Anybots Now Offering AnyLobby Robotic Staffing Service
POSTED BY: EVAN ACKERMAN / THU, FEBRUARY 02, 2012
Do you need a receptionist at your company? Are you having trouble affording another employee? Do you like spending time with robots more than humans? If you answered yes to any of these questions (or all of them), you might want to check out a brand new service being offered by Anybots called AnyLobby that will solve all your problems.
Anybots' QB telepresence robot is famous for ordering scones, gambling in Vegas, taking repeated punches to the face, and hosting certain robotics blog editors. QB has a self-balancing mobile base with a bunch of sophisticated mobile videoconferencing hardware on top, and using a computer with an Internet connection, you can take control of a QB robot anywhere in the world, driving it around, seeing through its eyes, and interacting with people just like you were there yourself. Or, almost. That's the idea, anyway.
Now, Anybots is offering an entirely new service called AnyLobby that leverages thetelepresence capabilities of QB to offer full-time telepresence staff to companies who might not otherwise be able to afford a real live human. Here's the idea: For about US $2,400 a month, Anybots will send you a QB robot, and a professional human will log in to the robot and be available as a receptionist or an assistant for 40 hours a week. The human on the other end can be physically located anywhere with good Internet, and for locations with only intermittent need, one human can control multiple QBs, saving everybody time and money. GetRobo talked with one of these human receptionists (via a QB) named Angela:
"We can do a lot of things," Angela says. QB doesn't have arms, but thanks to digital technology, she doesn't have any trouble scanning the fax and printing documents. The only thing she can't do is provide her signature when a package arrives, but the companies she works for have set up protocols for that -- "Call Bob when there's a package."
Oftentimes robots are thought as something that can take away jobs, but Angela disagrees. "That is not the case here. It is creating jobs for small towns with high unemployment rates."
Anybots is hoping that these "virtual employees" that AnyLobby provides will offer flexible options for small companies who might not otherwise be able to afford a 100 percent old-fashioned home-grown human being. And there's lots of potential here: It could be extended to other experts as well. Need some on-site tech support? Just find a qualified person from anywhere in the world and they can have a physical presence right there with you immediately. Telepresence robots won't be completely replacing humans anytime soon, but if they can offer a significant percentage of the advantages of being somewhere in person for a fraction of the cost and inconvenience they might make a viable alternative in plenty of useful situations.
Why I'm Wagering $100,000 on Quantum ComputingPOSTED BY: SCOTT AARONSON / TUE, FEBRUARY 07, 2012
Hi, I'm Scott Aaronson. I study quantum computing at MIT. Recently, on my blog, I offered a $100 000 reward for a demonstration, convincing to me, that scalable quantum computing is impossible in the physical world. The award is entirely at my discretion; I might also choose to give smaller awards for "partial" falsifications of scalable quantum computing. Rachel Courtland of IEEE Spectrum asked me to comment on why I made such an offer; in particular, she wanted to know "why it's even an open question whether quantum computing is scalable." She adds: "I think a lot of non-experts assume that it's just a question of investment, time, and technological innovation."
Personally, I think that those non-experts are completely right: it is just a question of investment, time, and innovation! Indeed, that's the only reason I felt emboldened to make this offer. While I could scrounge together $100 000 if necessary, it certainly wouldn't be easy on a professor's salary.
The context for my offer is that, for decades, a small but vocal minority of computer scientists and physicists has held that building a scalable quantum computer isimpossible: not just really, really hard (which everyone agrees about), not just "impossible for the next thousand years" (how would anyone know?), but impossible even in principle, in the same sense that perpetual-motion machines or faster-than-light travel are impossible in principle. A few of the skeptics seem rather angry, and express the view that quantum computing researchers are some sort of powerful cabal bent on suppressing dissent.
Tiny quantum computations have already been demonstrated in the lab – for example, 15 has been factored into 3×5 – so the question is whether quantum computers can be "scaled up" to bigger sizes capable of solving more interesting problems. The central problem is decoherence, meaning unwanted interactions between the computer and its external environment, which prematurely "measure" the computer and destroy its fragile quantum state. The more complicated the quantum computation, the worse a problem decoherence can become. So for the past fifteen years, the hope for building scalable quantum computers has rested with a mathematically-elegant theory called "quantum fault-tolerance," which shows how, if decoherence can be kept below a certain critical level, clever error-correctiontechniques can be used to render its remaining effects insignificant.
Not surprisingly, most quantum computing skeptics – among the ones who offer physical arguments at all! – focus on trying to poke holes in particular methods for quantum fault-tolerance. Some of their criticisms are interesting and might lead to good science. The problem, from my perspective, is that so far the skeptics' case has been entirely negative: none of them are able even to hint at an alternative picture of physical reality, which would explain from basic principles why no form of fault-tolerance can work, and why quantum computing isn’t possible.
Most of the skeptics say that they have no problem with quantum mechanics itself (it is, after all, the best-confirmed physical theory of all time); it's only scalable quantum computers that they object to. To date, though, no one really knows how you can have quantum mechanics without the possibility of quantum fault-tolerance. So as I see it, the burden falls on the skeptics to give an alternative account of what's going on that would predict the impossibility of scalable QC.
An even more dramatic way to put the point is this: if quantum computing is really impossible, then we ought to be able to turn that fact on its head. Suppose you believe that nothing done by “realistic” quantum systems (the ones found in Nature) can possibly be used to outperform today’s classical computers. Then by using today’s classical computers, why can’t we easily simulate the quantum systems found in Nature? What is the fast classical algorithm for simulating those quantum systems? How does it work? Like a wily defense attorney, the skeptics don't even try to address such questions; their only interest is in casting doubt on the prosecution's case.
The reason I made my $100 000 bet was to draw attention to the case that quantum computing skeptics have yet to offer. If quantum computing really does turn out to be impossible for some fundamental reason, then once I get over the shock to my personal finances, I'll be absolutely thrilled. Indeed, I'll want to participate myself in one of the greatest revolutions in physics of all time, a revolution that finally overturns almost a century of understanding of quantum mechanics. And whoever initiates that revolution will certainly deserve my money.
But what I know for sure is that quantum computing isn't impossible for some trivial reason that’s simply been overlooked for 20 years by a very large group of physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and engineers. And I hope putting my money where my mouth is will help more people realize that.
PHILADELPHIA, February 2, 2012
Researchers used a probe to create a dielectric barrier discharge plasma and apply it to raw chicken.
A new study by food safety researchers at Drexel University demonstrates that plasma can be an effective method for killing pathogens on uncooked poultry. The proof-of-concept study was published in the January issue of the Journal of Food Protection.
Although recent high-profile outbreaks of foodborne illness have involved contaminated fresh produce, the most common source of harmful bacteria in food is uncooked poultry and other meat products. The bacteria responsible for most foodborne illnesses,Campylobacter and Salmonella, are found on upwards of 70 percent of chicken meat tested.
Treating raw meat products to remove pathogens before they reach a consumer’s home can reduce the risk of cross contamination during food preparation, according to senior author Dr. Jennifer Quinlan, an assistant professor in Drexel’s College of Nursing and Health Professions. “If you could reduce contamination on the raw chicken, then you wouldn’t have it in the kitchen,” Quinlan said.
Past studies have shown that plasma could successfully reduce pathogens on the surface of fruits and vegetables without cooking them.
The value of using plasma “is that it is non-thermal, so there is no heat to cook or alter the way the food looks,” said lead author Brian Dirks, a graduate student in theCollege of Arts and Sciences. Dirks and Quinlan worked with researchers from the University’s Anthony J. Drexel Plasma Institute to test the use of plasma for poultry.
In the Drexel study, raw chicken samples contaminated with Salmonella enterica and Campylobacter jejunibacteria were treated with plasma for varying periods of time. Plasma treatment eliminated or nearly eliminated bacteria in low levels from skinless chicken breast and chicken skin, and significantly reduced the level of bacteria when contamination levels were high.
The researchers also tested using plasma to treat samples of bacteria grown on agar, and demonstrated that antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria were as susceptible to plasma as the wild-type strains.
Plasma, known as the “fourth state of matter” (after solid, liquid and gas), is a high-energy, charged mixture of gaseous atoms, ions and electrons. Plasma has a wide range of potential applications including energy production and control, biomedical treatments and environmental remediation.
Quinlan described the plasma treatment of poultry in this study as “proof of concept.” Current plasma technology is expensive relative to the narrow cost margins involved in food production, and the technology is not currently being developed for processing poultry on a large scale.
If plasma technology becomes cost-effective for use in treating poultry, it may be used in conjunction with existing methods to reduce pathogens, Dirks said, and it may also help prolong the shelf-life of raw chicken if it can be honed to remove more microorganisms responsible for spoilage.
“Until these technologies are more fully developed, consumers should assume that raw poultry has pathogens on it and take care to prevent infection,” Quinlan said. “That means cooking thoroughly and making sure not to cross contaminate when handling uncooked meat and poultry.”
Quinlan holds a a Ph.D. in food microbiology from North Carolina State University and bachelor’s and master’s degrees in food science from Rutgers University. Her research focuses on the microbiological quality and safety of food. Her ongoing work focuses on safe consumer handling of food.
The A.J. Drexel Plasma Institute recently received a $1 million grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation to expand its plasma research.
Full citation: Dirks, B.P., Dobrynin, D., Fridman, G., Mukhn, Y., Fridman, A., & Quinlan, J.J. Treatment of Raw Poultry with Nonthermal Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma To Reduce Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella enterica. Journal of Food Protection. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-153.
News Media Contact
Rachel Ewing
News Officer, University Communications
raewing@drexel.edu
Phone: 215-895-2614
Mobile: 215-298-4600
