Robots That Serve Beyond The Vacuum

Tim Brown of Mobile Robotics writes "While everyone has been debating the abilities of new robotic vacuum cleaners and their varying price tags, Siemens has quietly announced they have developed a 'Dressman' robot that will iron your clothes! (my least favorite household chore). Rumoured to be priced at US$1700 it seems expensive for an iron. But it appears that the Roomba's best work might be that it is ushering in a new era of innovation in home products. (Note very cool picture with the article.)"

Comments

$1700 eh?

[Moderator]

Man, for $1700 this thing better do military creases.

Re:$1700 eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

4 shirts an hour
you'd thing is was pretty meticulous

Re:$1700 eh?

[Total_Wimp]

And what about autonomy? I expect an apliance that is in the category of "robot" to be able to take a pile of clothes and end up with a bunch of shirts on hangers. After setup, Roomba needs little assistance to get the job done where this device needs an operator for every shirt.

If this is a robot, then so is my dishwasher, clothes washing machine and even my blender.

TW

Re:$1700 eh?

[JWSmythe]

Read the article again, no creases at all. :(

It's a $1700 glorified hair dryer. Judging by the last line that says "ironing dummy can be washed in the washing machine", I'd have to guess the whole thing is a fabric on a frame. You put your shirt over the cloth on the frame, and turn it on with a rotary knob (no sensor to detect dry). It takes up to 15 minutes to do one shirt. It doesn't load itself, it doesn't take the now dried and wrinkle free shirt, and fold it. It's simply a blow dryer. Worse yet, a blow dryer that can only do shirts. My girlfriend has dresses, skirts, pants, shirts, etc, etc, that she irons. I have pants and shirts that I'd theoretically iron. Ok, I still do the wash, dry, hang up before they get cold method. :) But, for $1700, it'd better do more than half of my ironing needs.

This thing is far from being a robot. I'd rather call my electric toothbrush a robot. It has just as many functions (on/off).

Re:$1700 eh?

[JPriest]

Exactly, this thing is a hairdryer on a stick.

Re:$1700 eh?

[gralem]

I thought the title was referring to the "Terrible Vacuum of Space"! Not these household robots pushing vacuums around and shoving irons.

Re:$1700 eh?

[luagnayr]

Actually, this can't be doing well. This article is from a couple weeks ago, and I saw one of these things at Wal-Mart in Munich (in the Europa Industry Park - for curious shoppers)last weekend for 900 . That's a pretty hefty discount for something that just came out. It seemed like an overpriced steamer. If I'd known it was a "robot" I would have cared.

Re:$1700 eh?

[orthogonal]

Man, for $1700 this thing better do military creases.

I've always loved the idea of home robotics, but at $1.25 a shirt, I can get 1360 laundered at the local dry-cleaners, and get then with heavy starch applied, hung on a hanger, and put in a plastic bag.

Assuming one shirt per day, everyday -- and some days I do just wear a T-shirt -- that's more than three and half years worth of ironed shirts, with my labor limited to taking them to and from the cleaners -- and with no need to wash the shirts myself.

The idea of inflating a dummy and drying the shirt from the inside out is great "outside the box" creativity, and I give the inventor credit for it. But that method doesn't crease the sleeves properly, it doesn't iron the collar, and I'm thinking that it may result in the placket at the back of a dress shirt bulging out at precisely where you want it creased.

So it's a great idea that doesn't really substitute for ironing, and is too expensive. Much as I'd like to encourage this, it's a solution in search of a problem.

Re:$1700 eh?

[Gabrill]

Well yeah, but my boxing dummy needs a girlfriend, and I have another $1700 to blow so why not?

Re:$1700 eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of inflating a dummy and drying the shirt from the inside out is great "outside the box" creativity, and I give the inventor credit for it.

Sorry, but one of our laundries around here has had that in their shop display for years. (I believe it is actually operating, but haven't been there for a while.)

Re:$1700 eh?

[AmericanInKiev]

First I think there is a place for ironed - if not perfectly ironed shirts (pants too!)

But I think the right price is closer to $149 dollars after mail in rebate.

This thing is slow and a bit difficult to use - at 15 minutes per shirt - it certainly is not going to shorten the time requirements of ironing - but might improve multitasking.

Good to see solutions in progress however.

AIK

Re:$1700 eh?

[ryanwright]

Agreed. I'm sorry, but this device is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Nobody will buy this. It will take as long to put the shirt on this thing as it would to just iron it yourself. And what about pants? $1700 and you still have to iron your own pants?

For that matter, what are you supposed to do if you need to iron a dozen shirts? By the time this thing finishes the first three, the others will have air dried & be wrinkled. Meanwhile you have to stand around and feed it shirt after shirt.

Re:$1700 eh?

[Otto]

I have pants and shirts that I'd theoretically iron.

It could do pants, in theory. Just put a differently shaped blow up plastic thing on it.

No creases though. It's not ironing them so much as it is heating the garment to dry it while keeping the garment inflated to maximum size, thus preventing wrinkles.

Pricewise, it'll drop eventually. I mean, let's be serious here.. it's a hot air blower attached to a plastic bag. You could probably build one with suitable effort.

Re:$1700 eh?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Not to mention it's not really a robot. It's a torso shaped specialized drying machine. If they wasted time putting a computer chip in it, it's redundant.

Re:$1700 eh?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And by "redundant", I mean some electrical engineer there needs to be fired.

Re:$1700 eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Much as I'd like to encourage this, it's a solution in search of a problem.

You're new here, right?

Too much for too little.

[Seumas]

More or less, I'm your average geek. I telecommute, but my state of dress on any given day is not much different than when I worked in an office. That being said, how often do men really need to iron their clothes?

I don't recall ironing a single piece of clothing since my job interview more than four years ago and that is the only time I've used an iron in my twenty-seven years. Hell, I only even own an iron because an ex-girlfriend needed it for her clothes - and I needed it for an upcoming project which including using an applique.

Still, if you're a snazzy dresser and you wear clothing that tends to need ironing and you're a single person, I suppose this is a decent product. Especially if you have the money to burn.

It really seems that this device (which reminds me of those punching-bag exercisers I've seen on television a couple times) is geared more toward the garment pressing industry than a home-user.

Personally, the only robot I'm interested in is a sex-slave android and I don't think we'll be seeing any of those in my lifetime.

Re:Too much for too little.

[HBI]

I personally don't see this robot as delivering a military-pressed and lightly starched shirt. That said, if someone came up with one, i'd love to avoid visiting the dry cleaner regularly to get that. Mr. Lee is a great guy but it's a pain in my ass to go there, not to mention a not inconsiderable expense.

Call me when the technology is actually there, i'll buy.

Re:Too much for too little.

[shird]

Still, if you're a snazzy dresser and you wear clothing that tends to need ironing and you're a single person, I suppose this is a decent product.

What does being single have to do with it? Because when you have a girlfriend/wife you make her do it? Or perhaps you don't need to iron once you get hooked up?

Re:Too much for too little.

[fiannaFailMan]

Why is it that every good idea that appears on /. gets knocked down by at least one person who doesn't see the usefulness of it just because it doesn't suit his exact personal individual circumstances? I mean, come on, this bit about "me being an average geek," which is as subjective a statement as ever there was; what has that got to do with the price of fish?

Dude, if you live on the West coast of the US, then, okay, it's a good bet that you are not going to need to iron your shirt. I live in Silicon Valley and I can't remember the last time I wore a shirt that had to be ironed. However, (and it's a _big_ however) if you live on the East Coast or in certain cities on Europe, or especially in Japan, this thing is gonna be worth its weight in gold to someone, most likely a dry-cleaning business.

Re:Too much for too little.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes to both. Or either.

Re:Too much for too little.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're married to a career woman, why shouldn't she iron your clothes? What, are you going to work 60 hours a week for the rest of your life so you can afford to keep a girlfriend or a wife who will have sex with you? Afraid to ask her to do her share of things around the house while you do your share of busting your hump for a salary that keeps her housed, clothed and fed?

I don't know about you, but I can get sex any time I want and I have plenty of friends. What reason then would I have for hooking up with someone who was just going to have all this free time to do nothing with, unless they were going to take care of domestic things in the household that I cannot due to my career?

If she's a career woman contributing significantly to your household financially, that's a different case. But that very rarely is the situation and I'm not enough of a pussy to pay a woman's way through life if she isn't going to work (be it in a real career and not just a part time minimum wage gig or at least take care of our domestic side in life) just because I don't feel there's anyway I could possibly keep a woman.

Re:Too much for too little.

[Seumas]

if you live on the East Coast or in certain cities on Europe, or especially in Japan, this thing is gonna be worth its weight in gold to someone, most likely a dry-cleaning business.

Which is why I said this "is geared more toward the garment pressing industry than a home-user."

Anything short of a business suit doesn't really need to be pressed and ironed. Just buy wrinkle-free clothing. And you're right about the west coast thing. I've never worn a suit in my life and I can't recall the last time I saw someone in my company wearing one. Even our CEO is usually khaki slacks and a dress shirt or jeans and a sweater. Even when he's on television.

Re:Too much for too little.

[TheAntiCrust]

Some people believe you have to fake yourself to get a girlfriend/wife. He is a sloppy person and would only be clean if he felt he is getting something out of the deal...

Not that it's bad or anything, some people like to look nice, and some people dont care.

Or maybe he is a male chuavinist pig... but I try to see the best in people and hope he's just a sloppy loser.

Re:Too much for too little.

[Seumas]

I make a good salary with my professional career. I don't need a second high income. I do need someone that can take care of the more domestic side of a household so I'm more likely to marry someone who would want to take on that responsibility than I am to someone who also makes a strong salary and has a professional career which keeps her very busy.

For one, we'd never see each other. And for another, what's chauvenist about each person doing their fair share of things? If one person is working 60 or 80 hours a week to make a six figure salary and the other spends a few hours a day dealing with household endeavors, that seems quite fair and proper to me.

On the other hand, if I find myself with a well-off professional wife, then clearly we could afford to just hire someone to take on our household chores for us.

And for what it's worth, my preference has always been the successful career woman but I've found them quite rare in this city.

Re:Too much for too little.

[kfg]

Dude, if you live on the West coast of the US, then, okay, it's a good bet that you are not going to need to iron your shirt.

I live in NY. I used to work as a men's suit salesman and was expected to look seriously sharp at all times. I didn't have to iron a shirt while doing so.

Indeed, I'm more inclined to iron when dressed casually in untreated soft cottons or linens that shrink and wrinkle. Plackets on flannel shirts pucker up terribly, and if you're inclined to more esoteric fashions (for the American northeastern megalopolis) shenti/veshti and chlamys/sari can use a pass with an iron, especially along the hem and selvage, now and again.

For the most part formal clothing has dealt with the issue by developing technology that largely obviates the need to iron, at least for those who wash and store their clothes properly. If you just toss shit on the floor/in the dresser your milage may well vary a good deal.

KFG

Re:Too much for too little.

[ahfoo]

"Personally, the only robot I'm interested in is a sex-slave android and I don't think we'll be seeing any of those in my lifetime."

I shouldn't be giving away my plans to rule the world and make a zillion bucks, but the sex robot might not be as difficult as you think. As always, you start off with what has already been done. In this case, there's already a major growth industry in robotic milking machines.
In fact, the reason there's so much growth in the field is that cows actually prefer robotic milkers and tend to go in for an extra milking a day because it just feels right. I'm not kidding. This is precisely why there is growth despite the costs, the diary ends up with higher milk production.
So, perhaps an android is out of the question so far, but how about 1090i video on a cube of four 42 inch high resolution panels and a milk machine!
You heard it here first baby.
And as for this hot air toy, how the hell is it a robot if you have to put the shirt on it yourself?

Re:Too much for too little.

[Seumas]

What would really impress me is a washing machine that you could just through your clothes into and it would decide, based on the color and material of your clothing, what temperature and how much water to use as well as how long to run for and how much of what kind of soap to include.

That might only work if you used some sort of modified RFID tag that would transmit the details of the clothing, but it could still be cool.

Re:Too much for too little.

[Seumas]

Um... eew?

I'm pretty sure there are some major distinctions between my penis and a cow's teat. At least, I sure as hell hope there are.

Re:Too much for too little.

[tonyr60]

"What would really impress me is a washing machine that you could just through your clothes into and it would decide, based on the color and material of your clothing, what temperature and how much water to use as well as how long to run for and how much of what kind of soap to include"

Well this comes close....
http://www.fp.co.nz/Products/Laundry/Sm artDrive-Sy stem.html

Re:Too much for too little.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why use two words ("not inconsiderable") when you could just use one ("considerable")?

Re:Too much for too little.

[Anonymous Coward]

Milking cow: Pinch at the base, then in a rolling fashion, squeeze the fluid out the end. Release and repeat.

Eew? More like Owww.

That said, it can't be that hard (pun unintentional) to create a device that handles things (euphemism intentional) in a pleasant way. Oh, and don't forget the sound system and the tactile/thermal aspects of the system.

(AC because my mom knows my sig and likes to read my postings)

Re:Too much for too little.

[eggplantpasta]

You can still look pretty spiffy without ironing (not good enough for climbing the corporate ladder or an interview - but who wants to do that anyway?).

What you do is wash and spin your clothes on a lower rinse spin speed and as soon as soon the machine is finished hang the clothes out on the line. Put the shirts on coat hangers and peg your dud up under the belt line (where the peg marks will be hidden. When you take the things off the line fold or hang the straight away.

This works best with thick cotton clothes or polyp/cotton. You can't put things in the drier so I suppose this advice is void in the UK and Canada (works fine in Australia).

Have fun.

Re:Too much for too little.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But what about the Moo Cow, and what about the hay!" Sorry, but Mr. Show already gave a pretty stern warning about the dangers of milking machines - in song even!

Re:Too much for too little.

[HBI]

Because considerable sounds like some washington think tank came up with it. It's dry and unpersonable. The use of 'not inconsiderable' was a meagre attempt to insert some humanity into it.

Re:Too much for too little.

[visgoth]

Realdoll + Asimo + aforementioned milking machine = alpha build of the sex slave android.
Seriously, Honda, stop it with the freaky looking spaceman shit, and give us some Six of One.

Re:Too much for too little.

[Tree131]

Unbutchered link here

Re:Too much for too little.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this off topic when the guy is clearly responding to a question someone else asked in the thread you retards?

Way cool

[probain]

The robot looks nice

A wonderful idea!

[TWX]

How about instead of spending $1700 on a robot, just take your clothes out of the dryer and hang them up quickly enough that they don't have time to wrinkle?

It works for me...

Boooring.

[revmoo]

How is THAT a robot? It's a dummy that inflates with hot air(that you have to put the shirts on yourself, no less) that is supposed to save you $1700 worth of your time somehow.

Yeah right.

Re:Boooring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you do a lot of dry cleaning or something, I suppose it might be useful. But considering even if you are a flashy dresser and need to drop things off at the cleaners on a weekly basis, you're only talking about $200/mo tops. I don't own $1,700 worth of clothing, much less will I ever need $1,700 worth of dry cleaning or ironing.

And you're right - it doesn't seem to be any more a "robot" than those humanoid punching bag things that light up depending on what part of the torso you hit are.

Re:Boooring.

[Manaz]

Now, I agree with this comment (there's no way that's a robot) - but it brings up the question - exactly what DOES constitute a robot?

A lot of us, I imagine, immediately think of devices such as the robot in "Lost in Space", or (those of us who are a bit older, or into movies) Klaatu (sp) from "The Day the Earth Stood Still". Industrial robots (such as those used to manufacture cars, or carry out extremely dangerous industrial procedures), or other devices, such as those used by the police to defuse bombs, etc are most certainly real "robots" - but what is it about those devices is it that makes them a robot?

Re:Boooring.

[Soko]

Yeah.

A bunch of dummies inflating with enough hot air to stuff a shirt, all for all too much money.

Sounds like Congress, doesn't it?

Soko

Re:Boooring.

[AtomicBomb]

What a huge contribution! The problem of shirt ironing is now gone.... But, wait a minute... how about the goddamned pair of trousers.

Re:Boooring.

[Manaz]

And, perhaps just as importantly, what about this ironing "device" excludes it from being a robot?

Re:Boooring.

[Lord Kano]

Now, I agree with this comment (there's no way that's a robot)

Why not? A robot does not need to walk or talk. Automotive welding and industrial assembly robots are proof of this.

but what is it about those devices is it that makes them a robot?

The ability to perform a task without continuous human control. But I don't think that bomb disposal units count as robots because a human being is constantly in control of it.

LK

Re:Boooring.

[lawpoop]

You bring up an interesting point. Technically, you could call modern dishwashers or automatic carwashers robots. But it seems that people think 'robot' = 'mechanical living thing', where the criteria for 'living thing' is based on morphology -- it should look like a humanoid, or a 4 legged animal, or an insect... I guess plant-shaped robots don't count, unless they could grow somehow. Perhaps another criterion is automotive -- not like a car, but something that truly moves on its own. This might necessitate sensors and AI, to fit most people's idea of a robot.

It's shows a lot about human psychology to ask what is a proper robot. The mechanical slaves we have today (washers, cars, microwaves) really aren't credited for the incredible amounts of drudgery they save us from.

Re:Boooring.

[Nasarius]

But I don't think that bomb disposal units count as robots because a human being is constantly in control of it.

Exactly. Just like "Battlebots", they're not robots; they're just remote-control whatevers. If it doesn't have AI of some sort, it's not a robot.

Re:Boooring.

[Seumas]

But by that logic, what excludes a regular household iron from being a "robot"?

Re:Boooring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Klaatu was the dude in "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

Gort was the robot.

Re:Boooring.

[lommer]

I think that for me, the defining aspect of a robot is that it MOVES. It doesn't have to have a moving base, but it does need to move in space (e.g. industrial welding bots). I think that for me, as well as many other people, actuated mechanical joints and limbs is what a robot is. If it's autonomous or semi-autonomous, that's even better, but not strictly neccesary.

I agree about this thing too - it's an appliance, not a robot.

Re:Boooring.

[canadian_right]

I worked as a clothes presser at a dry cleaners ( a long time a go!), and that "robot" was a standard piece of equipment circa 1980, and it certainly was not a robot! We called it "the susan". It was used for suit jackets mainly as we actualy laundered shirts and pressed them because they were generally too wrinkled to look nice with a just good steaming. All the pressing equimpent shoots out steam, and is air-powered. There was a small iron for deatil work. We also had a similar machine for doing the tops of pants, and a big press for doing legs and bodies.

For a minute there I thought my back up career might in jepardym but looks like it is still safe.

Re:Boooring.

[Seumas]

It would be cheaper just to export the ironing jobs to India. :P

Re:Boooring.

[achurch]

but it brings up the question - exactly what DOES constitute a robot?

How about "a machine that autonomously interacts physically with its environment"? That's probably the closest match to the way I've seen "robot" be used in recent years (caveat: I'm living in Japan). Traditional robots--humanoid things that walk around, talk to you, and so on--obviously do this, but so do industrial robots, for example. I recently saw a news segment about a new "robot" that's designed to help disabled people get into and out of bed (IIRC); all it consisted of was a mechanical arm attached to a frame that assisted the user's movements. On the other hand, jackhammers interact physically with their environment through user control, but I doubt anyone would consider them "robots".

In this particular case, I agree that it's pretty tough to call the machine as is a robot. Suppose, though, that it was able to take shirts one at a time from a pile and put them on its body to iron--how would you classify it then? For me, at least, it would be a tough call.

Re:Boooring.

[WegianWarrior]

The Wikipedia suggest this definition of a robot:[qoute]
In practical usage, a robot is a mechanical device which performs automated tasks, either according to direct human supervision, a pre-defined program or, a set of general guidelines, using artificial intelligence techniques. These tasks either replace or enhance human work, such as in manufacturing, construction or manipulation of heavy or hazardous materials.

A robot may include a feedback-driven connection between sense and action, not under direct human control. The action may take the form of electro-magnetic motors or actuators that move an arm, open and close grips, or propel the robot. The step by step control and feedback is provided by a computer program run on either an external or embedded computer or a microcontroller. By this definition, a robot may include nearly all automated devices.

Alternately, robot has been used as the general term for a mechanical man, or an automaton resembling an animal, either real or imagined. It has come to be applied to many machines which directly replace a human or animal in work or play. In this way, a robot can be seen as a form of biomimicry. Anthropomorphism is perhaps what makes us reluctant to refer to the highly complex modern washer-dryer as a robot. However, in modern understanding, the term implies a degree of autonomy that would exclude many automatic machine tools from being called robots. It is the search for ever more highly autonomous robots which is the major focus of robotics research and which drives much work in artificial intelligence.
[/qoute]

So, this inflatable dummy may or may not be defined as a robot... allthought my gut feeling is that it's 'merely' a piece of automatic gadgetery.

Re:Boooring.

[Anonymous Coward]

but it brings up the question - exactly what DOES constitute a robot?

Good question. Wiki has good answers.

Robot - a machine with artificial intelligence.
Android - a robot that resembles a human being.
Cyborg - a creature which is a mixture of organic and mechanical parts.

Re:Boooring.

[Lord Kano]

Exactly. Just like "Battlebots", they're not robots; they're just remote-control whatevers. If it doesn't have AI of some sort, it's not a robot.

For the most part I agree with you, I guess the only point of contention I can find is in how one defines "AI". If it's just repeating the same action with no kind of real calculations involved, it can still be considered a robot.

LK

Re:Boooring.

[Blackeagle_Falcon]

but what is it about those devices is it that makes them a robot?

A positronic brain, of course.

Seriously, robots tend to have at least one of the following characteristics (and examples):

1. Humanoid Shape - Everything from battlemechs to service robots.
2. A.I. - Data) and HAL 9000
3. Manipulators (hands/arms) - Canadarm and Canadarm 2
4. Remote (bomb disposal) or Autonomous (Predator UAV) Operation

The more of these a device has, the more likely I would be to be considered a robot.

Re:Boooring.

[1u3hr]

the robot in "Lost in Space", or (those of us who are a bit older, or into movies) Klaatu (sp) from "The Day the Earth Stood Still".

Spelling right; but Klaatu was the human(oid), (Michael Rennie). Gort (Lock Martin) was the robot.

Re:Boooring.

[1u3hr]

Now, I agree with this comment (there's no way that's a robot)
>Why not? A robot does not need to walk or talk.

But it has to manipulate things. This is an inflatable ironing board. An "automatic" washing machine displays more intelligence and does more useful stuff. Also, the damn thing would take up a lot of floorspace. Anyone with the money and space to use one of these wouldn't be doing their own laundry anyway, they'd have a maid or send their laundry out.

Re:Boooring.

[Manaz]

Ah, you're right.

It seems that I'm SO old that my memory is already failing me.

At all of 27... :/

Re:Boooring.

[FauxReal]

How is THAT a robot? It's a dummy that inflates with hot air(that you have to put the shirts on yourself, no less) that is supposed to save you $1700 worth of your time somehow.

Yeah, this thing is about as robotic as a toaster. You put bread in (shirt on), set the darkness (timer), push the button and come back and take it out (off) when it's done.

I can't see how this saves any time since you have to tend to each shirt... I guess it saves you enough time to do minor things like work out, read a book or watch TV between shirts.

If you could at least just leave a bunch of shirts on some sort of hangar system and then come back later to all of them on the other side of the device pressed... that could be good. Especially if you could do pants too.. I'm even willing to pre-separate thoem first.

Re:Boooring.

[1u3hr]

my memory is already failing me

"Klaatu...Barada... Necktie?... Nectar?... Nickel?"*

*

Re:Boooring.

[Capybara]

Of course it's just a word, but I think something needs to satisfy three requirements before being called a "robot":

1) it must be man-made (that's your mechanical criterion)
2) it must react to its environment (maybe that's what you mean by being automotive - it has to actually think of its own reactions)
3) it must actively try to do something (this rules out, for example, superballs)

#2 is, in my mind, the thing that distinguishes dishwashers and most other machines from being robots. Even if you don't put any dishes in the dishwasher, it will go ahead and do its normal wash cycle, because it doesn't have any feedback. Now, if you could just put your dishes in a pile, and the dishwasher would line them up nicely in racks and run a washing cycle automatically - then you could call it a dishwashing robot.

This "robot" also seems to fail #2, for a lack of any sensors or motors to do useful things like loading and unloading your clothes automatically.

Re:Boooring.

[Capybara]

Not quite: a superball interacts autonomously and quite physically with its environment. You also need to require that it has a specific goal, like helping people into and out of bed.

Re:Boooring.

[Lord Kano]

But it has to manipulate things. This is an inflatable ironing board.

It takes a wet and wrinkled shirt and makes it dry and wrinkle free. That arguably is manipulation.

LK

Re:Boooring.

[achurch]

Not quite: a superball interacts autonomously and quite physically with its environment.

I wouldn't call superballs autonomous--they don't do anything without someone directly acting on them, such as by throwing them. (Or are you referring to a different object? To me, "superball" is one of those bouncy rubber balls I played with as a kid.)

Re:Boooring.

[1u3hr]

But it has to manipulate things. This is an inflatable ironing board.
>It takes a wet and wrinkled shirt and makes it dry and wrinkle free. That arguably is manipulation.

It would be if it was the one who "took" the shirt, but you have to dress it, and button it up (maybe it has clips instead). It's an inside-out ironing press. Basically I could iron a shirt the old fashioned way in about the same time.

In the article, as opposed to the headline, it's called an "ironing dummy". I'd say a robot has to perform the functions a human operator would with "dumb" tools. Eg, an electric screwdriver is not a robot, but something that could pick up a screw and drive it into the correct position would be. So an "ironing robot" should be able to pick up a wet shirt and produce a folded ironed shirt.

Re:Boooring.

[revmoo]

eah, this thing is about as robotic as a toaster. You put bread in (shirt on), set the darkness (timer), push the button and come back and take it out (off) when it's done.

Yes, but where on Earth does the bread go?

:p

Re:Boooring.

[jhobbs]

I remember from some class in college that automatic washing machines and the such are indeed robots. The instructor defined a robot as a device that could accomplish a preprogrammed task yet had enough awareness of the world around it to recognize error states and request human intervention. By this example, your washing machine is a robot because once started will wash, rinse and spin dry your clothes. It will adjust the mix of hot and cold water to meet a desired temperature, and stop if the lid is opened or it determines the drum is off balance. Everything is there, automated actions, a few sensors for awareness of real world conditions, and the ability to determine when things have really fouled up.

Re:Boooring.

[Barryke]

indeed. and that pic is old, saw it on internet at least 6 months ago. If not a year+.

Re:Boooring.

[BasilBrush]

If it's just repeating the same action with no kind of real calculations involved, it can still be considered a robot.

The dictionary definitions I can find seem pretty poor in this area. Personally I'd go for what you describe being an automaton, or automatic device. Certainly they are no different in principle from the automatons of the 18th century. And the most common example in the home is the "automatic" washing machine.

I'd be looking for a robot to be something that makes decisions on it's movements based on it's environment.

And those things in Robot Wars are simply remote controled vehicles.

To get back on topic, this ironing dummy doesn't even have the smarts of an automatic washing machine, as it has only a single mode timed on/off. It's just an appliance.

All IMHO.

Re:Boooring.

[RedWizzard]

The ability to perform a task without continuous human control.

What, like a oven or a dish washer?

Re:Boooring.

[955301]

You're hired! Can I get lifetime services from you for, say, $1700?

Re:Boooring.

[pgarrone]

I reakon a robot by definition should be able to do at least two completly different activities automatically, like vacuum and iron, otherwise its simply a vacuuming machine or an ironing machine.

Re:Boooring.

[Scrameustache]

Spelling right; but Klaatu was the human(oid), (Michael Rennie). Gort (Lock Martin) was the robot.

Going slightly off topic, but I've always been fascinated by the efficiency of that alien language.

I mean, its 3 words (Klatuu, berata, nictu), but it conveys so much! As far as I can tell, it means:
"Quick! Klatuu has been shot! He's at the corner of which-and-which street, go get him, he needs your help! But do not, I insist, he was very adament about this: Do NOT destroy the world. Get Klatuu, don't destroy the world".

I wonder what part of that sentence tells him where to find Klatuu... ;-)

Re:Boooring.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere that 150 years ago or so the very wealthy in England would send their delicate linens out of the country to be laundered. Apparently it was not possible to find someone locally with the patience and skill needed to clean fragile laces, embroidery, and sheer fabrics. (Now I'm going to have to look this up.)

At one time most urban people did not do their laundry at home unless laundry was their job because of the time and equipment involved. Many people would take their clothes to a laundry that did "bagwash"-- you got your laundry back in a bag, wet, in roughly the same condition that it comes out of the washing machine now. You would then hang it up to dry and iron it if needed. Then there's what my uncle did when he was in college in the 60's: he'd mail his laundry home to his mother, she would wash and fold it and mail it back.

Re:Boooring.

[ionizer]

It is "boooring" because it is a story brought to us by "Timothy." As usual he oversells the article and the item. Who hires these guys who call themselves "editors" anyway?

Re:Boooring.

[slimick]

I can recall shirt machines from the early
fifties. as you say, all steam. As I recall
the operator had to place both the cardboard
sheet for the back and the cardboard sheet for
the collar in the machine as well. But when
it worked, it was a wonder to behold. My sense
of time is suspect, but I don't think that
the whole process took more than 90 seconds.
And the charge: $0.29 including pickup and
delivery.

Robot indeed!

Re:Boooring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, For me it's not a robot unless uses some logic beyond the cababilities of a simple cam timer. Better ironing machines that this existed in the 1930's.

Re:Boooring.

[Lord Kano]

What, like a oven or a dish washer?

Oven? No.

Dish washer? Probably.

LK

Re:Boooring.

[red_gnom]

"How is THAT a robot? It's a dummy that inflates with hot air..."

I agree. A dummy that inflates with hot air is not a robot, but a pilot.
Have you seen the movie "Airplane!" ?

Re:Boooring.

[RedWizzard]

What's the distinction?

Re:Boooring.

[Lord Kano]

I guess that the oven is passive while the dishwasher is active in performing its task.

LK

Great...

[JNighthawk]

Instead of important innovations, we're moving towards becoming lazier and lazier.

Well, to be fair, I *am* lazy and fat. But this robot wouldn't benefit me any. I don't iron.

Re:Great...

[ScriptGuru]

Not all innovations toward laziness or progress are one way. Something that is designed for the consumer market may easily be applied in other more useful fields, and vice versa, like the material in excersize pants being used for cooling systems, the material in shuttle windows being used for fogless ski goggles, computers being used by people other than scientists... Who is to say that this innovation won't be useful in other fields down the road, it uses quite a few pieces of technology which could easily be applied to industry and NASA.

Gee I wonder how many

[TCaM]

people here are drooling over the future prospect of the Cherry 2000.

Re:Gee I wonder how many

[Manaz]

I wonder how many people actually know what Cherry 2000 was.

At least if this ironing shirt malfunctions, your shirt's the only thing that's gonna be blown (up)...

Re:Gee I wonder how many

[Hakubi_Washu]

Well, I know, I am :-)

What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[xagon7]

is a robot that will pickup, wash, dry, iron, fold, and put away your clothes.

As well as wash, dry, and put away your dishes.

O yeah,

Mow the lawn and wash the car while its at it.

That way I can use all my spare time exercising.

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you're going to spend that much money on it, why not just get a girlfriend or a wife? And if you have a girlfriend or a wife - unless they have their own career - they should be spending their time at home doing those things instead of letting you pay for a robot to do them so she can sit on her fat ass while you bring home the income.

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what a dumbass chauvinistic remark.

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[Beolach]

This is why Isaac Asimov believed that the best robots would be humaniform - a humaniform robot would be able to use any tool designed for human use (think the vacuum, lawnmower, dishwasher, etc that you already have), and would not be limited to one specific area of specialization. Of course, in Asimov's robot stories he had his 'positronic brain' that gave his robots near-human AI, which is the big requirement for a multi-purpose robot (although there are of course several other difficulties with humaniform robots, for example balance - most bipedal robots are rather unsteady). Creating a robot intelligent enough to ideally be able to learn how to use multiple tools, or at the very least pre-programmed to use multiple tools is a huge hurdle, and at least for now in the commercial arena it really only feasible to create speciallized robots, and since they're being speciallized anyway, there's no reason to overcome the numerous other difficulties related to humaniform robotics. So I think there are really two possibilities for the future: either as xagon7 suggests house working robots will really not catch on until they become multi-purpose, in which case Asimov may have been correct and humaniform robots become common; or else speciallized robots will catch on, at least enough that multiple robots specialized for different chores will be developed, and once you have 1 robot to vacuum, another to mow, another to do dishes, etc. to the point where all your chores are being completed, in which case there would be no need for a single multi-purpose robot.

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's chauvenist to think that if one person doesn't work and the other does that the person who doesn't work should take care of your home? What, do you feel that one person should work and the other shouldn't do ANYTHING if they don't have a job? I'd rather be chauvinistic than a lazy unemployed mooch.

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[howman]

they call them children...

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[Fizzl]

There's nothing chauvinistic about it. Ok, perhaps the wording.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect her to keep up the house if the man is bringing in the money. If both are working, the household work should be split evenly.

I think it would be very inconsiderate and unfair to expect the man to make a long day at work, pick up groceries, come home, cook and then wash the dishes. (While the other party is sitting on her fat ass ;)) ...(been there)

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[Fizzl]

My other post was too long winded. What I ment to say was:
How naive of you.

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[khallow]

AC, the more likely solution here is that these robots would be used in homes where the two or more partners all work. It also works in a situation where a home is rented out to a bunch of people who all work.

For example, I currently rent a home along with three other people. We pay $120 a month for someone to clean the place once a month. That's $1440 a year. A robot priced around $30,000 (including 20 years of inflation adjusted maintenance) whose sole job is cleaning the house (and does a good enough job that we don't have to do squat) would be a good deal. If we have to upgrade every five years or so, then $7,500 is roughly the price point of maid service.

OTOH, if you have a party in the house most of the time, then their labor is going to be cheaper than the robot.

One of the ironies here is that if there were robots capable of cleaning houses for $30,000, then most certainly, there would be robots replacing numbers of human workers. I'm not sure how the economics would work out, but I expect the replacement to be extensive in the "developed" world and perhaps infrequent in the cheaper labor markets of the "developing" world.

Re:What will REALLY put robotics in the home...

[Minna Kirai]

will really not catch on until they become multi-purpose, in which case Asimov may have been correct and humaniform robots become common; or else speciallized robots will catch on,

No, neither of those options will come true. Asimov's scifi world didn't have even the degree of computer networking we've already achieved on earth.

There's no reason to have a separate robotic mind driving your tractor and washing your dishes, when one centrallized AI can operate both machines by remote control.

What makes it a robot?

[enosys]

What makes it a robot? It's just an alternative to an iron. It's a fairly dumb machine. It just has to pre-heat and then blow hot air for a set time. You have to put the shirt on and everything.

Get A Wife

[machocomacho]

If you get a wife, you can wake to freshly ironed clothes everyday, the bad side, they talk back,need to be fed, and you have to go through a wedding, which is more than $1700, but a wife won't crash or need to be charged hmmm... decision decisions....

Re:Get A Wife

[Lord Kano]

f you get a wife, you can wake to freshly ironed clothes everyday, the bad side, they talk back,need to be fed, and you have to go through a wedding, which is more than $1700, but a wife won't crash or need to be charged hmmm... decision decisions....

I think you mean "girlfriend". Let me explain...

The shirt ironing robot won't blow you. Neither will a wife. A shirt ironing robot won't cook dinner for you. Neither will a wife.

What you need is a girlfriend, you can get your shirt ironed, your meals cooked, and your penis sucked. Wives and shit ironing robots don't even come close.

Yes, I am divorced.

LK

Re:Get A Wife

[Killjoy_NL]

I wish we had a moderation called "Funsightful", it would be so appropriate for the parent :)

But to replace women completely you need this machine, a vacuumcleaner (for the blowjobs ofcourse) and a fleshlight.

Re:Get A Wife

[Lord Kano]

You'd need to embed them in a 130 pound hot water bottle.

LK

Re:Get A Wife

[nuckfuts]

WTF are you talking about? I have a wife of 18 years who cooks everyday (in addition to working), cleans house, does all the shopping, irons when necessary and blows whenever I want. Try marrying someone who actually cares about you. That's kinda the whole point.

Re:Get A Wife

[shirai]

Wives and shit ironing robots don't even come close.

I would tend to agree. I've never had much need for having shit ironed. In fact, I don't much want to imagine the action much less the smell.

Re:Get A Wife

[laejoh]

Am I the only one who read this as Get A Life?

Seriously? Anyone?

Re:Get A Wife

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I am divorced.

We'd never have guessed.

Shirts Only?

[mr_lithic]

I was hoping for something that had a little arm that move hot steel over a board.

Instead it is looks like some kung-fu fighting dummy and it only irons shirts - they don't mention different sizes.

I think of a lot of ways spending 1700 hours than having something that just irons shirts. How much does a decent ironing service in the States cost these days? 1 or 2 dollars a shirt?

Re:Shirts Only?

[TheMCP]

I was hoping for something that had a little arm that move hot steel over a board.

Why go to such effort, when you can already get a perfectly good rotary iron? My friend has one and it's wonderful.

Re:Shirts Only?

[jhobbs]

I was once definatly on the market for something just like this. The major problem with this device is lack of starch and creases. In Miami I was paying $3.50 per shirt and $3.00 for slacks, that adds up fast. Five dress shirts a week for work, two or three more for dinners and such on the weekends, plus dry cleaning for knit shirts worn out to clubs and such. I got excited when I saw the headline, but the actual machine is useless. If it only cost $1700 and could replace going to the cleaners it would be worth it. Because believe me, there is a reason its called "being taken to the cleaners". However, as luck would have it, my boyfriend got a job recently that pays for his dry cleaning. Since we wear the same size clothes, I just toss my shirts and slacks in with his pile. :-)

No thanks....

[tinrobot]

Considering the extremely low rate that I need to iron my pants and the relatively low cost of dry cleaning, $1700 would pretty much keep me going for several lifetimes.

Ironing for the Lazy

[lupin_sansei]

Here's how I get my shirts wrinkle free with no ironing.

1) Hang online while still wet
2) Place dry shirt in tumble dryer for 10 minutes just before wearing it
3) Wear shirt, letting body heat finish the job

Re:Ironing for the Lazy

[LardBrattish]

Yeah right, try that with 100% Cotton Jermyn Street shirts & see how far you get. I'm not mad about looking good as anyone who's met me will attest :) but I have limits; and drip dry polyester has been way over that line since the eighties & I've been steadily upgrading my expectations with my salary since then. I don't think the "robot" would even do a particularly acceptable job on shirts anyway. What about collar & cuffs?

Re:Ironing for the Lazy

[oniony]

1) Hang online while still wet

This step involves a noose, a webcam and plenty of water.

Easy DIY project

[Anonymous Coward]

Any handyman worth his salt could build this with a blow-up doll, a hairdryer, and a roll of duct tape.

Re:Easy DIY project

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to donate your inflatable lady for this wacky project?

not a robot

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, it's just a giant iron in the shape of a person. BFD!

personally, I'm waiting for the kitchen-floor Roomba robot mop.. I hate cleaning the kitchen floor with the spong mop, I wish there was a robot I could full up with Armstrong floor cleaner and let loose!

how much longer....

[hellmarch]

till blow-up dolls start doing the work for you? you know there has to be a company working on it somewhere. i just want to know when their IPO is. no, really.

Make $5250 Guaranteed!!! All you need is a PayPal account and $25. We'll do the rest. Click here to find out how.

too much work

[gphinch]

i think that putting the shirt on the dummy sounds like more work than ironing the shirt. then again i never iron anything.

I see a new feature...

[Kiryat Malachi]

I see a new feature for RealDolls. Just make their skin a thermoelectric heating element, and...

Shirts pressed while you wank!

Re:I see a new feature...

[Anonymous Coward]

Overheard at work:

"Pssst! Take a look at Bob! Is it me, or did he actually iron tits and nipples into his teeshirt?"

Waste of space and cash..

[Mechcommander]

While it is nice that the home robotics field is getting some attention, I believe this is a nearly useless device. Most of us (even us uber-geeks) saw our mothers iron clothes once or twice in our lives. I could easily spend $30 on a nice iron, and learn a new ironing technique (Google, anyone?) and iron my clothes from time to time. There is probably a .3% market demand for this robot that simply irons clothes, mainly because of the price and the size.. Seems like an enormous waste of space to me, when an iron is 1/30th of the size, and can fit easily in my closet on a shelf or in a drawer, for that matter. Come on, you researchers: Work on something that I can use in my every day life that will help me, yet won't break the bank. As of yet, I have not seen any robotic piece of equipment that does this. (Don't bother mentioning the robotic vacuum, I've read reviews.) However, I can't have my post be all negative: I am happy that some research is being put into these things. Once the technology matures, heck.. I may be finding myself buying something similar to one of these. =)

Where do you draw the line?

[Tuvai]

An interesting novelty item sure, but what genuine purpose would this serve? Whenever advancements in household robotics have been made there has been some justification, especially when related to hygene and cleaning. But minor household chores aren't something worthy of such an investment of time, money and effort.

But this clearly has no practical use as anything other than a novelty, the fact that it just irons shirts doesn't help this image, would you fork out close to 2 grand for something that'll only give half your clothes a nice ironed finish? I doubt it.

In the end, you have to take a step back and think how far this should be taken, it's surely obvious that the mass market will never be able to afford or even accept overly large amounts of robotics, at least not for several decades.

A nice novelty, but even novelties have their limits.

7 or 8 minutes?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

a normal cotton shirt usually takes 7-8 minutes

Now, being a single young(ish) male, I don't do a lot of ironing. But what ironing I have done does NOT take 7 or 8 minutes for a normal cotton shirt!

1700 bux for a device that takes longer than traditional methods, takes up an unreasonable amount of space, cant do elastic materials, etc, etc... no thanks.

Re:7 or 8 minutes?

[lucifer_666]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing....

This "invention" is just full of hot air!

Boom, tish :-)

interesting, but not that great

[Anonymous Coward]

seems like this would handle the sides, the back, and other flat parts fairly well, but I don't see how it would do the slightly more complex areas (collar, the front edges). Those parts would flap in the air, and probably would stay fairly wrinkled when it's done. I mean, sure, I would love for something to handle the areas around the buttons better, but this looks like you'd have to bust out the iron to redo those spots. And if you spent 1700 and needed to do a little more ironing, that's just totally not worth it.

Ironing for the really really lazy

[Chuck Chunder]

1. Wash clothes
2. Get clothes out of washing machine. It's two days later so they smell all musty.
3. Wash clothes again.
4. Get clothes out of washing machine and put in dryer.
5. Get clothes out of dryer. It's two days later so clothes have settled in an incredibly creased state.
6. Wash clothes again.
7. Dry clothes again.
8. Get clothes out of dryer.
9. "Hang" over the back of chair.

Re:Ironing for the really really lazy

[lupin_sansei]

You missed the wash cycle you need to do again when you realised you left a tissue in your pocket and now all your clothes have white bits all over them!

Re:Ironing for the really really lazy

[achurch]

4. Get clothes out of washing machine and put in dryer.

In my day they didn't have dryers--we had to hang the clothes up on a line and wait days for them to dry. And then we still had to iron them!

Oh wait--I still don't have a dryer . . .

Re:Ironing for the really really lazy

[irokitt]

Me, I'm a t-shirt guy.

New?

[Honor]

This "robot" is not even new. I went on a mission trip this spring and while working in a used-clothing store I used one of these. I guarantee it didn't have the amount of options (or the price tag) but it is certainly the same thing. You put the shirt on, it blows up with hot air, removing all wrinkles, wala its done. There really is no "ironing" involved. And seeing as how I am sure the clothing store could not afford top-of-the line items, and it looked fairly old, I wonder how this could even remotely be considered new?

Also, the Robotic Toaster

[nacturation]

Just like this one, you set a dial for how well you want your bread (shirt) toasted (ironed). You then depress a lever (press a button) and the robot then toasts (irons) your bread (shirt). It boasts an air filter so that the air due to convection doesn't contain any dust or dirt particles to contaminate your toast (shirt). It also has special insulation so that the outside doesn't get scorching hot -- only the internal elements are hot enough to heat the bread (shirt). But the Robotic Toaster is a bargain at only $795, less than half the price of the Robotic Ironing machine.

Wow, a valid use for a patent

[michaelmalak]

It's a non-obvious solution for a long-standing problem using technology that's been around for over a hundred years.

Obligatory sex droid link...

[Anonymous Coward]

linky

What's "Beyond the Vacuum"??

[billstewart]

I was expecting this article to be about somebody's space exploration project, determining the shape of the edges of the universe or something.

But no - it's just hardware that does housecleaning... :-(

Re:What's "Beyond the Vacuum"??

[Suburbanpride]

I had that exact same thouhgt, althouhg i was thinking along the lines of a mars rover like thing that could take off and land on its own.

Robot???

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw the thing myself here in Vught in Holland at a local electronics shop.

To be realistic, "robot" is not what i would call it. It is just a kinda plastic torso that pumps steam into the shirt. (forget about trousers).
You still have to put the shirt on this thing yourself. Nice gizmo, but not a robot.

Asimov predicted this.

[jerryasher]

I am waiting for the robot bird that eats mosquitos (especially West Nile!)

A better idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not save the electricity, and ironing, and just hang your clothes on a clothesline for the day?

Re:A better idea!

[TWX]

"Why not save the electricity, and ironing, and just hang your clothes on a clothesline for the day?"

Because I live in a city in a desert. If I were to do that, they'd smell like dirt and automobile fumes, even more than they do from simply being within a city.

this may come as news to some people...

[dekeji]

but there are actually businesses that will wash and iron your shirts for you, and they will even fold them (imagine that!). If you need an "emergency shirt" that you can just wash yourself, you can get a no-iron shirt, too.

And for vacuuming, you could always hire someone (but, unlike a robot, a cleaner will raise eyebrows at leftover pizzas and Playboy magazines).

too much money

[Sinful_Shirts]

As a college student I think I will stick with the old fashion iron. Funny how the people that would enjoy these things the most can't afford them :(

explanatory link

[Quasi Qubit]

Ironing

Re:explanatory link

[Anonymous Coward]

That explanatory links is kind of pointless, since I'm sure we have all heard the Alanis Morrissette song that explains it all.

AutoLave

[Doc Ruby]

I want a robot to completely manage my laundry. At least move the laundry from the floor, thru washer, then dryer, then fold and reshelve it. Exception handling could just package drycleanables by checking the tag. If it can handle that, it won't need to manage my bachelor's "degrees of wearable laundry", via some eNose and StainSeverity tests. If I spent $3200, including soaps, on all the apparati, I'd save money over about 4-5 years of sending out laundry. To say nothing of looking and smelling better.

There's one in the shop round the corner

[threaded]

There's one in most dry cleaning shops 'round here and they all looks to be at least 10-20 years old.

Is this type of machine something new in America?

Yes new, many decades ago.

[rtz]

What's so new with this? I've seen machines like this (perhaps a little less automated, although the automation in this one appears to be only slightly more advanced than an egg timer) in laundry shops and dry cleaners for as long as I can remember.

And a machine like this only does half the job. You still have to iron the creases so you can fold the shirt.

meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlor.. eh housekeepers.

(OT) Speaking of Asimov...

[Beolach]

He's got to be spinning in his grave over the new I, Robot movie. Based on the trailer, it is just so very wrong. It looks really cool, but it (my guess based on the trailer) screws up so many fundamental things in Asimov's robot stories that it really bugs me. Hopefully I'm wrong and the actual movie will be stay more or less true to the books, but I really don't have that much faith in Hollywood...

Re:(OT) Speaking of Asimov...

[Minna Kirai]

Based on the trailer, it is just so very wrong. It looks really cool, but it (my guess based on the trailer) screws up so many fundamental things

Not necessarily. There's nothing in the trailer that explicitly contradicts Asimovian robotics.

You can plausibly hope that the advertising is a bait&switch, and that the apparently violent robots will actually be working for the benefit of mankind (according to some elaborate rationalization)

For example: the robot in the interrogation chamber. Suppose it actually didn't murder the victim, but was commanded by the real killer (a human) to fake defectiveness and take the blame.... that's a perfect Asimovian storyline.

and in its time off...

[howman]

it doubles as a boxing dummy... I wonder if the thing can take a beating?

Re:not a robot

[DrEasy]

Can't you just attach a moist towel at the back of the Roomba and let it go?

Another vacuum robot

[dhammabum]

This vacuum-robot actually uses a pattern rather than random movement in its travels - won't do corners though.

I just can't help myself with this one...

[howman]

1. overclock the air compressor
2. press start
3. watch the robot inflate like the incredible hulk
4. duck flying buttons
5. rinse and repete

Re:I just can't help myself with this one...

[RedA$$edMonkey]

6. ?
7. Profit!

Seriously though, This "robot" sounds like a piece of junk. It would take about an hour to do 7 shirts and use up to 3.3 KW hours! Meanwhile you'd have to run over every 8 minutes to switch shirts. And it doesn't even fold them for you? Give me a break.

Oh hell, what now?

[malia8888]

What is more, ironing dummy can be washed in the washing machine.

Ok, I've washed the ironing dummy........ now what do I iron it with?

:P

Cool

[mcc]

I was getting tired of accidentally setting my clothes on fire myself, now I can get a robot to accidentally set my clothes on fire for me

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the idea of a robot is that they are not as forgetful as a human

Usefulness

[ScriptGuru]

A lot of people mention the rarity of ironing shirts, but while the Slashdot crowd may not, I know engineers, accountants, and businessmen who wear freshly washed and ironed shirts each and every day. If they make $50000 a year working 2000 hours (40 hours, 50 weeks), that's $25/hr. Say they spend 5 minutes ironing a shirt every busines day (~250), that's $520 of life they waste every year ironing. While still not enough to justify having something iron for them, especially as no one measures their life relative to how much they'd make on the job, there is enough savings to warrant consideration by people who iron in bulk, like Dry Cleaners. It may even be useful in a Laundramat (Probably not, but who knows?).

Re:Usefulness

[RajivSLK]

You forgot about taxes. They make $50,000 before taxes. They would have to buy this thing for $1,700 with after tax income.

Re:Usefulness

[uberdave]

Drycleaners and Laundromats have had these things for years.

Wouldn't the results be the same as steaming?

[Daimaou]

The problem with home clothes steamers is that they don't actually get rid of wrinkles, but rather uniformly wrinkle the clothes; albeit with smaller wrinkles.

Wouldn't the result be the same if one used this "robot"?

It would appear it is a combination of the weight of an iron, or press, and the heat that presses out the wrinkles, not just the heat alone.

History of the word...

[Beolach]

Clicky

The word robot comes from the Czech robota meaning "labor." The word was first used in Karel Capek's play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) (written in 1920; first performed 1921; performed in New York 1922; English edition published 1923). 1. While Karel is frequently acknowledged as the originator of the word, he wrote a short letter in reference to the Oxford English Dictionary etymology in which he named his brother, painter and writer Josef Capek as its true inventor. 2. . . .

So, at least literally, a robot is anything that labors. Check the clicky to see more of it's literary history, or read some of Isaac Asimovs numerous essays on robots.

robots

[rashmi]

sex-slave android would never give you a human touch.

Re:robots

[Anonymous Coward]

sex-slave android would never give you a human touch.

Or cheat on you. Or split and take half your money. Or sleep with your friend. Or say she's on birth control and intentionally get knocked up so you are forced to support her forever. Or nag you. Or bitch because you leave the toilet seat up. Or bitch because you left your socks on the floor. Or bitch because you're playign video games at 2am. Or whine because you had a drink with your coworkers on the way home from work. Or get old and fat and ugly. Or ask you if you think she's fat. Or give you the silent treatment because she's upset at you for something that you did or didn't do that you have no clue about because she won't tell you.

Yeah. In case can't tell, I've been married a couple times.

And how exactly will that save me time?

[gsasha]

Let's see. I think I can iron a standard cotton shirt in les than their 7-8 minutes, not counting the time they need to put the shirt on the robot and take it back off. And I can iron T-shirts significantly faster.
Now this means that ironing with this thing will be slower than with my regular iron (not to mention that if I get a steam iron for fraction of a cost, I'd do it faster still), and 7-8 minute breaks won't allow me to do anything useful because of context switches.
It is another story if I had a roomful of these ironing dummies, both of them working at the same time, and me continuously putting shirts on and off them. But $1700 apiece, I seriously doubt that.
The robot may be worth for some specialty cases for extremely expensive shirts which will live longer if ironed this way... but again, $1700 buys many of such shirts.

Funny you should mention creases...

[SuperKendall]

One thing I thought right away when I read the article was - will the shirt look right without creases? I think a proper crease is an important as the smoothness of the material when considering a well-ironed garment. With the way it just inflates under a sirt, you'd get a smooth shirt but no creases anywhere!

They make a good point about the material lasting longer though.

Not worth the investment according to Test-Achats

[Raphael]

The consumer magazine Test-Achats/Test-Aankoop in Belgium has reviewed this item in its current issue. You can find the full article on their web site, although it is only accessible for subscribers.

In summary, here is what the article says about this "robot" that irons your clothes: the quality of the results is not that good, there are still some wrinkles left in the shirts (this is OK if you wear them under something else, but not if you want to look smart wearing only a shirt). They gave it an "average" rating for the quality, while most of the traditional irons get a "good" or "very good". One of the main selling arguments for this expensive item is that it irons your shirts for you while you can do something else during the 10 minutes that it takes to do its work. But in practice, you need 2 minutes to put the shirt on and 2 minutes to remove it once it is ready. So if you have several shirts this device lets you do something else for one hour, but only in slices of 10 minutes so this is not ideal.

So it does not beat the good old low-tech iron...

Lamest piece of crap ever seen on Slashdot

[hopethishelps]

1. It's not a robot
2. It looks like it will do a lousy job on the collar, which is one of the most important bits.

We need to be able to mod down stories, not just comments.

I, robot not.

[m1chael]

But if it had white cartoon gloves and put the shirt on by itself, steamed, and took it off and folded it up neatly, then maybe this could be called a robot. Just because it looks like a humanoid torso is irrelevant. Irrelevant!

Consumed by work - your missing your life

[Anonymous Coward]

If one person is working 60 or 80 hours a week to make a six figure salary a

If you're working 60 or 80 hours a week you're married to your work not to your wife. What's the point in living under the same roof if all you have the time to do is to sleep in the same bed?

Wake up! A job is just a job. There's an entire life that you're missing! Yes, it might hurt your paycheck but your heart, mind and friends will thank you.

I feel sorry for people like you who get so consumed by their jobs/quest for money that they're not living a human life anymore. What will you do when you're a burnt-out hulk of a man at 50 with no friends?

Re:Consumed by work - your missing your life

[Seumas]

But you know what? I like working because I like my job and I like my income and I like enjoying my money by doing and buying things that I otherwise would be unable to. I think it's grossly unfair to expect a man to bring home the bacon (as society generally does) but then for the woman he sets-up with to turn around and say that he works too much. Where do you think the money that both people enjoy comes from? It doesn't grow on trees.

We've all heard the stories of women who cheated on their hard working men with greasy mooching losers who have lots of free time because "he doesn't pay enough attention to me and is always working".

I would much rather be well-off (certainly not rich by any means) than poor, regardless of relationship status. Being poor or having a hard time making ends meet doesn't make for enjoyable relationships, even in the best of pairings. Especially if you ever want to have kids and afford to help them with college and give them a decent start in life.

As for hard working - you've got me there. I would like to be more social, but I can't manage to stay away from home (where I work) very long without feeling like I should be getting something done and like I'm wasting time. As it is, I have not left my home (as in, I have literally not gone outside the front door) since Christmas of 2003. I sleep a few feet from my work desk and only nap when I can't possibly keep my eyes open any longer to work.

I know I can't live like this forever, but I'm only in my late 20's. I have another 15 years before I need to worry about settling down, by which time I sure hope to have enough saved up to spend all my time enjoying "life".

But I disagree with the assertion that anyone who is working 60 or 80 hours a week is "marrie to their job". Those are often the hours required to stay employed. There are always other people who are willing to work that much and will happily replace you.

I don't feel sorry that I am consumed by my job at all. I love my job. I'm lucky to have this career and I wake up and get to work every morning with a smile on my face, eager to confront challenges and puzzles and learn. I feel that it's when your job is terrible and you hate it and you don't want to be there but have to (for the money) that you're missing your life.

If someone enjoyed painting and spent most of their time painting, would you say they were wasting their life? What if about actors or authors? It's only a waste if it's not something you like doing. Hell, to me, being a car mechanic seems like a waste of life, to me. But I bet there are thousands of dedicated people who love cars and working on them that live for it.

And maybe I'll meet someone some day that makes me stop and say "I need to work 20 less hours per week so I can spend 20 more hours with them". And when I do, I'll probably know that's the right person.

The people I feel sorry for are those like my younger friends who are in their very early twenties and getting married and have a kid on the way, but have no education, career or money. They may have "love" and spend a lot of time together, but that doesn't make up for the hardships they and their child are going to have and the major relationship troubles that will result from never being able to take care of the bills.

Re:Consumed by work - your missing your life

[lucas teh geek]

As it is, I have not left my home (as in, I have literally not gone outside the front door) since Christmas of 2003
you should try that man, if you leave it too long you're not going to fit out the door

Re:Consumed by work - your missing your life

[Tackhead]

> If you're working 60 or 80 hours a week you're married to your work not to your wife. What's the point in living under the same roof if all you have the time to do is to sleep in the same bed?

Well, for one thing, you don't have to worry about ironing your shirts. Either because you don't need to impress her with your snappy looks (because you're not doing anything together - or because she's got what she wants from you, namely your money, and doesn't care what you look like)...

...or because things are going great and she can stay home and iron the clothes. Well, in between... well, let's just say the postman always comes twice.

> I feel sorry for people like you who get so consumed by their jobs/quest for money that they're not living a human life anymore. What will you do when you're a burnt-out hulk of a man at 50 with no friends?

Huh? Same thing I do every night, Pinky! Post on Slashdot, get rated (+5, Funny), rack up the karma, and get friends by the dozen. You don't even have to be 50, but being burned out helps.

Re:Consumed by work - your missing your life

[m.h.2]

I admire your dedication to your chosen work/life. You're young enough to weather the things that make working long hours difficult. I personally have a strong work ethic and until recently, rarely worked fewer than 60 hours/week, but I came to a realization that totally changed the way I view my work:life ratio.

Last year, I lost my job because the company I worked for had closed due to offshoring. I spent at least 60 hours/week (not including my 1.5 - 2 hour/day commute) on the job for 7 years and I ended up unemployed. As I looked around, I saw so much of the same happening to our technology work force. People with 10 years into a job at 12 hours per day, losing their jobs to minimum-wage Indians\Malaysians\(insert offshoring citizen here) who only have to work 8 hours per day. I understand that companies want to save money by taking advantage of cheap labor overseas (a practice, by the way, that has occurred since the invention of the ship), but it's tough to see all of those jobs sent overseas after all of the extra (mostly unpaid)hours put in by my friends and colleagues (and me!).

It took me almost a year to find another job at half of my former salary and 1/4 the vacation time. When I took on the job, I made the conscious decision to still give 100% of my effort to my job, but only for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week. At my former job, I earned great salary and enjoyed many benefits, but when the plane went down in flames, most of the people who actually did any work were left without parachutes. I'm no longer investing my life into a company for the gain of C-level executives and Board Members. My salary is half of what it was, but my quality of life is improved exponentially. My only regret is that I hadn't done it sooner.

Tennis playing robot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just a smart ball thrower. You got served!

Only EUR 1000 in Europe....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you can pick one up at most MediaMarkt stores in the Netherlands for about a thousand euro's. They do some in-store demonstrations; as mentioned before, the results are not that good. With all the work getting your shirt on the Dressman, you might as well do it yourself.

Definition

[jeti]

A programmable device with at least three degrees of freedom (3DOF).

Outsource!!

[saurabhchandra]

For this price we could get 2 full time employees in India ironing clothes for the whole year. So what remains is to develop a technology to teleport the clothes back and forth. Man I am patenting this :-)

Gotta be asked

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but does it run linux. ;)

Re:Gotta be asked

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a (Beowulf) cluster of these...

Reminds me of an old joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading an advertisement that said 'A device that can partially replace a wife', a man bought the device. Without reading the manual he stuck his penis in it, pushed the button, and ... got a shirt button sewn on his tool. Ouch.

--Coder

okay.

[Anonymous Coward]

RoboMop.

Not lazier, just able to do other things.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather be jogging, coding, watching a movie, exercising, fixing my car or doing 100 other things than ironing my shirt. That doesn't mean i'm lazy.

--Coder

It can't even iron my pants

[mateo650]

That's half the battle. This robot doesn't even have AI. Not worth it.

How to get away without ever ironing (by a tailor)

[TheMCP]

I'm a tailor, and I teach advanced classes about shirts. You don't need this "robot". You shouldn't have to iron your cotton shirts. Here's how to never iron, but have your cotton shirts look like you did:

First, open every button on the shirt and remove plastic collar stays (if any) before washing.

When you dry, cotton shirts can be dried on "hot" in most American home dryers, but I use "medium" when I go to a laundramat because their dryers are hotter.

When you take your shirts out of the dryer, if they feel bone dry to the touch, you've over-dried them. You should be drying them less. They should feel as if they have just the slightest hint of moisture left in them, which should evaporate naturally within about a minute or so. Over-dried shirts will be wrinkly. Properly-dried shirts shouldn't be wrinkly.

If your shirts are dried properly but are coming out of the dryer wrinkly, your loads of laundry are too big. Wash and dry a little less stuff in each load. The general rule is, when you put the wet clothes in the dryer, they should take up a bit less than half the space inside the dryer.

Finally, you should get to the dryer as soon as it stops (not 10 minutes later: right away!) and take out your shirts and hang them up on clothes hangers. Do not use wire hangers, use plastic hangers (such as those available cheaply at Target or Kmart) or wood hangers. Wire hangers can cause the shirt to get funny misshapen wrinkles in the shoulders, which can only be removed by re-washing.

If you do these things properly, your cotton shirts will look smooth and professional with no ironing.

why this robot sucks;

[Anonymous Coward]

1) it only does shirts,
2) it takes 7-8 minutes to do.. one shirt.
3) it blows COLD AIR on your nicely ironed shirt, taking away one of life's simple pleasures.

They'd become much cheaper...

[BrianMarshall]

... if there is actually a market for these things, it seems to me that they could be made and sold for a lot less than $1700. A few competitors and the price could go way down.

On the other hand, it is hard to see that there would be that big a market for the thing, considering the amount of your time it consumes (split up into 10 minute chunks).

Re:They'd become much cheaper...

[Seumas]

One would expect a company could easily design a "feeder" for the shirt press dummy that would let you place each shirt on a hanger (or a modified hanger). You could place multiple in a row and as the machine completed them, it could slip the current one off and back onto the hanger and the next one off from the hanger and back onto the dummy.

Not for the home user, of course - but for the industrial environment. Maybe they already have something like this but I am not at all familiar with dry cleaners.

Hot Super Model

[KageMonkey]

If the doll resembles a hot super model, then it might warrant the $1700 price tag. I better go patent this idea before anyone steals it. Although, having a hot super model robot inflating to a larger size might not be too appealing. And it might also have the side effect of making two undesirable humps on a men's dress shirt. Man, and I thought I was going to be a millionaire.

The difference

[SuperKendall]

A bunch of dummies inflating with enough hot air to stuff a shirt, all for all too much money.

Sounds like Congress, doesn't it?

The difference is that you would still want to wear your shirt when the Dressman is done with it.

It ain't a robot, and it ain't new

[joseph_dcruz]

my local 5'Sec laundry in Kuala Lumpur has a similar gadget that's made out of an inflatable canvas sack attached to the steam generator they use for all their industrial irons. The Bangladeshi guys running the laundry use it more for long dresses and ballgowns rather than shirts. I'd take a picture to show you, but I'm in India right now and it's a helluva long way to go for karma points ;-)

Not a robot

[Drog]

Yeah, I wrote about this yesterday on www.sciscoop.com and I refused to call it a robot, no matter how many times the articles called it that. Sure, technically it could be considered a robot, but no more so than my washing machine. Even less, really, since at least my washing machine has moving parts.

Re:How to get away without ever ironing (by a tail

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That's definitely a lot less effort than simply taking shirt, placing on ironing board and uniformly applying iron to shirt.

Boooooring

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer extreme ironing over that any time.

It should be green ...

[ozbird]

... because sooner or later, you just know it's going to do an "Incredible Hulk" on your favourite shirt.

Prior technology

[Gax]

My life has been greatly simplified by the purchase of a trouser press. Admittedly I've never tried shirts (it doesn't get warm enough to burn anything, so it is possible for the back), but it only cost 5 - significantly less than this piece of hardware.

Re:How to get away without ever ironing (by a tail

[MikeHunt69]

Thats exactl how I used to do it.

But when I try it in my new dryer, the tips of the collars come out with small "nicks" in them, as if someone has taken a razor blade and made a small incision near the point of the collar. It completely ruins the shirt. I assume that there's something sharp inside the dryer catching on them.

So now I just iron them.

Re:How to get away without ever ironing (by a tail

[GuyWithLag]

I see you either don't have many shirts or you JIT-iron them.

That's not a robot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked in the dry cleaning industry in my past, and that is not a new device.
When you take your clothes to a dry cleaner, they use an IDENTICAL machine to press your clothes. What's the catch?
You have to hook the device up to a high-pressure steam line. Also, their equipment is usually more than just a few years old ;)

do washingmashines dream of electronic sheep?

[tommten]

a very wide definition of robot is something that makes your labour.. but come on,this is like calling a new cylinda washing machine for a robot just because it can tumbledry your clothes after it washed them, or something.. come back when it picks clothes from the floor, washes them if they need it (electronic nose,washing instructions by embedded rfid?),irons them and then folds or hang them into the closet and all that for just $1700 (batteries included)

NOT a robot

[dustinbarbour]

Not a freakin' robot. When will the world stop naming everything that takes some labor away from humans a robot? Robots need more than just a big inflatable bag and hot air.. or the ability to zoom around and suck up dirt and dead skin cells. Sheesh..

massive energy hog

[pj737]

3,300 watts to iron a shirt? And for 8 minutes? My iron consumes about 300 watts or less than 1/10 of what that machine consumes. To iron one shirt, my iron is usually "on" for about 4-5 minutes (about 2 minutes to get it warmed up and 3 minutes to iron the shirt). The iron actually toggles on and off to stabilize the temperature so that the surface doesn't get too hot. This would mean that it isn't even on for the full three minutes while ironing. Anyway, if that machine consumes 3,300 watts for 8 minutes to iron one shirt I'm flabbergasted. That would mean that it would take 440 watt-hours of electricity or about 7 cents (here in Hawaii it's about 15 cents/kWh) to iron one shirt. My iron, on the other hand, consumes about 25 watt-hours or less than one half of one cent. That's nearly 20 times more energy than my iron.

If I'm going to waste that much energy to iron my shirt, I'd rather spray some water on it and toss it back in the dryer (which consumes about 3,000 watts) for 10 minutes. That'll take care of the wrinkles, save me $1,700 and a lot of space.

Ironing techniques.

[uberdave]

I'd like to see that ironing "robot" do this, or this. Mankind will have the edge in ironing for quite a while.

Not a Robot(tm)

[nmg196]

How is that in any way a Robot?

It's no more a robot than a Corby trouser press and requires extensive human intervention to actually start and complete the ironing process.

An ironing robot would be one that notices when my wash has finished and goes and gets all the ironing to be done from the machine, irons it all, and puts it in my wardrobe in my preferred order. Nothing short of that will impress me.

"Living Tomorrow"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

For those living in Holland or Belgium (and/or willing to travel to Amsterdam or Brussels), you can see this at "Living Tomorrow" (http://www.livingtomorrow.nl or http://www.livingtomorrow.be) More nice stuff to see there as well.

Although it looks nice, there are some drawbacks:
1. Attaching the shirt to the machine is cumbersome
2. It takes about 5 minutes before the shirt is finished (that is after attaching it)
3. It only works with shirts

So, it is a nice innovation, but in it's current form not very useful to me. I'll keep using my old iron for now.

Cheers

I've got one already....

[oliverthered]

It's called a tumble dryer.

Yup - it's not a robot, it's....

[Ratface]

It's a politician - a big dummy filled with hot air!

*boom-boom*

Had one for ages...

[liam_p]

This device has been in our Saturn store for at least a year! Will check current asking price...

Re:How to get away without ever ironing (by a tail

[Scarblac]

This is cool. I've often seen comments how Slashdot is cool because it has not only programmer geeks, but also medical doctors, lawyers, et cetera. Now we actually have a tailor! :-)

My idea was very similar... but for socks

[saigon_from_europe]

My problem was how to quickly dry wet socks. Standard problem when only clean socks are just washed. Experimenting showed that drying with iron does not help too much. The best solution is to take hairdryer, put the sock on it (in order to make all of hot air to go through the sock), and wait for significant period of time. Problem is that sock may become very hot, also I always wondered wether the dryer could break. Probably it is not its expected working regime. But no matter of these two limitations, this method works and takes about 10 minutes.

Hmm...

[dnight]

Looks vaguely humanoid, no intelligence, fills up with hot air... It's not a robot, it's a politician!

Re:How to get away without ever ironing (by a tail

[MP3Chuck]

" Wash and dry a little less stuff in each load."

You mean I can't just do "Whites" and "not-Whites??"

Just turn the dryer back on for 5 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to take the clothes out until you need them. Your clothes will be unwrinkled and they're nice and toasty warm when you put them on. Just be careful about that big metal button on your jeans - it can be damn hot, and it's awfully close to a sensitive area.

Geez, kids these days. You have to teach them everything.

Not only that, it'll blow standard fuses!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in North America, the house voltage is 120 with most outlets fused or breakered at 15 amps. The most you'll get out of those outlets before tripping a breaker is ~1800 watts. To get the minimum required wattage of 2150, you'll have to use one of the 20+ amp outlets in the laundry room for the electric dryer or in the kitchen for the electric stove -- assuming you have such a device and/or an available outlet. Or, you'll need to upgrade an outlet to 20 amps which will cost money (you'll need to hire an electrician unless you like to monkey around with the fuse/breaker box and know exactly what you're doing).

A 20 amp outlet, for those that don't know, is shaped somewhat differently than a 15 amp. If up to code, a 20 amp plug should not fit into a 15 amp outlet, though a 15 amp plug would fit just fine in a 20 amp outlet.

So, unless you're one of the lucky ones that have outlets in your home wired for 20 amp service, it sounds like you'll be SOL if you buy this fancy iron.

Big Trak (including trailer)

[Anonymous Coward]

With Big Trak, the old programmable motorized action tank from the 80's, you could send an apple to your dad in the living room, dropping it off with the trailer once you got there and zapping any marauding dogs on the way with the tanks built in "Lazer of Death"! Now thats a useful robot!

proposed back in the 70's by children's book... :)

[w4rl5ck]

this "invention" has already been covered in the book "Birne kann alles" by Günter Herburger (like "lightbulb can do anything") where a small, intelligent lightbulb changes the world to a better one. Obviously it's written for children. Some Siemens engineers must have read it like I did back in the early 80ths :D

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000BRKF2 /q id=1086089291/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_8_2/028-4076337-3081 331

[sorry link without picture and not much (german) information - hail the fish]

I have a wife of 18 years

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a wife of 18 years

You could have at least waited until she graduated from high school

Re:How to get away without ever ironing (by a tail

[Zugok]

Thanks for those tips, those cufflinked shirts were getting to be a pain to iron.

Too pricey?

[dcs]

Well, it doesn't fold, so maybe it is a bit expensive. I'd pay more than $1500 for it.

Re:How to get away without ever ironing (by a tail

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you're having so much trouble. Do "Darks" and "non-Darks" instead

Personal Valet Option

[Mr_Blank]

Here is another option for having your clothes "automatically" pressed at home: Whirlpool's Personal Valet. The Personal Valet involves hanging your clothes in the cabnet and waiting 30 minutes. It costs $1200 plus special cleaning chemicals.

It is not as cool as a robot or a wife, but it does clean, descent, and dewrinkle the clothes.

This space for rent.

Obligatory puns

[kernelfoobar]

It's full of hot air!
This thing blows.

and it doesn't even talk, pffff!

How do People like the Roomba?

[kallistiblue]

I've been thinking about getting a Roomba for a while. I don't know anyone that has one.

To those that have this little robot:

Is it worth it?

Sweeping seems to be a daily chore for me. :(

Shirt Curls Up

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a couple of shirts that tend to curl up near the buttons. Is there some sort of trick to prevent this?

Watch out, this thing will be replacing managment!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:
"press the start button, the whole ironing dummy fills with hot air which presses and dries the shirt. "

Missing Feature

[Compulawyer]

From what I can tell, this "robot" can't give you creases in your shirt sleeves. Speaking as someone who has worn both a "real" uniform and the "corporate" uniform, I can tell you that a single, razor-sharp crease in the proper position on the sleeve is an absolute necessity. People who have worn uniforms notice this right away. Even those who have not themselves worn uniforms can tell you someone looks "better" when their shirt sleeves are properly pressed, even if they cannot articulate just why that is.

This is not new, at all.

[LifesABeach]

this is not a troll, but i had a '70s falsh back.

i use to work at dry cleaners in the early 1970s'. this 'robot' uses the same method of working parts, and the same outcome. the shirt is pressed, as in 'no wrinkles'. but if you wanted 'military' creases, then that was done manually.

its cruel to say, but the only thing robotic on this device is the on-off switch, and the steam valve.

but all should not be ignored, maybe military creases will come with the '2.0' version...

Does she read slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a wife [who] blows whenever I want

You mean you used to have a wife. Or, at the very least, you will until she realises you don't respect her at all, and brag about her sucking your cock on an internet site.

Low, dude, way low.

Re:Does she read slashdot?

[nuckfuts]

Firstly, what makes you think I don't respect her?

Secondly, an offhand comment pertaining to my wife without even identifying her is not likely to turn my wife into and ex-wife. Nor would her reading my comment. It was a simple statement of fact with which she would agree.

Get some perspective man.

It's what Dry Cleaner establishments use already.

[Steve Mitchell]

My mom's side of the family, I being half-Korean, does a good job of maintaining the Korean Dry Cleaning stereotype, so I have a good insight on how dry cleaning works.

This type of device has existed since I can remember. Basically, you place the shirt/blouse/jacket onto a manikin-like device. A handle is pulled to mechanically stretch the item, and a lengthy blast of steam billows out until the wrinkles are gone. Nothing new here, except I guess the device is for home use and you do not need an external source of steam.

Maybe that's the trick:
1. Take something that exists in the professional field.
2. Re-design it for home use and call it a robot.
3. Profit.

No mysterious ???? step. I think we got something here.

Nice baby steps

[mwood]

It's a long way from a real domestic robot, though. 100 different single-purpose gadgets is not my idea of home roboticization. Wake me when they've got one that will do the ironing (and schedule ironing when it notices enough work to do), *and* vacuum, *and* take out the trash every Thursday because I said "take out the trash every Thursday" and answered its questions to specify exactly what "take out the trash" means in my house and how early the task has to be finished in order not to miss the trash collectors, *and* figure out on its own how to keep the cat from interfering with dusting without my having to go out for a new cat.

not a single Kryten joke so far

[pinkfalcon]

"You may have noticed that your old Series 2000 model is getting slow and obsolete..."

Extra Mod Points

[The-Dalai-LLama]

...the placket at the back of a dress shirt...

You should get extra mod points just for knowing what that damned thing is called.

The Dalai LLama
...filing away "placket"....

Sure there's a problem

[ianscot]

Much as I'd like to encourage this, it's a solution in search of a problem.

More like just the wrong solution? I just spent an hour ironing last night for this week's clothes. These are just my workaday clothes, not some sales person's suits. I don't want to pay to dry clean them or go through that hassle, not to mention dry cleaning not being particularly environmentally friendly. There's a niche there.

In general this would be in the class of problems that seem to me to be begging for a better solution. Think how much energy an iron soaks up. Turn on your hair dryer and your iron at the same time and pray for the circuit breaker, you know? Dry cleaning's not a stand-in, and the existing process is a nuisance and a fire or injury hazard... Just seems like this solution's priced way high and not quite there yet.

Personally I'm waiting on someone to invent the new clothes line. (Partly for the glory of the moment when Microsoft tries to extend the standard.)

Re:Sure there's a problem

[Dr. Evil]

<environmentally friendly solutions>

A housekeeper, wrinkled shirts, the t-shirt, the golf shirt, permanent press and diligent hanging, less restrictive dress codes for men.

</environmentally friendly solutions>

Re:Sure there's a problem

[IncohereD]

A housekeeper, wrinkled shirts, the t-shirt, the golf shirt, permanent press and diligent hanging, less restrictive dress codes for men.

I went to a catholic high school, and although my mother likes ironing (!) many people just put their shirt on a hanger in the bathroom while they showered. Wrinkles gone. Wow.

It's all about your definition...

[Otto]

I would consider a robot to be any mechanical device that can semi-autonomously perform a higher level task. By "higher level", I mean like "wash the dishes", but at the same time, not a dishwasher.

A dishwasher will get the dirt off your dishes, but the high level directive to "wash the dishes" includes loading the dishes, unloading the dishes, putting them away into cabinents or other storage locations, etc, etc. In the same way, "wash the clothes" means to wash them, dry them, fold them if you're into that sort of thing, put them away, etc.

The roomba vacuum is a robot because it can vacuum the floor, move from room to room, navigate around obstacles, etc, etc. It's more than just a vacuum cleaner. My vacuum cleaner can vacuum the floor, but it can't do all the associated parts of the high level task of "vacuuming" by itself. The roomba can.

You iron your clothes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Dressman?!?

[Mach25]

Dress...man. I'm I the only one who sees the 'irony'? Shouldn't it be Dresswoman?

Re:Dressman?!?

[mr. methane]

Hey, some people might find it to be a good fit.

Did I really say that? Groan....

It's all your fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not drinking milk ever again!

Fact frenzy

[markw]

This was on BBC Radio 5 the other day, the Siemens spokeswoman said it would come onto the market at UKP900, that it had already been selling well in Germany, that UKP900 meant it should pay for itself in laundry costs over the course of a year, and that ironing has been voted the UK's least favourite chore in a recent survey.

Apparently it's like a tailor's dummy which blows hot and cold jets to inflate the shirt into position and then press it. And it takes 90 seconds to iron a shirt, as opposed to 8 mins by hand (or rather, by a hand holding a hot iron).

Dang, missed my chance, built that 20+ years ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a couple of the gun-style hair dryers blow the clothes up like a balloon. Worked on near anything that you could limit the air flow through. Some cups with holes in them in the sleeves, and a plastic sheet rigged on a hanger.

Dang... I'll settle for 1/2 that amount, each, for my design? Orders anyone??

Least favorite job?

[serutan]

Let me get this straight. You read Slashdot, and you also IRON your clothes?

I am not worthy.

rosy on the jetsons?

[xpyr]

does this mean I'll soon have a genuine rosy robot just like on the jetsons? :)