First Outdoor Flocks of Drones Demonstrated in the EU

As reported by The Physics arXiv: If you've ever watched huge flocks of starlings wheel and pulsate in the early evening sky, you’ll know how spectacular this phenomenon can be. Starlings probably flock to reduce their chances of attack by predators such as peregrine falcons.

But their are many other reasons why this kind of group behavior is useful—more effectively navigation and foraging, for example. So it’s no surprise that various teams want to reproduce the same kind of behavior in artificial systems.

That’s turned out to be harder than it sounds, particularly for aerial flocking. So while various groups have created semi-autonomous flocks, and one group created a flock of slow-moving blimps in a gymnasium, nobody has successfully demonstrated a fully autonomous flock of robotic flyers that can fly outdoors.

Until now. Today, Gabor Vásárhelyi and pals from Eötvös University in Budapest, Hungary, reveal that they have successfully demonstrated the first autonomous flying robots capable of flockin

g outdoors, just as starlings do.

Flocking is hard because of each member of the flock has to be able to sense its environment and respond to changes quickly and accurately. That means each flyer has to measure its own velocity and position, the position and velocity of those around it, and use this information to calculate what to do next.

Even then, it must be capable of carrying out the necessary flight adjustments quickly. These machines must be able to hover, to fly in a specific direction at a specific speed and to change tack rapidly.

And they must be able to do all this using their own own on-board decision making process.

That’s a big ask but it has looked increasingly possible in recent years given that stable flying machines such as helicopters and quadcopters are now commercially available.

Vásárhelyi start with a commercially available quadcopter known as the MK Basicset L4-ME from the German company MikroKopter. This is capable of self-stabilized flight and is controlled using a handheld remote.

An example of the navigation module used to help provide the
flocking, formation, target tracking, and obstacle avoidance features.

The team’s first step was to modify these machines to make them autonomous. They did this by attaching an extension board carrying a variety of navigational devices such as a gyroscope, accelerometer, GPS receiver and so on as well as a wireless communications unit and a minicomputer.

During flight, each flyer constantly broadcasts its position and velocity to the others which then determine their own actions using the team’s flocking algorithm. This essentially implements two rules, a short range repulsion that prevents adjacent flyers from colliding, and a rule that aligns their velocity and keeps adjacent flyers going in roughly the same direction at the same speed.

Simulation of actual data generated from target tracking exercises.

Two reduce the amount of calculating each flyer has to do, the quadcopters all fly at the same altitude so that the flocking problem becomes a 2 dimensional one.

There is also a ground-based PC monitoring what’s going on and this can make real time changes to the algorithms controlling each flyer. But crucially, the flock does not rely on any centralized control for its behavior.

The results are impressive. These guys have successfully flown flocks with up to ten quadcopters in the air simultaneously. “We successfully established the first decentralized, autonomous multi-copter flock in an outdoor environment, with swarms of up to 10 flying robots, flying stably for up to 20 minutes,” they say.

They also find a number of interesting behaviors. One of the key problems these guys have to handle is the inevitable delay each flyer experiences between receiving information, processing it and then performing the necessary changes in flight.

Target tracking a moving vehicle.

This kind of delay can lead to all kinds of interesting oscillations within the flock. But it can also destroy the flock if it gets out of control. So the flight algorithms must be carefully fine-tuned to damp out the destructive effects.

But with this in hand, Vásárhelyi and co say they were able to fly their copters in various formations such as ring shapes and in lines. They've also observed self-organised behavior in which the quadcopters fly in lines and circles within pre-determined boundaries, just as locusts do in a similar circumstances.

Obstruction avoidance simulation - the flock is attempting to
reach the large geofenced area, while staying out of the smaller
obstacle areas.

There are limits on the behavior of the flocks, of course. The speed of he flyers determines the required braking distance between them to prevent collisions. And in any case, the average distance between the flyers is between 6 and 10 meters. This is determined by the positional accuracy of the GPS sensors which is to within 2 meters or so. Tighter formations will require better positioning accuracy.

Nevertheless, this is an exciting first step in this area. The potential applications for flocks are numerous. The researchers imagine using them for large-scale, redundant observations over wide areas, perhaps for farming, traffic monitoring and, of course, military purposes. And equipped with sensors, flocks could monitor large volumes of the atmosphere for signs of pollution. A real advantage in all this is the redundancy that a flock offers if one unit malfunctions.

With the first success in outdoor autonomous flocks, it shouldn't be long before we see more of these in the real world. Perhaps one day we’ll even be able to watch them gather at dusk and demonstrate their own spectacular aerial displays.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1402.3588 : Outdoor Flocking And Formation Flight With Autonomous Aerial Robots

California Court Rules Looking at Maps Apps Okay — But What About Everything Else?

As reported by Recode: A California appeals court today reversed a decision against a driver who was ticketed for looking at a map on his cell phone to find an alternate route around traffic.

The court found that the law prohibits listening and talking on the phone, as well as texting while driving, without using a hands-free device — but the law doesn't say anything that would ban looking at a map app.

Though it could still be appealed, the ruling is important given the broad popularity of mapping applications, whose main value is helping people navigate while they are with their phones, on the go.

What’s interesting is the decision specifically refers to the legality of the act of “looking at or checking a map.”

But c’mon — looking is not really all you do when you use Waze or Google Maps or your map application of choice. Rerouting around a traffic jam generally requires more than just a glance at your phone.
(Mapping apps do make some efforts around driver safety; for instance, Apple Maps takes over the lock screen during navigation, and Waze asks people in a moving vehicle to confirm they are a passenger before they are allowed to type. And all the apps can be controlled by voice. But still.)

While the court decision doesn't really address this particular point, it does refer to a 2012 clarification to the law that allowed drivers to “physically touch a speaker phone or other wireless communication device (e.g., Bluetooth speaker) to initiate or end contact with the other party.” The decision also notes that “surfing the Internet” from a phone while driving is not specifically banned.

But is it safe and should it be legal to touch the screen to open a maps app, pinch to zoom, and navigate to a menu that provides alternate routes? That seems slightly more important for the court and the law to clarify.

Uber Kept New Drivers Off The Road To Encourage Surge Pricing And Increase Fares

As reported by The Verge: Andrew Lane is a regular Uber customer with some fond memories of the service. Last year on President's Day he was the lucky rider selected for an "Ubercade" upgrade. "They sent over a free limo with secret service agents and everything. I got my girlfriend and we cruised by her ex-boyfriend's place. It was awesome." 

"We didn't activate new drivers to make earnings even higher this weekend." 

But this Valentines day, while traveling through San Diego in an Uber car, Lane heard something that disturbed him. "The driver had a Ford Sync system, and it read his text messages out loud." The message, which came wedged between numerous texts about a promotion for free roses, said, "UberX is very close to SURGE. It's Valentine's Day! People will be out all night and we didn't activate new drivers to make earnings even higher this weekend."

Uber’s surge pricing has been a controversial feature of the company’s business for some time. It uses an algorithm to raise and lower the price based on demand. At extremely busy times, especially holidays, rates can be as many as seven times the normal price. The company's CEO, Travis Kalanick, has been front and center defending this model.  

"Surge pricing only kicks in in order to maximize the number of trips that happen and therefore reduce the number of people that are stranded," he told Wired in an interview. Kalanick has always maintained that Uber is a neutral party, a technology platform that helps to most efficiently connect drivers and riders. "We are not setting the price. The market is setting the price. We have algorithms to determine what that market is."

"We are not setting the price. The market is setting the price." 

When Lane heard the Uber text message, he understood it to mean that the company was keeping current drivers off the road, limiting the supply to raise rates. To Lane it seemed Uber was favoring drivers over riders. "It made me angry, you know," says Lane. "Basically they are trying to rig the system to jack up fares on customers like me."

A law professor briefed on the text message says it may be suspect, given the company’s public framing of surge pricing. "This certainly sounds deceptive," says Arnold Rosenberg, assistant dean at the California Western School of Law in San Diego. "Something like this violates state laws around unfair business practices as well as Section 5 of the FTC act."

Uber says the whole thing is a misunderstanding.  Uber confirmed the text message, but says the whole thing is a misunderstanding. The company did not artificially restrict the number of drivers who were able to come on to the system on Valentine's Day — a particularly busy day for Uber rides — says spokesman Andrew Noyes. He explained the text simply noted that Uber did not onboard as many San Diego drivers as they could have that week because in the two weeks prior, a very large number of new drivers were added to the system. Earnings had been low, and the company wanted to reward new drivers with a strong holiday paycheck.

In other words, this wasn't Uber specifically tweaking the number of drivers at a given time to tip things over into a surge. It was a big-picture strategy to make their new drivers happy. Noyes points out that during the week of the 10th, when this trip took place, only 5.6 percent of the trips on the Uber network were affected by surge pricing.

"That is a slap in the face to customers." 

Regardless of when and why the additional drivers were withheld, the larger tension still stands: Uber insists that it's a marketplace, a neutral technology platform that works solely to connect drivers and riders with maximal efficiency. But it is also a business, and so may sometimes tilt the scales to keep drivers, its employees and contractors, happy.

The company’s explanation didn’t sit well with Lane. "Honestly it feels worse. Uber specifically withheld supply on a busy holiday weekend even while it predicted that doing so would create significantly higher prices," he said. "Best-case scenario it’s fleecing customers to enrich drivers, worst-case scenario it’s fleecing customers to enrich the broker (Uber). That is a slap in the face to customers."

Why You Could Soon Be Buying Your Electricity From Tesla

As reported by Quartz: Last week, it was argued that Tesla’s most disruptive product might not be its cars.  

Today, Morgan Stanley has provided further detail around this thesis, which is gaining increased traction on Wall Street. Tesla shares have soared about 13% this morning and are trading at fresh highs.

In a note published this morning, the investment bank posits that Elon Musk’s electric car company, which will unveil its plans to build  the world’s biggest lithium-ion battery pack facility this week, is poised to disrupt the $1.5 trillion electric utility industry. Tesla doesn't just make high-performance automobiles, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas argues, it’s also producing a mobile fleet of electrical grid storage.  The 40,000 Tesla vehicles already on the US roads contain about 3.3 gigawatts of storage capacity, roughly 0.3% of US electrical production capacity and 14% of US grid storage, he estimates.

By 2028, Morgan Stanley (which, it must be said, is among the most bullish of all Wall Street banks when it comes to the car company) estimates there will be 3.9 million Tesla vehicles on US roads. They will have a combined energy storage capacity of 237 gigawatts, some 22% of today’s US production capacity and nearly 10 times larger than all US grid storage that exists today.

Tesla’s “giga-factory,” where the lithium-ion battery packs will be produced, will probably cost $1 billion to build, Morgan Stanley estimates. But there will be myriad opportunities for the company to reap returns from that investment beyond sales of its own cars.

Plenty of questions remain about Telsa’s competency in the field of battery production and energy storage. At the moment, Tesla’s batteries are produced by Panasonic, which some expect to be a partner in the giga-factory.  At any rate it’s worth remembering that multiple battery fires last year sparked a federal probe into the company. (There were no injuries, and Musk has forcefully argued that there is “absolutely zero doubt that it is safer to power a car with a battery than a large tank of highly flammable liquid.”)  

Last week a Barron’s report  (paywall) said Tesla’s lofty valuation “exceeds fundamental reasoning.” But if Tesla really can become the world’s low-cost producer in energy storage, as Morgan Stanley predicts, then maybe it’s not so insane, after all. 

Rolls-Royce Is Developing Drone Cargo Ships

As reported by The Verge: Drones are already patrolling the skies, and eventually Rolls-Royce wants to see them take over the seas too. According to Bloomberg, Rolls-Royce Holdings is developing unmanned cargo ships that can be remotely controlled by captains using a virtual-reality recreation of a vessel's bridge. Development on the ships began last year, and it expects the unmanned ships to eventually offer a safer, cleaner, and less-expensive option for moving cargo.

"Now the technology is at the level where we can make this happen, and society is moving in this direction," Oskar Levander, a marine engineering and technology executive at Rolls-Royce, tells Bloomberg. "If we want marine to do this, now is the time to move."

While now may be Rolls-Royce's time to start moving, it's far from the time when these ships will set sail. As Bloomberg points out, there are quite a few regulatory and financial hurdles in the way of unmanned vessels, including international minimum crew requirements and an ineligibility for being insured by major providers. And, as when it comes to self-driving cars taking over the roads, there are already plenty of concerns about what could go wrong when humans are removed from the picture.

Levander acknowledges to Bloomberg that it won't be a quick transition, and he makes it clear that Rolls-Royce Holdings — the aircraft and ship engineering firm now separate from the BMW-owned automaker — is instead trying to get ahead of the pack. Its vision is appealing: by removing the crew, the bridge, and other equipment needed to support good living conditions, ships would reportedly be 5 percent lighter and burn 12 percent to 15 percent less fuel. Supporting the crew reportedly accounts for around 44 percent of total operating expenses on a large container ship as well, so there could eventually be an obvious path to savings.

Bloomberg reports that it could be a pricey path to get there though, as Rolls-Royce will have to develop new safety and backup equipment to handle potential machine failures. "It’s a given that the remote-controlled ship must be as safe as today," Levander tells Bloomberg. "But we actually think it can be even much safer than today." There's no word on how long development of the systems might take or what Rolls-Royce is doing to address its regulatory hurdles, but at least with self-driving cars, we've seen that lawmakers have been open to letting machine-controlled systems begin testing — so long as the right safety systems are in place.

Google Sets Roadblocks To Stop Distracted Driver Legislation

As reported by Reuters: Google is lobbying officials in at least three U.S. states to stop proposed restrictions on driving with headsets such as Google Glass, marking some of the first clashes over the nascent wearable technology.

Some eight U.S. states are considering regulation of Google Glass, a tiny computer screen mounted in the corner of an eyeglass frame. Law enforcement and other groups are concerned that drivers wearing the devices will pay more attention to their email than the road, causing serious accidents.

So-called wearables such as Google Glass, smart watches and sophisticated health devices may represent the next big shift in technology, just as smartphones evolved from personal computers, and enthusiasts predict billion-dollar markets. Google, which is still testing Glass, charges $1,500 per pair.

Google Inc has deployed lobbyists to persuade elected officials in Illinois, Delaware and Missouri that it is not necessary to restrict use of Google Glass behind the wheel, according to state lobbying disclosure records and interviews conducted by Reuters.

Legislators who introduced similar bills this year in three other states, New York, Maryland and West Virginia, say they have not yet been contacted by Google. Officials in New Jersey and Wyoming did not respond to inquiries from Reuters.

Courts are just beginning to consider the matter. Last month in San Diego, for instance, a woman's traffic ticket for wearing Google Glass behind the wheel was dismissed because there was no proof the device was operating at the time.

Google's main point to legislators is that regulation would be premature because Google Glass is not yet widely available, the state elected officials say.

Illinois state Senator Ira Silverstein, a Chicago Democrat who introduced a Google Glass restriction bill in December, responded that it was clear the merchandise was heading for the broader public. "Who are they fooling?"

Silverstein said he recently met with Google lobbyists trying to "kill" the bill, a position Silverstein suggested is driven by market considerations for the company.

State records show the month after Silverstein introduced his bill, Google retained John Borovicka, a former political director for President Obama's former chief of staff and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Borovicka visited Silverstein to lobby against the legislation, the state senator said.
Borovicka did not respond to a request for comment.

Asked about its lobbying efforts, Google said tech issues are a big part of current policy discussions in the states. "We think it is important to be part of those discussions," the company said in a statement.
Google has been scheduling Glass demonstrations across the country in an effort to educate the public on how the technology works.

"While Glass is currently in the hands of a small group of Explorers," the company said, "we find that when people try it for themselves they better understand the underlying principle that it's not meant to distract but rather connect people more with the world around them."

PERSUADING THE POWERFUL
Campaigns against distracted driving have gained significant traction in the United States. In 2012, over 3,000 people died due to crashes where texting or other activities were in play, according to Distraction.gov, a U.S. government web site devoted to the issue.

Delaware state Rep. Joseph Miro was one of the primary sponsors of a bill that banned texting while driving, and he also introduced legislation targeting Google Glass. So far, no states have passed Google Glass restrictions.

"I'm not against Google or Google Glass. It may have a place in society," said Miro, a Republican. "My issue is that while you are driving, you should have nothing that is going to impede the concentration of the driver."
According to Miro, a Google representative lobbied against the bill by forwarding a news article about the San Diego court case, as an attempt to show that the courts are taking a dim view towards prosecutions. His bill passed committee and could receive a floor vote this spring, Miro said.

Google's position is at odds with groups like the Delaware Developmental Disabilities Council, which in a letter last year said it supported restrictions on drivers' use of headsets such as Google Glass, believing it will lead to more accidents, causing more spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries.

Google advises people engaged in Glass field tests to abide by state laws that limit use of mobile devices while driving.

"Above all, even when you're following the law, don't hurt yourself or others by failing to pay attention to the road," the company said in guidance posted online.

Not all legislators pushing a Google Glass restriction have been visited by the company, however. In West Virginia, House of Delegates member Gary Howell, a Republican, said he has heard from out-of-state Google Glass users opposed to the bill but not from the company itself.

For Maryland House of Delegates member Benjamin Kramer, the San Diego traffic case shows a need for clear state laws. When a driver is pulled over, it will always be extremely difficult for law enforcement to prove whether Google Glass had been operating, said Kramer, a Democrat.
"The way to get around it is just to prohibit them altogether," he said.

Ford to Ditch Microsoft Sync Technology for BlackBerry QNX, Sources Say

As reported by the Seattle Times: Ford, struggling with in-car technology flaws, will base the next-generation Sync system on BlackBerry’s QNX and no longer use Microsoft’s Windows, according to people briefed on the matter.

Using QNX will be less expensive than licensing Microsoft technology and will improve the flexibility and speed of the next Sync system, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because the decision hasn’t been made public.

Ford has more than 7 million vehicles on the road with Sync using Microsoft voice-activated software to make mobile-phone calls and play music.

The switch may help Ford, the second-largest U.S. automaker, address customer complaints about malfunctioning technology systems and touch screens, which have hurt it in surveys by J.D. Power & Associates and Consumer Reports.

For BlackBerry, it’s a vote of support for a company that lost 95 percent of its value from mid-2008 to November and saw the collapse of a proposed $4.7 billion buyout.

“This would be a huge infusion of trust and confidence to have BlackBerry and QNX expanding into a Ford,” said Thilo Koslowski, auto analyst for researcher Gartner. “This is really the crown jewel in BlackBerry’s crown and could make the rest of the company shine as well.”

BlackBerry stock rose 6.6 percent Monday while Microsoft stock slipped 0.8 percent.

“We do not discuss details of our work with others or speculate on future products for competitive reasons,” Susannah Wesley, a Ford spokeswoman, wrote in an email. Spokesmen for Redmond-based Microsoft and QNX declined to comment.

Ford has said the quality of its vehicles has been “mixed” each of the past three years and fell short of its plan to improve those results in 2013. CEO Alan Mulally was said to be a candidate to become Microsoft’s chief until early this year.

Improving Sync is crucial for Ford to draw car shoppers who are increasingly looking to be connected at all times.

In-vehicle technology is the top selling point for 39 percent of auto buyers, more than twice the 14 percent who say their first consideration is traditional performance measures such as power and speed, according to a study by the consulting firm Accenture released in December.

Ford and Lincoln ranked Nos. 26 and 27 out of 28 brands in Consumer Reports’ annual auto-reliability survey released in October.

While the Lincoln luxury line matched the industry average in J.D. Power’s Initial Quality study in June, the namesake finished 27th out of 33 brands.

Technology companies are competing to win business from automakers as in-car technology becomes an increasingly important selling point.

Google announced an alliance with General Motors, Honda, Hyundai and chipmaker Nvidia in January to bring the Android operating system to cars. Apple is working with BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan and others to introduce its iOS operating system to cars with devices such as the iPhone.

BlackBerry’s QNX Software Systems can be found in cars made by Volkswagen’s Audi unit and BMW, according to its website. QNX and Microsoft are the main suppliers of automotive operating-system software, according to researcher IHS iSuppli.

The switch would be a significant blow to Microsoft’s automotive-software business because Ford is by far its biggest customer, said Gartner’s Koslowski. Microsoft also has software in Kia Motors, Fiat models, Nissan and BMW models, according to its website.

Getting into the Ford system will expand QNX’s industry-leading position for automotive entertainment operating systems, which Koslowski said he estimates is as high as 70 percent.

QNX has done a better job of integrating compatibility with other operating systems, Koslowski said.

“The industry is realizing it has to do a better job to create a unique experience for its customers,” he said.