Slashdot Mirror

• Recognizing gestures in cars, using a similar method to this game
• Another sign language-recognition paper
• A sign language-based game

• Recognizing gestures in cars, using a similar method to this game
• Another sign language-recognition paper
• A sign language-based game

• Recognizing gestures in cars, using a similar method to this game
• Another sign language-recognition paper
• A sign language-based game

I'd like to take a moment to rail against most commonly accepted forms of parallel education. I'm sure you were taught about threads, critical sections, semaphores, shared memory, etc.

Yes I was (and you can see for yourself).

However, there _is_ another way. "CSP" - communicating sequential programs.

I never heard it called that, but I think we did study something similar to what you describe. Is this [warning: PDF] sort of what you meant (minus the specialized language support)?

I'd like to take a moment to rail against most commonly accepted forms of parallel education. I'm sure you were taught about threads, critical sections, semaphores, shared memory, etc.

Yes I was (and you can see for yourself).

However, there _is_ another way. "CSP" - communicating sequential programs.

I never heard it called that, but I think we did study something similar to what you describe. Is this [warning: PDF] sort of what you meant (minus the specialized language support)?

I've had personal experience with the Twiddler, and I know a few people that are proficient in using it (in particular, this guy) and I know for a fact that they have no trouble typing on it while not only thinking, but carrying on a conversation! Granted, Dr. Starner is the very definition of an "expert user," but still...

I've also used Dasher, and I agree that it's definitely not possible to use it productively (probably because you have to watch what it's doing and use fine motor control in an analog kind of way); however, it is possible with the Twiddler. They are most certainly not similar.

Oh, and voice recognition, even if it were good enough, would still have the problem that you'd seem to be talking to yourself, and that other people could hear what you were writing. A chorded keyboard has the advantage there.

http://borg.cc.gatech.edu/ipr/

held every Spring, and you don't need to take intro to AI.

My favorite support story is the classic Olin Shivers story about a support call to Microsoft.

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 06:03:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Olin Shivers
To: sunday-lunch-list
Subject: Losing $35
Reply-to: shivers@ai.mit.edu

No lunch on Sunday, I am afraid.

Having just concluded a continuous 14-hour conversation with
technical support people at Microsoft, my weekend plans have been
altered to simply sleep.


More...

Especially if we are able to figure out an alternative I/O to the standard mouse/keyboard/screen model that would take up much smaller real estate than a laptop... basically access to the internet's information wherever you go.

You just described Wearable Computing. If you're interested in it, you should subscribe to the Wear-Hard mailing list and become familiar with some of the research groups working on such things.

You can have a wearable computer right now -- the technology exists, and some people use it daily. In fact, a "wearable computer" can include anything from a cellphone or Nintendo DS all the way up to a $5000 OQO + head-mounted display + chorded keyboard. The area that really still needs development is applications, though -- Thad Starner, one of few full-time "cyborgs" (he's been wearaing a computer daily for years) basically uses EMACS for everything [warning: PDF], for example. In addition, a lot of what wearables are used for now is traditional and obvious stuff like taking notes and looking stuff up. There are many more possibilities for context-aware applications that don't exist yet.

Especially if we are able to figure out an alternative I/O to the standard mouse/keyboard/screen model that would take up much smaller real estate than a laptop... basically access to the internet's information wherever you go.

You just described Wearable Computing. If you're interested in it, you should subscribe to the Wear-Hard mailing list and become familiar with some of the research groups working on such things.

You can have a wearable computer right now -- the technology exists, and some people use it daily. In fact, a "wearable computer" can include anything from a cellphone or Nintendo DS all the way up to a $5000 OQO + head-mounted display + chorded keyboard. The area that really still needs development is applications, though -- Thad Starner, one of few full-time "cyborgs" (he's been wearaing a computer daily for years) basically uses EMACS for everything [warning: PDF], for example. In addition, a lot of what wearables are used for now is traditional and obvious stuff like taking notes and looking stuff up. There are many more possibilities for context-aware applications that don't exist yet.

Especially if we are able to figure out an alternative I/O to the standard mouse/keyboard/screen model that would take up much smaller real estate than a laptop... basically access to the internet's information wherever you go.

You just described Wearable Computing. If you're interested in it, you should subscribe to the Wear-Hard mailing list and become familiar with some of the research groups working on such things.

You can have a wearable computer right now -- the technology exists, and some people use it daily. In fact, a "wearable computer" can include anything from a cellphone or Nintendo DS all the way up to a $5000 OQO + head-mounted display + chorded keyboard. The area that really still needs development is applications, though -- Thad Starner, one of few full-time "cyborgs" (he's been wearaing a computer daily for years) basically uses EMACS for everything [warning: PDF], for example. In addition, a lot of what wearables are used for now is traditional and obvious stuff like taking notes and looking stuff up. There are many more possibilities for context-aware applications that don't exist yet.

Its 160,000 sq ft with 30,000 sq ft of clean rooms. Of course it won't be done till the summer of 2008 and cost $80M. The biggest private contribution has been from Bernie Marcus, one of the founders of Home Depot, for $15M.

Its 160,000 sq ft with 30,000 sq ft of clean rooms. Of course it won't be done till the summer of 2008 and cost $80M. The biggest private contribution has been from Bernie Marcus, one of the founders of Home Depot, for $15M.

Sadly, even my own school's press release says the chip operates at 250x cellphone speed. But the press release has much more techincal info then the EE Times article http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/half- terahertz.htm/

I know you aren't required to RTFA, but I did and discovered that when it detects a camera, it aims and flashes a light that isn't bright enough to harm human or machine, but does mess up the picture. I suppose in the case of motion pictures, it would do this repeatedly and totally confuse any automated light metering.

Same article, Gatech website

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/nanoc apacitors.htm http://www.physorg.com/news10525.html

There might be methods whereby you wouldn't need to carry the fuel with you, for example with a space elevator. However, just what advantages would a space elevator offer over a tower launch? (I've used parts of this post before, but I have since refined my ideas). I contacted a man responsible for a similar idea a while back, the skyramp (warning: hideous javascript menu may break firefox), Carlton Meyer, and had a dialogue in which he pointed me to a tower launch archive.

The ideas I see bandied about there are similar to what I had in mind, which would be essentially an 11km tall tower (think pylons rather than skyscrapers, based at sea), with evacuated airless launch tubes, using nuclear reactors to power a maglev or pulley system to accelerate vessels to escape velocity. These would then emerge above the end of the troposphere, with it's associated weather and air pressure, and have little to no fuel needed to match the earth's gravity, meaning you could do a lot more while you were up there. At a reasonable acceleration (5 to 7 g's) you would be in geostationary orbit. From there you could build a fully system wide ship or ships, as its much easier to escape the planet's gravity from GEO than from the surface.

Not only would this enable multiple launches daily, it is, unlike the space elevator, readily achievable with today's technology, and financially viable as well. Given NASA had an annual budget of $16.2 billion for 2005, and a nuclear power plant costs a cool billion to build, give or take, we could have this up and running in a few years.

Maybe I should RTFA...

In my previous job, I set up a knowledge base for our Product Support team using Swiki.

It replaced their previous knowledge base, which was done as a WinHelp file using RoboHELP, and as a result was never updated, because it was a PITA to do, and only a couple people knew RoboHELP.

Swiki was a lot easier to teach and use, could be set up to run as an automatically-started service on our Windows server, and has all the basic functionality we needed. It can also maintain multiple different Wikis, and can export the contents of the wiki to very nice clean HTML.

http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/swikiSwiki wiki is here.

...something like this have been around for years in academic labs. Georgia tech for example has had a smart shirt for years.

I just hope they don't patent it!

That's not a bad idea, except that computer vision like that is hard. It could be done, though -- you'd just have to combine the hand-recognition from this with the gesture-recognition from this. (The former knows how to differentiate skin from the rest of the environment (and thus find the hand), but doesn't know many gestures. The latter can recognize more gestures, but relies on a silhouette to find the hand.)

I earn my paycheck doing network admin, in all that encompasses. I went to college for a year and half before I realized that the education I was getting wasn't going to prepare me for my chosen profession.

That's not the fault of the degree, it's the fault of the person pursuing the degree who doesn't know what it's good for. Being a system or network administrator is only tangentially related to being a software developer.

The schools get CS majors ready to be programmers ( bad ones at that ).

Only true if you go to a school with a third-rate CS program. The program I attended has more than adequately prepared me for everything I've had to do in a professional capacity.

There is a huge gap between what the schools teach and what businesses need from their computer personel.

If what your company "needs" is an IT guy, then of course a CS degree is going to be of limited use (as you seem to have found out). Go get an Associate's in IS/IT instead.

First, at a research university, a professor's primary focus is usually on research Devoting the time to develop material for an introductory course would take away from the pursuits upon which tenure, promotion, and overall status is based.

Also, your linked article may want to recheck how "little" global warming hydroelectric power (which wind often displaces) causes. Dams displace CO2, but they increase methane production; methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas. In some cases, hydroelectric plants are worse global warming contributors, per MW, than coal.

That analysis is either simplistic or a great achievment of misdirection, depending on your point of view.

While Methane may be 15x the greenhouse gas as CO2 is, the methane bubbling out of anoxic silt at the bottom of the lake is carbon which is still "in play" (in the upper meter of exposed earth/century time scale). The net amount of carbon stays in the system the same, and will "percipitate out" (figureatively).

To say that some CO2 -> methane conversion (ok, not good if it is really happening) is worse than what would natually happen to that carbon is a bit speculative (it's about the carbon balance equilibium point). To say that "renewable" derived greenhouse gas emissions are as bad as the same amount of "fossil" derived greenhouse gas emissions is highly bogus.
The first is self correcting in a way, the second is an artifically changing of the rules of the natural game.

"Fossil Fuels" are desginated as such for a very very good reason. They are pumping new carbon, previously "out of play" for a significant geological time period, back into a system which just can't rebalance itself fast enough (for the fate of humankind anyway).

(poorly stated) It's an arguement which plays to "it's not 100% perfect, only 95%" therefore it is no better than our other 5% solution, which is 95% bad. Both have problems so we'll just go with the status quo. It is the same exact argument, and is just as full of hoey as is used by Bush & the global-warming denyers. (uh oh, I think I just invoked Godwin's Law)

I postulate (as a geophysical engineer with a degree in atmospheric physics) that the reported tons of greenhouse gas per megawatt comparison is a) probably bullshit anyway and b) badly (intentionally?) flawed methodolgy*.

* They aren't looking at the net greenhouse gas effect, only the outgoing bubbles.

Oh, and rich NIMBYers who pose as representatives of the environmental movement for their own profit make baby Jesus cry. I notice in the few energy /. threads lately there's a lot of talk about "those" and "they" refering to the diverse crowd of folks known as "enviromentalists", ususally followed by ad homenim attacks on people who copulate with trees. Come on people, there are nut jobs in all walks of life. Judging society by promoting the nut jobs to mainstream spokespeople is the same misdirection tact as the above dam CO2/CH4 sham.
(queue "hail to the chief" and you see why the rest of the world thinks the US is entirely populated by nut jobs)

enough ranting - better to listen and learn something-- here's today's lesson:
Everyone should read (the) Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection toolkit.
http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~idris/Essays/Saga n_The_Demon_Haunted_World_Excerpt.htm

We had an 'enable' button on the glove so that the cursor only moved when it was being held. Ours worked by detecting gravitation acceleration (tilt) as opposed to a gyroscope, but it was still pretty damn cool, and much more 'homebrew' than simply pulling apart a gyration mouse and hacking it onto a powerglove.

Graspr. Warning: big pictures. There are also videos on the 'report' page.

I would like to ask your opinion of an idea I have... With all the talk lately about a space elevator, I got to thinking after a not so recent slashdot discussion, just what advantages would a space elevator offer over a tower launch? I contacted the man responsible for a similar idea, the skyramp (warning: hideous javascript menu may break firefox), Carlton Meyer, and had a dialogue in which he pointed me to a tower launch archive.

The ideas I see bandied about there are similar to what I had in mind, which would be essentially an 11km tall tower (think pylons rather than skyscrapers, based at sea), with evacuated airless launch tubes, using nuclear reactors to power a maglev or pulley system to accelerate vessels to escape velocity. These would then emerge above the end of the troposphere, with it's associated weather and air pressure, and have little to no fuel needed to reach GEO, meaning you could do a lot more while you were up there. I originally estimated reaching escape velocity with this system, but it turns out I got the numbers wrong and that would only be suitable for electronics and things that could withstand insane G-forces.

Not only would this enable multiple launches daily, it is, unlike the space elevator, readily achievable with today's technology, and financially viable as well. Consider the big dig in Boston has cost about 12 billion so far... Given NASA had an annual budget of $16.2 billion for 2005, and a nuclear power plant costs a cool billion to build, give or take, we could have this up and running in a few years.

Let me set some misconceptions right. I'm disheartened to note that present day journalism is still very much a grapevine. The author of the original article added a bit of sensationalism by comparing a scholarly competition to "American Idol" probably to get the attention of the reader. I can level with that. But it goes downhill from there. In the case of my project TALC, everything other than the name is pretty much off target. TALC combines Awareness, using techniques like Ambient displays; Learning, using appropriate metaphors and other non-invasive means and Control that lets the user take appropriate action to mitigate the threat. From a security perspective, I believe TALC adds value in terms of bringing awareness to existing tools like HijackThis, Nessus, National Vulnerability Database (NIST) etc., educating users of their security actions/in-actions and a few more in an effort to harden the home user security. These are hard problems and we intend to tackle them with innovative ideas. For those interested in the nitty-gritty details checkout the original proposal at http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/grads/k/kandha/doc /TALC.pdf The project has undergone a lot of changes since then but it gives a fair idea of where we are heading. In the end, like they say, "Any press is good press!"

As for the discussion about the funding, some of the slashdoters have already put it in the right context. To quote Bob Dylan,
"A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do"
We are doing this for the challenge involved in tackling hard research problems and in our case to extend security to a grass root level in a usable manner. The fact that we get a stipend and a tuition waiver comes at a distant third.

Its not FTL but baby will it get the ball rolling. I'll just run this by everyone here... With all the talk lately about a space elevator, I got to thinking after a sort of recent slashdot discussion, just what advantages would a space elevator offer over a tower launch? I contacted the man responsible for a similar idea, the skyramp (warning: hideous javascript menu may break firefox), Carlton Meyer, and had a dialogue in which he pointed me to a tower launch archive.

The ideas I see bandied about there are similar to what I had in mind, which would be essentially an 11km tall tower (think pylons rather than skyscrapers, based at sea), with evacuated airless launch tubes, using nuclear reactors to power a maglev or pulley system to accelerate vessels to escape velocity. These would then emerge above the end of the troposphere, with it's associated weather and air pressure, and have little to no fuel needed to escape the earth's gravity, meaning you could do a lot more while you were up there. At 1m/s acceleration, you would be at escape velocity when you exit the top of the tower.

Not only would this enable multiple launches daily, it is, unlike the space elevator, readily achievable with today's technology, and financially viable as well. Given NASA had an annual budget of $16.2 billion for 2005, and a nuclear power plant costs a cool billion to build, give or take, we could have this up and running in a few years. And once we are up there...

Space has got vast, essentially unlimited resources. One recent story pointed out the trillion dollar iron asteroid up there. The thing has about 5 tons of steel for every man, woman and child on earth. And thats just one of god knows how many... billions more?

Once we leap the cost to escape hurdle (as I think I have managed), we can proceed to use these resources. There are several obstacles in the way of this, first of which is zero gee mining, we have no idea how to do it. We can either mine the ore out there, or bring the asteroid back into orbit and slice it up there. Or slice it up and send it back to orbit. I would be opposed to moving it back into orbit for processing, purely for the debris issue. Perhaps a lunar base would have some merit there.

So we set up a mining and processing operation either on the moon or in deep orbit, and start cutting and processing one of those bad boys. Whats the first thing we build? A bigger processing and mining operation. Space exploration, much like the internet, has to be a largely incestuous affair at first, existing solely for its own benefit.

Once we have that mastered, we can move to algae pods in orbit for food production, oxygen refining, and fuel production (biodiesel or chemical engines), all of which can be powered by the immense energy of the sun, and use the raw materials abundantly available in space. Whether you ship that stuff back to earth or use it for further colonisation, its a vital step.

The production of automated scouts is also a high priority; a vast amount of surveyor and prospector drones to sweep and map every square inch of every rock and gas in the system, out to the Oort cloud, and figure out what they are made of. I'd err on the side of quantity rather than quality, still no reason not to have either. This could be combined with deep space observatories that would make hubble look like the end of a coke bottle.

So now we have a manufacturing bridgehead, a good idea of what's interesting out there, and a cheap means to launch to orbit. Actual manned system ships would come next, to either colonise or investigate the system. The rest, as they say, is (future) history.

A lot of this would require automatio

Sony's libriE and their new reader run Linux as well, it has been hacked: http://www.gvu.gatech.edu/ccg//people/dan/software /librie.html, there is at least one freeware text converter available: http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t= 2544, and it all looks rather pretty: http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2005/06/sony_ librie_hac.html.

Error handling wasn't taught well at my college. Yeah, you might fail one of Greenlee's assignments if you if you didn't check the return status of a system call, but that's not the same thing as knowing how to handle an error when you get one.

It wouldn't be difficult to add an error-handling module to an intermediate-level programming class. There are only a few basic response to any error situation: ignore it, propagate it, retry it, ask the user about it, log it to disk/email/syslog/database/whatever, log it to the GUI, and/or bail-and-quit. Talk about when and how to use each approach; throw in material about retry strategies, explicit vs. implicit error signaling, fail-fast behavior, ask-forgiveness, pitfalls of catching all exceptions, the needs of production systems, etc., and followup with an examination of a few platform-specific error-handling facilities.

If you're college taught all this, then great!!! Mine did not. Maybe I should email some of my old profs...

Magnetic amplifiers have a long and honorable history. They're basically transformers with at least three windings, designed so that the control winding can saturate the magnetic core. This yields gain. Magnetic amplifiers were big and slow, but solidly reliable. Absent major physical damage, they don't fail.

Magnetic amplifiers were used widely in the telephone system for decades. In Western Electric gear, anything with a vacuum tube had to have monitoring and alarm circuitry, but a magnetic amplifier didn't. Millions of little grey boxes with mag amps inside populated the phone system.

Magnetic amplifiers can be built to handle considerable power, so they were used in motor controls. They're still used in welders.

metlin is a student at Georgia Tech, an educational institution that licenses its IP to private industry who, in turn, make and sell products for profit.

I suspect metlin's opinions about Google's behavior will not be evident when he takes his MS to Lockheed or GE looking for work. I am also certain you won't find Greenpeace listed among his "interests" on future resumes.

When, in the future, metlin is involved in engineering products to be sold to or manufactured in China, I will not be surprised to discover metlin's ability to overlook the relevant human rights issues and collect his pay check.

Wow, and your trends only have to hold true for another 11 years for the prediction to come true. I guess in an industry with as little innovation as computer technology, that just might happen!

In all seriousness, the nand people don't have a good plan reaching out that far. In particular, by that point to maintain 100% avg capacity improvement every 2 years, let's call that 64x capacity improvement (I know, that would actually reach into the 12th year, but the graphs you claim are using improvement rates even faster than that: 160% per 2 years). That's an 8x improvement in process, and this memory was built in their new 50 nm process:

http://www.samsung.com/us/Products/Semiconductor/U SNews/Flash/Flash_20050912_0000191464.asp

That puts this new hypothetical future memory on their 6.25 nm process (or with your less generous demands, a 2.7 nm process). That's getting into the range of significantly less than 1000 atoms per device (evidence for atoms / device claim: http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/SiNW. html). To think there won't be any significant changes or difficulties in reaching that goal is optimistic.

Meanwhile, all of this assumes that the hard disk people do nothing surprising in 11 years.

ever heard of George P. Burdell?

Plenty of pranks have happened at the account of this name. You might even check your employee database for existence of him. He almost made Time's Man Of The Year 2001, before Time found out about the ficticious character.

Moral of the Story: Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech are Helluva Engineers, and are VERY creative.

Nope - it was Ramesh Jain.

As a past participant in the AUVSI/IARC, I've noticed that only a few teams have tried using a fixed-wing approach. This is likely because the "building entry" requirement is difficult to accomplish without navigating in close proximity to the buildings. Yet since Mars has such a thin atmosphere, one would think that a rotary-wing aircraft would be much less practical for NASA's purposes.

However, if the NASA competition allows for helicopters, there are several IARC teams that have developed vision-based (no GPS) navigation capability for their rotary-wing platforms. In particular, Carnegie Mellon University, Georgia Tech, and USC all appear to have successfully developed this capability.

The only other requirement listed is "extending and retracting a probe to precisely hit multiple targets on the ground." This statement is pretty vague, and doesn't sound very trivial, but there is precedent.

So far anyway, there doesn't appear to be much any new technology needed to win this NASA competition. Contending institutions that have developed visual navigation techniques can probably just integrate an extra computer/camera to a cheap commercial UAV, optimize their algorithm for the competition terrain type, and interface their controller with the UAV's mission planner. Hopefully NASA will soon add some requirements that will level the playing field a bit and provide them with some usable R&D.

I have just read the robotic competition faq yesterday, and I remember a similar competition there.. I just found it back at http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/AUVS/IARCLaunchPoint. html. I was just looking for a fun competition so that I have some fixed requirements for building a robot myself, but it's either too advanced or too simple. If anyone knows of a fun competition in Europe, please let me know.

"Fully autonomous ingress of 3km to an urban area, locate a particular structure from among many, identify all of the true openings in the correct structure, fly in or send in a sensor that can find one of three targets and relay video or still photographs back 3km to the origin in under 15 minutes."

It looks similar, although the prize money is only $50k, and it's for military use.

if it's accredited, it should be looked at in the same light.

Aye, accreditation is key. If it's not accredited then the degree will do you no good if you're looking at getting your Master's from an accredited institution. From Georgia Tech's Master's in CS:

"The program is designed for students who possess a bachelor's degree in computer science from an accredited institution."

If an online college starts talking about how accrediation is bupkus walk away and keep looking.

Entomopter(a jpg not a pdf)

Video

Entomopter(a jpg not a pdf)

Video

You are placing it in a world where the world has transitioned from a consumer software market dominated by proprietary applications to one dominated by open source ones.

That's me! Fortunately, life moves on. Here's a picture of munchkin:

http://www.gatech.edu/innovations/robotics/avindex .php

I don't know what biggles is up to, or if he is a famous roboticist.

-- Xach

Squeak may not have Ogre, but it has something called Alice which is an "interactive world-building and scripting environment" (that's what the page says...).

I recall it was included in recent Squeak releases which I downloaded. The demo was a bunny or something and you moved it using syntax like this (from here):

bunny move: forward
bunny move: forward distance: 2
bunny move: forward distance: 1 duration: 4
bunny move: forward distance: 1 duration: 2 asSeenBy: camera

bunny moveTo: { 0. 1. 0} duration: 2
bunny moveTo: {0. 0. 1} speed: 4
bunny moveTo: {asIs. 0. asIs}

bunny head pointAt: camera bunny head pointAt: camera duration: eachFrame

Robot Odyssey

College radio is great listening too, and most college stations have online streams. I like WTBU out of Boston University -- amazingly eclectic programming schedule.

There's a bunch of good stations out there... a quick list that I've got on hand:

• Pittsburg: WRCT
• Georgia: WREK
• New York: WFUV
• Los Altos, CA: KFJC
• Berkeley, CA: KALX
• San Francisco, CA KUSF
• Davis, CA: KDVS
• Stanford, CA: KZSU

At Georgia Tech, there was a breach several years ago in a computer that housed lots of personal data for our performing arts center. Our IT department responded by segregating the machines that housed that information and building a large metal "room" around them, within the machine room, which was only accessible with separate credentials. Granted the "cage" was part of a larger security audit, but when you looked at the two events separately, it was a pretty hilarious response to the problem.

I'd guess that they must be using a certain wavelength of IR, and detecting the magnesium flouride that is often used an an antireflective coating on lenses

From the project page, "By out-fitting a camera with a ring of IR-LEDs and an IR pass filter, we are able to detect the retro-reflection caused by CCD imaging chips". Not the lenses.

CCD sensors are mounted at the focal plane of the camera's optical lens, making them very effective retro-reflectors. Although many objects in the environment exhibit this property, they are typically imperfect retro-reflectors and can be distinguished from CCD cameras

Our system has little impact on the human eye, only a slight glow that a person may see

720x480 15.7MB divx AVI
320x240 2.4MB divx AVI

The project page is here