Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Grand Challenge Updates

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the coming-right-up dept.

GraffitiKnight writes "After only 1 team managed to successfully navigate the DARPA Qualifying course, DARPA has rewritten the rules to let almost everyone compete. Wired has the story, which also mentions rumors that the race will run to 150 miles, much less than the original plans of 210 - 300 miles." Here is some earlier Slashdot coverage of the race.

52 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. If I was that one team... by Mz6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would be pissed! To change the rules at the last minute to allow the teams that didn't do designing so well? Stupid!

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:If I was that one team... by santiago · · Score: 3, Funny

      As a member of the CMU Robotics Institute, though not Red Team, I must add that this is such a rip...well, okay, I guess we can let the others compete, but we still win, right?

    2. Re:If I was that one team... by Razor+Blades+are+Not · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only a qualifying round.

      Look at it this way - it's more fun to watch them fail in your dust behind you as you streak past them into the distance than it is to race alone.

      After all, if they couldn't qualify, but are allowed to race anyway, what chance do they have of beating the better designs ? Very little.

  2. Man, I can't wait for the 8th version of this race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear that it will be the machines hunting a prisoner or something over a 150 mile course.

  3. This demonstrates.. by GearheadX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..that there's something wrong with DARPA's mentality.

    You don't accept substandard results if nobody can produce. This is something you intend to throw massive money on eventually, you'd want the would-be contractors to put up or shut up real quick.

    1. Re:This demonstrates.. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Do they think that the unmanned drones are going to end up in LESS hostile environments, whether they end up in combat or on mars? Pathetic.

      If this is an example of their evalutation procedures, and form everything I've seen it is, it's no wonder we end up with such high failure rates.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:This demonstrates.. by metlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But if DARPA pulled out because of substandard results, they run the risk of being bad-mouthed, and perhaps even losing cred.

      And the next time around they conduct something like this, not too many people would be willing to compete.

      However, this lets DARPA see more entries - agreed, some crappy ones - but a lot of good ones which are good but would have otherwise not made it. Besides, its really too early to say anything, so lets see.

    3. Re:This demonstrates.. by nacturation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't accept substandard results if nobody can produce. This is something you intend to throw massive money on eventually, you'd want the would-be contractors to put up or shut up real quick.

      Then again, this is very very early in development for all teams involved. Should they cancel the event or only have one team competing? Kinda ruins the whole purpose. DARPA set an ambitious goal and, seeing that the technology wasn't quite there yet, revised the goal. Nothing wrong with that. It encourages people to participate and, by allowing more teams to actually get involved with the competition, mistakes will be made, they will learn what not to do, and the science will advance.

      Remember, they're not ordering a few billion dollars worth of equipment yet. This is mostly a proof-of-concept event to foster investment from outside parties. Start small, encourage teams to make advancements, then hold a more challenging event in a year or two. Seems like a good way to do it to me.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:This demonstrates.. by bmongar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not so sure letting them compete is such a crime. It's not like they have agreed to a multimillion dollar contract with some company that can't produce. If the designs suck they won't win, no money out of DARPA's pocket.
      However a poorly designed bot can have a desing feature that if developed by the right people would be usefull. This lets DARPA see how some of these potential inovations will perform.

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    5. Re:This demonstrates.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes there is. Aren't these the guys who said we got too many entrance applications so only the big boys can play?

      To now turn round and say OK we scared of the little people so we can "open it to everyone" seems a little disigenuous at best and base cronyism at worst.

    6. Re:This demonstrates.. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2, Insightful


      The problem isn't that the teams are all substandard, the problem is that (as documented in earlier Slashdot articles) the original qualification standards were set unrealistically high. Remember when everyone was complaining about all the extra hoops the teams have to jump through in order to qualify, making it seem like only a large company or university sponsored team could qualify? Well, all those hoops produced this result and they finally rethought it.

      I don't agree with making the challenge significantly easier than originally planned, but there is more good than bad to be had by allowing more teams to at least try it!

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    7. Re:This demonstrates.. by einTier · · Score: 2, Informative
      I thought the main reason they limited the field is because tracking 200 autonomous vehicles over a 200 mile course and ensuring they don't hurt anyone during their travels is a logistical nightmare.

      But now that it looks like the vast majority of the field won't make 200 feet, it's a whole new ballgame. When you only have to watch a football field size of land, it almost becomes pointless how many vehicles are wandering around inside it. So, why not let everyone race? It appears that most won't make it very far at all, and those that manage to do so will be easy to track. The defense department also gets a added bonus in that they get to evaluate a lot of different robotic equipment and a lot of different methods of robotic navigation. Perhaps there will be something in there that no one who was invited to the qualifying rounds thought of and is quite successful.

      Just like in evolution, you never know which mutation will be the one that proves successful over time. The best way to ensure survivability or success is to have an extremely broad gene pool. If everyone shares a homogenous gene pool, then whatever environmental process destroys one stands a good chance of destroying the whole bunch. Having everyone race is a good thing.

      Plus, after today, everyone knows that Sandstorm is the best vehicle, and having a race with one vehicle isn't very much fun to watch or very useful.

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
  4. Frank Dellaert was right by ayatollah+jones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the Previous Story

    Quoting Frank Dellaert, co-director of Georgia Tech's robotics lab from the article, 'I would have trouble driving some of these roads myself. I think it's beyond the capabilities of autonomous vehicles today.'

    I guess he was right after all...

  5. how fun would it be to watch a 1 team race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I was the one team racing unless there was a time restriction I'd go Mars rover slow.

    No sense taking risks when there are no competition.

    1. Re:how fun would it be to watch a 1 team race? by toltas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this was the whole idea, DARPA wants to make sure they have some kind of "race" on their hands, not just one team putting along till the end.

      The Carnegie Mellon entry looks to be functioning properly at low speeds, but has had some problems staying up at higher speeds.

      I think at least having more teams will force the CM team to actually make this a race instead of a walk.

    2. Re:how fun would it be to watch a 1 team race? by SiliconEntity · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think this was the whole idea, DARPA wants to make sure they have some kind of "race" on their hands, not just one team putting along till the end.

      Keep in mind that they're doing sequential starts. So it won't really be a race, just a long course with a few vehicles strung out one behind another. Far behind. And lots of disabled vehicles which have been shut down and pushed off the course (those few which even made it out of the starting gate).

      DARPA is setting up a live update page where you'll be able to get a map of the course and watch in real time where the vehicles are during the race.

      According to this schedule the first vehicle (which will be CMU's Sandstorm) is scheduled to depart at 6:15 AM PST on Saturday.

  6. Not all cases are as clear-cut... by kevinatilusa · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...as the article makes them out to be.

    All the Wired article states about the Caltech and Ohio State teams is that "The squads from Caltech and Ohio State University were also allowed in, even though their drones did not complete the obstacle course. "

    From the Caltech team site: "Bob completed the test route flawlessly until the last few feet. He was stopped by DARPA officials seven feet away from the final obstacle -- although had he been allowed to continue, he may have stopped himself in time..."

    Seems close enough to me.

    1. Re:Not all cases are as clear-cut... by SiliconEntity · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Wired article was written on Tuesday night; the Caltech and Ohio State teams went ahead and qualified on Wednesday. At the time Wired was writing, it was correct that only one team had qualified. As of last night, three teams have done so. See the DARPA media page for updates on who has made it so far.

      The Wired article also speculates that even teams which don't complete the qualifier will be allowed to try the race, but I haven't seen any confirmation of that on the DARPA site. Of course, if a robot can't make it through a one mile practice track, it's unlikely to get across 150 miles of desert. But letting them try would make for a more exciting race day.

    2. Re:Not all cases are as clear-cut... by switcha · · Score: 2, Funny
      But letting them try would make for a more exciting race day.

      Yep. I think all who want to enter but failed the practice course, should only be allowed in if they lock the throttle on their vehicles to "Full".

      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  7. See, this proves the Challenge was a good idea! by metrazol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DARPA put up a $1,000,000 cold hard cash for an autonomous vehicle and they got dozens of shoddy immitations that couldn't even navigate the test course.

    Normally they have to pay a defense contractor BILLIONS to get something that doesn't work.

    They saved loads of money, and they don't have to pay until it works, unlike, oh, other DoD projects, like the Osprey, Comanche, Patriot, TW Missile Defense, etc.

    --
    "Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
    1. Re:See, this proves the Challenge was a good idea! by metrazol · · Score: 4, Funny

      Theater Wide Missile Defense, has a fancier name. Basically a mobile (naval at the moment) ballistic missile defense system that can protect an entire theater of war.

      Example: Park a couple of cruisers in the Persian Gulf, no more Scud threat. Problem is, well, it "works" if, as someone else mentioned, the target has a "big neon sign on it saying 'Hit Me'"

      The Patriot does work...it shoots down allied planes very, very well. Enemy missiles..well...sometimes. I mean, hitting 50% of missiles incoming, now that's HUGE. But shooting down allied planes before the operator can go, "NO WAIT STOP! ESC! ESC! Crtl-Alt-Del!" that's not so good.

      The Comanche worked, 10 years and $8,000,000,000 in. The Osprey works, assuming you take care of the things, which they didn't, and what "working" for an Osprey means is a little fuzzy. Works as in "Takes off and lands" or works as in "Replaces Blackhawks and Chinooks as a troop transport." The DoD and DARPA have a few major screw ups that cost billions of dollars, look at Star Wars, a lot of the new luggage screening tools, and some of their more novel toys as an example. DARPA of course, has an excuse, since they do research and not everything is even supposed to work, just prove a concept, test an idea, or do something new, even if not useful.

      DoD on the other hand? They have no excuse. They build things that don't work all the time, but they aren't doing research. They're in the business of doing damage, and not to their own employees and soldiers.

      --
      "Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
  8. You know what they say... by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    When at first you don't succeed - lower your standards!

    I'm sure if every project follows this model of diminishing goals, morale will be at all time high and productivity will skyrocket! I mean, failure is a terrible thing and nobody should be forced to cope with it and try to do better. Trying is hard!

    Hey, it works for the public education system, right?

    ...right?

    Screw it. If one team qualifies, one team takes the challenge. Chances are they're a shoe-in anyway considering they've already proven themselves more capable.

    To all those that failed: Better luck next year, guys!
    =Smidge=

    1. Re:You know what they say... by sonpal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Screw it. If one team qualifies, one team takes the challenge. Chances are they're a shoe-in anyway considering they've already proven themselves more capable.

      I couldn't agree more. I was in a team from my old University at an IEEE contest. Our robot had to find an IR signal that was modulated at 100 Khz with 50 mA (don't quote me on the exact numbers) through the IR emitter. Then we had to drive our robot to the emitter and do a few things, all autonomous.

      We found out that it was really challenging to do this in practice... the signal was too weak and there was too much noise introduced by the filter and our amplifier. So we used lenses to get more light... complicated, given the overall dimensions and scope of the project, but pretty innovative.

      We got there, and the university hosting the contest found that other teams (and their own team) were having a hard time seeing the IR emitter. So they doubled the current. Of course, then our reception system was too sensitive (couldn't remove the lenses because of packaging issues) because IR was bouncing off all kinds of things and we were picking it up. We tried to argue, but the hosts stated that it was in the interests of the contest (and of course, the home team).

      Moral of the story: if you're going to organize a contest with rules, screw making the contest more interesting and stick with fair play. If the specs are published, and contestants don't make the specs, don't take away from the efforts of the contestants that actually made the specs. And no home teams to bias the judges.

  9. Lowered Expectations by IAmTheDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I can't say this is a good thing. If only one qualified, then the rest need to go back to the drawing board.

    It's the same in any situation. If you lower your expectations, you'll get a lesser product/whatever. If it can't make it 200 miles, then it isn't worthy of being in the race.

    My 2 cents, anywho...

    --
    Excuse my speling.
    Making The Bar Project
  10. ob. Simpsons Quote by dhalgren99 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I say we must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling twirling twirling towards freedom!"
    -Kodos

  11. Funny [Ironic] Stab at DARPA by auburnate · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think its funny [ironic] that DARPA added chlorine to the talent pool initially, thus eliminating many would be contestants, and now they are faced with so few "eligible" entrants. Maybe they should go back, apologize to some of the "out of the home garage" participants, and invite them to replace the a few of the multi-million dollar corporate-sponsored failures. All this from a humble robot loving gEEk.

    -- You can't spell geek without a EE.

    1. Re:Funny [Ironic] Stab at DARPA by enjo13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny, we built a fully autonomous robot capable of self navigation on a budget of less than $5,000 (University research fund money). It was even capable of responding to hand signals (as long as you where wearing a red shirt:) ) and doing useful work based on those.

      It had it's shortcomings, primarily due to the platform we built it on. It didn't have the neccesary sensors/mechanics needed to do TRULY useful tasks (such as pour beer), but we accomplished quite a bit on a very very tight budget.

      In my experience, money is rarely a significant indicator of a projects ability to succeed.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
  12. Re:Typical Government Working.... by ObiWonKanblomi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not! If anything, the govt. had very high standards on this competition.

    Take the development of the stealth fighter, aka the F11A. For the preliminary round of competition, all the competing firms had a simpler start: make a model of a plane that could withstand wind tunnel and radar tests. It was way lower in scale, and was only the shell reflecting the shape of the plane. Not to mention these guys had about 6months to a year to develop just this.

    With this precedent in mind, this competition was asking *way* too much for within the alloted time. Perhaps they could have used model cars or golf carts over a smaller distance of terrain. Or perhaps just one terrain as a preliminary test.

    baby steps...

  13. 4 Teams are now qualified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Darpa put out a press release yesterday after
    the Wired article. Three more teams have qualified:

    SciAutonics II, Team Cal Tech, and Virginia Tech

    See: http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/media_news.htm

  14. I think this article is out of date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Notice its dated 10 AM yesterday.

    The Virginia Tech team at least claims on its website that they completed the qualifying course.

    http://www.me.vt.edu/grandchallenge/

  15. Re:Unfortunately, Team Underbot out of the running by nacturation · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What kind of data are you preloading to help with the route planning? Contour map? Satellite imagery? Hand-crafted data, etc.?

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  16. More than one team has passed the QID by Pepsiman · · Score: 5, Informative
    From qid_results3.pdf:

    The results of the attempts of today's group break down as follows:

    • SciAutonics II, Team Cal Tech and Virginia Tech completed the course.
    • Team CIMAR , Team ENSCO, TerraMax nearly completed the course.
    • Axion Racing, Digital Auto Drive, The Golem Group, Palos Verdes High School, Team CajunBot, TerraHawk partially completed the course.
    • The Blue Team, Rover Systems, SciAutonics I and Team Phantasm terminated their attempts.
  17. autonomous robots? DARPA? STOP! by thomas_klopf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, besides the endless references to Terminator I could make, this really sucks. So, we have high-school kids doing weapons research free of charge for the DOD now?

    I sincerely wish that people would put more ethical concerns regarding science in the right place. While people are bemoaning the evils of stem cell research, we're happily spending money on this sort of thing.

    The happy-go-lucky attitude of the article, the competition, and not to mention slashdot is a little disturbing as well. Heyhey! That's right kids, it's time for the Darpa Competition! Just build us a robot that can run around by itself, and we'll take care of putting a gun on it. It's science-fun, just like Mr. Wizard! Even Dad's helping out!

    This isn't just "neat" stuff - this is stuff that has an impact in the real world, and I suggest that those people involved consider what sorts of contributions they're making. Personally, I would appreciate them not building autonomous robots for the DOD.

    1. Re:autonomous robots? DARPA? STOP! by SwansonMarpalum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wish there was a -1: Luddite.

      --
      "Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
    2. Re:autonomous robots? DARPA? STOP! by Pyromage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You haven't made much of a case, really. I don't really think it's ethically and morally wrong to perform research like this. I don't understand your problem with it.

      Sure, it'll be used for weapons. It'll also be used by NASA and the private sector. Why is it better to send a human into battle than a robot? I really don't feel that it's better to have an imperfect human instead of an imperfect robot.

      Sure, it's research into how to make war more effectively. But I think we can accept that war does happen, and the U.S. fights a lot of wars. Maybe it shouldn't, but I don't think it's wrong to give our boys in the field the best support money can buy.

      I think you should also consider that as technology has advanced, the wars have gotten cleaner. Do you have any idea of the brutality of the American Civil War? Or the number of people killed in our carpet-bombing runs of World War II?

      Do you know the number of people killed when we used smartbombs to take out the specific buildings (we used to be happy just finding the right city!) that we targeted in Afghanistan?

      I am for anything that lets our military be more effective. It directly protects American citizens around the world.

  18. Re:Unfortunately, Team Underbot out of the running by Ophidian+P.+Jones · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm curious- what sort of shocks were you using?

    Whether or not you do a lot of heavy duty off-roading, you should look at the higher end, heavy duty shocks for your vehicle. They may cost you a lot now, but will not require replacement down the road. The cheaper shocks will save you $$$ now, but may cost you in terms of poorer performance later on.

    I've cooled on Monroe stuff after my experiences with Monroe shocks in my father's 73 Suburban. The shocks lasted about 15,000 miles before I needed to replace them again. I've also experienced quality problems with other Monroe items, notably gas-charged struts, in the past 5 to 6 years. Maybe it's just my bad luck...

    If you don't want a gas shock, look at a Gabriel Adjustable "E" shock for all four corners. These are a hydraulic-only shock with an adjustment that allows you to set the ride from very soft to rock hard. Pay attention to the instructions, though, because if you set the shock too hard, you can rip suspension mounts. I put a pair of these in the back end of the aforementioned Suburban, and ripped one of the shock mounts off the rear axle! You can avoid this problem by having a competent welding shop reinforce the welds on the axle. Note: I do not know if these are still available, the last set I purchased was almost 6 years ago. I purchased these shocks through Super Shops, but anyone who handles the Gabriel line of shocks should be able to tell you if they are available.

  19. Business as usual by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You don't accept substandard results if nobody can produce. This is something you intend to throw massive money on eventually, you'd want the would-be contractors to put up or shut up real quick.

    You mean like the 'Star Wars" Missile Defense System which has failed numerous tests of increasing ease, but is being used anyway because "it beats nothing", except that "nothing" doesn't violate treaties we signed, creates a false sense of security, doesn't motivate anyone to 'get it right' and wastes trillions of dollars.

    Or the Patriot Defense System, which routinely targeted friendly aircraft during development, failed miserably the first time it was put into use(for a use it was never intended- it's never been used for what it was originally designed for, shooting down planes) and then 10+ years later was used again and resulted in the deaths of dozens of UK soldiers because it couldn't tell the difference between a helicopter traveling at less than 100 kt and an enemy missile traveling over the speed of sound?

    Or the Osprey tiltrotor, which suffered an astronomical failure rate and again, caused dozens of deaths of US marines?

    Then there's the Comanche helicopter, which they've been kicking around for years and finally decided, after spending billions, to just say "oh well, so much for that"?

    The defense department is famous for bidding scandals(if contracts are put out to bid at all), and being happy to look the other way and fudge the requirements(or ignore them completely) if the system fails to meet original requirements.

    Curiously, the russians never quite had such problems. Their fighter jets, for example, don't require pristine runways and constant maintenance; they're built like tanks, because the people who designed them knew they'd be held responsible if it failed unreasonably...and responsible doesn't mean "loose their job", it means "end up in Siberia" or "in a river with a bullet through your brain".

    This country needs three things. First, a true capitalist system for defense contractors. You want to sell the Army a tank? Fine. You can do so all on your own, without a single fucking dime, and then try and sell it. If it can't compete, too bad, your company goes under- that's the way capitalism works. Second, defense contractors need to be held responsible for when their products fail. Refunds for starters, contracts that can be invalidated on failure, civil/criminal punishments for gross design/construction failures. Third, absolutely, positively, no secret budgets of any kind. I am entirely pissed off with the pentagon filling up with all the kids who had secret treehouse clubs when they were kids and want to do the same shit now that they're 40.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
    1. Re:Business as usual by LordHunter317 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or the Patriot Defense System, which routinely targeted friendly aircraft during development, failed miserably the first time it was put into use(for a use it was never intended- it's never been used for what it was originally designed for, shooting down planes) and then 10+ years later was used again and resulted in the deaths of dozens of UK soldiers because it couldn't tell the difference between a helicopter traveling at less than 100 kt and an enemy missile traveling over the speed of sound?
      Don't blame the technology when its being used in perverted ways. You yourself said that is meant for shooting down planes. It should not have shocked anyone when they tried to use it for something else and it didn't work.

      The defense department is famous for bidding scandals(if contracts are put out to bid at all), and being happy to look the other way and fudge the requirements(or ignore them completely) if the system fails to meet original requirements.
      I'd like you to name a bidding scandal then. Also, requirements are usually dropped because they were pointless in teh first place or just plain wrong. Valid requirements are rarely relaxed. Remember, requirements documents are written by committe. What sounds good on paper frequently doesn't work in real life. Anyone who's spent even a day on a goverment contract knows this.


      This country needs three things. First, a true capitalist system for defense contractors. You want to sell the Army a tank? Fine. You can do so all on your own, without a single fucking dime, and then try and sell it. If it can't compete, too bad, your company goes under- that's the way capitalism works.
      That's completely impractical. It costs too much to design a tank -- only about 3 or 4 companies in the United State could do it. Furthermore, the gov't doesn't want your tank, they want their tank. Most contracts work like this:

      • The goverment decides they want something
      • They hire someone to design it for them
      • They then pay someone to make it

      Its done this way on purpose, because the goverment likes to be in control.

      Second, defense contractors need to be held responsible for when their products fail. Refunds for starters, contracts that can be invalidated on failure, civil/criminal punishments for gross design/construction failures. Actually, they are held liable. There is this long whole process called testing, the contractor is liable until the item passes the tests. The gov't won't assume liability until it passes tests.

      Third, absolutely, positively, no secret budgets of any kind. I am entirely pissed off with the pentagon filling up with all the kids who had secret treehouse clubs when they were kids and want to do the same shit now that they're 40.
      The fact that you bring this up at all proves that you have no idea WTF you are talking about. People outside the defence community rarely understand the need for such paranoia or why we have it. But let me put it to you this way: how many security leaks do we have and have had in this country? The answer: not many. The reason: because the gov't takes security seriously, and understands it better to secure too much than secure too little.

    2. Re:Business as usual by adamfranco · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd like you to name a bidding scandal then.

      Dick Cheney's Haliburton was awarded contracts for Iraqi oil-field work without even bidding.

      Dick Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, states that the Halliburton is paying him a "deferred compensation" of up to $1million a year following his resignation as chief executive in 2000. -- from CorpWatch

      Nope, no scandal here...

      --
      "When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
  20. Let them drive through this! by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok, let them drive through this. I mean, I just can't figure it out. :D
    (btw no need to click on the images etc. just crap below)

  21. Very bad robots by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The Ohio State monster truck rammed a mini-van (picture) on Tuesday. On Wednesday, it was stopped before running down a course obstacle. And DARPA is letting them attempt the actual event?

    The QID was pathetic. We spent two days watching vehicles move around at 1MPH and hit big, obvious obstacles. No way can most of those vehicles operate effectively offroad.

    The big design mistakes seem to be these:

    • Using a laser rangefinder aimed horizontally forward as primary obstacle detection. That doesn't work reliably on either dark or smooth objects. The black mini-van was both.
    • Using fixed line scanners. If you miss a data point, you're stuck. There's no way to take a second look.
    • Overreliance on vision. Computer vision in unstructured situations has a very poor track record.

    Only CMU is doing well. It's not the money, by the way. Their actual cash outlays are only about $300K to date. It's the body count and the fear. They have about fifty people on the project, a slavedriver boss, and the full backing of CMU. CMU has to do well; most of the Robotics Institute funding over the last three decades is from DARPA, and DARPA can turn that money off at any time.

    John Nagle
    Team Overbot

  22. Re:Unfortunately, Team Underbot out of the running by blackmonday · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... The pathfinding strategy is indeed borrowed from video game technology.

    You see, good things came from the Half-Life 2 source code leak.

  23. TerraMax photos by incuso · · Score: 3, Informative

    Photos of our vehicle: http://vislab.ce.unipr.it/terramax/

  24. Check the dates! by KenBot_314 · · Score: 3, Informative

    C'mon Slashdot!

    The official rules linked from the Wired article have not been updated since January 4, 2004.

    The rules actually refer to the field test part of the QID as a Demonstration of basic abilities. It never says anywhere in the rules that they have to fully complete the demonstration to be qualified.
    The rules have always stated that 25 teams would make it to QID but only 20 teams would actually compete in the race.

    Yet another shining example of the media trying to make news where there is none...

  25. Karma Troll: Unfortunately, Team Underbot... by SiliconEntity · · Score: 3, Informative

    I run one of the Grand Challenge teams, Team Overbot...

    This is a karma troll; it's been reposted every time we discuss this race. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99774&cid=8506 386 from March 8 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=83384&cid=7297 464 from October 23. The actual author is John Nagle, aka Animats. Please mod it down (and then you can mod this down too.)

  26. NPR news story on 3/13/2004 by redwoodtree · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here in the states NPR had a good story on one of the teams yesterday (wednesday) during their All Things Considered show. You can listen to the show here:

    NPR LINK

    The NPR Summary of the story is: At the crack of dawn this Saturday, a 200-mile race across the Mojave Desert begins. The competitors are robotic vehicles taking on the form of SUVs, dune buggies and golf carts. It's a contest sponsored by the Pentagon to spur advancements in the field of robotics. NPR's Melissa Block talks with competitor Red Whittaker.

  27. Red Team can't really "win" in my opinion by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The Red Team is favored by everyone to win, but is it really winning? What they have done is constructed an amazingly accurate and detailed map of every last bit of topography, down to the size of a big rock, of the region the race is going to be in. Their on-board sensors and navigation equipment doesn't have to do much sensing and navigation at all; they will get a foot-by-foot map of where they should be going. This doesn't strike me as "autonomous". It strikes me as just another version of remote control. Their victory will be an impressive technical feat but it certainly isn't the same as having a vehicle that you can plop down on unknown rugged terrain (be it a war zone or the surface of Mars) and have it get around on its own.

    I will be more impressed if the autonomous motorcycle makes it ten miles than I will be for Red Team to win the whole thing, because at least this bike is fully autonomous and has some radical new ideas going into it, instead of just tons of resources and brute-force mapping.

    ----------
    Host your WAP site, automatically

    1. Re:Red Team can't really "win" in my opinion by feelyoda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, there is certainly is misunderstanding of what it takes to do this.

      A "negative obstacle", i.e. a hole, 1/2 meter deep could very easily be missed by the map. This would cause most cars to crash, and is very hard for even humans to detect.

      This is one example of dozens of things you MUST perceive in real time. To say that the Red Team isn't really autonomous is insane, and you have little appreciation for 1) their action setup, 2) how hard the problem is.

      Besides, humans most certainly have some sort of impressive map making capabilities that let you find the bathroom with no lights on. That is no small feat.

      Look around redteamracing.org a bit more to learn what they are actually doing before letting your jealousy get in the way of your head. (Also note that the motorcycle is ridiculous. Since when is it easier to keep a two-wheeled machine stable under off-road conditions than a hummer? They have engineered their own failing...

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
  28. Negative Spin by SiliconEntity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm concerned that the spin on this event from much of the news media is negative. It's starting to look like DARPA will end up with egg on their face if none of the vehicles do well.

    What these writers forget is that the event was intentionally designed to be incredibly difficult. In earlier news releases, the idea was expressed that this would be something that would be run every year until a robot manages to win it. This is in the spirit of other super-difficult prize competitions, like the X-Prize or the ancient quest to develop a method to compute the geographic longitude of a ship.

    It's too bad that an inventive, flexible and interesting approach by DARPA is being spun as a failure just because the first tries haven't been all that successful. I'm really hoping that no teams win and that DARPA does run it again next year, because by then we'll have many more good contestants. This year's entries will have gotten the basic bugs out of their systems and be genuinely ready to tackle the course; and there will be a few new entrants as well, finishing up at the last minute and just hoping that they have something that will run. Each year will see improvement. To me that would be far more interesting and enlightening than a one shot deal.

  29. Funny DARPA Rules by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Funny


    3. The participating teams are not required to develop an Emergency-Stop system. DARPA will provide and operate the E-stop for all teams.

    I like that rule, personally. Here's a quick translation.


    3. Your vehicle is not required to have an Emergency-Stop system. We have tanks which will provide and operate the E-stop at all times. Hope that allieviates your concerns!!!111

  30. Was that a flaw? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the look of things, the Ohio State Robot just decided that it could go right through something as tiny as a van - I think it had the right idea, they just stopped it before it could uttery crush the van.

    Was there some kind of rule against destroying objects in your path instead of navigating around them?

    Actually I am half serious as what happens to an automated supply convoy when the lead vehicle is destroyed by a mine? You'd hope the remaining vehichles could just push the thing out of the way and go on.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  31. Re:Feeds by ben184 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The company I work for is doing the official media photo coverage for the event. We update the photos daily, direct from the event.

    Here's the URL: www.tracksidephoto.com/DARPA

    There are full resolution, 6 mega-pixel images avaliable for download, but please don't take our servers down, K?