Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Good thing for spencer his SHs don't require him to take a psych exam. And SEC lawyers are the same as all other lawyers. They must be admitted in each jurisdiction they appear. Hard to believe spencer doesn't know that.
Spencer also doesn't understand the difference between general representation and appearing. Put it on the list.
SEC attorneys are not limited to one state? So Wallace is now an SEC attorney and that is how he can legally represent his mother in Florida despite his license in FL being revoked for failure to pass the required FL psych exam? Really?
6. Neil T. Wallace is an associate of Mr. George I. MacLeod who, upon information and belief, has vigorously orchestrated naked short selling of the Plaintiffs' stock for many years. Mr. MacLeod resides in the UK at an unknown location from the U.S. Securities authorities. It is believed that he and Bette Wallace's son, Reed Wallace, were involved in similar stock manipulation schemes regarding SushiTrend. Reed Wallace was sued by SushiTrend for illegal use of their restricted stock and they received a Default Judgment against him. (U.S. District Court District of Nevada case #07CV1129.)
Wallace misrepresented himself as his mother's attorney in the letter to GOSY's SEC attorney, seen in Exhibit C of the recent Court filing. The Florida Bar Association website shows him "Not Eligible to Practice Law in Florida". No wonder no one believes what he says!
Spreading false rumors to drive GOSY's stock price down is illegal and Wallace has been doing it for years. Some of those outrageous lies are in the RICO lawsuit. He's even stated that Spencer had a sex change operation and now goes by the name Martina. Wow!
The Spencers do not live in their mother-in-laws home.
That is why:
7. Neil Wallace, brother of Reed Wallace, has spread false information about the Plaintiffs' company on the internet, to the courts, its attorneys and in numerous correspondences at times using his parents and family to assist in these efforts directly and indirectly. His public disparagement of the company has put false rumors, and therefore doubts, in the minds of the Plaintiffs' business associates, potential customers, attorneys, and stock investors.
This SCOTUS decision is most significant for companies that are small and technology driven such as GeckoSystems. Many of those companies have suffered for years while they have seen their stock manipulated by naked shorting and false rumors, all done to drive the stock price down for excessive and illegal profits to brokerages, such as Merrill-Lynch. On July 10, 2015, GeckoSystems' senior management and majority stockholders filed a Georgia Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act suit in the Rockdale County Superior Court in Conyers, GA. tinyurl.com/qhl3uzu
Good point. Another bullshit PR from rog. No revenues. Criminal RICO? ROFLMAO. rog can't even convince a lawyer to take his money now after losing all his cases. Corporate HQ is his mother-in-law's house, which he lives in. He can't even afford an office. Hell, not even a PO Box?
I'm sure we'll be seeing his latest PRs about his Japan trips for another 6 years, and still no revenue.
So do you think that safety boards will mandate a higher standard for MSR's and other autonomous vehicles in the future or should follow GOSY's example?
Chart says AISG - safest of all but requiring competent regulation.
Spencer's touched on an issue that is now becoming obvious with failed MSR navigation that we've seen in the real world in the last week or so.
While robots were still in the lab they could fake it - the more they get out in the real world the more obvious these failures will become.
The Japanese are a meticulous, cautious people. SafePath is the only solution on the market that will allow them to create a useful elder care robot that can be sold in the next year or two.
Great chart showing how GOSY's AI is structured. Very detailed and I seriously doubt a child in grade school could create such a chart, especially using words like "Cognition","Perception",and "Action". LOL!!
Speaking of safety standards, it will be interesting what guidelines the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)will be on autonomous driving after the recent incidents.
Maybe they should get a copy of GOSY's white papers on SafePath and or a presentation.
Thanks for posting the update from Spencer. Sounds like everything is moving along nicely! I agree that he can't reveal details because otherwise Wallace will interfere as he's done in the past. Shareholders are very glad the "Wallace group" is being sued by Spencer.
Honored followers! Busy training new EE, responding to Japanese investment inq, & deposing defendants in our RICO suit.
Sounds like they've gotten enough money to hire a new EE to do the migration. SafePath can be migrated to any mobile platform, that's why it was a possible solution for Nissan.
I don't know how long this will take, but given Wallace's previous track record of interfering with both employees and JV partners it will be kept secret until they are further along, and it is wise of Spencer to do so.
Japan has an advanced testing facility for MSR's (mobile service robots). A SafePath equipped robot will be able to generate hard testing results that will prove once and for all that it is superior to any other tech out there.
Spencer was able to convince the researchers at Markets and Markets and the robot itself will convince the Japanese government that the JV elder care robot is a breakthrough in safety standards.
I think GOSY's biggest problem is one of perception - the tech works but so many academics and companies have failed. I once found a Master's dissertation on how depth cameras generated a point cloud that was too dense to be used for navigation purposes.
The following is an OCR and may contain some errors, but it makes my point. Personal service robots such as the CareBot are gated by navigation issues. (See bold text.) Baxter is gated by navigation issues with the arms. This is probably why Market and Markets continues to list GOSY's tech in their reports. No one else can do it.
Towards Coexistence of Human and Robot: How Ubiquitous Computing Can Contribute?
Jingyuan Chengl, Xiaoping Chen’, and Paul Lukowiczl ' German Research Center for Arti?cial Intelligence (DFKI), 'Ii'ippstadter Strae 122, D-67663, Kaiseislautern, Germany 2 Multi-Agent Systems Lab, University of Science and Technology of China, .]inzhai Road 96, Hefei, 230026, China Abstract. After the ISO 10218-1 / 2 in 2011, safety factors for industry robot are standardized. As robotics expands its area from industry fur- ther into service, educational, healthcare and etc., both human and robot are exposed to a space with more openness and less certainty. Because there is no common safety speci?cation, we raise in this paper our own hypotheses on the safety requirements in dense human-robot co-existing scenarios and focus more on demonstrating the possibilities provided by the research ?eld named Ubiquitous Computing.
1 Introduction The number of robots over the world keeps on growing. According to the World Robotics studies [1], 159,346 units of industry robots were sold in 2013, 16,067 professional service robots and about 3,000,000 personal and domestic use robots were sold in 2012. As robots’ population grows, the physical even emotional con- tacts between robots and human are also growing, freeing human from certain labor work and meanwhile bringing potential risks. As in early ages robots were implemented mainly in industry, safety speci?cations have been (level- oped mainly for industrial robots, e.g. ISO 10218-1 /222011 sets the rule on both robot itself, the robot system and integration [2] [B]; in US the under revision ANSI/RIA R.l-5.06-2012 re-opens the allowance of human and robot working in a loop. In industry, the general trend shifts from strict isolation of robot from human to detailed speci?cations on reducing hazards. Out side of industry, how- ever, robots are already in close contact with human, especially in the case of service robot. Since there is no ?xed global speci?cation till now, researchers fol- low their own ideas on whether and how to separate robot from public audience at Expo’s and demonstrations. Domestic-use robot providers take care of human by hiding rigid components inside, reducing the robot’s weight and speed, and implementing obstacle detecting sensors. Ubiquitous computing as a fast developing ?eld focuses on pushing the one central powerful computer to multiple little computing units into the environ- ment and onto human beings. This indicates tiny sensing al1d processing units, and naturally, the application ?eld of environment and human activity monitor- ing, which are also important factors a robot might need, when comes to dense contact with human beings.
Hazards in Dense Human-Robot Co-existing Scenarios
Vasic and etc. gave a detailed survey on safety issues in human-robot interac- tions Starting from industry, the danger comes when human gets trapped between robot and an object (e.g. a wall) or when human cronies into collision with a robot A detailed list of signi?cant hazards can be found in ISO 10218-1 as annex, including: Mechanical, electrical, thermal, noise, vibration, radiation, material /substance, ergonomic, the hazards associated with environment and combined hazards. The hazard should be analyzed and minimized from techni- cal points of view, however, in the real applications, there are still unexpected errors and failures which can not be exactly predicted: — mechanics failure: aging of motors, connectors; — electronics failure: aging of components and isolation material, out of power half the way of operation; — program failure: program hugs, untested scenarios; — operational error: untrained engineers, operators, and users; Besides regular maintenance, the above listed hazards are minimized in in- dustry applications by: — strictly pre-de?ned environment and space (robot cell); — strictly pre-de?ned operation routine; — authorization of properly trained operators, maintenance workers and pro- gramers; — speed limitation when human is present; — protective stop function and an independent emergency stop function. While robot go out to factory and into family or other social areas, the above conventional rules become invalid. The situation is similar to that of computer going from military use to civil and then personal use. The difference is however the actuation, the capability of active physical movement brings more potential hazards. Moreover, the robot enters an open environment where changes may happen anytime and anyhow, the users are most often non-professional and unexperienced people. Animals (e.g. pets) might come into close contact with the robot, which might even bring damage to robot. (e.g. a child might see a home service robot and pour water onto it just out of curiosity.) Due to these obstacles, the most sold service robot now is still household robots, which are small in size, carry out comparatively simple and ?xed tasks.
Baxter - an industrial robot has to work in a safety zone so it doesn't hurt humans. They haven't figured out how to let it work closely yet.
This paper from May 2015 propose a way that the robot should be able to figure out what a human co-worker is going to do in order to be safe. A "white semi" moment is inevitable with this machine vision approach, IMO.
This paper proposes a human detection-based cognitive system for robots to work in human-existing environment and keep the safety of humans. An integrated system is implemented with perception, recognition, reasoning, decision-making, and action. Without using any traditional safety cages, a vision-based detection system is implemented for robots to monitor the environment and to detect humans. Subsequently, reasoning and decision making enables robots to evaluate the current safety-related situation for humans and provide corresponding safety signals. The decision making is based on maximizing the productivity of the robot in the manipulation process and keep the safety of humans in the environment. The system is implemented with a Baxter humanoid robot and a PowerBot mobile robot. Practical experiments and simulation experiments are carried out to validate our design. Published in: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA) Date of Conference: 11-12 May 2015
Towards Vision-Based Deep Reinforcement Learning for Robotic Motion Control Fangyi Zhang, Jürgen Leitner, Michael Milford, Ben Upcroft, Peter Corke (Submitted on 12 Nov 2015 (v1), last revised 13 Nov 2015 (this version, v2))
This paper introduces a machine learning based system for controlling a robotic manipulator with visual perception only. The capability to autonomously learn robot controllers solely from raw-pixel images and without any prior knowledge of configuration is shown for the first time. We build upon the success of recent deep reinforcement learning and develop a system for learning target reaching with a three-joint robot manipulator using external visual observation. A Deep Q Network (DQN) was demonstrated to perform target reaching after training in simulation. Transferring the network to real hardware and real observation in a naive approach failed, but experiments show that the network works when replacing camera images with synthetic images.
Comments: 8 pages, to appear in the proceedings of Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation (ACRA) 2015 Subjects: Learning (cs.LG); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Robotics (cs.RO) Cite as: arXiv:1511.03791 [cs.LG] (or arXiv:1511.03791v2 [cs.LG] for this version) Submission history From: Fangyi Zhang [view email] [v1] Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:19:59 GMT (4489kb,D) [v2] Fri, 13 Nov 2015 05:41:08 GMT (4489kb,D) Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
In response, the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, California, is investigating the incident, and it has docked its robots until further notice. The company that developed the robot, Knightscope, called the incident a “freakish accident” and has issued a formal apology to the family.
“Our primary mission is to serve the public’s overall safety, and we take any circumstance that would compromise that mission very seriously,” said William Santana Li, Knightscope’s chief executive.
The company claims that the machine, a K5 unit equipped with nearly 30 sensors, should have registered a vibration if and when it ran over Harwin’s foot. The incident prompted Knightscope to file a field incident report—the first such report after 25,000 miles of total travel made by its robotic fleet. The company’s account of the incident varies a bit from that of the mother’s. Knightscope claims that Harwin ran backward “directly” into the machine, prompting the robot to stop, and that’s when the child fell.
Regardless of what happened, there’s no disputing that a child got hurt, even if it was a minor injury. Malls may find it cute and expedient to have robotic security guards roaming the corridors, but they clearly need to take account of these mechanical lumbering beasts which weigh 300 pounds and stand five feet tall.
A 300 pound robot has to run over someone's foot before they even expect it to do something? It's like a bull in a china shop - do you think the owner of this shop would let that robot roam free like this inside the shop? Yes - an early SafePath robot avoiding things before it runs them over, what a novel idea.
Tesla does its Beta testing on customers and they get killed - oops missed seeing that semi because it was white. GOSY did its Alpha testing on a beloved member of the family for months to make sure it was safe.
Tesla puts the responsibility for Beta testing a flawed system on its customers.
The Autopilot feature was engaged at the time, Tesla has said, but neither the automatic braking system nor Mr. Brown applied the brakes before the car hit the trailer at 65 miles an hour.
Despite that acknowledgment by the company, as the federal agency pushes for answers about the accident and whether the Autopilot system failed to work properly, Tesla officials continue to say that the technology is safe. They also say they have no plans to disable the feature, which is installed in about 70,000 Tesla cars on the road. Instead, they indicate that drivers may be to blame for misusing Autopilot.
In an interview, a Tesla executive said the company believed that the system was safe as designed, but that consumers needed to realize that misusing Autopilot “could mean the difference between life and death.”
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
