Techno World

A machine about the size of a pickup truck has successfully carried out a science experiment without human aid. 'Adam,' as it's known, set a hypothesis concerning yeast, carried out genetic experiments, and reached conclusions based on their results.

There may not be a white lab coat big enough for Adam, the newest and most expensive member of the scientific department at Aberystwyth University in Wales, UK.

Adam, a US$1 million robot-computer amalgam about the size of a large pickup truck, carried out genetic experiments on yeast and reached groundbreaking conclusions without human help, according to a report in the journal Science. That is, the robo-scientist set a hypothesis, carried out experiments, studied the results, and modified its original hypothesis based on what it had found.

Adam's flesh-and-blood counterparts have confirmed that the robot did indeed discover something new about yeast genetics.

This major step toward reasoning machines and artificial intelligence is dominating the talk in scientific communities around the world Friday, and not just because of the potential job threat to low-paid human lab assistants and interns.

Speculation is rife over the possible implications for adding another pair of smart hands in a lab -- even if those hands are silicon, not carbon-based.

A New Definition for 'Robot'?

The loose way people use the term "robot" is one of Rich Hooper's pet peeves; Hooper is a robotics consultant with Austin, Texas-based Symtx.

"People call everything a 'robot' -- every machine you can think of -- because it sounds sexy," Hooper told TechNewsWorld. "All of these things are really automation, not robots."

Adam, however, "seems like it's kind of on the path of being a true robot in some ways," he continued. "It's evaluating options and choosing between them, and that's more than just hard automation in a factory, where the machine just welds the same seam on the same door over and over."

Adam's development means science could rely more and more on artificial-intelligence-equipped robots to handle lab tasks that require adaptive thinking, not just menial or repetitive jobs. The scale of the lab work involved could be adjusted as well, to pack more experimentation in as technologies advance.

"Robotics are typically good for things that are monotonous or dangerous. [Scientists] are using lab automations that are kind of scaled to human size, but if the humans weren't involved, then I could see the automations really shrinking. You could make things more compact, maybe faster."

Data Mining and Pattern Recognition

There are two points to consider when discussing how other Adams could be used in science, according to Yoky Matsuoka, a Macarthur Award-winning professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Washington's Neurobotics Lab.

"What human scientists are good at is seeing a large set of data and then inferring what's going on, making the best judgments," Matsuoka told TechNewsWorld. "Computers are quite good at machine learning [and] data mining and in some cases, much better than humans in their ability to grasp large sets of data and come up with patterns in that data. I can easily imagine that AI would be superb in doing that over humans, and allowing robots to do that would be an excellent idea."

However, Adam may never fully grasp the human experience, no matter how much his central processing units may benefit from Moore's Law.

"When [humans] look at a tree, we immediately know it's a tree, no matter what the tree looks like, whether it's bent over or its leaves are yellow. We have the amazing ability to come up with abstract content that computers cannot do yet."

The idea that robots might be capable of independent thought processes raises a lot of interesting possibilities, not the least of which is the problem of how such robots -- and their work products -- would be regarded under the law. A robot that invents something entirely on its own, for example, could conceivably be the appropriate patentholder, based on current U.S. law. The journal Science published a report about a robot that could formulate hypotheses, perform experiments to test those hypotheses, and thereby contribute to scientific knowledge.

This technological advance raises legal concerns: Based on current law, if a robot conceived the idea for an "invention," this invention might not have the possibility for patent protection in the United States, possibly leaving the owner or lessee of the robot to depend only on Trade Secret law for the protection of the invention.

The situation might be different under the laws of other countries. However, owners or lessees of such machines in the United States should be forewarned that they may confront difficulties in obtaining patents or other protection for inventions made by such machines.

Independent Thought

Currently, there are many areas of technology in which automated machines or robots are involved in the process of invention. For example, electronic circuit design relies on Monte Carlo analysis using Spice, but this involves human inputs and human analysis of the results.

Existing DNA/amino acid sequencing machines provide inventors with information that inventors later patent, of course. There is a difference, because such machines are automated and not capable of cognition, and much of the inputs into such machines are provided and selected by humans. Also, the resulting data and results are analyzed and verified later by humans.

Another case in point involves high-throughput compound screening to identify promising compounds for pharmaceutical, agricultural and other purposes -- but again, the inputs into screening machines are human, and the outputs are analyzed by humans.

There are numerous similar examples. In contrast, the robots discussed in the report in Science seem to have an independent ability to generate and verify hypotheses, perhaps leading, in patent parlance, to independent "invention" by the robot, not the human.

The issue is whether the owner or controller of the robot would be eligible to obtain patent protection for an invention conceived by a robot.

Who not What

American patent law (35 U.S.C. Section 101) limits what is considered patentable subject matter, and limits the invention to the discoverer: "Whoever invents . . . may obtain a patent . . . ." Section 101 uses "whoever" -- not "whatever." In addition, 35 U.S.C. Section 102 says that "a person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . ." (emphasis added), and proceeds to set forth a number of exceptions to patentability.

That preamble to section 102 limits the ability to patent to a person -- probably not extending it to a machine. Thus, a person using a robot that might make an invention may face some serious statutory impediments to patent protection.

The situation is compounded by Section 102(f), which states that one cannot obtain a patent if "he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented." Thus, Section 102(f) prevents one from obtaining valid patent protection if the idea in question comes -- even in private -- from another source (e.g., a robot).

Of course, there is the possibility that the programmer of the robot could be the inventor if the robot were given the hypotheses to test and parameters to evaluate, in which case the human would probably be the inventor on the theory that the robot was simply the "hands of the inventor." But that does not seem to be the case with the robot reported in the Science article.

Wiggle Room

As mentioned previously, another potential protection for robotic inventions might be found in U.S. Trade Secret law. However, situations would probably arise in which, once a robotic invention were commercialized, the invention could readily be reverse engineered.

Reverse engineering of an unpatented product cannot be prevented under Trade Secret law, which could cause the product developer to regret not having patent protection. Also, Trade Secret law does not prevent subsequent independent development by another.

European law provides an illustration of how things might be different in other countries. Article 58 of the European Patent Convention sets forth the "entitlement to file a European patent application" thusly: "A European patent application may be filed by any natural or legal person, or any body equivalent to a legal person by virtue of the law governing it."

That language seems to provide some wiggle room for the possibility of a robot being an inventor in Europe. Yet one would still have to name the inventor on a European patent application, which leads to an interesting question: Would the robot's central processor be listed as the inventor? If so, it might need to be identified by serial number and where it resides. Interesting possibilities. Trade Secret law -- at least in terms of reverse engineering and independent development -- is quite similar in Europe and the U.S.

If a robot were to be or become an "inventor" under the laws of the U.S. or Europe, it would seem that the owner or lessee of the robot would probably be the owner of the "invention" rather as employers are generally the owners of employees' inventions.

However, owners or lessees of such robots should do something akin to what employers do with employees: still get solid written contracts from the developers of the robots to make sure robot inventions are owned by the owner or lessee.

Patented by HAL 9000?

One final thought: We might someday ask whether a robot that gains true cognition, or self-awareness, should be considered a "person" for the purposes of patent law.

Although the question may seem a long way off -- and perhaps a bit too much for any court to decide now..

The existence of a rocky planet outside our solar system is encouraging news for astronomers searching for signs of life elsewhere in the universe. Although Corot-7b is too hot to be habitable -- it's been nicknamed "the lava planet" -- its discovery relatively close to Earth suggests there may be rocky planets better suited for life farther out.

Astronomers have finally found a place outside our solar system where there's a firm place to stand -- if only it weren't so broiling hot.

As scientists search the skies for life elsewhere, they have found more than 300 planets outside our solar system. However, all are of them are gas balls or can't be proven to be solid. Now, a team of European astronomers has confirmed the first discovery of a rocky extrasolar planet.

Scientists have long figured that if life begins on a planet, it needs a solid surface to rest on, so finding one elsewhere is a big deal.

'Lava Planet'

"We basically live on a rock ourselves," said co-discoverer Artie Hatzes, director of the Thuringer observatory in Germany. "It's as close to something like the Earth that we've found so far. It's just a little too close to its sun."

So close that its surface temperature is more than 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit, too toasty to sustain life. It circles its star in just 20 hours, zipping around at 466,000 mph. By comparison, Mercury, the planet nearest our sun, completes its solar orbit in 88 days.

"It's hot -- they're calling it 'the lava planet,'" Hatzes said.

Near Neighbor

This is a major discovery in the search for life elsewhere in the universe, said outside expert Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution.

It was the main buzz of a conference on finding an Earth-like planet outside our solar system, held in Barcelona, Spain, where the discovery was presented Wednesday morning. The find is also being published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

The planet is called "Corot-7b." It was first discovered earlier this year. European scientists then observed it dozens of times, measuring its density to prove that it is rocky like Earth.

It's in our general neighborhood, circling a star in the winter sky about 500 light-years away. Each light-year is about 6 trillion miles.

Better Digs Farther Away?

Four planets in our solar system are rocky: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

Corot-7b is about as close to Earth in size as any other planet found outside our solar system. Its radius is only one-and-a-half times bigger than Earth's, and it has a mass about five times Earth's.

Most doctors would love to have instantaneous electronic access to patients' full medical records, regardless of where they've been treated before. However, the effort to build such a system is many years in the making, and it continues to drag on. For an integrated system to work, developers at different companies have to agree on how their hundreds of programs uniformly present information.

FORT WORTH, Texas, Oct. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Elbit Systems of America, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems Ltd. (Nasdaq: ESLT) introduces at the 2009 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition, IRCS which breaks down the barriers between your existing radio systems to let your teams talk.

IRCS is an advanced military communication system that enables direct voice and data communications among command posts and front-line echelons via radios and communications devices of various kinds -- VHF, HF, Multi-Channel Radios, LAN, WAN, PABX, Satellite and Cellular networks. The system allows soldiers at all levels, from top command to the individual soldier in the field, to directly communicate with anyone else in the military network. IRCS delivers today on the promise of radio interoperability without having to purchase new radios. It offers improved operational coordination and command and control, providing commanders and decision makers the power of communicating directly with others across normal technology barriers.

"IRCS represents the first of several of a new class of C4I System Solutions," said Jim English, Vice President C4I Solutions, Elbit Systems of America. "When talking with our military customers about some of the biggest tactical challenges confronting them today, interoperability is the first thing we hear. IRCS removes that barrier and provides the war fighter with the ability to contact any other user on their radio, even using a cell phone to do it. It is not a development item. It is already deployed in several places around the world and has proven its capabilities. We are very excited about introducing this to U.S. forces here at AUSA and hearing about the new freedoms this solution will provide to our battlefield commanders immediately."

About Elbit Systems of America, LLC

Elbit Systems of America is a leading provider of high performance products and system solutions focusing on the commercial aviation, defense, homeland security, and medical instrumentation markets. With facilities throughout the United States, Elbit Systems of America is dedicated to supporting those who contribute daily to the safety and security of the United States. Elbit Systems of America, LLC is wholly owned by Elbit Systems Ltd. (Nasdaq: ESLT), a global electronics company engaged in a wide range of programs for innovative defense and commercial applications.

About Elbit Systems

Elbit Systems Ltd. is an international defense electronics company engaged in a wide range of defense-related programs throughout the world. The Company, which includes Elbit Systems and its subsidiaries, operates in the areas of aerospace, land and naval systems, command, control, communications, computers, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance ("C4ISR"), unmanned air vehicle (UAV) systems, advanced electro-optics, electro-optic space systems, EW suites, airborne warning systems, ELINT systems, data links and military communications systems and radios. The Company also focuses on the upgrading of existing military platforms and developing new technologies for defense, homeland security and commercial aviation applications.

Trademarks

Elbit Systems of America and other trademarks, service marks and logos are registered or unregistered marks of Elbit Systems of America companies in the United States and in foreign countries.
Forward Looking Statement

This press release contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) regarding Elbit Systems Ltd. and/or its subsidiaries (collectively the Company), to the extent such statements do not relate to historical or current fact. Forward-looking statements are based on management's expectations, estimates, projections and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual future results, performance and trends may differ materially from these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation: scope and length of customer contracts; governmental regulations and approvals; changes in governmental budgeting priorities; general market, political and economic conditions in the countries in which the Company operates or sells, including Israel and the United States among others; differences in anticipated and actual program performance, including the ability to perform under long-term fixed-price contracts; and the outcome of legal and/or regulatory proceedings. The factors listed above are not all-inclusive, and further information is contained in Elbit Systems Ltd.'s latest annual report on Form 20-F, which is on file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. All forwardlooking statements speak only as of the date of this release. The Company does not undertake to update its forward-looking statements.

The reasons for early termination of the Chandrayaan-I mission are now tumbling out, and they reveal that the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) had kept the Moon orbiter's problems tightly under wraps. Contrary to the space agency's explanation that Chandrayaan's orbit around the Moon had been raised from 100km to 200km in May this year for a better view of the Moon's surface, it is now known that this was because of a miscalculation of the Moon's temperature that had led to faulty thermal protection. It now transpires that heating problems on the craft had begun as early as 25 November 2008, forcing ISRO to deactivate some of the payloads — there were 11 in all, reports The Times Of India.

India's first lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 has reportedly found evidence of large quantities of water on the lunar surface, before the project was terminated by ISRO.
Thursday, September 24, 2009: India's first lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 was not a failure indeed. Despite of premature end, Chandrayaan-1 has reportedly found water on the lunar surface -- one of the main mission of the spacecraft. According to The Times newspaper, India's first lunar mission has found evidence of large quantities of water on its surface, before the project was called off. "It's very satisfying," the newspaper quoted Mylswamy Annadurai, the mission's project director at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) in Bengaluru, as saying. This discovery is credited to the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration). NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3), an imaging spectrometer, was one of the 11 instruments on board Chandrayaan-I. M3 was aimed at providing the first mineral map of the entire lunar surface. Both ISRO and NASA, as of now, have refused to reveal anything on this. A spokesman for Brown University had also declined to comment, saying there was an embargo. "It will be a major announcement of a major discovery and is something great for Chandrayaan. It will mark a major leap for India's space programme," he told The Times Of India. Lunar scientists have for decades contended with the possibility of water repositories. They are now increasingly confident that the decades-long debate is over, says a recent report published by Nature News. "The moon, in fact, has water in all sorts of places; not just locked up in minerals, but scattered throughout the broken-up surface, and, potentially, in blocks or sheets of ice at depth." The results from the NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter are also "offering a wide array of watery signals." The breakthrough is expected to be announced by NASA on 24 September 2009. According to NASA website, "NASA will hold a media briefing at 14:00 p.m EDT on Thursday, September 24, to discuss new science data from the moon collected during national and international space missions." Chandrayaan-1 was India's first unmanned lunar probe which was launched by ISRO on 22 October 2008. After suffering from several technical issues including failure of the star sensors and poor thermal shielding, Chandrayaan stopped sending radio signals on 29 August 2009 shortly after which, the ISRO officially declared the mission over. Chandrayaan operated for 312 days as opposed to the intended two years but the mission achieved 95 per cent of its planned objectives.

India's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, PSLV-C14, launched 958 kg Oceansat-2 and six nano-satellites into a 720 km intended Sun Synchronous Polar Orbit (SSPO) on 23 September 2009.

Thursday, September 24, 2009: After the untimely loss of its lunar mission Chandrayaan, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has once again proved its capabilities. India's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, PSLV-C14, in its 16th mission launched 958 kg Oceansat-2 and six nano-satellites into a 720 km intended Sun Synchronous Polar Orbit (SSPO) on 23 September 2009. The Oceansat-2 satellite mainframe systems derive their heritage from previous IRS missions and launched by PSLV-C14 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota. Oceansat-2 carries three payloads including an Ocean Colour Monitor (OCM-2), Ku-band Pencil Beam scatterometer (SCAT), developed by ISRO; and Radio Occultation Sounder for Atmosphere (ROSA) developed by the Italian Space Agency. Oceansat-2 is envisaged to provide continuity of operational services of Oceansat-1(IRS-P4) with enhanced application potential. The main objectives of OceanSat-2 are to study surface winds and ocean surface strata, observation of chlorophyll concentrations, monitoring of phytoplankton blooms, study of atmospheric aerosols and suspended sediments in the water. Apart from Oceansat-2, four CUBESATs and two RUBIN are the foreign satellites launched by PSLV-C14 on 23 September. The four CUBESATs are educational satellites from European universities, each weighing around one kg and developed to perform technology demonstration in space. The satellites are launched inside a Single Picosatellite Launcher (SPL) also weighing one kg, which is a dedicated European launch adaptor to deploy a CubeSat. RUBIN-9 consists of two spacecrafts Rubin-9.1 and Rubin-9.2 weighing 8kg each and will primarily be used for the Automatic Identification System (AIS) for maritime applications. These are non-separable payloads that will be mounted at an angle of 45deg to the PSLV EB deck. Rubin-9.1 is developed by Luxspace and has a mission objective of providing an insight into the issue of message collisions that limit detection in areas of dense shipping. The main purpose of the Rubin-9.2 spacecraft is to test and qualify nano technologies from Angstrom company Sweden and to continue space based maritime Automatic Identification System (AIS) receiver experiments (started with Rubin-7 and Rubin-8 missions). Rubin-9.2 is similar to the Rubin-8 launched on PSLV-C9 in April 2008. Commenting on this milestone, the President of India, Pratibha Devisingh Patil has congratulated the Indian Space Research Organisation for successfully placing seven satellites in Earth orbit, after the launch of PSLV C14. She said, "ISRO's capabilities have once again been highlighted through this launch and the placement of these satellites in safe Earth orbit." She is confident that Oceansat-2 will provide valuable data on the climate, as the satellite studies the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere.

The following Java technology lets developers, designers, and business partners develop and deliver a consistent user experience, with one environment for applications on mobile and embedded devices. Java meshes the power of a rich stack with the ability to deliver customized experiences across such devices.

Logging and monitoring your MIDlet in development is easy. Just print some lines on the console around critical events, and you know what is happening within your MIDlet. Integrated development environments (IDEs) such as the NetBeans IDE make this even easier by allowing you to do on-device debugging. But this is of no use to you when your MIDlet is actually being run on a client's phone.

How do you monitor your killer MIDlet? Can you receive notification if something critical happens? Can you get an SMS to attend to notifications? Of course, you can. Several APIs make this possible, and this tech tip will show you how to combine them into a single interface.

Simulate Logging Events

To simulate the various events in an actual MIDlet, I have created a simple MIDlet with a random-event generator. The random-event generator simulates activity within the MIDlet and does nothing for normal events. Because informational events in any MIDlet are more likely to occur than warning, error, or critical events, this random MIDlet takes a sliding-scale approach to generating these events. The scale is implemented in the following code:

    // now try and simulate an event within this application
   int rand = random.nextInt(19);

   if (rand > 8) { // no event that needs logging if random no < 9
     if (rand <= 13) { // info
       form.append(midlet.getInfo());
       midlet.doInfoLog("This is an information message.");
     } else if (rand <= 15) { // warn
       form.append(midlet.getWarn());
       midlet.doWarnLog("This is a warning!");
     } else if (rand <= 17) { // error
       form.append(midlet.getError());
       midlet.doErrorLog("Oh, no, an error occurred!");
     } else { // critical
       form.append(midlet.getCritical());
       midlet.doCriticalLog("The sky is falling!");
     }
 }

When you run the MIDlet and start the activity, it will cycle through a clock going from 1 to 15. This is a timer that shows the user that some activity is happening within the MIDlet. During each activity cycle, a random number is generated. As shown in the previous code, if the random number is within the prescribed ranges, it triggers the corresponding logging event. The simple events, and the ones most likely to occur, are the informational messages. The most dire events are the ones that are marked as critical, and they occur only if the random number is exactly equal to 18.

What to Log Where

I have made the assumption that informational messages are to be recorded only, perhaps, as a way for a technical team to audit if they can get their hands on the actual device if something more critical happens. Similarly, I have assumed that warning messages are to be logged to a nearby Bluetooth device, error messages to an Internet server, and critical messages to be sent by way of SMS.

Create a Logging Interface

To keep things simple, the MIDlet makes decisions on the severity of the logging messages and creates loggers based on that assumption (described in the previous section). The following code shows how these decisions are implemented:

    private void createLoggers() {
     infoLog = new RMSLogger();
     warnLog = new BluetoothLogger();
     errorLog = new InternetLogger();
     criticalLog = new SMSLogger();
 }

Each logger is an implementation of the simple Logger interface. This interface is shown in the following code:

    public interface Logger {

     public void doLog(String msg);
   }

With a single method called doLog, the interface defines a minimum contract for the implementations to follow. The actual implementations must then figure out how they will make the logging calls.

Create the Logging Implementations

Now, it is a simple method to figure out what the actual implementations will do. For example, the following code shows what the RMSLogger will do:

    package logger.impl;

   import javax.microedition.rms.RecordStore;
   import logger.Logger;

   public class RMSLogger implements Logger {

     private RecordStore rs;

     public RMSLogger() {
       try {
         rs = RecordStore.openRecordStore("Log_Store", true);
       } catch (Exception e) {
         e.printStackTrace();
       }
     }

     public void doLog(String msg) {
       byte[] rec = msg.getBytes();
       try {
         rs.addRecord(rec, 0, rec.length);
       } catch (Exception e) {
         e.printStackTrace();
       }
     }
   }

As you can see, the constructor does the background work of creating or opening the record store. The doLog() method then does the heavy lifting, by writing the message to the record store.

Similarly, here is the InternetLogger code:

    package logger.impl;

   import java.io.IOException;
   import java.io.OutputStream;
   import javax.microedition.io.Connector;
   import javax.microedition.io.HttpConnection;
   import logger.Logger;

   public class InternetLogger implements Logger {

     // set your destination URL here
     private String destURL = "";

     private HttpConnection conn;

     public InternetLogger() {

       try {
         conn = (HttpConnection) Connector.open(destURL);
         conn.setRequestMethod(HttpConnection.POST);
         conn.setRequestProperty(
           "Content-Type", "application/x-www-form-urlencoded");
       } catch (Exception e) {
         e.printStackTrace();
       }

     }

     public void doLog(String msg) {
       try {
         // The destination URL must be set before doLog is called.

         if(conn == null) {
           System.err.println("DEST URL is not valid.");
           return;
         }
         conn.setRequestProperty("Content-length", "" +
           ("msg=" + msg).getBytes().length);

         OutputStream os = conn.openOutputStream();
         os.write(("msg=" + msg).getBytes());
         os.flush();

       } catch (IOException ex) {
         ex.printStackTrace();
       }
     }
   }

The code here is just a placeholder, and you will need to fill in the destination URL where you want the message to be posted, along with some sort of identification of the sender of the message.