Most cell phones will warn you when the battery is low. This can range from beeps and chirps to blinking lights. However, what happens if your battery does not reach the low state until you need it. These warnings are a lot less useful than they could be because they do not give you any warning until the battery is already low.
This ends up being a problem in numerous different ways. Perhaps when you head to bed your battery is 'charged,' and thus your phone does not provide any warning. But that charge may not be enough to last the eight hours until you wake up. By the time you get up, the battery may all ready be dead (thus your phone won't be able to give any low battery warnings). You then might not realize the state of your battery until you grab your phone to head to work. By that point it is too late to charge your phone before your commute.
What would be far more useful is a low battery alert that lets you know that your battery will be low before it is actually low. This way you have time to charge it.
For those on a regular schedule, there could be the options to enter in when they go to bed and when they wake up into the phone settings. If when you go to sleep the phone predicts that the battery will be low by the time you wake up, it could give you a warning so that you can let your phone charge overnight.
Phone software could allow users to enter in periods of time in which they would be unable to charge the phone. If it thinks its battery will run low during these time periods (based on idle power usage), it can preemptively warn you.
If people wanted to avoid their phone constantly beeping the early warning system could be based only on a warning light. The light could shift between yellow, orange, and red.
The really nice thing about this idea is the ease of implementation. In most modern cellphones all it would take is a simple software update to add in this feature.
As it is, low battery warnings are frequently of little use. If you are not at home, or soon will not be at home, such that there is no time to charge the phone, then all the warning does it let you know you will not have the use of your phone. The roll battery indicators should play is to allow you to preemptively charge your phone before its a problem. They don't yet do this, but they easily could.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Customized News Traffic Reports
Most local morning news programs have a segment on the traffic. This makes sense. These programs often air before people begin their commute to work and can provide valuable information to make a commute easier.
However, it involves sitting through whatever traffic information they report even if it does not apply to your commute. There is also the chance they do not cover the route you take.
As I have mentioned before, digital television makes it possible to deliver customized content to viewers. Traffic reports are a perfect application for this.
When setting up your cable box, it would be possible to enter in the routes that you take on your commute. The traffic report on any news report that supports the feature could explicitly cover the roads pertinent to a viewers commute.
Once television providers and networks begin fully realizing the potential of digital television delivery we will begin seeing a whole spectrum of customized content on television. Customizing content is good for the viewer and thus good for the provider.
However, it involves sitting through whatever traffic information they report even if it does not apply to your commute. There is also the chance they do not cover the route you take.
As I have mentioned before, digital television makes it possible to deliver customized content to viewers. Traffic reports are a perfect application for this.
When setting up your cable box, it would be possible to enter in the routes that you take on your commute. The traffic report on any news report that supports the feature could explicitly cover the roads pertinent to a viewers commute.
Once television providers and networks begin fully realizing the potential of digital television delivery we will begin seeing a whole spectrum of customized content on television. Customizing content is good for the viewer and thus good for the provider.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Automated Snow Removal
I have recently acquired a Roomba. It is a robot that can automatically vacuum the floor. I have to say it works fairly well. But it got me thinking, what other tasks could similar technology be applied to.
There already exists similar products for the purpose of washing floors, cleaning pools, and mowing lawns. However, the coming winter made me think, what if there was a robot that could remove the snow from your driveway for you.
Snowblowers greatly ease the task of removing snow from the driveway, but they still require you to work in the cold elements.
Creating something that could accomplish this task would require overcoming a number of issues. Because of how daunting these problems may seem at first, I am going to take some time to address the major problems as I see them one by one.
The first problem is that outside there are no walls to provide guidance for the device. A method of keeping the snow removal on track would be needed.
The best way to accomplish this, as far as I am concerned, is by installing a guidance system along side your driveway. Imagine a system similar to that of an invisible dog fence. Systems like this are already used to guide snow plows along dangerous mountain roads where visibility can not be relied upon.
As far as how the snow removal robot would actually remove the snow, it could function just like any actual snow blower. However, if this method was used, it introduces a new problem. Without a person pushing it, the robot would need a powerful drive system. Instead a lower power scaled down system would likely be better. Rather than trying to get the snow all in one pass, it would be easier to do it in multiple passes. This would not require as strong as a drive system.
However, once again that introduces a different problem, the robot would have to be light enough not to crush the snow into ice during an early pass.
With this in mind, it seems that the robot would need to be designed to remove the snow as it is falling before it has had a chance to pile up. This would allow it to be have wider weight limitations, have a lower power drive train, and have a lower powered snow removal system.
The last final problem that I foresee is safety. You would not want a snowblower to be driving around by itself with no concept of where any nearby humans were located. I also feel that this is the largest problem. Even if a product could be made that solved the other issues, it would be meaningless if it was horribly unsafe.
Any method of visual detection would be unreliable in adverse weather conditions (such as when it is snowing) and thus must be discounted. The system can also not rely on any sort of transmission device attached to people (because people may not be wearing them).
A workable answer would be a bumper system (similar to that of the Roomba). A bumper would be in front of snowblower robot and would detect collisions. The system would then be programed to stop the snowblowers actuator upon collision with an object.
The bumper would need to be a foot off the ground to avoid being triggered by snow on the ground. It would also need to be much wider than the snowblower itself. If it was not, it could be possible for someones foot to get under the robot without their leg triggering the safety bumper.
This would not be a perfect system by any means. My proposed safety system would not protect a person lying down in front of the robot. However, snowblowers as they currently exist are not perfectly safe either.
As much as I would appreciate such a product, I am also realistic. Each of my proposed solutions include any number of engineering challenges. Even if these challenges were solved, it could be highly probable that it would not be fiscally profitable to produce and sell.
There already exists similar products for the purpose of washing floors, cleaning pools, and mowing lawns. However, the coming winter made me think, what if there was a robot that could remove the snow from your driveway for you.
Snowblowers greatly ease the task of removing snow from the driveway, but they still require you to work in the cold elements.
Creating something that could accomplish this task would require overcoming a number of issues. Because of how daunting these problems may seem at first, I am going to take some time to address the major problems as I see them one by one.
The first problem is that outside there are no walls to provide guidance for the device. A method of keeping the snow removal on track would be needed.
The best way to accomplish this, as far as I am concerned, is by installing a guidance system along side your driveway. Imagine a system similar to that of an invisible dog fence. Systems like this are already used to guide snow plows along dangerous mountain roads where visibility can not be relied upon.
As far as how the snow removal robot would actually remove the snow, it could function just like any actual snow blower. However, if this method was used, it introduces a new problem. Without a person pushing it, the robot would need a powerful drive system. Instead a lower power scaled down system would likely be better. Rather than trying to get the snow all in one pass, it would be easier to do it in multiple passes. This would not require as strong as a drive system.
However, once again that introduces a different problem, the robot would have to be light enough not to crush the snow into ice during an early pass.
With this in mind, it seems that the robot would need to be designed to remove the snow as it is falling before it has had a chance to pile up. This would allow it to be have wider weight limitations, have a lower power drive train, and have a lower powered snow removal system.
The last final problem that I foresee is safety. You would not want a snowblower to be driving around by itself with no concept of where any nearby humans were located. I also feel that this is the largest problem. Even if a product could be made that solved the other issues, it would be meaningless if it was horribly unsafe.
Any method of visual detection would be unreliable in adverse weather conditions (such as when it is snowing) and thus must be discounted. The system can also not rely on any sort of transmission device attached to people (because people may not be wearing them).
A workable answer would be a bumper system (similar to that of the Roomba). A bumper would be in front of snowblower robot and would detect collisions. The system would then be programed to stop the snowblowers actuator upon collision with an object.
The bumper would need to be a foot off the ground to avoid being triggered by snow on the ground. It would also need to be much wider than the snowblower itself. If it was not, it could be possible for someones foot to get under the robot without their leg triggering the safety bumper.
This would not be a perfect system by any means. My proposed safety system would not protect a person lying down in front of the robot. However, snowblowers as they currently exist are not perfectly safe either.
As much as I would appreciate such a product, I am also realistic. Each of my proposed solutions include any number of engineering challenges. Even if these challenges were solved, it could be highly probable that it would not be fiscally profitable to produce and sell.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Ditch the Caps Lock Key
Some people will likely disagree with me on todays post. However, it does not change the fact that I do not like the caps lock key.
Rarely have I ever needed to use the caps lock key. However, if it was simply a matter of not using the key I would not be posting about it. The caps lock key is a 'relatively' large one and finds itself next to the 'A' key. If I had to guess I would say that less than ten percent of the time that I press the caps lock key is intentional. The other ninety percent is they key being accidentally pressed.
Having caps lock accidentally turned on causes all sorts of problems. The simplest problems involve needing to delete a few lines and retype them in the proper case. The more annoying form these problems take is trying to determine why a password is not working (when the answer is that caps lock has inverted the case).
For me the caps lock is a nuisance and a hindrance. This is especially true on laptops with smaller keyboards than standard desktop keyboards. I would be more than happy if the caps lock key was removed or replaced with something else.
But what about the benefits of the caps lock key? Well the only time I have ever needed to type something in all caps I have been using a word processor. Most word processors make the task of changing the case of typed text a trivial matter even without the caps lock key. Functionality is not really lost there. I can think, off the top of my head, of at least three keyboard shortcuts that I use far more frequently than caps lock (discounting accidental uses): ctrl+i (italics), ctrl+b (bold), and alt+tab (switch window). If the caps lock key was changed to perform any of these functions it would be more useful in my opinion.
The people who would really loose out without the presence of a caps lock key are those who use the caps lock more than they should. If you have spend enough time on the internet you have likely encountered someone who has made a forum post in all capital letters. It's incredibly annoying and it's the caps lock key that makes it so easy for them to do this. Removing the caps lock key would discourage at least this form of annoying behavior.
All other things being equal I would choose to purchase a keyboard without a caps lock key over one with such a key. To some this may seem like a trivial matter. However, after accidentally hitting the key today while entering a password, I stopped and asked myself, "Why is this key even here?"
Rarely have I ever needed to use the caps lock key. However, if it was simply a matter of not using the key I would not be posting about it. The caps lock key is a 'relatively' large one and finds itself next to the 'A' key. If I had to guess I would say that less than ten percent of the time that I press the caps lock key is intentional. The other ninety percent is they key being accidentally pressed.
Having caps lock accidentally turned on causes all sorts of problems. The simplest problems involve needing to delete a few lines and retype them in the proper case. The more annoying form these problems take is trying to determine why a password is not working (when the answer is that caps lock has inverted the case).
For me the caps lock is a nuisance and a hindrance. This is especially true on laptops with smaller keyboards than standard desktop keyboards. I would be more than happy if the caps lock key was removed or replaced with something else.
But what about the benefits of the caps lock key? Well the only time I have ever needed to type something in all caps I have been using a word processor. Most word processors make the task of changing the case of typed text a trivial matter even without the caps lock key. Functionality is not really lost there. I can think, off the top of my head, of at least three keyboard shortcuts that I use far more frequently than caps lock (discounting accidental uses): ctrl+i (italics), ctrl+b (bold), and alt+tab (switch window). If the caps lock key was changed to perform any of these functions it would be more useful in my opinion.
The people who would really loose out without the presence of a caps lock key are those who use the caps lock more than they should. If you have spend enough time on the internet you have likely encountered someone who has made a forum post in all capital letters. It's incredibly annoying and it's the caps lock key that makes it so easy for them to do this. Removing the caps lock key would discourage at least this form of annoying behavior.
All other things being equal I would choose to purchase a keyboard without a caps lock key over one with such a key. To some this may seem like a trivial matter. However, after accidentally hitting the key today while entering a password, I stopped and asked myself, "Why is this key even here?"
Monday, September 6, 2010
Gestured Based Lighting Control
We are entering an area where it is possible to control electronic devices through hand gestures alone. A example of this in use can be found in an upcoming version of the Android phone OS (http://www.pcworld.com/article/198552/touchless_gesture_control_coming_to_android_devices.html). The Xbox Kinect is another example of this technology being put into practice. The company that developed the hardware for the Xbox Kinect is planning on eventually releasing a version for interacting with a PC.
Once this technology becomes more mainstream there will likely be a flood of ideas for potential uses. However, I would like to take this moment to discuss an idea that I don't think is an immediately obvious application, gesture controlled lighting.
It is important to keep in mind that most new input technology is 'buggy.' Voice control is still iffy at best. Anyone who has called a customer support line that utilizes speech recognition likely knows that there is plenty of room for improvement. It is important to keep this in mind. The best use cases for this technology would involve simple gestures and few commands. To control a light you only need one command, a command that switches the light between on and off.
Ultimately, I would want to be able to turn a light on and off with just a flick of the wrist. Using gesture recognition technology, I should be able to a light on across the room by snapping my fingers at it (using sound recognition and listening for a snap could actually improve the accuracy).
To make such a system a reality all that would be required would be a camera somewhere in the room (possibly attached to a lamp) and a computer system to process the video feed captured by the camera. The price (initially) would likely be high for individual lights. It would likely be more economical if it was installed into a room as part of a home automation system.
Now some people might say that wanting something like this is lazy. I say its wanting convenience. Being able to turn a light on and off (instead of needing to unplug it) is another similar convenience. For that matter, wall mounted light switches so that you do not need to use the lamps switch is similar as well. This is simply an extension of that idea.
People still buy 'clap ons' and touch activated lights. Its obvious that people wish to pursue convenience where it is available, and I think that in the near future that this should be one way in which our lives can be more convenient, even if it's only by a small amount.
Once this technology becomes more mainstream there will likely be a flood of ideas for potential uses. However, I would like to take this moment to discuss an idea that I don't think is an immediately obvious application, gesture controlled lighting.
It is important to keep in mind that most new input technology is 'buggy.' Voice control is still iffy at best. Anyone who has called a customer support line that utilizes speech recognition likely knows that there is plenty of room for improvement. It is important to keep this in mind. The best use cases for this technology would involve simple gestures and few commands. To control a light you only need one command, a command that switches the light between on and off.
Ultimately, I would want to be able to turn a light on and off with just a flick of the wrist. Using gesture recognition technology, I should be able to a light on across the room by snapping my fingers at it (using sound recognition and listening for a snap could actually improve the accuracy).
To make such a system a reality all that would be required would be a camera somewhere in the room (possibly attached to a lamp) and a computer system to process the video feed captured by the camera. The price (initially) would likely be high for individual lights. It would likely be more economical if it was installed into a room as part of a home automation system.
Now some people might say that wanting something like this is lazy. I say its wanting convenience. Being able to turn a light on and off (instead of needing to unplug it) is another similar convenience. For that matter, wall mounted light switches so that you do not need to use the lamps switch is similar as well. This is simply an extension of that idea.
People still buy 'clap ons' and touch activated lights. Its obvious that people wish to pursue convenience where it is available, and I think that in the near future that this should be one way in which our lives can be more convenient, even if it's only by a small amount.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Built In Smoke Detectors
In any given home the smoke detectors are in a fixed location. Based on the home layout there are certain places in which a detector is going to be found (such as near the stove). Yet, in most cases, smoke detectors are dinky plastic things screwed to the ceiling. They seem to be built under the assumption that people are going to be wanting to move their smoke detectors around from place to place.
This is a problem. The most common reason smoke detectors fail is because their batteries are low. The reason they have batteries in the first place is because they are non permanent fixtures in the home.
There is an easy fix for this. Smoke detectors can be built into the ceiling of homes and apartments. They can draw power directly from the electrical grid. There would be no need to have batteries. There would never be a question of "is there a smoke detector there?"
The easiest thing would be to install them while the home is being constructed. However, if there were electrical lines in the ceiling installing it after the fact would be no harder than installing a ceiling fan (easier in fact). As far as costs go, such a device would not run much more expensive than a regular smoke detector. However, the companies who manufacture smoke detectors would likely want to jack up the price because they would not sell as many in the lifetime of a home.
Similar systems already exist in commercial establishments. There is no reason they should not exist in homes. They could save lives.
This is a problem. The most common reason smoke detectors fail is because their batteries are low. The reason they have batteries in the first place is because they are non permanent fixtures in the home.
There is an easy fix for this. Smoke detectors can be built into the ceiling of homes and apartments. They can draw power directly from the electrical grid. There would be no need to have batteries. There would never be a question of "is there a smoke detector there?"
The easiest thing would be to install them while the home is being constructed. However, if there were electrical lines in the ceiling installing it after the fact would be no harder than installing a ceiling fan (easier in fact). As far as costs go, such a device would not run much more expensive than a regular smoke detector. However, the companies who manufacture smoke detectors would likely want to jack up the price because they would not sell as many in the lifetime of a home.
Similar systems already exist in commercial establishments. There is no reason they should not exist in homes. They could save lives.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Integrating Social Networks with Television
I would like to preface todays idea with a disclaimer. I am not a fan of social networking. I have never used Twitter and I maintain my Facebook account only out of a sense of obligation. However, I do try to keep track of the trends so that I can understand the online social climate. I am well aware that many people are fans of social networks. I am also aware that for savvy businesses, social networking can prove to be profitable.
If people are talking on social networks about a television show, its essentially free advertising for that show. It's in the interest of television networks to allow fans to talk about their shows. Every delay between a person watching a show and then posting about it online will reduce the number of people actually post. Today's idea is to break down some of the barriers between the television and the 'cloud.'
Imagine a cable box with an extra button on the controller. Pressing this new button would bring up an on-screen keyboard allowing the viewer to enter text. While not the best input method, it could work for short messages (a few sentences long) much like most 'tweets.' A person could easily update their twitter account while watching TV.
If the box was compatible with social networks that support tags, the cable box could automatically label the update with the name of the show being watched. A Facebook button on the remote could automatically update a person's facebook status to let people know what show they are watching. Another button could list the show as an interest on their profile.
This could even allow for a "I'm bored button" in which the TV would change to a random program currently playing that you might like based on other TV shows that you have listed as liking.
Now this is pretty much all doable just using a computer. However, the point is that removing the necessity of a computer will increase the amount of people who will network about any given show.
Integration would not need to simply be with existing systems. There could be a button to allow the viewer to punch in a number of stars. Such a simple act (presumably it could be done with a single button press) would likely see frequent use.
A large drive with technology in the past years is to make social networking more seamless. A focus of many phones is to allow people to network no matter what situation they are in.
TV networks win. If this idea where to come to fruition they would get greater exposure. Cable networks win. If they offered this system its something they could use to negotiate better deals with networks and could also attract new subscribers. Viewers win, at least those that like social networking. The only people who don't 'win' are those who don't care for social networking, but they never have to setup their box for it (entering in their Facebook and Twitter username and passwords for example).
Rather than issuing new cable boxes, this idea could also be realized through an 'add on' box. Most cable boxes that I have seen have a USB port. Presumably I/O information could be sent through this port (perhaps with a firmware update) to allow a 'Social Networking Box' to find out what show is currently being watched. The Social Networking Box could have wifi to connect to the internet and come with a special remote control designed with its unique purpose in mind while still allowing regular TV watching.
The only real problem I could imagine is when there are multiple people in the same family. However, ultimately this is not a real problem. This is not the first time I have suggested having multiple profiles on one device (see my Roku/Netflix suggestion). When taking any social network actions a menu could pop up asking which profile to take the action under. These could even be password protected if the user desired. There could also be profile buttons on the remote. There are any number of other ways this problem could be solved as well. Ultimately a creator of such a device would want to experiment with various techniques of allowing profile selection to find which works best.
If people are talking on social networks about a television show, its essentially free advertising for that show. It's in the interest of television networks to allow fans to talk about their shows. Every delay between a person watching a show and then posting about it online will reduce the number of people actually post. Today's idea is to break down some of the barriers between the television and the 'cloud.'
Imagine a cable box with an extra button on the controller. Pressing this new button would bring up an on-screen keyboard allowing the viewer to enter text. While not the best input method, it could work for short messages (a few sentences long) much like most 'tweets.' A person could easily update their twitter account while watching TV.
If the box was compatible with social networks that support tags, the cable box could automatically label the update with the name of the show being watched. A Facebook button on the remote could automatically update a person's facebook status to let people know what show they are watching. Another button could list the show as an interest on their profile.
This could even allow for a "I'm bored button" in which the TV would change to a random program currently playing that you might like based on other TV shows that you have listed as liking.
Now this is pretty much all doable just using a computer. However, the point is that removing the necessity of a computer will increase the amount of people who will network about any given show.
Integration would not need to simply be with existing systems. There could be a button to allow the viewer to punch in a number of stars. Such a simple act (presumably it could be done with a single button press) would likely see frequent use.
A large drive with technology in the past years is to make social networking more seamless. A focus of many phones is to allow people to network no matter what situation they are in.
TV networks win. If this idea where to come to fruition they would get greater exposure. Cable networks win. If they offered this system its something they could use to negotiate better deals with networks and could also attract new subscribers. Viewers win, at least those that like social networking. The only people who don't 'win' are those who don't care for social networking, but they never have to setup their box for it (entering in their Facebook and Twitter username and passwords for example).
Rather than issuing new cable boxes, this idea could also be realized through an 'add on' box. Most cable boxes that I have seen have a USB port. Presumably I/O information could be sent through this port (perhaps with a firmware update) to allow a 'Social Networking Box' to find out what show is currently being watched. The Social Networking Box could have wifi to connect to the internet and come with a special remote control designed with its unique purpose in mind while still allowing regular TV watching.
The only real problem I could imagine is when there are multiple people in the same family. However, ultimately this is not a real problem. This is not the first time I have suggested having multiple profiles on one device (see my Roku/Netflix suggestion). When taking any social network actions a menu could pop up asking which profile to take the action under. These could even be password protected if the user desired. There could also be profile buttons on the remote. There are any number of other ways this problem could be solved as well. Ultimately a creator of such a device would want to experiment with various techniques of allowing profile selection to find which works best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)