Supply Chain Hints at Apple Releasing Augmented Reality Headset No Later Than 2019

[nwcs]

An interesting view with history. To be fair I’ve yet to comb through your links yet I’m sure they backup your views/hypotheses.

I’ll rebuttal that with studies of the Sony Aibo (OG) which found children in senior Kindergarten and grade one not only became friends with the Aibo but even would try to help it standing up after it fell Aibo is programmed to stand up on its on quite quickly. This is the original Aibo so it’s very difficult for me to find such an article - yet I do recall reading about it probably in Popular Science/Mechanics magazine.

An interesting study with young children, a stuffed dog and Aibo:
http://www.vsdesign.org/publications/pdf/kahn_aibo_preschool_2006.pdf

With each generation, children are becoming more interested in technology as their ability to assimilate knowledge and intelligence grows. More so now with internet at full accessibility and populated with kids of a billion petabytes of data vs my generation (8yrs old when Macintosh 1st debuted).

I’d agree with your hypothesis if we look in the past with respect to adults but I think with the internet a major change and view of technolgy and how we’re more accepting of it in our lives changes so much.

I expect by the time I die the following will be feasible if not readily available:

Body/face creams catered to genetics.
Some operations are non-invasive via sub-dermal lasers (heart, possibly even brain surgery for minor tumors or for epilepsy correction).
Military altering fetus genetics for stronger, faster soldiers with significantly higher bone density, stronger tendons, skin that heals at 5x that of a normal person - not too unlike what is now laughable in the Halo franchise story lines for Spartan soldiers. Don’t laugh: for the past 10yrs you can change he colour of your child’s eyes before birth!

Robots to assist the elderly walk about household chores, major household repairs, etc. Old age homes would be a thing of the past.

Well, you’re taking a positive and idealistic view of how the technology will interact in the years to come. I’m taking a more pragmatic and cynical view mostly due to history. While technology is more pervasive today than in years past there are some things that haven’t changed at all and it starts with people. People centuries/millennia ago were just as smart and clever as people today. And from that understanding comes several things:

1. Unintended consequences. Sometimes these are good but often they are bad. Usually the result of hubris of the creator or users of the technology or just blindness to how it can be used/perceived.
2. Human nature. People are the same today as before. The tools change and cultural attitudes change but the foundation of people doesn’t change. Thus there will be people looking for ways to abuse technology.
3. Reactions. Kind of a Newton’s third law and it also tends to follow #1 and #2. So let’s say the military does create super soldiers. It won’t be long until governments oppress their own people. If they are overthrown then there will be controls put in place to limit or forbid the practice until someone takes it upon themselves to do it again (back to #2).
4. Conflict. Coming from #2 and #3, history tells us that when one place has technology another doesn’t conflict is sure to follow. It may be verbal but often ends up physical.

No doubt there will be some good things that result from upcoming technology but there will also be many unintended consequences, snake oil, and exploitation to come with it.

To quote/paraphrase Star Trek twice:

1. Just because we can do a thing it does not follow that we must do that thing
2. Technology grew faster than the hearts of people.

 

[charlituna]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

The only way I see AR being viable at the moment, other than through a phone camera+screen, is for engineering/visualization/medical needs. And this industrial market is one apple never has nor ever will go after.

i could see a few uses like when traveling (AR tour guides or translation). or museums. and of course games. but I agree that its going to take time to be fully accepted. especially if the headset is heavy, has a short battery life or looks as ugly as Google Glass did

if Apple can make a headset that looks like a pair of glasses or even sunglasses, projects the image onto the glass rather than into the eye (a big issue many folks had about Google Glass due to fears of eye damage) and has a battery life and charging similar to the AirPods, they might be able to pull something off. the trick will be the cameras. the 'glasses' will need them onboard for many uses which brings up the same privacy issues that folks had about Google Glass. and even if Apple limits iOS to non recording uses, someone will immediately try to hack the system to allow it just like they did with Snapchat etc. or they will allow recording but we then get to deal with places banning the glasses to protect patron privacy etc.

 

[Ghost31]

Cue people with no vision saying it’s a bad idea and they’ll never use it. Before it comes out and everybody, including them, love it.

Some people never learn about criticizing a product they’ve never tried. But here we go again

 

[Sill]

i could see a few uses like when traveling (AR tour guides or translation). or museums. and of course games.

Those are some of the uses, of course. Its going to run a lot deeper than that, especially when social media aspects enter into it. Consider what it would be like to add "Find My Friends" to AR. You might be at a particular location and see a pointer hovering over a crowd - thats a good friend of yours who left himself "discoverable", and would be happy to hang out at that location. Perhaps you might be at an event with a substantial crowd, and you could spot friends, share particularly interesting things with them, etc. Taking it a step further, people might leave themselves open to discovery to the general public, complete with links to their profile information, articles supporting their beliefs, etc. Daniel Suarez had an incredible example of this in his two books Daemon and Freedom.

Just as very few people could see just how social media would change the world back when it was just text messages on flip phones, its very hard for us to truly predict just how much AR is going to change social media once a fully capable and transparent AR toolset is available to the common person. I think that we should let our imaginations run wild with this, and then distill out what we might be able to do with the technology in the next couple of years. We might even get close.

if Apple can make a headset that looks like a pair of glasses or even sunglasses, projects the image onto the glass rather than into the eye (a big issue many folks had about Google Glass due to fears of eye damage) and has a battery life and charging similar to the AirPods, they might be able to pull something off. the trick will be the cameras. the 'glasses' will need them onboard for many uses which brings up the same privacy issues that folks had about Google Glass. and even if Apple limits iOS to non recording uses, someone will immediately try to hack the system to allow it just like they did with Snapchat etc. or they will allow recording but we then get to deal with places banning the glasses to protect patron privacy etc.

Privacy and eye damage are both very real concerns. Fashion, not so much, but I could see Apple putting out a really good looking AR viewset. Most if not all of the horsepower will be handled on the iPhone, which is why the X happens to be quite advanced and powerful yet doesn't really do all that much more than the 8, or even the 6. The audio is handled by AirPods, and haptic feedback will be produced by the Apple Watch and related devices.

Considering the work that is being done now with audio interference wavefronts being used to produce extremely narrow listening areas - down to a single person able to hear a source in a particular place in a crowded room, while every other person can't hear that signal - I'm wondering if that same principal can't be applied to visual sources? I'm just throwing that out there, I really have no idea if its possible. Such a technique would negate the need to make the lenses into screens, and we'd be relying on projectors then. It would be less dangerous for the eyes, probably.

Regarding the privacy issue, Apple has made itself a bulwark against privacy threats, so however they proceed on this, it will have to be very much in line with their current position. Perhaps the infrared dot projector/camera setup from FaceID is going to be the model for how AR works in the future? After all, the current AR games on the iPhone don't look at an environment and break it down into minute detail, it simple looks to find the ground, people, vertical and horizontal surfaces, etc. It probably knows what a car is, but not what model/color/type of tires on it. You don't need a phenomenal camera for that, but that infrared dot map technique would be perfect for selection of surfaces and shapes.

 

[charlituna]

You might be at a particular location and see a pointer hovering over a crowd - thats a good friend of yours who left himself "discoverable", and would be happy to hang out at that location.

or even purposefully made him/herself discoverable to you because you already had plans to meet somewhere. yes that could be another use


Privacy and eye damage are both very real concerns. Fashion, not so much, but I could see Apple putting out a really good looking AR viewset. [/QUOTE]

thing is that it doesn't have be a 'really good looking' headset. plastic frame sunglasses (where the 'sunglass coating acts as a privacy tool) is still better than Google Glass which looked super bizarre. so that's already a win. although it will likely be a combo of glass and plastic or glass and aluminum cause wireless charging would be the likely method and plastic might get warped by the heat generated by the charging spot.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I am not familiar with the Sony Aibo but I agree with the main points of your post. Regarding your predictions about what will be possible in the near future, some of those items will likely be here within the next 10 years. The book "A Crack in Creation" is about the quantum leap that has taken place in gene editing. The book was just released in June of this year and I was shocked to read about what has already been accomplished and what the leading experts predict will be possible within the next 5-10 years.

https://www.amazon.com/Crack-Creati...510825938&sr=8-1&keywords=a+crack+in+creation

Very interesting will have to purchase and read that book. Something I may offer in return in the pursuit of learning and information.

The Science of Gene Editing: Charlie Rose https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-04/the-science-of-gene-editing-charlie-rose-video

Scientists successfully and safely removed a harmful mutation from the genetic code of a human embryo. We are joined by Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University, Richard Hynes of M.I.T., Hank Greely, of Stanford's Center for Law and the Biosciences, and Pam Belluck of the New York Times. (Source: Bloomberg)

 

[DeepIn2U]

or even purposefully made him/herself discoverable to you because you already had plans to meet somewhere. yes that could be another use


Privacy and eye damage are both very real concerns. Fashion, not so much, but I could see Apple putting out a really good looking AR viewset.

thing is that it doesn't have be a 'really good looking' headset. plastic frame sunglasses (where the 'sunglass coating acts as a privacy tool) is still better than Google Glass which looked super bizarre. so that's already a win. although it will likely be a combo of glass and plastic or glass and aluminum cause wireless charging would be the likely method and plastic might get warped by the heat generated by the charging spot.[/QUOTE]


Anyone remember that movie with Michael Douglas with VR in a computing system in the late 80’s?

 

[charlituna]

Anyone remember that movie with Michael Douglas with VR in a computing system in the late 80’s?

I believe you would be referring to Disclosure which was mid 90s. and is not the same thing as AR.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I believe you would be referring to Disclosure which was mid 90s. and is not the same thing as AR.

That's the movie! You're right not the same thing at all yet we're getting the first apps that seem to minimic concepts like in that movie or in Lawnmowerman.

AR in our phones will be limited in real world use cases, say more specific use cases. Yet I see that we'll have a lot more capabilities when Glasses debut from Apple. Theirs will differ from Microsoft's amazing HoloLens but we could see something powerful.

Microsoft has a HUGE lead ... even with Dell creating a dedicated hardware interface for grid used by Nike to create their Vapour Max shoe line. I'm curious if Apple's hardware will have both horizontal and vertical partnerships such as this. Potentially a new software catered to using A/R?

 

[DoctorTech]

Very interesting will have to purchase and read that book. Something I may offer in return in the pursuit of learning and information.

The Science of Gene Editing: Charlie Rose https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-04/the-science-of-gene-editing-charlie-rose-video

Thanks for the link, I will have to check that out. Exciting times ahead!
[doublepost=1510901160][/doublepost]

Those are some of the uses, of course. Its going to run a lot deeper than that, especially when social media aspects enter into it. Consider what it would be like to add "Find My Friends" to AR. You might be at a particular location and see a pointer hovering over a crowd - thats a good friend of yours who left himself "discoverable", and would be happy to hang out at that location. Perhaps you might be at an event with a substantial crowd, and you could spot friends, share particularly interesting things with them, etc. Taking it a step further, people might leave themselves open to discovery to the general public, complete with links to their profile information, articles supporting their beliefs, etc. Daniel Suarez had an incredible example of this in his two books Daemon and Freedom.

Just as very few people could see just how social media would change the world back when it was just text messages on flip phones, its very hard for us to truly predict just how much AR is going to change social media once a fully capable and transparent AR toolset is available to the common person. I think that we should let our imaginations run wild with this, and then distill out what we might be able to do with the technology in the next couple of years. We might even get close.




Privacy and eye damage are both very real concerns. Fashion, not so much, but I could see Apple putting out a really good looking AR viewset. Most if not all of the horsepower will be handled on the iPhone, which is why the X happens to be quite advanced and powerful yet doesn't really do all that much more than the 8, or even the 6. The audio is handled by AirPods, and haptic feedback will be produced by the Apple Watch and related devices.

Considering the work that is being done now with audio interference wavefronts being used to produce extremely narrow listening areas - down to a single person able to hear a source in a particular place in a crowded room, while every other person can't hear that signal - I'm wondering if that same principal can't be applied to visual sources? I'm just throwing that out there, I really have no idea if its possible. Such a technique would negate the need to make the lenses into screens, and we'd be relying on projectors then. It would be less dangerous for the eyes, probably.

Regarding the privacy issue, Apple has made itself a bulwark against privacy threats, so however they proceed on this, it will have to be very much in line with their current position. Perhaps the infrared dot projector/camera setup from FaceID is going to be the model for how AR works in the future? After all, the current AR games on the iPhone don't look at an environment and break it down into minute detail, it simple looks to find the ground, people, vertical and horizontal surfaces, etc. It probably knows what a car is, but not what model/color/type of tires on it. You don't need a phenomenal camera for that, but that infrared dot map technique would be perfect for selection of surfaces and shapes.

I have been thinking about the privacy aspect as well. When Google glass was released several years ago, defenders of the face worn camera claimed "it is no different than someone having a camera on their phone." In reality, it is quite a bit different. If someone at a restaurant is using their phone to video record someone else at an adjacent table, it is pretty obvious (if not immediately then within a very short amount of time). However, if someone's glasses are video recording people at another table, it would be much more difficult to detect the intrusion.

I agree that Apple has made a reputation for themselves with their firm stand on privacy (which I GREATLY respect and appreciate). One thought that I had is that Apple might use machine learning to identify and blur out faces that are caught on AR headsets. The portrait mode on the iPhone 8+ and X both do a fantastic job of capturing a great head shot and blacking out the background. Maybe they could modify the algorithm for the AR headset to black out the face and keep the background?

 

[Sill]

I have been thinking about the privacy aspect as well. When Google glass was released several years ago, defenders of the face worn camera claimed "it is no different than someone having a camera on their phone." In reality, it is quite a bit different. If someone at a restaurant is using their phone to video record someone else at an adjacent table, it is pretty obvious (if not immediately then within a very short amount of time). However, if someone's glasses are video recording people at another table, it would be much more difficult to detect the intrusion.

I laughed at that argument when I first heard it. The differences between having a camera on a phone and having a camera on those glasses are several. Phone cameras aren't always on by design (that we know of). Phone cameras weren't used to identify objects, as the ones on Glass were. But the sneakiest part of that argument was that it was misdirection: phone cameras weren't backed by a technology company that had facial recognition software running, a company that made it their business to identify and track everyone in the world.

I'm still hoping for someone to come up with a commercially viable and unobtrusive method of blocking cell cameras. I know how to do it with the typical surveillance cameras, but I don't think it works with cell phones.

I agree that Apple has made a reputation for themselves with their firm stand on privacy (which I GREATLY respect and appreciate). One thought that I had is that Apple might use machine learning to identify and blur out faces that are caught on AR headsets. The portrait mode on the iPhone 8+ and X both do a fantastic job of capturing a great head shot and blacking out the background. Maybe they could modify the algorithm for the AR headset to black out the face and keep the background?

The best thing to do would be to go in the opposite direction - when a given area is scanned by the glasses and a face is detected, according to guidelines for what "makes a face", the scan stops right there and works around it. Nothing to blur because nothing was taken. Let the person's phone ID them to other people, if they choose to do that. Looking through my Apple Shades, one friend would have a callout floating above them while the other wouldn't, because they each set their own privacy. Based on what we see for the avamojis in the iPhone X, people could also set an avatar to replace their face in the glasses. That would open a pretty interesting subset of software for iOS right there. Imagine having a particular person's face, or movie character, mapped to replace your face for casual conversation.

 

[radiologyman]

Tim Cook said AR will be big, and I think with AR headset done right the possibilities are indeed limitless. Imagine projecting data in front of you and being able to manipulate it while you walking/excersizing/talking etc. First we stopped moving because accessing data/video necessitates to be stationary and this will finally let us move again while checking facebook or watching tv

 

[DeepIn2U]

DoctorTech & Sill excellent dialog guys! Fascinating what could be done in real world yet less intrusive of others privacy.

 

[Mac 128]

I laughed at that argument when I first heard it. The differences between having a camera on a phone and having a camera on those glasses are several. Phone cameras aren't always on by design (that we know of). Phone cameras weren't used to identify objects, as the ones on Glass were. But the sneakiest part of that argument was that it was misdirection: phone cameras weren't backed by a technology company that had facial recognition software running, a company that made it their business to identify and track everyone in the world.

I'm sorry, What? Are you saying VR glasses are designed to run continuously 24/7? I'd love to see the battery tech available that can fit into a slim pair of standard looking eyeglasses which allow it to shoot video, and stream it to the web all day for the purposes of identifying every passing face in ones field of view.

At best such technology is going to have limited application in public venues, with far less reach than a cell phone. Anyone can just as inconspicuously record full, higher quality video and audio of someone's entire meal in a restaurant on an iPhone, without them ever noticing. I doubt the glasses would last through the appetizer course. If you don't believe me, go back and look at Mitt Romney's infamous 47 percent speech video.

We're a long way away from being overly concerned about VR glasses. Mobile phones are much greater threats to privacy. And when there's justified concern, the glasses will be banned just as mobile phones are now.

 

[Sill]

I'm sorry, What? Are you saying VR glasses are designed to run continuously 24/7? I'd love to see the battery tech available that can fit into a slim pair of standard looking eyeglasses which allow it to shoot video, and stream it to the web all day for the purposes of identifying every passing face in ones field of view.

I don't know what the Glass was capable of, battery-wise. My point is that the ultimate aim of Google is to have people wearing Glass with continuous input. Whether that is done with incredible advances in battery tech, near-field charging off the phone, or a wire running to a backpack full of D cells, Google wants perpetual input.

At best such technology is going to have limited application in public venues, with far less reach than a cell phone.

I knew decades ago that the wristwatch communicator was going to happen. Seeing it in Dick Tracy comic strips, then in the first Star Trek movie, and finally, a prototype in a GTE lab in the early 80s, I knew it was going to happen. Still, if you had said three years ago that we'd have a cell phone in an Apple Watch, I would have said... maybe? Might not happen? Yet here it is.

The Watch is becoming a fairly full featured device that can be used on its own now, yet it can still be tethered to a phone for a full feature set. Currently, trying to think of AR glasses as working on their own and doing anything other than using up a battery just isn't happening. But what if they were working with an iPhone, and the Watch, and maybe AirPods? a few tools bundled together for the full experience. The more I consider it, the more it appears that kit will really make things happen. If the AirPods can deliver environmental audio for a particular scene, that will go a long way towards fooling the brain which will in turn fool the eyes and make the Apple Shades work better than you would expect.

Anyone can just as inconspicuously record full, higher quality video and audio of someone's entire meal in a restaurant on an iPhone, without them ever noticing. I doubt the glasses would last through the appetizer course. If you don't believe me, go back and look at Mitt Romney's infamous 47 percent speech video.

I have to try to stay awake for the next few hours, so I'll pass on listening to Romney. Maybe later. Will there be a quiz?

We're a long way away from being overly concerned about VR glasses. Mobile phones are much greater threats to privacy. And when there's justified concern, the glasses will be banned just as mobile phones are now.

Where are mobile phones banned?

I think the phones aren't as much a threat to privacy as the people who think that everyone wants to share their lives on social media, and the companies that scrape that media, along with every other bit of data, to build software models of us.

 

[DoctorTech]

Wow, are you ever in the right business! Obviously (judging by the responses in this thread alone), not everyone agrees about the potential of AR/MR. But I can't even imagine how this will not be the "fourth transformation," as they say. It seems to me the two areas in technology and engineering which are positioned for the most growth and change are robotics and AR/MR. Everything they say in that book about how these glasses will essentially replace smart phones seems to be true. And I would sign up in a heartbeat!!

Meanwhile, given your background and interests, I really believe you will LOVE "Ready Player One." I mean, it's still fiction and I'm sure reality will not quite be how they depict it in the story. But it certainly forces you to imagine a reality where most of the world's population lives, learns, socializes and works in a virtual or mixed reality. The processors just need to be MUCH smaller and more powerful, and the networks need to be able to handle a LOT more bandwidth at much higher speeds for it to work. I'd be curious to know what you think after you read it.

Oh, and one more thing. The Audible version of the book is read by Will Wheaton (the guy who played Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: The Next Generation). While he was kind of annoying back in his Star Trek days, he's developed a GREAT speaking voice as an adult, and he does an outstanding job narrating this book. So, if you like audio books at all, this one is great!

Thank you for the book recommendation. I am currently about 1/3 of the way through the Audible version of the book. You are right on both counts - great story and Will Wheaton deserves an award for his performance narrating this book. I graduated high school in 1984 so all the cultural references in the book (Family Ties, Dig Dug, Joust, War Games, etc. etc.) are bringing back a tsunami of fond memories. My very first computer was a TRS-80 Model 4 with 16K of Ram and a cassette tape drive. I learned to program on that computer and then I moved up to the TRS-80 CoCo then a Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Amiga, etc.

 

[DrMotownMac]

Thank you for the book recommendation. I am currently about 1/3 of the way through the Audible version of the book. You are right on both counts - great story and Will Wheaton deserves an award for his performance narrating this book. I graduated high school in 1984 so all the cultural references in the book (Family Ties, Dig Dug, Joust, War Games, etc. etc.) are bringing back a tsunami of fond memories. My very first computer was a TRS-80 Model 4 with 16K of Ram and a cassette tape drive. I learned to program on that computer and then I moved up to the TRS-80 CoCo then a Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Amiga, etc.

Glad to hear you're enjoying it! Yes, I graduated high school in 1985, so I'm right there with you. We're both just a few years older than the author (Ernest Cline was born in 1972). Oh, and you should know that Ernest Cline and Adam F. Goldberg co-wrote the movie "Fanboys" which came out in 2009, and was basically a movie about four friends taking a road trip in 1999 cross country to Skywalker Ranch to get a hold of a pirated copy of "Star Wars: Episode I" before it came out. It's pretty funny with lots of fun geeky trivia about Star Wars (and a little about Star Trek), and it ends with the predictable disappointment in actually seeing "The Phantom Menace."

But the interesting thing is that the co-writer was Adam F. Goldberg, the creator and biographical subject of the TV sitcom "The Goldbergs," set in the 1980s and FILLED with fun 80s trivia. Every episode is centered around some 1980s movie or TV show loved by, um, people like us. Of course, there's plenty of Star Wars and Star Trek, but also The Karate Kid, Knight Rider, Back to the Future, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Breakfast Club, Dirty Dancing, Footloose, Top Gun, etc. It's a riot if you like sitcoms and you like that 1980s trivia. My wife, daughter and I have been doing a Goldbergs marathon on Hulu over the past few weeks, starting from Season 1. We had never seen it until just recently!

 

[kdarling]

i could see a few uses like when traveling (AR tour guides or translation). or museums. and of course games. but I agree that its going to take time to be fully accepted. especially if the headset is heavy, has a short battery life or looks as ugly as Google Glass did

Google Glass was not AR in the sense of overlaying info on top of objects in view. It was just a mini rectangular info display visible in the upper corner of one eye.

Also, I don't think it was ugly. Or at least, it would depend on who was wearing it, as I saw some beautiful women using Google Glass and they still looked beautiful!

That said, Google Glass has found a niche in the industrial market and is doing well there.

 

[DoctorTech]

Glad to hear you're enjoying it! Yes, I graduated high school in 1985, so I'm right there with you. We're both just a few years older than the author (Ernest Cline was born in 1972). Oh, and you should know that Ernest Cline and Adam F. Goldberg co-wrote the movie "Fanboys" which came out in 2009, and was basically a movie about four friends taking a road trip in 1999 cross country to Skywalker Ranch to get a hold of a pirated copy of "Star Wars: Episode I" before it came out. It's pretty funny with lots of fun geeky trivia about Star Wars (and a little about Star Trek), and it ends with the predictable disappointment in actually seeing "The Phantom Menace."

But the interesting thing is that the co-writer was Adam F. Goldberg, the creator and biographical subject of the TV sitcom "The Goldbergs," set in the 1980s and FILLED with fun 80s trivia. Every episode is centered around some 1980s movie or TV show loved by, um, people like us. Of course, there's plenty of Star Wars and Star Trek, but also The Karate Kid, Knight Rider, Back to the Future, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Breakfast Club, Dirty Dancing, Footloose, Top Gun, etc. It's a riot if you like sitcoms and you like that 1980s trivia. My wife, daughter and I have been doing a Goldbergs marathon on Hulu over the past few weeks, starting from Season 1. We had never seen it until just recently!

I will have to check that out as well. I had never heard of the Goldbergs before. I cancelled my cable package about 5 or 6 years ago and have only been watching TV shows and movies on iTunes, Netflix and Amazon Fire. I had heard of Fanboys but have not seen it.

By the way, I finally got around to selecting an avatar for my MacRumors profile. That is my Quijalator - a cross between a Quiji board and a calculator. It is very useful for making scientific guesses