Researchers at Cornell University, the University of Chicago, and the iRobot Corporation have been trying to find a way for a robot hand can grip a variety of objects. The end result of their efforts is a party balloon filled with coffee grounds:
They call it a universal gripper, as it conforms to the object it's grabbing, rather than being designed for particular objects, said Hod Lipson, Cornell associate professor of mechanical engineering and computer science.[...]
"This is one of the closest things we've ever done that could be on the market tomorrow," Lipson said. He noted that the universality of the gripper makes future applications seemingly limitless, from the military using it to dismantle explosive devises or to move potentially dangerous objects, robotic arms in factories, on the feet of a robot that could walk on walls, or on prosthetic limbs.
Link via Fast Company | Photo: John Amend
Comments (1)
Only the self delusional answers yes to either question.
I believe hmm... was intending to express that a person thinking scientifically shouldn't believe in a paranormal being when there is no evidence to support its existence. You may say there is no evidence that it doesn't exist but because it is scientifically impossible to prove a negative, and the religious are the ones making the claim, the onus of proof is on those who argue that god does exist. If and until such proof arises, the scientific thing to do is to say that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a god/s.
As for the argument that god cannot by its very nature be observed, well then the claim that god does exist is not a scientific one. As such, the scientific thing to do again is to say that there is not enough evidence to support the extstence of a god/s.