Slashdot Mirror
Toyota's Trumpet Playing Robot Showcased
fsharp writes "The New York Times has an article discussing the first public showing of Toyota's new humanoid robot. During a demonstration, the biped robot played trumpet together with a rolling robot. Most telling about the article was the whole philosophy towards R&D: 'Toyota acknowledges that it is unlikely to turn a profit building robots anytime soon, but the program highlights its engineering-oriented culture and willingness to invest in projects that may not pay off for decades.' How many companies these days are willing to drop money into some technology that may not turn a profit for many years?"
...it's called R&D. What won't make money today, will be "necessity" tomorrow, and then that's when you get people to pay.
Furthermore, even if the technology itself doesn't automatically pan out (ie, humanoid robots), it may still have profitable applications in other areas (ie, prosthetics).
libertarianswag.com
"How many companies these days are willing to drop money into some technology that may not turn a profit for many years?"
The kind that is already doing very well financially and wants to solidify a reputation of innovation. Similar to Microsoft's $1 billion donation to Africa.
How about most drug companies.
Well in all fairness, the US does have 2 autonomous robots exploring the surface of another planet. Though I agree a Trumpet playing robot would make a cooler party gimmick
Something to consider about Japan and their rise in technology, is that since the end of WWII, they haven't had a military to take up financing, (or resources, or R&D, etc..) thus leaving the government, and the culture as a whole, to focus on something else...like business and technology.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
It pisses me off that no American company today would ever do something like this.
That is because Wall Street is so concerned with short-term profits. Gasoline is at an all-time high while Toyota/Honda are the only companies that had the patience to develop a profitable solution to the problem. In 1997 when Toyota introduced the hybrid, they were losing lots of money on every unit sold. Now, they are selling that same technology to US-based companies.
Now, Ford isn't buying Toyota technology because it makes environmental sense. Rather, they are doing it because it makes sense for short-term profits - the same mindset that got them into this situation in the first place. This mentality will catch up to the US sooner or later. And where is solar energy?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Ford and GM don't have to innovate because the prices of Japanese cars are artifically high in the U.S. due to taxes on imports designed to "level the playing field."
We don't need to have all these tariffs on products imported from countries that have the same standard of living that we do. The Japanese work hard, yes, but they are paid first world salaries so if the prices of their automobiles is low, it is because they are damn good at building cars and if they want to work a little harder than us to do it, more power to them.
On the other hand cars imported from Mexico (like the VW I drive) are produced at the expense of some Mexican making 70 cents an hour. We can't have free trade in this scenerio or we'll all be living in cardboard lean-tos just like our counterparts south of the border.
IBM is a US company, who has invested billions into technology that is not in use. They were the 1rst company to arrange individual atoms (spelling IBM). They made a processor that uses atoms as transistors. They don't use any of it in production, but probably will some day. I think that you underestimate many US companies with your statement.
| Japan and their rise in technology, is that
| since the end of WWII, they haven't had a
| military to take up financing, (or resources, or
| R&D, etc..)
True, but the huge amount that the US spends on Military is largely by choice.
Is it really necessary to have sufficient armaments to destroy the planet seven times over? Is it really necessary to have sufficient firepower to independantly forcibly take over any other country/contitent on the planet?
And are these things more important than education, health care etc etc.
Every country sets its own agenda. The US wants to be the untouchable goliath of military power. If the US wanted to be the world leader in non-military research and development, they could be.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Every country sets its own agenda. The US wants to be the untouchable goliath of military power. If the US wanted to be the world leader in non-military research and development, they could be.
Very, very true. But, it just wouldn't be The American Way if we didn't have the ability to police the world. However, if you pay close attention to the history of how the US became involved in various wars,[read: WWI, WWII] you'll see we re-acted to outside influences. Had those not come along, the US may never have invested so heavily in a war machine. (Just my $0.02.)
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Not to diminish the tremendous accomplishments of our extraplanetary explorations, but I think it probably wouldn't be happening if it weren't for government sponsorship, solely because of the immediate unprofitability.
I think the parent's point was that it's not foreign nations, but corporations that are willing to invest in these 'party gimmicks' that have no immediate application. As with the case of exploring mars, there is an intrisic value in pushing the boundries to any extent in any field.
I hear you on the technical aspects, but I think its just as impressive that a robot was built nearly 270 years ago that could play a flute. And hell, the guy made a robotic duck that could eat,drink,quack and deficate as well! Where's your shitting robot Toyota?!?! :D
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!