The Swarmbots Are Coming

yeah yeah .... by jiffah · 2004-02-04 08:29 · Score: 4, Funny

and we all eventually become batteries after we scorch the sky...

Re:yeah yeah .... by sik0fewl · 2004-02-04 08:35 · Score: 1, Funny

Well, I feel safe for now, as long as they're just doing ant algorithms.

It's when they start algoritms for big, muscular Austrian men with deep accents that I'll be scared.

Very scared.

--
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
Re:yeah yeah .... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 08:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

that was so stupid.
Neo made it high enough to see blue sky and sun.
why can't the stupiud bots just build a stupid tower up a few thousand feet with a stupid microwave reciever, and launch a stupid satellite to collect solar power and beam it by mircowave to the tower which then transmists it by cable to the ground? Huh? Stupid machines.
Re:yeah yeah .... by John+Courtland · 2004-02-04 09:03 · Score: 1

And why did they use humans? Why not breed cattle or some other beast, and kill all the humans?

--
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Re:yeah yeah .... by hoggoth · 2004-02-04 09:14 · Score: 1, Interesting

> And why did they use humans? Why not breed cattle or some other beast, and kill all the humans?

Because they are smart enough to know they may have missed some key element in their own design (ie: an evolutionary dead end) and that some day in the far future they may need humans for some unforseen circumstance.
It's all about genetic diversity, baby.
Same reason we want to save the rainforest now.
Let's hope the machines do a better job saving us than we did with the rainforest.

--
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
Re:yeah yeah .... by Blublu · 2004-02-04 09:40 · Score: 1

Why didn't they use nuclear power?

--
meh
Re:yeah yeah .... by xmedar · 2004-02-04 12:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

The machines cannot be randomly creative as humans are, while The Architect is able to organise logically the Oracle requires The One to be her randomness by proxy as she is not capable of it herself, this is emphasised many times, e.g.

a) Neo's boss is Mr Rhineheart a reference to Luke Rhineheart who wrote The Dice Man back in the 70s, a book about a man who makes all his choices randomly by throwing a dice.

b) when fighting Morpheus says adaptation is not Neos problem, as Neo is only adapting within the parameters of system and is not able to make the creative leap to outside the system

c) while eating there is a conversation where Mouse observes "To denigh our own impulses is to denigh the very thing that makes us human" again the machines cannot do this

d) when fighting Agent Smith Neo stops trying to unlock Agent Smiths grip and makes the leap to using the environment as part of his attack, a creative leap that Agent Smith cannot anticipate and is therefore beaten by.

e) the final creative leap is realising after his death and resurrection that he, The One, is always a part of the system and therefore defeats Smith by fully becoming him and destoying him from the inside.

--
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Re:yeah yeah .... by LittleBigLui · 2004-02-04 12:27 · Score: 1

and kill all the humans?

Kill all humans... kill all humans *snore* kill all humans...

Hey sexy mama! ... Wanna kill all humans?

--
Free as in mason.
Re:yeah yeah .... by Vess+V. · 2004-02-04 12:54 · Score: 1

Holy shit, +10 insightful!

I feel dumb not to have thought of this myself, but then again so should the Wachowkis. The first alternate plausible explanation I've seen for the Matrix, none of this stupid battery bullshit.

Thanks for the warning... by lukewarmfusion · 2004-02-04 08:29 · Score: 1

Paul Revere couldn't have said it any better.

A good intro to AI... by tcopeland · 2004-02-04 08:30 · Score: 5, Informative

...including ant algorithms, simulated annealing, and fuzzy logic is M. Tim Jones' AI Application Programming.

The examples are especially helpful; they're written in nice portable C. I've been working on a little project to translate them to Ruby; porting notes and Gnuplot charts and such are here and the code for the Ant Algorithm translation is here.

--
The Army reading list

Re:A good intro to AI... by Charvak · 2004-02-04 08:40 · Score: 1

Lisp if you are old skool. I think LISP is the most beautiful language designed
Re:A good intro to AI... by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-02-04 14:45 · Score: 1

do people write AI in perl? I learned with scheme, basically lisp, and will probably do the neural net for the game I am working on in python because i like it...

*** BAD PUN ALERT *** by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 08:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Swarmbots really byte.

Re:*** BAD PUN ALERT *** by Metryq · 2004-02-04 08:34 · Score: 3, Funny

I knew a myrmecologist in school. Everytime I saw him I'd ask, "how's your aunt?"

Godel, Escher, and Bach by G3ckoG33k · 2004-02-04 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Also - here is a brick. What did the house look like?

Internet, Linux, Groklaw!

Ant people!

Non-news by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-02-04 08:31 · Score: 4, Funny

you'll discover that the nonliving world is very much alive

We all know that.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Ant reference by IchBinDasWalross · 2004-02-04 08:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Mute Filesharing is one of the projects talking about ant technology, with a pretty thorough description of how they use AntTech.

--
Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.

Re:Ant reference by Freaek · 2004-02-04 09:49 · Score: 1

Nice article, thanks for linking to it.

I like the comment that they made in the section "Painting Arrows in the Forest"...

This navigation technique was presented only as an example and not as a suggestion. Please do not paint arrows in the forest
Heh :)

lasers by bucklesl · 2004-02-04 08:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Cool, I'll finally be able to get an ant with a laser without cheating. The spiders better watch out!

--
help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits

So erm.. by thrill12 · 2004-02-04 08:33 · Score: 1

bringing Prey in the picture here to demonstrate this technology is rather non-scientific ?

--
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd

Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 08:33 · Score: 5, Funny

...a Beowulf cluster of swarmbots could really fuck up a picnic all while processing an assload of seti@home workunits.

Re:Imagine... by iminplaya · 2004-02-04 09:16 · Score: 1

...a Beowulf cluster of swarmbots

I'm not trolling...honest, but could that be considered redundant? :-)

--
What?

startling conclusion? by iminplaya · 2004-02-04 08:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Life isn't the exception, but the rule.

All you have to do is look at all the weeds that grow through the cracks in the sidewalk to come to that conclusion :-)

--
What?

Re:startling conclusion? by Scrameustache · 2004-02-04 11:18 · Score: 1

weeds that grow through the cracks

That's what you get for buying from a sloppy dealer. Mine keeps the weed and the crack in seperate bags... ;-)

--
You can't take the sky from me...

Re:I for one... by SkArcher · 2004-02-04 08:36 · Score: 1, Redundant

...welcome our new swarm overlords.

Yes, very funny.

How about "In Soviet Russia the swarmbots are YOU!

Oh wait, thats a little to close to true...

--

An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.

It goes to show you by ill_mango · 2004-02-04 08:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

How computers can work together better than humans.

Human nature makes us think of the individual before society as a whole. We could probably accomplish a whole lot more if we were all mindless drones, doing what had to be done to finish our jobs.

Of course there would be no fun in that, so luckily we have swarmbots.

I am interested to see the applications of these bad boys in the future.

Re:It goes to show you by bloxnet · 2004-02-04 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would have to respectfully disagree with your option in regards to humans working better as a group.

I have often felt that the individualistic drive, and in turn the resulting competition, conflicts, and all other associated factors have been one of the reasons why we (the human race) have been able to innovate in so many various fields at almost exponential rates.

When you have a mass of like minded, same goal-oriented individuals, the goal of outdoing someone working on the same area for personal recognition, or other persona gains (monetary) is truly a motivator that trumps cooperation without vision.

Good examples are things like the arms races, competing tech companies, etc, etc. These types of conflict or competition-oriented environments almost demand that innovation, invention, and extremely rapid creative thinking and development occur in order to stay in the running or at the top. Plus the motivation that someone else is always trying to take your place once you are "the best" helps keep people sharp as well.

I think a society of mindless drones would not have been much more advanced that we were whenever our species first started forming communities...some things would have developed over time, but I doubt at the pace that we have and continue to see today.
Re:It goes to show you by timeOday · 2004-02-04 08:50 · Score: 1

We could probably accomplish a whole lot more if we were all mindless drones, doing what had to be done to finish our jobs.
Then why are we at the top of the food chain?
Re:It goes to show you by DR+SoB · 2004-02-04 09:03 · Score: 1

Don't get too excited, since when has a "swarm" of anything been a good thing? I'm sure as sh*t that this will be a military dream come true. How hard would it be to shoot down 10,000 nanobot's using ordinary arms?

--
Mod +5 Drunk
Re:It goes to show you by DrMorpheus · 2004-02-04 09:04 · Score: 1

Then why are we at the top of the food chain?
Humans like to think that, don't they?
Too bad it ain't true.
[Insert evil laugh]

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Re:It goes to show you by ill_mango · 2004-02-04 09:05 · Score: 1

Well then, we could always head towards a Brave New World (Aldous Huxley) scenario where we have the genetically predispositioned intellectuals doing the thinking and mindless drones doing the grunt work.

About competetive-oriented environments, they may have done well in your examples, but as problems and solutions become more complex, they may become too much for a single person to solve. Eventually, problems may get so complex that it'll take the brain-power of a a few people working together to solve them. (Of course then we may have groups competing against each other instead of individuals)

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that usually we get farther when we work together rather than against each other, and that will probably become increasingly important in the future.
Re:It goes to show you by ill_mango · 2004-02-04 09:09 · Score: 1

Well then we'll need nanosoldiers with nanoguns and nanogrenades. And some nanotanks, nanoplanes and nanonukes too. Come to think of it, if everything was nano, that would really cut down on over-population and food shortages and stuff. But in all seriousness, I think explosives would work well against a swarm of tiny machines.
Re:It goes to show you by edrain · 2004-02-04 09:19 · Score: 1

Or a fly swatter. Maybe made of lasers.

--
Battling Beasts
Re:It goes to show you by Razor+Blades+are+Not · 2004-02-04 09:20 · Score: 1

Which is why ants really do rule the planet and we're they're unwitting dupes.

I for one..
wait! aren't *humans* the overlords ?
Re:It goes to show you by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-02-04 10:30 · Score: 1

Comparing humans to individual ants doesn't make any sense. Individual ants do not have a drive to procreate, since they are sterile. Only sexually viable ants are in any way comparable to humans in terms of individualism vs. collectivism. And if anyone on either side thinks human motivations are significantly better or worse modulated than animals in terms of individualism & collectivism, you're wrong. They're the same.

I would also point out that y'all Randians tend to frequently ignore situations in which cooperation is mutually beneficial and should be in keeping with an individualist stance. An example is this: which is more common, collectivist hives of sterile ants, or individualist ants?

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:It goes to show you by Odin's+Raven · 2004-02-04 10:36 · Score: 1

We could probably accomplish a whole lot more if we were all mindless drones, doing what had to be done to finish our jobs.

You haven't interacted much with management, have you? :-)

--
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
Re:It goes to show you by replicant108 · 2004-02-04 11:36 · Score: 1

Good examples are things like the arms races, competing tech companies, etc, etc. These types of conflict or competition-oriented environments almost demand that innovation, invention, and extremely rapid creative thinking and development occur in order to stay in the running or at the top

But these things are the result of group action, not individual action. You are observing conflict and competition between groups, not individuals.

If you look at social animals and non-social animals, man clearly fits the into latter category.
Re:It goes to show you by negacao · 2004-02-04 12:59 · Score: 1

Not, to nitpick, but.. Ah, screw it.
able to innovate in so many various fields at almost exponential rates
Everyone keeps saying this kind of thing about us humans, but what are they measuring against? Who's to say we aren't progressing at a massively slow rate?
I am actually curious, so.. If someone's got an answer/explanation/idea, please post!
Re:It goes to show you by Vexinator · 2004-02-04 14:35 · Score: 1

The problem is that competition often does not result in the so-called cream rising to the top...

In fact, early adoption is often more important than merit in deciding the course of things to come - Microsoft is an ideal example.

I'm not saying that competition doesn't play an important role, but as I get older it seems to me that the role competition plays in advancement is not as important as many people seem to think.

If you look at life, all the higher life forms have more and more co-operation inherent within them.

If you look at the PC industry, great strides are rarely made without an industry accepted standard. Sometimes the industry leader will create the standard, but more often the industry leaders create it in a cooperative effort. Perhaps, in the absense of a clear leader, it's to everyone's best interest to be able to interoperate.

Cooperation is more important for the broader picture.

--
"Be afraid to die until you have won some victory for humanity" -Horace Mann
Re:It goes to show you by ACPosterChild · 2004-02-10 07:01 · Score: 1

Good examples are things like the arms races, competing tech companies, etc, etc. These types of conflict or competition-oriented environments almost demand that innovation, invention, and extremely rapid creative thinking and development occur in order to stay in the running or at the top. Plus the motivation that someone else is always trying to take your place once you are "the best" helps keep people sharp as well.
1) The examples you listed are groups of individuals working together toward a common goal.
2) Destruction and/or suppression of others and their achievements is an equally valid way to "get ahead" of the "competition". These behaviors are widespread, with examples all over the marketplace; especially when dealing with "standards" that give consumers poorer quality and idividual companies lock-in.
3) I think that few individuals are motivated. Those that are will perform highly regardless of their reward. The exception would be those only motivated by money and/or power. In a structure where those rewards exist, they will sell out advancement and progress for their own reward; in a hypothetical environment without such rewards, I think those people would become part of the unmotivated masses.

Roland Blogbooster by Eldie · 2004-02-04 08:38 · Score: 1

Why does /. keep posting pointers to these summaries? They add absolutely nothing whatsoever to the article.

swarmbots and mars exploration by avkillick · 2004-02-04 08:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe Swarmbots and related technology will have a place in future robotic missions to Mars that will precede human exploration. Spirit and Opportunity are independent explorers but future missions will (should) involve specialised rover that will cooperate with each other in mining, materials processing, construction, scientific analysis and exploration.

--
OpenOffice tips:richhillsoftware.com

Re:swarmbots and mars exploration by AndroidCat · 2004-02-04 09:18 · Score: 1

How about a constructor bot, a pile of Lego Mindstorms modules, and a whole heap of bricks? I don't see why that wouldn't work, I used to build space probes out of Lego all the time! :)
Mind you, we'd better make sure that there's no life on Mars before dumping a Lego ant farm on it.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:swarmbots and mars exploration by lcde · 2004-02-04 11:04 · Score: 1

And destroying Zion....

:D

--
:%s/teh/the/g
Re:swarmbots and mars exploration by SoSueMe · 2004-02-04 11:29 · Score: 1

Spirit and Opportunity are independent explorers

Spirit and Opportunity are political prestidigitation. We have trouble at home?
Look over there!

WMD? what are you talking about?

Living? Hardly. by Oligonicella · 2004-02-04 08:39 · Score: 1

It never ceases to amaze me how someone with a functioning brain can make the insipid leap to conclude that a friggin' algorithm is a living thing.
Either the authors are just pimping themselves or are entertaining some serious grandious god-like delusions.
No Virginia, there are no living ai or robots.

Re:Living? Hardly. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-02-04 08:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

It never ceases to amaze me how someone with a functioning brain can make the insipid leap to conclude that a friggin' algorithm is a living thing.

This comment you made just proves that you've never really thought of the question.

The question is: what defines something as alive or inert? the boundary has always been fuzzy, and endless philosophical debates on the subject have been raging for centuries and still do to this day, albeit with a little more material to try to answer it.

The short of it is: the conventional wisdom would be to define something alive as (1) performing some function, however trivial (i.e. transforming something into something else) and (2) being able to reproduce itself (from full sexual reproduction down to simple mitosis). The problem with that definition is that virii wouldn't count as being alive (they don't reproduce or perform anything without having invaded a host), and virii are usually considered the smallest thing that can be said alive.

If you extend the definition to encompass biological virii, you start defining computer ones as alive too. They, on the other hand, are usually considered "inert" (well, not alive).

etc etc...

So you see, it's not as easy as you might think... I invite you to do research on the subject before posting inflamatory comments.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Living? Hardly. by drinkypoo · 2004-02-04 08:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

It never ceases to amaze me how someone with a functioning brain can make the assumption that we're more than just a collection of algorithms and their end results.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Living? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 09:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I find more inflammatory the claim itself that algorithms are alive, lacking a definition of "alive". The so-called inflammatory attack basically just pointed out that you cannot proclaim simultaneously that 1) "life is too complicated to define" and 2) "algorithms are alive because they make these pretty pictures".

And I say this having done research in Artificial Life (rightfully called the world's first and only fact-free science) and having thought about the question plenty. I personally believe in the thermodynamic and information theoretic theories of life, which puts me on the "algorithms are alive" side. It still pisses me off plenty to hear popular "science" articles in Wired spout off about it; it's the 60's AI fiasco all over again (except that today, the taboo you break by calling them bullshit is "thou shalt not attack optimism when hip self-referential concepts are involved" whereas before the taboo was probably "thou shalt not question your technocratic overlords; they are smarter than you).

1965: ``Pretty soon we'll have language translation out of the way, and then computers can do any and every intelligent task within a few years."

2000: ``Pretty soon machines will just self-organize to criticality and we won't have to worry about anything!"

Of course, it seems people aren't falling for the latter QUITE as much. Maybe it is a bitten-shy phenomenon; however I believe it is mostly because the latter is even more ridiculous.
Re:Living? Hardly. by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-02-04 09:15 · Score: 1

But you can only go so far thinking yourself a great philosopher before even children start to think you're a fool.

I agree with the original poster, the ideas laid out in this article are pretty far fetched.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Re:Living? Hardly. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-02-04 09:28 · Score: 1

I find more inflammatory the claim itself that algorithms are alive, lacking a definition of "alive"

I did some work on AIs too, and I don't have a particular problem conceiving that a computer program could be considered alive. "Being alive", while having no proper definition, is something people know instinctively, but the human being gets this categorization instinct from its biological experience and past.

If you define the environment as computers and networks, perhaps not simple virii, but more complex programs could be said alive. And I'm quite sure that, given enough time, such a program could mutate and evolve due to stresses in its "environment" (computer errors, data corruption). It's just a thought experiment of course, nobody is going to run computers for millions of years just to test the theory, but still, worth considering. Just because our biological way of thinking tells us it's not doesn't mean it isn't.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Living? Hardly. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-02-04 09:33 · Score: 1

Yes, the world being flat and the sun orbiting it were pretty obvious ideas in the past, and people who thought differently at the time were also taken for fools by childrens (and their parents, and their church).

You don't need to be a great philosopher to consider far-fetched ideas, you just need to be open-minded.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Living? Hardly. by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-02-04 09:52 · Score: 1

I believe I do approach this with an open mind. But an open mind can still disagree in its final judgement.

My thought process went something like:
Ok, maybe we can redefine life. But where does it stop? Can anything that affects anything else be considered life? No. (an arbitrary judgement on my part. But it has to be done at some point.) So I decided there has to be some reasonable threshold used to judge so that we don't just start thinking everything is alive. After all, every word has an arbitrary meaning. And if we expand "alive" to include anything that has an interesting attribute then the word becomes meaningless.

So I read the examples and found that none of them showed an organism or system that really gave back more than was put into it. All the computer systems were programmed and specifically set up. Even those given loose rules were still designed and programmed. Most of the examples were interesting, but none "blurred the line." They all seemed to be complex, yet deterministic dominos.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Re:Living? Hardly. by SoSueMe · 2004-02-04 11:58 · Score: 1

It never ceases to amaze me how someone with a functioning brain can make the assumption that we're more than just a collection of algorithms and their end results.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone with a functioning brain can NOT make the assumption that we're more than just a collection of algorithms and their end results.

Emergence by tsa · 2004-02-04 08:40 · Score: 1

In the article they talk about emergence:
EMERGENCE describes the way unpredictable patterns arise from innumerable interactions between independent parts.
Does anyone know more about this? How do people study it, what parameters are important, etc... I'm curious.

--

-- Cheers!

Re:Emergence by PrionPryon · 2004-02-04 08:56 · Score: 2, Informative

This book is worth a trip to the library. It was my introduction when I was first intrigued. Also, Godel, Escher, Bach speaks to the same concepts as well as others.
Re:Emergence by josquin00 · 2004-02-04 09:21 · Score: 1

A couple of books to start with might be James Gleick's Chaos and Gregory Bateson's Mind and Nature. (Off of the required reading list of Professor Allen's Systems class at UW - Madison) Both deal with complex systems and emergent behavior.
Re:Emergence by Hyler · 2004-02-05 00:11 · Score: 1

Also have look at systems theory, for example
the book General Systems Theory - Ideas & Applications
and Principia Cybernetica Web

Systems = Parts + Relationships. Complex systems can have emergent properties.

--
It's its. They're their, there. You're your. Who's whose? A looser loser, though those two too threw through the trough.

Interval ant algorithms? by 192939495969798999 · 2004-02-04 08:40 · Score: 1

Anyone have a pointer to a swarming algorithm that uses interval arithmetic to help reduce anomalies in behavior, etc.?

--
stuff |

Re:Interval ant algorithms? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-02-04 09:05 · Score: 1

Here's one you can test on your *nix box:
#include #include int main(int argc, char **argv) { swarming_happens_here: fork(); goto swarming_happens_here }

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Ever read "Prey" by loserbert · 2004-02-04 08:40 · Score: 1

So we should stock up on our buckets of brown poopy goo now?

--
[ Don't reply to this ]

um... by Savatte · 2004-02-04 08:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Typically, a swarm bot is a collection of simple robots (s-bots) that self-organize according to algorithms inspired by the bridge-building and task-allocation activities of ants

So they've created artificially intelligent managers. Well I guess this is better than the real thing.

The house of next tuesday... by Epyn · 2004-02-04 08:42 · Score: 2, Informative

The fascination with miniature robotics really amuses me, with its extremely costly and seemingly pointless projects. I know theyre not pointless/useless, but I'd think theyd get a better public response if they were building larger-scale, more prototype-like systems that had an end result. As opposed to the classic (in my mind) tiny mouse robot that followed around light sources.
Although I suppose micronizing is where to be...if you plan to sell your immediate research.

Re:Ever read "Prey" by sonicattack · 2004-02-04 08:42 · Score: 1

No, but it happens to be the book I'm going to read after I finish "Hellstrom's Hive" - which coincidentally is about a human society modelled after insects. It is written by Frank Herbert (most famous for his "Dune" works) and I really recommend it.

Wired != Strong Prediction Success by danaan · 2004-02-04 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm sorry, but I cringe every time I see the magazine Wired mentioned along with technology prediction and even current analysis of emerging products. Wired has been a valuable cheerleader of the technology boom, but they have almost without fail fallen for the unexamined hype.

This reached its peak with the "Push" edition of the magazine, which you will no doubt remember if you were a subscriber/reader at the time. The technology never really made that much sense, certanly not in the "world-changing" ways they were talking about at the time. Add in the "new economy", those Cue-Cat scanners and the (again) world changing supposed effects of satellite phones (just to name a few off the top of my head) and Wired has quickly become the equivalent of the Sports Illustrated cover curse.

Woe to any futurologist or technologist that should find themselves prognosticating within the pages of Wired!

Re:Wired != Strong Prediction Success by ill_mango · 2004-02-04 08:49 · Score: 1

You have to admit that they do at least pique your interest. I love reading Wired articles, because even though I know they aren't always as spot-on as some other sources, at least in my mind I am always thinking "Cool!" when I read an article. They show me what COULD be possible with today's technology and a bit of work, and I think that they fill that job quite well.
Re:Wired != Strong Prediction Success by lysium · 2004-02-04 09:10 · Score: 1

The 'Push' issue was the definitive end of Wired's relevance. I wish I could go back in time and show the author how the world has changed now that porn ads are 'pushed' onto the desktop and spyware 'pushed' into the registry....
Then I would give the aforementioned author the thrashing of a lifetime.
=------=

--
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Re:Wired != Strong Prediction Success by AndroidCat · 2004-02-04 09:30 · Score: 1

Magazines always have their hobby-horses. Remember all the flying cars in Popular Science? The monster flying wing planes? Electro-jet hover platforms a la Dick Tracy?
Stuff like that never really happens the way they say. What? The sig? No, the triphibian car only flies "over water".
Besides, I thought that Wired jumped the shark in the first year.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Wired != Strong Prediction Success by leifm · 2004-02-04 09:37 · Score: 1

Whatever dude, I use PointCast every day!

--

"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Re:Wired != Strong Prediction Success by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 09:38 · Score: 1, Interesting

> Woe to any futurologist or technologist that
> should find themselves prognosticating within the
> pages of Wired!

True, Wired has gone steadily downhill since Conde nast bought it years ago.

It's funny how technology trends come and go. Wasn't artificial life, networks and 'convergent' behaviour was all the rage back in the late early 90s? Steven Levy and others predicted we would soon evolve AI (even consciousness) using genetic algorithms.

Christopher Meyer is really a business consultant who is trying to promote his new book here. Half the trouble is the self proclaimed 'technologists' are not scientists and don't have any critical capacity to avoid them falling for their own hype.

Smart Dust by pararox · 2004-02-04 08:43 · Score: 5, Informative

This reminds me of an article in the new "Innovators Section" as seen in Time magazine (January 12th '04 edition).

Essentially, it discusses Kris Pister who developed Smart Dust - a wireless network of sensors, called motes. Each mote has a chip about the size of a grain of rice that detects and records things like termperature and motion at its location. The motes have minisule radio transmitters that talk to otehr motes. With a single network of 10,000 motes, the upper limit, you could cover some 9 sq. miles - and get information about each point along the way!

Anyway, here's a brief description:
innovationwatch.com

Here is the Dust, Inc. homepage:
http://www.dust-inc.com/

Frightening technology in many respects, but I can't help but smile at the thought of the brilliance behind it all.

Regards,
-pararox-

Re:Smart Dust by science_gone_bad · 2004-02-04 09:58 · Score: 1

Whoa.......
You just gave the Real Short(TM) summary version of Michael Crichton's "Prey"

--
"I never get lost because everybody tells me where to go"
Re:Smart Dust by zeno_2 · 2004-02-04 13:08 · Score: 1

Nah not really, the ones in prey could fly, used predetor / prey instincts, had optical cameras, etc.. Id say much cooler then a chip that can detect temperature and motion.

Why do ants get all the press? by BigZaphod · 2004-02-04 08:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

The cow has all sorts of natural patterns that could aid us. Or what about chickens? We wouldn't want to forget about the utility of pecking at problems until they go away, would we?

--
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch

Re:Why do ants get all the press? by PrionPryon · 2004-02-04 09:02 · Score: 1

Why stop with lesser mammals and avians? Humans do it too.
Re:Why do ants get all the press? by maxwell+demon · 2004-02-04 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's simple: A single ant is stupid. It's much more stupid than your average computer program. Yet ants achieve things which are all but stupid.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Why do ants get all the press? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-04 10:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Which is odd to me... because a person is generally smart, yet people are collectively stupid.
Re:Why do ants get all the press? by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-02-04 20:59 · Score: 1

"A single ant is stupid. It's much more stupid than your average computer program. Yet ants achieve things which are all but stupid."
I think you mispelled Open Source. *ducks*

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

"PREY"... by Vanguard(DC) · 2004-02-04 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

there ARE actually a few writers of fiction who dedicate alot of time to great research on REAL technologies, then apply it to ifcitonal scenerios.

Crichton is one of those. As is Dan Brown, Robin Cook, Tom Clancy...etc etc.

Go check out "Prey," and it will introduce you to this technology in a "fun way," and even introduce you to the inherent risks and problems we face as these technologies emerge.

with all of these tech/spec guides for work, it's nice to dumb it down with a novel every week or so! What I like to do is read one, then research the techonologies mentioned, and try to determine if they are Sci-Fi, or the real deal. Reading them is kinda like brainstorming, and gives me plenty of random knowledge ideas for me to go Google-crazy with!

try it sometime...

--
"I think, therefore I get paid."

Re:"PREY"... by DR+SoB · 2004-02-04 08:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is very true. IMHO once the ants deal with Prey, even though they have not been programmed to in any way, that will be real AI. AI is the ability to make decisions without ever having dealt with the scenerio before. An ant creating a "city" for example, isn't AI at all, it's good programming, yes, but not AI. If you suddenly add Prey to the equation and the ants learn ways to deal with said prey (evolution people!) then THAT would be true AI, and I feel we are still MINIMUM 5 years from this point.. As for the authors you mentioned, I started reading Dan Brown, and now I'm a true follower. Every technology he writes about is true. Another great one I'd like to add is "The Cobra Event" by Richard Preston. The technology covered in this book is SCARY. You may have heard of his book "The Hot Zone", I'd recommend Cobra event as the technology is more true-to-life. It was written years ago with future predictions on technology, and if you watch CNN at ALL you would know that his technology has become a reality, Bio-terrorism at it's scariest..

--
Mod +5 Drunk
Re:"PREY"... by CFTM · 2004-02-04 09:13 · Score: 1
I just realized that you already mentioned Dan Brown but
- The Da Vinci Code
and
- Angels & Demons
are such good books that I had to mention it. If you have any interest in symbollogy, the history of Catholicism, the death of the mother goddess with the advent of the religions of the book I strongly suggest reading those two books. They're very entertaining to read with interesting characters and a good story with a ton of historical information. Here's a little tidbit, go search for Da Vinci's "Last Supper" and take a close look at the person sitting to Jesus's left ... take a close look at the various aspects ... it makes one think.
Re:"PREY"... by ncr53c8xx · 2004-02-04 23:34 · Score: 1

there ARE actually a few writers of fiction who dedicate alot of time to great research on REAL technologies, then apply it to ifcitonal scenerios.

One thing that bothers me with Crichton is that he loses the science about a third into the book. BTW, there was a program in Discovery channel about nanotechnology and they asked the experts about the intelligent nanobots theory from the book (they didn't mention Crichton by name though, probably didn't want to get sued). The scientists laughed at it (what would you expect them to do, anyway?), and said that the bots would only do what we designed them to do.

Another issue is the rate of learning for these bots. I suppose that the rate will have to be pretty rapid for a book or a three hour movie, but does anyone have evidence of ants or thermites learning something new in a few hours. If you model something on nature, wouldn't the timescales be the same? How can you have rapid evolution?

Categories and Organisms by NixLuver · 2004-02-04 08:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

None of this should surprise us. As time goes on we learn that our categorical views of the world are mere cognitive conveniences. The unit of life is the cell, not the organism - you have cells that can live outside your body, if provided with the proper oxygen and food. The fact that we see a person rather than a collection of single celled symbiotic organisms reflects the bias of our cognition, not some universally correct perception of the cosmos.

I think that we will find 'living systems' everywhere we look, once we overcome the bias of the pattern matchers in our heads that make us think that our biases are the laws of the Universe.

--
Thinking outside my Head

Re:Categories and Organisms by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-02-04 09:04 · Score: 1

I don't think our "pattern matchers" and "bias of cognition" are all that innacurate. I disagree with the idea that everything is relative. I beleive there are some absolutes and universal absolutes in the universe.

When you say we might find 'living systems' everywhere we look, I think that's quite a stretch, and that there really is a difference between this type of contrived cooperation, and actual, beautiful life.

Artificial intelligence would have to make astounding advancements to even begin to blur the lines between machines and life.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Re:Categories and Organisms by iminplaya · 2004-02-04 09:09 · Score: 2, Informative

...collection of single celled symbiotic organisms...

Jelly fish are often decsribed this way. I like to think they're pretty much like other animals, but their "nervous system" is a bit more decentralized.

--
What?
Re:Categories and Organisms by NixLuver · 2004-02-04 09:31 · Score: 1

I beleive there are some absolutes and universal absolutes in the universe.

I'd be very interested in what means or processes you use to derive these absolutes and universal absolutes, and what the difference is between them.

--
Thinking outside my Head
Re:Categories and Organisms by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2004-02-04 09:42 · Score: 1

I'd be very interested in what means or processes you use to derive these absolutes and universal absolutes, and what the difference is between them.

First of all, I sound like an idiot for not proofreading the quote you used!

In answer to your question: aside from religious beliefs, which I take it you wouldn't appreciate, there are several. The idea of temperature, size/length, and energy used to all be considered rather relative. More advancements have shown certain limits and constants that put things more in perspective.

For instance, many years ago I was thinking about the size of a human. Are we small? Are we big? Or are we just some size that's only describable in relation to something else (small compared to a star, big compared to bacteria) so it doesn't matter. But fundamental particles, as well as the aparent minimum and maxium size of molecules sets a framework against which everything can be measured.

I know this is a little more fundamental than the "what is life" question. But the mindset that there are some universal absolutes is still there.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.

Intelligence in machines by tsa · 2004-02-04 08:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Often I hear people talking about their robots on TV, and they say that their robots are about as intelligent as a bee or wasp. But if I compare the behaviour of a bee or wasp or whatever insect to those footballing robots I see on TV I'm not so sure. For instance you have wasps that make a hole in the ground, fly away to find some insect larva, bring it to their hole, sedate the larva, lay an egg in it, put it in the hole and close the hole. To be able to do this it must have a general idea about what a hole in the ground is and how to make it. When it is born it cannot know exactly where to make the hole because it has to find a suitable place. So how does the wasp decide where to make the hole? And it must have a pretty good memory too, to be able to find the hole back after some flying around. If you compare this behaviour of a tiny wasp to the robots we have playing football or driving around on Mars (or vacuuming our living room for that matter) I think we still have a long long way to go. This is a very interesting subject and sometimes I envy people that are just now deciding what to study :-) I'm too old to start with this now.

--

-- Cheers!

Re:Intelligence in machines by akuzi · 2004-02-04 09:55 · Score: 1

> For instance you have wasps that make a hole in
> the ground, fly away to find some insect larva,
> bring it to their hole, sedate the larva, lay an
> egg in it, put it in the hole and close the hole.

True, just in terms of being able to recognise objects and navigate around the world, insects are so much more advanced than any current robot it's a joke to compare them.
Re:Intelligence in machines by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-02-04 10:34 · Score: 1

They're just saying that their robot has the processing power of a bee or a wasp. Which may be true. However, the bee or wasp has had millions of years to perfect it's programming.

The software is lacking. The robotics are lacking. But not the raw calculations per second.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Intelligence in machines by zobier · 2004-02-04 20:28 · Score: 1

sometimes I envy people that are just now deciding what to study

Thank you,

That is exactly the encouragement I need at the moment. I'm 26, have been married for 4 years and have a 2 year old child. I work as a web developer but want to go to university to study as I didn't when I was younger. I learn better now than I used too and have direction in my life. I'm sure it will be difficult juggling family and study but I want to give it a go.

Regards,

Mike

;)

--
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
Re:Intelligence in machines by tsa · 2004-02-05 00:20 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right, but still, how do you get a computer to show this complex behaviour without crashing? Although insects might be (in my opinion must be) complex robots, they are really VERY complex. That's what I wanted to explain with this example.

--
-- Cheers!
Re:Intelligence in machines by danila · 2004-02-06 11:43 · Score: 1

You've already got some responses, but I will just add an example. It's from "The Selfish Gene" by R. Dawnkins, a great book, BTW. Beens often have the ability to find infected larvaes, remove them from their cells and throw away from the hive. You assume they have an "idea" of how a sick larvae is different from a healthy one, what a cell is, how to remove them and what to do. But it turns out that this seemingly complex behaviour consists of several simple subroutings, hardcoded into their genome. One gene is responsible for opening the cells, one for throwing the larvae away. Some code is probably responsible for sensing the smell of a sick larvaes, etc., etc. Some bees lose one of these genes and they will only open the cells but not throw the larvaes away. Others would lack the gene for cell opening, but would throw larvaes away if you open the cells for them.

There was a short article in SciAm about using a genetic algorithm for a robot to flap the wings. If you give evolution millions of years, it will perfect the code to make organisms very well suited for the environment. Our computers are indeed as capable as insects. The hardware is actually better, the software is just as capable, but not so reliable and polished. A simple analogy - a good programmer can quickly write from scratch a GUI-based OS with some basic functionality. That's our robots. But to make an OS that millions of different people could use in different environments for different purposes takes millions of man-hours. That's your wasp after millions of years of evolution.

But fortunately, we don't need millions of years, we only need decades. Please also note that our robots already have capabilities so varied that no animal (even mammal) can do everything they can do. And in a few decades our robots will do everything animals can and will do it better.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

I said it before... by HarveyBirdman · 2004-02-04 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Home robotics will not take off until someone sells a quality sexbot. I'm not kidding. Pr0n drove the initial sales of the VCR market. It's driving the Internet even if no one wants to admit it. The inital wave of VR games died out because people don't want to put on a dorky helmet viewer without more payoff than shooting at blocky robots, and the cost per game was usually the same as a blow from a crack whore.

One of the most successful and well known drugs in the world is Viagra.

Sex sells everything, and it will sell robots.

Hell, I'd probably buy one, but I expect it to make breakfast in the morning. Preferably pancakes. Warm, fluffy pancakes. Mmmm... pancakes.

--
--- Ban humanity.

Re:I said it before... by ACPosterChild · 2004-02-10 06:40 · Score: 1

Poor, poor /.-er. Has a sexbot in the bedroom and can only think of pancakes.
See, girls? This is why you need to give geeks lovin' when they're young!

Weather is about chemistry? by blueZ3 · 2004-02-04 08:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

One sentence killed the authority of the article...

Similarly, weather develops from the mixing of oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, and other... molecules

What? Weather is all about energy, and is powered by the sun. Highs and lows are all about temperature, not the balance of elements. Mixing of elements has little to do with weather.

Sheesh!

D

--
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com

Re:Weather is about chemistry? by PrionPryon · 2004-02-04 09:07 · Score: 1

I am also aghast at this meteorological baloney.

Differential heating sets up temperature gradients on the earth surfaces which produce pressure disparities that drive circulation. Although water vapour is important in defining system behaviour its influence arises from the storage and transport of latent heat. The other species play minor roles with regards to heating.

Re:Only a matter of time by Dav3K · 2004-02-04 09:00 · Score: 1

You're too late.

Re:Only a matter of time by weston · 2004-02-04 09:02 · Score: 1

It's only a matter of time before someone posts the obligatory "I, for one, welcome our miniature robotic overlords."

Yes, but I, for one, welcome our posting-about-miniature-robotic-overlords overlords.

--
Tweet, tweet.

Related Ant algorithm site by llebegue · 2004-02-04 09:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you want to see some cool demonstration of ant behavior algorithm check this web site Eurobios

Re:Related Ant algorithm site by Lord_Dweomer · 2004-02-04 21:26 · Score: 1

The game is hard to find, cuz the sites done in flash. Go to 'complexity science' then 'tools' then click where it says 'click here' go to 'ant algorithms' in the pulldown menu, then click where it says 'click here'. Its an awesome tool, and really fun to play with. Try some signal strength tests.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:Ever read "Prey" by spacecowboy420 · 2004-02-04 09:05 · Score: 1

Why didn't Ricky and Julia just give it to them in their sleep? Why wait for them to wake up? Just forego the drama and get on with ruling the world. And where was Mae the whole time he was wondering where she was - then *poof* here she is...And let's not forget how Mike just skipped the kids reaction about their mom. Great book, until the end - I swear I read it cover to cover in two sittings.

--
ymmv

Re:I for one... by IrishMist · 2004-02-04 09:10 · Score: 1

Shurely..

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things!?

Don't forget the Google pigeons! by IrishMist · 2004-02-04 09:14 · Score: 1

The technology behind Google's great results

Who are you? Gary Larson? by Bonewalker · 2004-02-04 09:20 · Score: 1

Cows and Chickens in The Far Side, were occasionally brilliant, and more often than not, constantly trying to outdo their human masters.

Talk about brilliant, Gary Larson is one funny and intelligent guy. We need a swarm of Larsons.

bittorrent by Pzykotic · 2004-02-04 09:21 · Score: 2, Informative

haha so wait, this is like the organic version of bittorrent?

send 10000 of these things to take a tiny piece of something and then they can rebuild it! mwahaha!

bring one.... one cow! go swarmbots!

maybe my ideas should be more gregarious, but eh. I'm selfish.

We will be "Prey"... by Elminst · 2004-02-04 09:48 · Score: 1

Only a matter of time...

Actually a pretty good book, too.

--
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

Re:Get off it by transient · 2004-02-04 09:50 · Score: 1

You don't have to be a meteorologist to know that every weather process is a result of heat exchange. That's basic stuff.

--

irb(main):001:0>

Ideas in insects by FlyingOrca · 2004-02-04 10:08 · Score: 1

To be able to do this it must have a general idea about what a hole in the ground is and how to make it.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that insects have ideas the way we think (of) "ideas". However, they do seem to have behaviour programmed into them... and that's plenty interesting and cool.

I've sometimes wondered whether ants, with their chemical communication systems, might not in effect form a single distributed organism, with its neurotransmitters on the outside.

Cheers!

--
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.

Re:Ideas in insects by tsa · 2004-02-05 00:16 · Score: 1

What I mean by 'idea' is of coarse that it has to understand the conceps 'hole', 'suitable larva to lay an egg in', etc... I wouln't even know how to begin to program that in a computer.

--
-- Cheers!
Re:Ideas in insects by FlyingOrca · 2004-02-05 02:04 · Score: 1

What I mean by 'idea' is of coarse that it has to understand the conceps 'hole', 'suitable larva to lay an egg in', etc... I wouln't even know how to begin to program that in a computer.

What I mean is that insects probably don't "understand" or form "concepts" as we do. I don't think a nervous system of insectile complexity supports awareness to that degree.

Which really begs the question - how do they do it, then? I figure it's a system of what we might think of as hard-coded heuristics - in other words, built in rules rather than ideation. It's no less awe-inspiring to contemplate.

And that brings us to the question, to what degree are we (and other cerebrally endowed species) subject to that kind of hard-wiring? Personally, I think it's a lot more than the "free-will" types would like to admit. I suspect it's one of those questions, though, where we can approach understanding but never quite grasp the definitive answer in all its complexity.

Still, it's fun to think about it. Cheers!

--
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
Re:Ideas in insects by tsa · 2004-02-05 04:30 · Score: 1

What I mean is that insects probably don't "understand" or form "concepts" as we do. I don't think a nervous system of insectile complexity supports awareness to that degree.

You're right (well maybe). And I was talking about 'material' concepts like holes and other insects. But I once saw a film about two insects fighting. One was clearly losing because he was pushed back further and further, but sometimes it also gained some ground back on its opponent. But eventually it gave up and walked away. Now you and I can see that it had lost, but how the hell did this insect know that?

Thinking about this really makes you crazy :-)

--
-- Cheers!

Stanislaw Lem invented it all by Mikoca · 2004-02-04 10:24 · Score: 1

And none of you geeks out there caught the Stanislaw Lem reference? I am disappointed.

Re:Ever read "Prey" by xeaxes · 2004-02-04 10:39 · Score: 1

I agree. It was good, up until the end. When it became very conventional and very jurassic park. Quick explanations too. Seemed like he got stuck and took the easy way out.

Julia stopped Ricky from giving it to him in his sleep because she thought he would come around I believe. I think that they thought Mae was infected, but weren't sure. So the swarms left her alone later. Stopping her wasn't their goal at the time. Total whiff on the Mom part. Chrichton's never been good with the person side of his stories though.

This one felt like a movie the entire time. :(

--

"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF

Who Gave the Grand Unified Theory? by Webz · 2004-02-04 10:44 · Score: 1

After a bit of Googling, I was a bit startling at something the article mentioned. Then again, this is the new issue of Weird. =)

On the last page/section of the article, you'll see "Will Wright's Grand Unified Theory". Wasn't Will Wright the guy that designed SimCity? Someone named Robert Wright occurs way more frequently next to "grand unified theory" on Google...

Re:Who Gave the Grand Unified Theory? by Webz · 2004-02-04 10:49 · Score: 1

The above post was so badly written... Apologies. It should read something like:
After a bit of Googling, I was startled at something the article mentioned. Then again, this is the new issue of Weird. =)

On the last page/section of the article, you'll see "Will Wright's Grand Unified Theory". Wasn't Will Wright the guy who designed SimCity? Someone named Robert Wright occurs way more frequently next to "grand unified theory" on Google than Will Wright does...

Re:Ever read "Prey" by spacecowboy420 · 2004-02-04 11:11 · Score: 1

Mae WAS infected, but where the fuck was she? Playing video games? Knocked out through out the whole magnet/ladder thing? And why would Julia stop Ricky? You could tell the swarm was controlling her actions [he even said so in the magnet room when they left Julia] and yeah, she said they won't hurt you if you don't fight but they were hurting them - eating them and they were willing. If they[the swarm] knew this and they were controlling Julia/Ricky's actions why worry about getting them to agree to it? Just get those guys on board - take over the world. Mike coulda had the Army come in and napalm/nuke the desert for an ending, you know someone managed to alert the outside or the owner dude got a conscience - or whatever. You're right - total movie 2005.

--
ymmv

Here come the replicators... by joseph+schmo · 2004-02-04 11:26 · Score: 1

"Typically, a swarm bot is a collection of simple robots (s-bots) that self-organize according to algorithms inspired by the bridge-building and task-allocation activities of ants."

Replicators, anyone?

Re:Ever read "Prey" by xeaxes · 2004-02-04 11:43 · Score: 1

I just finished the book a couple of days ago.

Mae said she was looking for more thermite out by the shed. They tried to infect her, but the brown virus cocktail worked. Unless, of course, she was infected, but then she would have stopped him. Unless, she evolved differently. Or, she didn't fight the swarm in her body, hence being at peace with it. Giving her time to help?

Maybe the swarms were acting independently?

Nuke would have been too Jurassic Park Raptor Nest. So, they went with the Spehere blow it up type stuff.

--

"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF

Re:Ever read "Prey" by edwdig · 2004-02-04 12:33 · Score: 1

Mae was in the shed looking for thermite.

Ricky did try to infect Mike while he was asleep, but Julia stopped him. It wasn't clear why, but she seemed to want Mike to accept it. Perhaps it was just some of her emotions showing through, and she thought he would be safer if he accepted it willingly.

The ending definately needed a little more wrapping things up.

I didn't see Robots -only RC's by Liquidape · 2004-02-04 14:07 · Score: 1

In all of the videos I watched on the site, NONE of the "swarmbots" appeared to robots any more than those on Battle Bots. They all had tethers, so how are they any differnt than the multibots seen on Battle Bots? They appeaered to be nothing more than RC toys with cool grabbers and flashing lights.

Don't get me wrong, the theory is cool and we could be close to the tech, but the implemenation shown is not impressive.

When they run without external control - then I'll be impressed.

--
I'll take free beer over free software any day.

Re:Ever read "Prey" by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-02-04 14:48 · Score: 1

i love that book, but i might be a herbert fanboy...

slash-bot == swarm-mod by axxackall · 2004-02-04 16:21 · Score: 1

Typically, a swarm bot is a collection of simple robots (s-bots) that self-organize according to algorithms inspired by the bridge-building and task-allocation activities of ants. And ant algorithms are used today to solve human problems especially in distribution and logistics.

Typically, a swarm mod (in other words - slash-bot) is a collection of simple mods (s-mods) that self-organize according to algorithms inspired by the karma rules, with addition of meta-moderation rules. And they are used today to solve human problems, especially in troll control.

--

Less is more !

Proof again that Terry Pratchett is the Man by oakbox · 2004-02-04 20:10 · Score: 1

The wizards of Discworld have built a computer named Hex that is powered by Ants, with bees being used for long-term information storage. Was he just lucky or 8 years ahead of the curve?

--
Not just answers, the correct questions.

swarmbots official website by ivoq · 2004-02-04 22:38 · Score: 1

The swarmbots official website is at www.swarm-bots.org . Go to this site for the latest swarmbots development and cool demos. Also the 3d physics-based simulator is available for academic purposes upon request, but you need a Vortex license.

Hi from an of the Swarmbot developper by nctysagoon.com · 2004-02-04 22:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Hi,

I'm one of the Swarmbot developper. I have been in charge of porting Linux to the motherboard of thwe s-bot as well as writing its system software. Let's have some interesting data about the s-bot :

9 degrees of freedom (2 wheels, turret rotation, elevation of gripper (can lift another s-bot), gripper (have 1.5 kg of pressure), mobile arm (3 dof), mobile gripper)
19 IR sensors (15 around, 4 bottom)
2D camera
4 microphones, 2 loudspeakers
light ring (8 RGB) and light sensors (8)
torque and speed sensors on major dof
accelerometer and structural deformation sensors
2 temperature and humidity sensors
13 PIC uC for local computation
One homemade 400 MHz X-Scale CPU board
Wifi
700 g, 2 hours autonomy

Direct links :
http://www.swarm-bots.org
http://lsa1pc65.epfl.ch/research/projects/SwarmBot s/index.php

Have a nice day,

Steph

From SF to Science by nctysagoon.com · 2004-02-04 22:54 · Score: 1

Real science guys :
IAS8-swarmbot-final ;-)

Steph

Want to play with ants ? by nctysagoon.com · 2004-02-04 22:58 · Score: 1

Hi,

In addition to a Swarmbot developper, I'm also making glob2, a free software game that has bio-inspired work allocation to units, thus reducing micro-managment. Try it out it's GPL :-)

Steph

It's too late... by db10 · 2004-02-04 23:10 · Score: 1

...to run... the swarmbots are already here! (detachable lasers, plasma rifles, and chainsaws not included.)

Swarmbot descriptions in literature by Birger+Johansson · 2004-02-08 12:23 · Score: 1

For descriptions of what swarmbots might be like in real life, I recommend three novels by Stanislaw Lem ; "The Invincible" (about self-evolving swarmbots),
"Peace On Earth" and finally "Fiasco" where swarmbots ("synsects") are used as information collectors. In "Peace On Earth" there is also mentioned the possibility that swarmbots may assemble to create larger military machines in an era when automated battlefield surveillance will make it suicidal for a conventional large vehicle to try to cross a battlefield.
Yours Birger Johansson.

131 of 176 comments (clear)