A robot named MABEL that can walk over rough terrain with a human-like gait has been developed by University of Michigan electrical engineering professor Jessy Grizzle and students.

Click here to view the embedded video.

First attempt at walking over rough ground for Bipedal Robot MABEL

Grizzle was surprised that she was able to perform as well as she did. What a robot can step over usually depends on what it can see, but MABEL is blind. She has no camera. The engineers had merely programmed her legs to swing higher to step over or onto obstacles. They hadn’t programmed her specifically to navigate them.

That’s what they’ll do in future, more scientific experiments. The researchers are developing feedback control algorithms to give bipedal robots a strong sense of balance.

This early experiment was, for MABEL, the equivalent of walking confidently down a forest trail while talking to a friend—and not looking down to watch your steps.

So what’s the point of all this? Grizzle says more than 70 percent of the Earth’s land surface isn’t navigable by wheeled or tracked vehicles. Bipedal robots could be capable of traveling in these places.

“If robots are going to perform rescue operations, they’re not going to be walking on a nice linoleum floor,” Grizzle said. “Even if they’re in a building, it’s going to be littered with things that have fallen. They have to be able to walk on an uneven surface without tripping.”

Grizzle’s ultimate goal for MABEL is to make her run. It’s a feat he almost achieved with her predecessor, RABBIT, but RABBIT’s heavy legs carried motors and no springs. MABEL’s motors are in her torso, which leaves her legs light and agile. Her legs also have springs that act like tendons, storing and releasing energy.

“Running would really be one of the highest demonstrations of agile behavior in a machine. It takes such delicate feedback control,” Grizzle said. “RABBIT failed to run in steady state. We got six really beautiful steps, but we never got seven or eight.”

More info: University of Michigan news

Researchers in Japan are developing a "haptic interface robot" -- the HIRO III, a robot hand that can transmit realistic sensations of touch to a user's fingertips. The robot is an arm and hand with five fingers to which the user's own fingers are strapped. The robotic fingers give the user tactile sensations simulating the textures of surfaces, size of virtual objects and a sense of weight. The system is integrated with a three-dimensional display that includes an image of the user's hand. The hand on the screen appears to be in the same position as the user's own hand, which could make the experience seem very realistic. The device could be used in applications such as controlling robotic arms in factory work, and for simulating procedures for medical diagnosis training. (Source: http://www.physorg.com/news197256614.html)

Artificial skin that can cover robots and floors for safety has been developed by researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Factory Operation and Automation.

Consisting of conductive foam, textiles and an intelligent evaluation circuit, the sensor system detects points of contact and differentiates between gentle and strong contact. It registers people immediately.

We’ve known that Google had the ability to remotely remove apps obtained from the Market since before the G1 first hit users hands, but until this week it had gone completely unused.

What apps were so dangerous that they caused Google to forcibly yank them from users’ devices?

The early reports indicated that they were simply apps that did nothing and while that is technically true it isn’t really the whole story.

The apps in question were released into the Market by Jon Oberheide from a security startup, Scio Security. One of the apps appeared in the Market as a picture viewer with images from the soon to be released Twilight Eclipse, but the real purpose of the app was to expose what Oberheide deems to be a security flaw and that is the ability to have an app retrieve new executable code without the users permission once it is installed. Now in this instance Oberheide had no intention of doing anything malicious, but obviously this concept could potentially be exploited by less scrupulous folks.

Oberheide was contacted by Google after he spoke about his app at SummerCon last week and was asked to remove the app from the Market, which he did. While Google indicated that most users had already removed the app — apparently it didn’t deliver what the Twilighters were looking for — they went ahead and decided to make this a teaching moment of their own by hitting the kill switch, also known as “REMOVE_ASSET,” and thus pulled the app from anyone that hadn’t gotten around to deleting it themselves. The notifications in the post image are what a user sees when this happens on their device.

Google reported on their use of the feature and why it is a necessary tool in their developer’s blog.

The remote application removal feature is one of many security controls Android possesses to help protect users from malicious applications. In case of an emergency, a dangerous application could be removed from active circulation in a rapid and scalable manner to prevent further exposure to users. While we hope to not have to use it, we know that we have the capability to take swift action on behalf of users’ safety when needed.

This remote removal functionality — along with Android’s unique Application Sandbox and Permissions model, Over-The-Air update system, centralized Market, developer registrations, user-submitted ratings, and application flagging — provides a powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open environment.Rich CanningsAndroid Security Lead

Interestingly Oberheide in looking further into the event found that Google has a companion intent to “REMOVE_ASSET” named logically enough “INTALL_ASSET.” While the reason for the former is readily apparent it is a little less clear why Google would require the latter (perhaps some of our more developer minded readers might have some ideas). If you are interested in additional detail you can hit up the source link below for Oberheide’s own blog post on the the whole incident.

Personally I’m fine with Google having this capability in the name of security and they have probably earned our trust by implementing it only once in nearly two years, but I’m curious to see if most Android owners agree with me. Does it bother you that Google can either wipe an app from or add an app to your phone as they see fit or do you find it comforting that that they can close the flood gates on a potential security threat if necessary?

RSS feed brought to you by the Android and Me Store

Related Posts

• Android Market not available on Google TV devices this year
• Norton releases Smartphone Security beta app for Android
• Google zaps Tetris clones from the Android Market
• Android 2.2 prevents some apps from displaying in the Market
• Google updates Android Market site, still lacking