time, plans are under way to turn the wheelchair into a commercial health care product. The most practical use would be for rehabilitation patients who have been paralyzed, suffered a stroke, or have other conditions that hinder their muscle control. So far, the research has centered on brain waves related to imaginary hand and foot control. However, Toyota hopes the system could ultimately be applied to brain waves generated by emotions.
... Read moreAfter a six-year effort, the prototype of a new solar-powered aircraft was unveiled at a Swiss airfield on Friday by its future pilots and promoters Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg.
Dubbed the Solar Impluse HB-SIA, the airplane is designed to fly both day and night without the need for fuel and will begin test flights by year's end.
Despite a wingspan equal to that of a Boeing 747, the Solar Impulse weighs only around 1.7 tons, about the same as an average car. More than 12,000 solar cells mounted on the wing supply renewable solar energy to the four 10-horsepower electric motors. During the day, the solar panels charge the plane's lithium polymer batteries, allowing it to fly at night.
At a press conference at the plane's Duebendorf airfield near Zurich, Piccard made clear the goal of the aircraft is to prove the business viability and profitability of renewable energy.
"If an aircraft is able to fly day and night without fuel, propelled solely by solar energy, let no one come and claim that is impossible to do the same thing for motor vehicles, heating and air conditioning systems ,and computers," Piccard said.
After this year's initial test flight, a night flight is scheduled for 2010 to see if the plane can stay in the air for 36 hours.
On the horizon in 2012, Piccard and Borschberg plan to fly the next generation of the Solar Impulse, the HB-SIB, around the world in five legs over the course of four to six days. That will make another global trip for adventurer Piccard, who in 1990 piloted the first round-the-world hot-air balloon flight with his Orbiter 3.
"Through this project we are proclaiming our conviction that a pioneering spirit and political vision can together change society and put an end to fossil fuel dependency," said Piccard.
The Solar Impulse joins the ranks of other solar-powered airplanes, including Qinetiq's Zephyr and NASA's Helios.
