Pages

How Technology Has Changed the Face of Autism

Monday 28 April 2014
When you first meet James, you realize immediately that there’s something different about him. He’s 16 but reads at a second-grade level. He speaks loudly, often interrupting other people’s conversations. He has difficulty recounting the events of his day or sustaining attention to any conversation. He has trouble with simple arithmetic.
Like tens of thousands of other children, James has an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which makes life a daily challenge for his parents, Marie and Rob, who live just outside Washington, D.C.
How Technology Has Changed the Face of Autism
“I think … therefore I am not a diagnosis” by John Jay Glenn (viaFlickr).
Yet, like many with ASD, James has some unusual abilities. He can quote dialog verbatim from nearly any Disney or Star Wars movie, Marie says. He can find places he’s visited in the past by poring over satellite images on Google Maps, Rob adds. And with the help of an iPad outfitted by the special-needs coordinators at his school, James can lead something approaching a normal life for a high school student.
James’ story isn’t all that unique. The number of autistic children is staggering — one in 68 has been diagnosed with ASD, according to studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That means there’s one in every two or three classrooms in America.
I can name half a dozen families that have at least one member with ASD, and I bet you can, too. Yet most of what I thought I knew about autism came from watching movies like Rain Man or reading books by Oliver Sacks.
Because April is National Autism Awareness month, I thought I’d try to learn more about this complex and mysterious disorder. One of the more remarkable things I’ve discovered is both how deeply embedded ASD is in the world of tech, and how technology is helping to make a huge difference in the lives of people who live with it each day.
The iPad influenceAssistive technology for the developmentally disabled has been available for decades, but until recently most of it has been extremely low tech or extremely expensive. The iPad is helping to change that.
For example, many people with ASD are nonverbal, even if they can understand what’s being said to them and formulate responses in their brains. In the past, parents might have spent $8,000 or more on a dedicated single-purpose computer to help their kids communicate via symbols. With the tap of a picture, the machine would recite the word associated with it; tap several in a row, and it would string the words together to form rudimentary sentences. Now kids with ASD can get many of the same capabilities by installing AssistiveWare’s $220 Proloquo2Go app.
image
Rob says carrying an iPad removed the stigma of carrying around a clunky device that screamed, “I am different from everyone else.”
“The iPad made it kind of cool,” he says. “He’s not the weird kid with the electronic box on his desk; he’s just another kid with an iPad.”
Communication is just one challenge for kids with ASD that can be addressed via apps. Another is learning how to engage socially, says Shira Lee Katz, senior director of education content for Common Sense Media. An app like The Social Express Home can help kids understand social norms and how to respond appropriately to others, Katz says, while Calm Counter can teach them how to cool down when they get frustrated and angry.
Children with ASD also often lack executive functioning skills, such as the ability to manage tasks and to move from one to the next. Apps likeTime Timer and Choiceworks can help kids structure the time they spend on each task and follow visually oriented schedules, says Marbea Tammaro, assistive technology team specialist for Arlington Public Schools in Virginia. Even the basic apps that come with every tablet — like the calendar, to-do lists, and the camera — can be extremely useful for creating visual reminders and managing day-to-day activities, adds her colleague, Josh Taylor, an autism specialist for Arlington.
But the number and variety of apps for developmentally disabled childrenis overwhelming, Taylor adds, and every child is different. The best solution is to work with your school’s special-education team to find the apps that match your child’s situation.
Saved by the NetThe other great technological innovation that helps members of the ASD community is the Internet itself. For example, iPads with special needs apps aren’t always covered by insurance, so some families that can’t afford to buy them have turned to crowdfunding. Sites like GiveForward and Crowdrise have helped ASD families buy the tech they needed, says Shannon Des Roches Rosa, a writer and autism activist whose 13-year-old son is on the spectrum.
image
There are hundreds of Web resources devoted to the topic — from Facebook groups like Autism - technically speaking, which is aimed at parents of autistic kids in the technology business, to social networks likeMyAutismTeam to activist sites like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network and sites like Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism, which combines a bit of everything.
Sometimes, though, the solution isn’t always cutting edge. A child who’s hypersensitive to sounds can be calmed with something as simple as noise-canceling headphones, Rosa says. And instead of putting a GPS tracking device on her son, she used a med-alert bracelet with her cellphone number.
Rosa also warns against lingering on sites that focus on the stigma of being autistic. “You need to get through that thicket of misinformation, negativity, and pity, because it will just drag you down,” she says. “You need be aware of the rights and needs of autistic people, and get to work on fighting for them.”
Read more ...

Angry Birds publisher Rovio reveals its growth stalled in 2013

Monday 28 April 2014
Revenues up just 2.5% year-on-year according to Finnish company's latest financial resultsAngry Birds revenues rose in 2013, but only slightly.
Angry Birds revenues rose in 2013, but only slightly.
Angry Birds maker Rovio Entertainment's growth stalled in 2013, according to financial results for the year that show the company's revenues grew by just 2.5% year-on-year.
Rovio reported revenues of €156m (£128.4m) for 2013 compared to 2012's €152.2m – which represented more than double the €75.6m that Angry Birds made in 2011.
Rovio's net profits also halved from €55.5m in 2012 to €26.9m in 2013, as the company invested in new games, its ToonsTV cartoons network, and its upcoming Angry Birds feature film.
47% of Rovio's revenues in 2013 came from its consumer products division, which spans toys, books and other licensed products. In 2012, that percentage was 45%, meaning that Rovio's non consumer products revenues actually fell slightly in 2013: down 1.2% to €82.7m.
When Rovio announced its 2012 financial results, the company said Angry Birds had ended that year with 263m monthly active players. It has not provided an update on that figure with its 2013 financials, although the company says its games have now been downloaded more than 2bn times.
"After three years of very strong growth, 2013 was a foundation-building year," said chief financial officer Herkkop Soininen.
"We invested in new business areas, such as animation and video distribution, ventured into new business models in games, and consolidated our strong market position in consumer products licensing."
Rovio's chief executive Mikael Hed stressed the milestones of 2013, including the fact that ToonsTV has now generated 2bn views of its cartoons, up from 1bn in September 2013. The network launched in March that year, and is accessed through Angry Birds apps, the ToonsTV website and partner broadcasters and cable services.
Rovio's headcount continued to grow last year, from around 500 staff at the end of 2012 to 800 at the end of 2013. But the company has faced a challenge in adapting its games to the increasingly-dominant "freemium" model on the app stores of Apple and Google, focused on games that are downloaded and played for free, but make their money from in-app purchases and advertising.
Kart-racing title Angry Birds Go! – released in December 2013 – was Rovio's first game designed from scratch for the freemium model, including currency and virtual items sold for up to £69.99 in an in-game store.
The game won't have had a major impact on Rovio's 2013 financials, but it doesn't appear to have set the app store charts alight: at the time of writing, it is the 125th top grossing iPhone game and 79th top grossing iPad game in Apple's US store, for example, having so far failed to dislodge free-to-play kingpins like Clash of Clans and Candy Crush Saga.
Clash of Clans developer Supercell made $892m in revenues (£529.6m – so four times Rovio's total) from its two mobile games in 2013, ending the year with a headcount of just 132 staff. Meanwhile, Candy Crush Saga developer King's 2013 revenues were $1.9bn (£1.1bn) according to documents filed for its recent initial public offering (IPO).
"It’s pretty clear that free-to-play as a model monetises the best, but no matter what model you use, you have to make great games," Rovio's marketing boss Peter Vesterbacka told The Guardian in March 2014, after criticism from some reviewers of Angry Birds Go!'s in-app purchases.
"It is what it is. It’s the most efficient model out there for sure. But I would say that it’s also a good model for the fans: you don’t need to spend any money unless you want to, and unless you enjoy the experience."
In 2014, Rovio is working on a new range of games and characters called Angry Birds Stella, skewed more towards girls, while continuing to explore selling physical toys linked to its digital games – its Telepods products with Hasbro – and preparing for the release of a new freemium game called Angry Birds Epic.
Read more ...

Cutting-Edge Military Technology on Display at Washington Science Festival

Sunday 27 April 2014


WASHINGTON—Many of the greatest advancements in technology get their start on the battle field. The Department of Defense and other government agencies showcased some of their developments at the annual USA Science & Engineering Festival in Washington, D.C., this weekend.

Carbon Nanotubes

Carbon nanotubes are extremely tiny, but they find great strength in numbers. A single nanotube is 10,000 times thinner than a strand of human hair. Weave a bunch of them together, and you have a light-weight, ultra-tough material used for aircraft construction.
Scientists at Harvard and MIT recently discovered that these nanotubes may be used to create perpetual solar power. Nanotubes are coated with a substance called azobenzene, which can store the energy from sunlight indefinitely. The key to tapping into this ability is to pack azobenzene molecules together in the right form; attached to nanotubes, the azobenzene molecules form interlocking teeth optimal for mass energy storage.

Laser Reconnaissance

Hundreds of thousands of lasers are used to scan the ground before sending troops in. This imaging technology allows the military to see right through foliage, to scope out the lay of the land in great detail and thus to prepare before charging ahead.
3-D laser scanning is being used in a variety of fields. It can be used to monitor geological changes over time, to measure the rise and fall of lava lakes, and more. North Carolina was the first state to scan the whole state, thus creating detailed maps.

Who’s Who?

Integral in identifying enemies of the state, facial recognition is a practiced skill and science. Festival goers could test their skills as facial recognition by playing a game in which a person’s face is shown alongside a row of similar-looking faces. One of the similar-looking faces is actually a photo of that person that may be hard to recognize because of photo quality, aging, lighting, or other superficial changes.
A CIA booth at the fair used the example of a famous National Geographic photo. The photo of a little girl in Afghanistan with startling blue-green eyes became iconic when it appeared in the magazine decades ago. A hunt for the little girl began 17 years after the photo was taken, with many women claiming to have been the girl in the photo.
National Geographic asked for the help of the FBI. A woman was confirmed as a match, based in part on a mark on her nose and moles on her face. Some featured that seemed to have changed could be explained. For example, her nose had become pointier, which can happen because it is cartilage and thus not fixed as some other features are. Her eyes had become darker, which can happen with age and sunlight exposure.
These techniques were important in identifying Osama Bin Laden, making sure the man captured and killed wasn’t just a look-alike or relative, explained a spokesperson at the booth.
The annual USA Science & Engineering Festival in Washington, D.C., is taking place April 26–27, 2014. Epoch Times is a media sponsor of the festival, so expect more great coverage to come!
Read more ...

Florian Mueller backs Samsung legal strategy of trivializing Apple's technology

Monday 14 April 2014
  RSS
 
A
A prominent patent law blogger has again raised the argument that Apple's patented features have very little value, while stopping short of saying that Samsung should just stop using the infringing technology.


Samsung cost to copy Apple too high



Repeating an opinion from early March, FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller has again railedagainst Apple's demands for patent royalty claims against Samsung writing that he was "not just disappointed but even angry" about the amount Apple was asking.

The five iPhone technology patents that Apple selected to use in its second U.S. trial, including Slide to Unlock and Apple Data Detectors (also known as Quick Links), accuse a series of Samsung products in differing respects (as outlined in the above chart).

Apple's second Samsung trial, initiated back in 2011, does not include recent Samsung models like the company's flagship Galaxy S4 released last spring. While Apple attempted to add the model last May, Judge Paul Grewal ruled last June that "allowing Apple to add the Galaxy S4 would also violate U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's request that the case be streamlined and that the number of products and patents at issue in the litigation be reduced."

Apple patent claims vs Samsung's



Applying Apple's proposed royalty rate to a Samsung device that infringed all five patents would amount to around $40, a figure Mueller contrasted with Samsung's "SEP royalty demand of approximately $12 per device (for a whole portfolio of wireless SEPs)."

However, Samsung's SEP (Standards Essential Patent) suit against Apple at the International Trade Commission actually demanded around $16 to $18 per accused iPhone, and that related to just a single patent: 7,362,867, one that had already been thrown out by Judge Koh the previous year as obviously not infringed by Apple.

Samsung had calculated its roughly $16 demand per iPhone by claiming that it was owed around 2.7 percent of the entire cost of the iPhone for a patent that had already been licensed by Infineon, the maker of the accused $11.72 baseband chip that Apple had been using in its products.

Mueller is aware of this because he reported at the time that Samsung's SEP claim related to "trivial functionality" within the chip's implemention of the 3G UMTS wireless standard, and that "the accused portion of the UMTS standard accounts for about 0.0000375% of that standard. [...] And Samsung only contributed to a portion of that 0.0000375%."

Mueller is now comparing Samsung's "trivial" SEP demand for one patent against Apple's total demands for five patents covering features Samsung didn't just accidentally run afoul of, but rather purposely pulled from its Copy Cat iPhone studies as features it needed in its own products in order to be competitive with Apple's iPhone.

Slide to Unlock


Apple Data Detectors


And despite all that, Apple is asking for less per patent (an average of $8) than Samsung was demanding for its FRAND licensed, standard essential baseband patent involving a chip that cost less to buy than Samsung's $16 royalty demand. It's not a mystery why the ITC case was vetoed by President Obama: Samsung's outrageous demand involved some of the worst patent abuse one could imagine.

Sauce for the gander



Apple argued to the ITC that Samsung shouldn't be able to demand more for patent royalties than the baseband chip was even sold for. Mueller says this same sort of reasoning should also apply to Apple, stating "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Because four of the five patents Apple is arguing relate to Google's Android, Mueller wrote, "I'm unaware of any explanation by Apple of why the total cost of patent licenses relating to Android should not be limited to a percentage of the contribution that Android makes to the market value of a smartphone or tablet computer."

In other words, the royalty base of Samsung's infringing patents should be tied to the value of Android, and, as Mueller next points out, "mobile operating systems do not account for sky-high percentages of the entire market value of a smartphone or tablet computer."

Android licensees, however, see significant value in Android or they'd still be using platforms like Symbian, PalmOS and Windows Mobile. Android phones sell in the market because they look and work much more like the iPhone than those previous mobile OSs that nobody uses anymore, or new alternatives like Windows Phone.

Mueller also noted that after suffering unfortunate screen damage, replacing the screen of his Samsung Note 2 phablet cost him around $400, which he called "one of various indications of the non-operating-system components of the total cost and market value of a smartphone."

However, an entirely new Samsung Note 2 unlocked on Amazon lists for less than $415. Apple's in-store screen replacement for an iPhone 5s costs $149. So Mueller's very expensive screen replacement really just indicates that Samsung doesn't offer affordable screen replacement for its customers.

Apple's demands relative to Apple's own patent costs



Mueller wrote that his piece was intended to "raise a question and to highlight some key facts in this context, not to give a definitive answer on a highly complex issue."

However, there are other patent comparisons we can use to evaluate the relative merits of Apple's damages claim. Last year, Apple was hit with a $368 million patent verdict related to a claim from VirnetX involving VPN connectivity. VirnetX does not practice its technology, it merely sues companies for money. VirnetX's patent was filed in 2007 and actually granted just days before the company rushed it into court against Apple.

The cases are different in significant ways: Apple hadn't dissected VirnetX's VPN technology in a shipping product or documented how it set out to steal it in a competitive Copy Cat report (a Samsung practice Mueller calls "benchmarking"). Instead, Apple internally developed a variety of products, including FaceTime and the VPN on Demand feature of iOS 6, and VirnetX came after it with broad patent claims that describe how VPNs can work, patents that were granted long after Apple developed its own technology.

VirnetX convinced a judge to force Apple to change how its products work and pay the Non-Practicing Entity $368 million for infringement of the single patent. After winning, VirnetX filed a second suit that adds all of Apple's latest products to a new claim.




VirnetX filed its original claim shortly after Apple filed its second suit against Samsung, but the judge involved was able to fast track the case to completion before the end of 2012 without scaling back either the number of products VirnetX could accuse or the patent claims it was allowed to bring.

There has been no significant public scrutiny of VirnetX's claims, no anonymous defense from the open source community seeking to invalidate its nebulous ownership claims related to VPN, no clownish liveblogging of the trial and, while Mueller tweeted the verdict, he didn't appear to have blogged any outrage over the damages figure VirnetX was awarded.

Rather than Apple's patent claim being unreasonably high in comparison to other patent cases of less obvious value, Apple is asking half what Samsung demanded (under a threat of an ITC import ban) per patent, or roughly the same total amount per patent across the range of accused devices as VirnetX's patent.



Read more ...