Slashdot Mirror

why didn't they try to crash the plane? What sort of positive/negative feedback did they use?

The second article stated that neurons were given information on the tilt of the airplane:

To control the simulated aircraft, the neurons first receive information from the computer about flight conditions: whether the plane is flying straight and level or is tilted to the left or to the right. The neurons then analyze the data and respond by sending signals to the plane's controls. Those signals alter the flight path and new information is sent to the neurons, creating a feedback system.

It seems that this experiment builds on earier research by DeMarse, Wagenaar, Blau, and Potter in 2001 called the the animat. It wondered in a box without goal-specific behavior. However, it also tended to specific patterns and states. That is a very readable article - I highly suggest you read it.

But why did the neurons want to stablize the aircraft? I couldn't find a paper on the aircraft experiment, but a second paper, "Removing some 'A' from AI: Embodied Cultured Networks" (by Bakkum, Shkolnik, Ben-Ary, Gamblen, DeMarse, and Potter, 2004) summarized another experiment where neurons were trained to keep a set distance from an object. The paper is the first article on the same page of publications as the first paper. It seems that the neural network responded nonlinearly - that is, it changed state from one behavior to another one - when the input stimulus frequency was adjusted (correct me if I'm wrong). So by changing the input stimulus frequency, they were able to train the network. I gather that the new experiment simply uses when certain "level = good, nonlevel = bad" stimuli. It's a long way off from Robocop II, but it is a start.

why didn't they try to crash the plane? What sort of positive/negative feedback did they use?

The second article stated that neurons were given information on the tilt of the airplane:

To control the simulated aircraft, the neurons first receive information from the computer about flight conditions: whether the plane is flying straight and level or is tilted to the left or to the right. The neurons then analyze the data and respond by sending signals to the plane's controls. Those signals alter the flight path and new information is sent to the neurons, creating a feedback system.

It seems that this experiment builds on earier research by DeMarse, Wagenaar, Blau, and Potter in 2001 called the the animat. It wondered in a box without goal-specific behavior. However, it also tended to specific patterns and states. That is a very readable article - I highly suggest you read it.

But why did the neurons want to stablize the aircraft? I couldn't find a paper on the aircraft experiment, but a second paper, "Removing some 'A' from AI: Embodied Cultured Networks" (by Bakkum, Shkolnik, Ben-Ary, Gamblen, DeMarse, and Potter, 2004) summarized another experiment where neurons were trained to keep a set distance from an object. The paper is the first article on the same page of publications as the first paper. It seems that the neural network responded nonlinearly - that is, it changed state from one behavior to another one - when the input stimulus frequency was adjusted (correct me if I'm wrong). So by changing the input stimulus frequency, they were able to train the network. I gather that the new experiment simply uses when certain "level = good, nonlevel = bad" stimuli. It's a long way off from Robocop II, but it is a start.

I dug up a preprint of a paper describing the theory behind this work. It doen't discuss the airplane simulation, but does discuss a "hybrid robot" that they call a "hybrot". I haven't read the whole thing, so I can't summarize, but it's pretty accessible. Check the first paper here

Steve Potter, the former mentor of the UF researcher has a pretty thorough description of it. http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/groups/potter/animat.h tml

Exactly.

I go to GATech, and it's one of the most tech-savvy and wired campuses that I've seen and answers in the affirmitive for almost all the questions in the list.

Worst part is that UGA is mentioned in the list, while they are nowhere close to how wired GATech's campus is. Also, the numbers are plain wrong - GATech has a lot of other programs which do not necessiate computers (Linguistics, International Affairs, History and the like - that skews up the list a real lot).

And the number of computers is just plain wrong. Hell, am sure my department itself has so many. What crap, we've LARGE exlcuisve labs dedicated to various types of research.

This survey is just bullshit.

Exactly.

I go to GATech, and it's one of the most tech-savvy and wired campuses that I've seen and answers in the affirmitive for almost all the questions in the list.

Worst part is that UGA is mentioned in the list, while they are nowhere close to how wired GATech's campus is. Also, the numbers are plain wrong - GATech has a lot of other programs which do not necessiate computers (Linguistics, International Affairs, History and the like - that skews up the list a real lot).

And the number of computers is just plain wrong. Hell, am sure my department itself has so many. What crap, we've LARGE exlcuisve labs dedicated to various types of research.

This survey is just bullshit.

Exactly.

I go to GATech, and it's one of the most tech-savvy and wired campuses that I've seen and answers in the affirmitive for almost all the questions in the list.

Worst part is that UGA is mentioned in the list, while they are nowhere close to how wired GATech's campus is. Also, the numbers are plain wrong - GATech has a lot of other programs which do not necessiate computers (Linguistics, International Affairs, History and the like - that skews up the list a real lot).

And the number of computers is just plain wrong. Hell, am sure my department itself has so many. What crap, we've LARGE exlcuisve labs dedicated to various types of research.

This survey is just bullshit.

Exactly.

I go to GATech, and it's one of the most tech-savvy and wired campuses that I've seen and answers in the affirmitive for almost all the questions in the list.

Worst part is that UGA is mentioned in the list, while they are nowhere close to how wired GATech's campus is. Also, the numbers are plain wrong - GATech has a lot of other programs which do not necessiate computers (Linguistics, International Affairs, History and the like - that skews up the list a real lot).

And the number of computers is just plain wrong. Hell, am sure my department itself has so many. What crap, we've LARGE exlcuisve labs dedicated to various types of research.

This survey is just bullshit.

netblt (RFC) purpose is also to enhance file transfer thruput (bandwith efficiency). An implementation has also been studied.

It's Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Every year there is a large ACM conference on this called CHI. There are also hundreds of HCI researchers all around the world at some of the top institutions working on problems like this.

Georgia Tech and Carnegie Mellon have two of the bigger masters programs available. Each program pumps out between one to two dozen people a year who should be well equipped to perform usability testing, among other things.

And you don't need a whole lab. You don't need to videotape often, and you don't need to buy some special software/hardware (you can, and they help, but you can get a lot of mileage from much less). Jakob Nielson and his cohort Don Norman have published a few good books that should be accessible to the uninitiated. Often times, some scribbles on paper are a better choice than prototyping the interface (scribbles usually give you higher levels of feedback, as opposed to "The font is ugly.").

There really are much better sources than articles like this one where people are just discovering HCI methods (not to rag on the article). Do a little google searching (you now have the right keywords: usability, hci), read some books (amazon is bound to have something up your alley), and maybe even ask some people in the field. There's a lot of really cheap, really quick things you can do to help yourself out (lookup Nielson's Discount usability, or you can hire an HCI person onto your team, we're very worth the cost).

BTW: There are many more excellent sources than Nielson, he's just the easiest to cite for applied HCI in a short period of time.

Not that I know of.

I know several people in my school who work with wearable computing, and wear this stuff 24/7.

If anything, it seems quite useful and consequently, addictive.

I already have a professor who has been doing that for a while now.

As many other posters have noted, NT has run on PPC before.

It is speculated that Xbox2 will be PPC-(technically POWERlite?)-based, and run on an updated embedded NT.

And, of course, you can currently run OS X on an Xbox[1], so why not the 'reverse'?

The performance of any of these strategies is only determined by the opponent strategies that they face, which is arbitrary. It is therefore meaningless to talk of one strategy being 'better' than another - most advanced strategies can beat Tit for Tat given the right opponents.

1. Strategy X becomes popular
2. Cards that defend against X (but are less useful against other strategies) become popular
3. X becomes less popular
4. Cards that defend against X become less popular
5. X becomes popular again

Programmers in the second tournament had all been provided with the results of the first, including Axelrod's analysis of why Tit for Tat and other nice and forgiving strategies had done so well. It was only to be expected that the contestants would take note of this background information, in one way or another. In fact, they split into two schools of thought. Some reasoned that niceness and forgivingness were evidently winning qualities, and they accordingly submitted nice, forgiving strategies. John Maynard Smith went so far as to submit the super-forgiving Tit for Two Tats. The other school of thought reasoned that lots of their colleagues, having read Axelrod's analysis, would now submit nice, forgiving strategies. They therefore submitted nasty strategies, trying to exploit these anticipated softies!

But once again nastiness didn't pay. Once again, Tit for Tat, submitted by Anatol Rapoport, was the winner, and it scored a massive 96 per cent of the benchmark score. And again nice strategies, in general, did better than nasty ones. All but one of the top 15 strategies were nice, and all but one of the bottom 15 were nasty. But although the saintly Tit for Two Tats would have won the first tournament if it had been submitted, it did not win the second. This was because the field now included more subtle nasty strategies capable of preying ruthlessly upon such an out-and-out softy.

Here are some screenshots:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/1.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/2.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/3.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/4.JP G . I read they were taken by gene O'neil??? (not sure who he is)

Here are some screenshots:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/1.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/2.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/3.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/4.JP G . I read they were taken by gene O'neil??? (not sure who he is)

Here are some screenshots:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/1.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/2.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/3.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/4.JP G . I read they were taken by gene O'neil??? (not sure who he is)

Here are some screenshots:
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/1.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/2.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/3.JP G
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~achille/screenshots/4.JP G . I read they were taken by gene O'neil??? (not sure who he is)

Once again, technology is imitating nature with a new class of biologically inspired robots called " Biomimetic Robots ." In this very long article, IEEE Computer Magazine looks at several projects currently underway. All these projects will have practical applications a few years from now. They include robotic lobsters for underwater mine research or flying insect-based robots for future spatial missions. Other projects are about cricket-inspired robots to be used in rescue missions or scorpion-like robots to be deployed in hostile environments for humans. and of course, there are the now famous and robust "sprawling" robots based on cockroaches. For more information, read the whole very well documented article. Or read more for a photo gallery...

The Sprawl family of robots is developed at the Center for Design Research at Stanford University. These six-legged robots "draw their inspiration from the physical construction and mechanical design principles that are responsible for the robustness of the cockroach," according to Mark Cutkosky, a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering.

Here are two links to the family of sprawl robots and to the IndependentSprawl one known as iSprawl .

The iSprawl is the first fully autonomous member of the Sprawl family. It is about 11 centimeters in length and can run at 15 body-lengths/second (over 2.3m/s). (Credit: Center for Design Research at Stanford University)

One team investigating about robotic lobsters is working to give to the robots a "nervous system." This project is based on research done "on lobster and crayfish nervous systems conducted in the 1970s by Joseph Ayers, a biology professor at Northeastern University."

The actions of real lobsters have been reverse-engineered and programmed into a library of actions which give the robotic lobster a similar behavior as the real ones. You'll find other details at the Biomimetic Underwater Robot Program at the Ayers Robotics Laboratory at Northeastern University.

This robotic lobster imitates the real lobster behavior. (Credit: Jan Witting, Northeastern University)

The Entomopter family of crawling and flying insect-based robots is designed at Georgia Tech. They can be used as surveillance tools and can fly both indoor and outdoor. There are currently two versions. "This generation of the Entomopter is designed for operation in two atmospheres: a 50-gram terrestrial version and an aerospace version designed for use in different gravitational environments." The Entomopter might even be used on future Mars missions.

You'll find much more details by visiting the Entomopter Project website.

Here is a rendering of the Entomopter-based robot flying over Mars (Credit: Georgia Tech).

And this one shows the Entomopter-based Mars surveyor looking over the cliffs. (Credit: Georgia Tech).

Elsewhere, at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), researchers are building cricket-inspired robots, which can walk and jump. Roger D. Quinn, professor of mechanical engineering at CWRU and director of Biologically Inspired Robotics Lab, is working with his team are not only working on robots inspired by cockroaches and crickets, but also on a hybrid mechanism called Whegs (wheels plus legs).

You'll find more information, including diagrams, pictures and movies at the

I'm going to somewhat second that. It seems something funny is going on, maybe explainable, maybe not. Compare this pic with this pic (using a tabbed browser helps a lot). Why are the menu bars totally different sizes when the resolution of each picture is the same?

I'm going to somewhat second that. It seems something funny is going on, maybe explainable, maybe not. Compare this pic with this pic (using a tabbed browser helps a lot). Why are the menu bars totally different sizes when the resolution of each picture is the same?

the legal section in that in the EULA for OS X it states that you cannot install OS X on any non-Apple hardware(probably due to the whole clone thing that failed miserably), I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's an issue they should have addressed.

I read through the entire article before this was posted here.

Very interesting, but I'm going to call foul.

Why out of all the screenshots is this one obscured? It's the most important of the screenshots out of the lot that was provided in the article.

I also thought TechTV had made it pretty clear that pearPC was almost unuseable on a machine below 2.5 GHz.

Grand Text Auto
it's good. and has a silly name.

Try to print diagrams with a Solid Ink color printer Such as the Xerox Phasers You can probably get a refurbished one at a good price the 840, 850, and 860 models come with free black ink for the life of the printer (So you don't need to go on Ebay and Buy Free Black ink for $10 and think you got a good deal (Man Stupid people)). The reason is that Solid Ink printers natually print with little bumps on the printer. So say you do the map using 4 Different patterns Horizontal Stripes, Vertical Strips, Just white Paper and solid fill. That way the child can actually feel the print on the paper and get an idea where things are.
This is a Mid Level Tech solution that is not going crazy plus the family gets a good quality printer.

Bartholdi, Chamberlin, and Nurmi consider IRV less manipulable than Condorcet methods:

John J. Bartholdi III, James B. Orlin, "Single transferable vote resists strategic voting," Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 8, p. 341-354, 1991

John R. Chamberlin, "An investigation into the relative manipulability of four voting systems," Behavioral Science, vol. 30, p. 195-203, 1985

Hannu Nurmi, "Comparing Voting Systems," D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1987.

Strategic Condorcet voting usually takes the form of ranking a fairly probable winner that is actually your second or third choice dead last after unlikely candidates that you prefer less. For example, if it looks like the Republican and the Democrat are running a close race, and you prefer the Democrat, you might rank the Republican last behind worse third parties that have no chance.

In single seat elections with at least hundreds of voters, IRV elects the same winner as Condorcet more than 95% of the time. In that remaining 5% of the time, IRV elects the true Condorcet winner (given voters' actual preferences rather than their strategic votes) more often than Condorcet does.

Chris Crawford has a new book titled Chris Crawford on Interactive Storytelling that covers similar ground but from a different angle, and should be very good.

Also, Grand Text Auto is an excellent Interactive Storytelling group blog by some of the important names experimenting in the field today.

Gah, should've used preview, of course. How about this link: fixed link.

I'll risk being modded offtopic and mention that Krishna Bharat happens to be a graduate of the GVU (Graphics Visualization and Usability) lab at the College of Computing at Georgia Tech. I happened to meet him on one of his visits to the school, and he being the first (and only) rep from Google I've met, I found him to fit the Google stereotype pretty snugly. His old webpage at GaTech is here

In any case, I did manage to flunk the Google interview, though I got a TShirt in return, so I guess it's okay.

I'll risk being modded offtopic and mention that Krishna Bharat happens to be a graduate of the GVU (Graphics Visualization and Usability) lab at the College of Computing at Georgia Tech. I happened to meet him on one of his visits to the school, and he being the first (and only) rep from Google I've met, I found him to fit the Google stereotype pretty snugly. His old webpage at GaTech is here

In any case, I did manage to flunk the Google interview, though I got a TShirt in return, so I guess it's okay.

sigh ... where's your data from; I call bullshit on the basis of this:

1. Do solar cells produce more energy than is used during their manufacture?
Yes. The amount of time it takes for a technology to produce more energy than was used in their manufacture is called the energy payback time. Solar cells have an energy payback time ranging from a few months to 6 years, depending on the type of materials, the type of solar cell and where it is used. Solar cells have warranties well in excess of these numbers, typically 20 years. The origin of the popular myth that solar cells do not produce enough energy in their lifetime to recover the energy in making them is unknown, as every published study has shown that solar cells produce more energy in their lifetime than the energy used in production.

I wonder if /. should have a rule: no fact claims without reasonable references (I guess it might get pretty "thin" here though)

Unofficial access points are prohibited at Georgia Tech too (Wireless Policy). From a security standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

Specifically, look at http://www.sigcom.net/PDF/SIGCOMTPS.pdf, http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/labs/MCCL/pubs/ dwnlds/YucelITVT02.pdf, or any google search for subpixel video image enhancement.

The basic idea is to use statistical methods over a series of slightly "jittered" video frames to create a high resolution or high quality still image. When an image in front of the camera is shifted by a non integer number of pixels, the images are lined up exactly with each other so that the edges of pixels overlap each other. Taking the average of these sup-pixel overlapped images at a higher resolution yields a higher quality image than the simple mosaic or blur you would get by scaling or interpolation. If the physical shape and response function of individual camera "pixels" is known, even more accuracy can be contained. The method can probably even be applied to rotating or enlarging/shrinking images of objects as well, but with more complex mathematical models for the motion and camera viewing transformation

A generic system as described in the article probably uses the frequency information about the image to construct the textures, but it wouldn't be difficult (but processor intensive) to track translational sub-pixel movement of objects and apply the above process to increase the resolution. MPEG already takes advantage of the fact that more compression for fast changes in an image are unlikely to be noticed, so it wouldn't have to improve the moving parts, just the 8x8 blocks that have B frames, since they are relatively unchanging. I bet they will even get a patent on the process, despite the fact that it's been published and I can think up most of the rest within a few minutes...

You're right about the quadratic algorithm, of course. It's just not what he was talking about. Just to clarify.

What happened to good, old fashioned "don't walk down the dark alley alone with nobody watching?"

Thinking about and planning for what you would do in a dangerous situation isn't a bad thing. The odds of being in a major car accident are pretty low, but you still wear your seatbelt and buy a car with airbags if you can. Sure some people worry excessively, but a little paranoia can be a good thing.

... do people focus so much fear on highly unlikely events.

I liked Bowling for Columbine too.

That doesn't change the fact that for the past few years crime has been steadily ticking upward on my campus. Not to mention that skyrocketing real estate prices are pushing students into more marginal neighborhoods if they want to live affordably.

I'm physically pretty large, so I've seldom had problems or been harassed. But I've had friends, colleagues, and professors who've stared down the barrel of a gun, held by somebody who simply did not give a shit anymore about anything or anyone.

Face it: if you want to live in an American city, and you don't want to be a victim, you have to be prepared to defend yourself. Of course, there's a certain amount of sanity testing that should be applied (if you're marooned in a small liberal arts college in the countryside, for example, I doubt you'd need the pepper spray). But I'm perfectly happy to err on the side of paranoia.

I'm amazed that how all of the current "state of the art" Languages/Frameworks still haven't caught up to Smalltalk yet.

Smalltalk is a Language/Library/ and integrated development environment all in one.

It's had for over twenty years:

1. multiple hardware support via Virtual machines,
2. garbage collection,
3. robust library,
4. Edit and continue debugging (the stack unwinds to the spot of the edit and it continues from there, once a coder experiences this, going back to pause, figure out problem, stop program fix, recompile and restart from the beginning sucks 'big time'),
5. Pure object based (everything including 'primates' is an object, at least how it appears to the programmer that is ;)and it makes it hard to write procederal code unlike Java/C++/C#, where it take coder discipline not to )
6. A good GUI framework (heck, it was used to invent Gui's),
7. Clean elegant language: 5 reserved words
8. Encouraged an iterative programming style( XP ).
9. And More...

Java/C#/.Net wish they had all of this "20 year old" tech. They are good Languages/tools that are slowly evolving into Smalltalk. Why don't you just save time and go to the top of the food chain?

It's amazing how one research lab, Xerox Parc, could have been SO far ahead of its time. Its like software has stood still for twenty years.

You can explore it via the open source squeak project. Understand it is written for coders by coders so it takes a little work to come up to speed on it, but in my option, well worth the effort. And Morphic just rocks. http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1

I can't find anything on his web page about it, but Greg Abowd, a professor at Georgia Tech has been working on continuous capture. He has some pda/cell phone software that his group has been working on which allows for continuous capture of audio. He also knows a lot about the laws regarding such recording. Not all states/provinces allow it, but many do.

I think his goals are more along the lines of automating segmentation and indexing of the audio for easy searching of your entire last day/week/year/decade of conversations with people.

Anyway, you might be interested in the kinds of things he's doing. But actually picking out random snippets of mp3 audio should be a trivial coding task. I'm sure there have already been a dozen libraries/scripting tools/command-line solutions proposed already in previous posts.

It's been done. It's even been done with a UAV helicopter, which is a great deal harder to do (though the gains in usability are exceptional).

Specifically, there is a UAV competition held by AUVS every year, and people do a lot of amazing stuff there.

What's interesting about this particular vehicle is that it uses XP-embedded over another operating system. Otherwise, it's like all the rest.

Big deal... try something harder. ;-) http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/AUVS/IARCLaunchPoint. html

http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/AUVS/IARCLaunchPoint. html

"This year the best performances were executed by the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Arizona (first year in the Competition). The Georgia Institute of Technology's autonomous helicopter demonstrated "Level 2 behavior" (finding a particular building from among many and then identifying all of the real openings in the building through which they could send in a sensor probe) during a series of three flights comprising more than an hour of flawless fully autonomous operation-- they landed only twice, once to adjust a camera and once to top off their fuel tank."

A bit late maybe, but this link oughtta be added in there: it's the homepage for the competition itself:
http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/AUVS/IARCLaunchPoint. html
Scrolling down in that page provides a list of the teams competing, as well as links to their homepages.

This link is about this particular event.

I have to think, though, that a competition with 11 USA teams and 4 Canadian ones is hardly 'international' ...

A bit late maybe, but this link oughtta be added in there: it's the homepage for the competition itself:
http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/AUVS/IARCLaunchPoint. html
Scrolling down in that page provides a list of the teams competing, as well as links to their homepages.

This link is about this particular event.

I have to think, though, that a competition with 11 USA teams and 4 Canadian ones is hardly 'international' ...

here is a link to the competition site

and here is link Southern Polytechnic's site and Ga Tech's site

here is a link to the competition site

and here is link Southern Polytechnic's site and Ga Tech's site

"What information does he have that says that the Army can't do this yet?"

Maybe the DARPA contract that hired Georgia Tech to design a UAV helicopter? Incidentally, this is the lab I work for. A choice quote from a high ranking army official at a recent demonstration of the GTMax was, "It is criminal for this thing to be sitting in the lab". He was impressed, and the Army wants one.

Most people like to see the videos

"What information does he have that says that the Army can't do this yet?"

Maybe the DARPA contract that hired Georgia Tech to design a UAV helicopter? Incidentally, this is the lab I work for. A choice quote from a high ranking army official at a recent demonstration of the GTMax was, "It is criminal for this thing to be sitting in the lab". He was impressed, and the Army wants one.

Most people like to see the videos

"What information does he have that says that the Army can't do this yet?"

Maybe the DARPA contract that hired Georgia Tech to design a UAV helicopter? Incidentally, this is the lab I work for. A choice quote from a high ranking army official at a recent demonstration of the GTMax was, "It is criminal for this thing to be sitting in the lab". He was impressed, and the Army wants one.

Most people like to see the videos

I'm not saying that the United States wouldn't have eventually built a decent space program without von Braun and his team. But to say that they didn't contribute much simply because we would have gotten there eventually without them is absurd for two reasons: 1) they actually got us there, and 2) it was the Germans' use of rockets during WWII that made the US actually want to develop rocketry. The US was more or less happily ignoring Goddard til the V-2s started hitting Britain.

I have in my notes from Dr. John Krige's "History of Rocketry" course at Georgia Tech the following text of a telegram sent immediately from Germany to Washington upon the debriefing of the captured von Braun and his personnel (emphasis mine):

HAVE IN CUSTODY OVER 400 TOP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL FROM PEENEMUNDE. DEVELOPED THE V-2. THE THINKING OF THE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTORS OF THIS GROUP 25 YRS AHEAD OF US. RECOMMEND 100 OF THE VERY BEST MEN OF THIS RESEARCH ORGANIZATION BE EVACUATED TO US IMMEDIATELY.

And the guy was right. It was a hell of a "kick start" the Germans gave us.

2004-06-11 01:49:15 RIAA subpoenas Georgia Tech for student names

According to Georgia Tech's college paper, the Technique, nine Tech students are among the victims of the RIAA's last round of lawsuits. The RIAA has subpoenaed the Office of Information Technology (OIT) to release the identities of individuals who were using computers at specific network addresses identified as being the sources of large amounts of file sharing. Tech has indicated they intend to comply with the subpoenas. According to Randy Nordin, Tech's chief legal advisor, the RIAA has asked that he tell the students to contact their attorney to see if an out of court settlement can be reached. The deadline to comply was June 2. In the past, violation of the school's Computer and Network Usage Policy, would've resulted in disabling the student's Internet access until the student matter was sorted out with the OIT or the Dean of Student's office.