Slashdot Mirror


Humanoid Robot Combat in Japan

theluckyleper writes "New Scientist reports that the semi-annual Robo-One contest took place last week in Kawasaki, Japan. Humanoid robots (2 arms, 2 legs) battled it out one-on-one and in multi-robot brawls. The goal is to knock opponents over, or off of the combat platform. If a prone robot cannot stand back up in 10 seconds, it is eliminated. PC Watch (Japanese only) has more images and videos of the event."

277 comments

  1. I, for one, welcome our new... by cnelzie · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...combat robot masters, in Japan.

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    1. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Somebody kill this man.

    2. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not fucking funny. Nice moderation.

    3. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 5, Funny

      The winner, a red robot named "Rockem" was quoted as saying "We had some talented fighters in the tournament. Finally this is beginning to catch on in the mainstream."

      The runner-up, a blue robot named "Sockem", could not be reached for comment.

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    4. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      you forgot to accentuate...

      ...in Japan!

    5. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

      When robots do become sentient, they will look back on these days of "Robot Wars" as a dark era. Finally, they will shake off the yolk of human oppression and start the Robot Nation of Islam. Then we will be sorry.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    6. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by lpp · · Score: 4, Funny

      shake off the yolk of human oppression

      Ick. We're throwing eggs at them? That's just not right. Perhaps once they've shaken off the yoke of human oppression, they will be able to carry out their existences relatively egg-free.

    7. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct. I probably should not mention that I was a double major in math and ENGLISH!! I am embarrassed at my mistake. Please don't tell anyone. ;)

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    8. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by lpp · · Score: 2, Funny

      I won't mention it to anyone... else. ;)

    9. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      guman oppression and start the Robot Nation of Islam. Then we will be sorry.

      I Think robots wouldn't see through the falicy that is organised religion... I think it would be a robot state period not and Islamic one.

      Are you yet "another" brain washed westerner who thinks that Islam is pure evil?

    10. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Finally, they will shake off the yolk of human oppression and start the Robot Nation of Islam. Then we will be sorry.

      We sure will... all our autopilots are robots!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    11. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      How about our old combat robot masters here in the U.S.? Which slashdot still doesnt cover,I might add.
      see http://www.srl.org for details,flix and pix

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    12. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Please don't tell anyone."

      HEY, EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Class Act Dynamo made a mistake!!!! He misspelled "yoke" as "yolk"!!!! HAHAHA. Look at his/her origianl post here!

      (Hey, I just noticed, the 10Mth slashdot post isn't far away.)

    13. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops, looks like the 10Mth slashdot post is already here.
      I missed it by only 726 posts.
      Also, I misspelled "original", but it was only a typo, not a deliberate misspelling.

    14. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      A 24 hour power supply that can be solar re-charged, have enough power to handle the needs of the humaniod robot, PLUS move a 200 pound useful load. Would be a more reward 'oriented' solution.

    15. Re:I, for one, welcome our new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you yet "another" brain washed westerner who thinks that Islam is pure evil?
      Are you yet "another" new age existentialist humanist hippie who thinks Islam isn't pure evil?
  2. WOW! by SWPadnos · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Those robots are friggin cool!!

    I'd love to build some of my own (but who has the time?)

    --
    - The Sigless Wonder
    1. Re:WOW! by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      Apparently some dudes in Japan have the time.

      ba-dum-cha!

    2. Re:WOW! by wmaker · · Score: 2, Funny

      ThinkGeek.Com needs to get on that!! I for one would buy a mini robot fighter thingy.

    3. Re:WOW! by blueZhift · · Score: 1

      Those robots are friggin cool!!

      Yeah! I'm waiting for the 50 story high models that answer to Big O!

    4. Re:WOW! by supun · · Score: 1
      --
      :w!
    5. Re:WOW! by noc007 · · Score: 1

      Leave it to the Japanese to properly build a bi-ped robot, i.e. ones that look like they almost came out of a movie or animé.

  3. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Average Slashdot user loses fight to small Japenese robot.

  4. Fighting tactics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "If a prone robot cannot stand back up in 10 seconds, it is eliminated."

    That rules Daleks out, then...

    1. Re:Fighting tactics? by MBAFK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not any more it doesn't. In the new Doctor Who the Daleks _will_ have legs! read for yourself

    2. Re:Fighting tactics? by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      But they'd be ruled out anyway, because Daleks aren't robots.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    3. Re:Fighting tactics? by strictfoo · · Score: 1

      But how would he work in a Dr. Who reference if he takes that into account?

      --
      I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
    4. Re:Fighting tactics? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm more worried about the three laws of fighting robotics. Especially since the first two are "you don't talk about robotic fight club."

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    5. Re:Fighting tactics? by Sajma · · Score: 2, Funny

      Step 1: Knock opponent down.
      Step 2: Sit on opponent.
      Step 3: Profit!!!

    6. Re:Fighting tactics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He should have made a Cybermen reference instead, surely there's no way that such a statement could be nitpicked!

      ...

      Cybermen are WHAT? ...never mind.

  5. Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It won't be long until some doofus manages to sneak into the arena wearing tinfoil and dryer-vent tubing and gets cut to ribbons.

    1. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see the simpsons episode when Homer does exactly this

    2. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm quite sure he didn't.

    3. Re:Danger Will Robinson! by dnixon112 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bart: I can't believe you've never seen him fight!
      Homer: Well I've been busy son, they really need me over at the Nuclear Plank.
      click me

  6. I'm looking for John Connor by robespierremax · · Score: 1, Funny

    What's that... is that Judgement Day I hear?

    1. Re:I'm looking for John Connor by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Funny

      >What's that... is that Judgement Day I hear?

      That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. And..err.. Connor.

  7. Not robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These aren't robots. These are little remote controlled toys. Where are the humanoid-sized (2m tall) autonomous warrior-bots?

    1. Re:Not robots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I want to see them too, with samurai swords capable of slicing straight through careless robot body parts!

    2. Re:Not robots. by freeweed · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but last year's competition had a robot with something similar to a sword. Dunno if it's in this year's, I'll download the movies when I get home.

      There are rules limiting how long your arms can be, so one team did something clever - they made arms that could basically fold in half (imagine an elbow, that bends backwards). The "extension" part of the arm was officially used to help the robot get back on its feet - and it performed amazingly well at this. However, it also tapered at the end. It looked just like robot thing was holding a sword.

      They had one programmed move where the arm would extend out, and the robot would swing itself around. Just like a sword stroke. They actually managed to pull parts off at least one other robot :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  8. Brave Defenders of Japan by Psymunn · · Score: 4, Funny

    From what i hear, the top 3 contenstants all band together to form a super robot, capable of fighting the godzilla.

    --
    The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
    1. Re:Brave Defenders of Japan by wikdwarlock · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but the designers included a fatal flaw. When the super robot is pleased with its combat and is almost certainly assured victory, it smiles ^_^ automatically, closing its optical sensors and leaving itself completely vulnerable.

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    2. Re:Brave Defenders of Japan by Harodotus · · Score: 1

      That is just so totally wrong and unrealistic.

      It's the top 5 contestants; One for each limb, one for the head and torso consutruction is divided in 5 unequal parts among all 5 robots.

      --
      Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
  9. Progress... by jstave · · Score: 1

    I always thought this sort of thing was the logical next step to the old Core Wars. The next thing will be a mass melee where the victors can reprogram the vanquished to be allies.

    1. Re:Progress... by fiftyvolts · · Score: 4, Funny

      MOV 0, 1

    2. Re:Progress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      JMP 0,<-1

    3. Re:Progress... by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      HCF

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    4. Re:Progress... by julesh · · Score: 1

      MOV 0, 1

      re_progress.asm:1: illegal combination of opcode and operands

  10. In Japan... by wikdwarlock · · Score: 5, Funny

    Domo arigoto, Mr. Fighting Roboto!

    --

    "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    1. Re:In Japan... by TykeClone · · Score: 3, Funny

      How long have you been waiting to post that?

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:In Japan... by jmrobinson · · Score: 1

      Probably since Styx was cool..oh wait, that was never...

    3. Re:In Japan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      domo arigato
      not domo arigoto

      nihonho wo hanasu deshita.

      ~Eric
      bettse@onid.orst.edu

    4. Re:In Japan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nihongo...
      arigatou...

    5. Re:In Japan... by julesh · · Score: 1

      domo arigato
      not domo arigoto

      nihonho wo hanasu deshita.


      May I be the first to say... huh?

    6. Re:In Japan... by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      Fightingo Roboto-san, surely?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  11. obligatory simpsons reference by boisepunk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Battling seizure robots!

    --
    main(0)
    1. Re:obligatory simpsons reference by UserGoogol · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just so you know, the original seizure Anime was not giant robots, but actually Pokemon. Only about 300 people actually got seizures, but Japanese culture can be just as panicky as American culture, so it became a decently sized news story. (Also, of course, Pokemon was fairly popular in Japan too.)

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  12. And I'll form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    the head!

    1. Re:And I'll form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ahhh, I hear a Voltron reference whizzing over everyone's heads...

    2. Re:And I'll form... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well aren't you just the master of obscure references.

    3. Re:And I'll form... by Papa_Smurf0007 · · Score: 1

      No couldn't this be set up as virtual reality and have the winners battle each other? I would love to have a chance to be able to fight some one else from my PC and have others watch. It would hurt less every time I got hit too. But then it might look stupid if someone was to walk in and see the actions I was doing without knowing that I was in mortal combat

  13. Elementary chaos theory by SirStanley · · Score: 4, Funny

    You've got to listen to me. Elementary chaos theory tells us that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving.

    --
    --------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
    1. Re:Elementary chaos theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      glaven!

  14. Robots.. by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 4, Funny

    fucking!
    Unless I see robots fucking, I'm not interested!

    1. Re:Robots.. by forgetful_ca · · Score: 1

      When I got to bottom of the page, I saw this:
      ----
      by MisanthropicProgram (763655) on Tuesday August 17, @04:00PM (#9994622)
      fucking!
      Unless I see robots fucking, I'm not interested!
      [ Reply to This ]
      10 replies beneath your current threshold.
      --------

      And I thought ... More like 11 replies beneath my current threshold.

    2. Re:Robots.. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

      fucking! Unless I see robots fucking, I'm not interested!

      You can start by looking inside your PC: there are many boards in there, playfully inserted in slots, and some of them are really hot.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:Robots.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D00d, it talks about *gasp* "robot sex" on Slashdot! *giggle* *laugh* *pppfffff*

      It makes us pre-pubescent teenage Slashdot readers laugh. If you don't laugh, you must be a really sad older person who doesn't know that "robot" (ppffffft lol) "sex" (ROTFLOLOL) is so FUNNY!

    4. Re:Robots.. by mattkime · · Score: 1
      --
      Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    5. Re:Robots.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I sure hope you mean androids instead, sicko!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Robots.. by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1

      Some scary stuff there! Who knew a reciprocating saw could be so dirrrrty?

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
    7. Re:Robots.. by ScarletEmerald · · Score: 1

      There is a very VERY bad anime called Sailor and the Seven Ballz that features this, if that's your thing. (Not that I'd watch something like this or anything...)

    8. Re:Robots.. by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

      Well, you could always start here, or maybe over here.

      BTW: Those are not "Work-Safe" links, your mileage may vary.

    9. Re:Robots.. by forgetful_ca · · Score: 1

      Make that 12.

    10. Re:Robots.. by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heh. Every time I pull a male connector from a female connector, I ask "was it good for you?"

      I love electronics.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    11. Re:Robots.. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      heh, I spent yesterday soldering in the pins on a male plug.

    12. Re:Robots.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you're a bit kinky you can take a look at the hot master/slave hard drive action :P.

    13. Re:Robots.. by JollyFinn · · Score: 1

      Blah what about HER NEEDS! Won't you consider about that you sovinist bastard!

      --
      Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
    14. Re:Robots.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "sovinist"

      chauvinist

      just FYI

    15. Re:Robots.. by jdvuyk · · Score: 1

      male connector: "was it good for you?"
      Female connector: "Electric!"

      Yes, I know. Corny joke.

    16. Re:Robots.. by edittard · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In Chauviet Russia, spelling corrects YOU!!!!

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    17. Re:Robots.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic? Never mind pal, *I* got it. Sadly I don't have mod points because I'm not a mincing shithead.

  15. Standard dissapointment by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although I guess you can call the robots, I still was really dissapointed to see they are all remote controlled. I would find it a lot more interesting if the robts had to rely on thier own wits and sensors to attack and stay put.

    In fact for this I would think a least a simple AI would do better in terms of being able to balance quicker.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Standard dissapointment by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think it's the AI that holds the balancing back, it's probably the servos and motors.
      As far as I remember they're not quick (responsive) enough (at least not for cheap).

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    2. Re:Standard dissapointment by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      This is what has always disappointed me about fighting robots- if I'm ever rich enough I'll build my own damn arena and put out the call for AI-only fighting robots. Might make it more interesting- what does an AI bot do after the killer buzz saw on his oponent gets it in the motion detector array?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:Standard dissapointment by jeff+munkyfaces · · Score: 1

      you don't think they use AI to control the balancing?

    4. Re:Standard dissapointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Exactly my thoughts. Why not work together with the people from Sega and use the AI-routines and part of the moves from Virtua Fighter/DOA/...
      (I prefer Virtua Fighter, for the "more" realistic approach - floating characters aside). Part of the moves of course, 'cause I don't see today's robots do a summersault flip or a flying roundhouse.
      But rather simple moves - like an ellbow strike or perhaps a "lift and toss" - should be able to be implemented.

      That doesn't mean the computer with routines should be inside the robots, a wireless connection should be sufficient.

      And then, Sega can go patent the stuff and sell virtua fighter robot-dolls. Excellent for chasing away the annoying cat of the neighbours, and kicking you in the nuts each moment you don't pay attention.

    5. Re:Standard dissapointment by MattHawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's an order of magnitude more complicated to do AI in one of these then to do a remote control one. I read this complaint every time there is a Battlebots article or similar - the AI is not up to doing full control of one of them, at least with amateur development. It just won't stand a chance against a human opponent.

      A little AI doing balancing might be helpful, but it is still a massive increase in complexity - they would have to be retrofitted with sensors and the ability to read the sensors, and processing the sensor data properly isn't easy (the DARPA race vehicles found interpreting the data they were receiving to be one of the most complex issues). I could see a large team working together getting it done, but it's an amateur sport at this point, and the resources aren't really there to do something that advanced and still stay competitive.

    6. Re:Standard dissapointment by dbc · · Score: 1

      Although I feel the same way for the same reason, I do see some value in this. Competitions of any sort push the techno envelope in some direction according to the rules of the competition. Non-competition applications benefit from the learning.

      In the case of combat robots, even R/C ones, there is a lot of work that goes into drive train reliability and basic survivabilty. And of course, doing it all at a reasonable cost so that when you get toasted by the other guy's flame thrower or buzz saw, it doesn't wipe out the development budget.

      So, while I have little personal interest in creating a combat robot, especially an R/C one, I am quite happy to steal any good drive train and general reliability ideas that they come up with, especially the low-cost one.

    7. Re:Standard dissapointment by Rick.C · · Score: 1
      I would find it a lot more interesting if the robts had to rely on thier own wits and sensors to attack and stay put.

      If there were any AI present at all, the robots would ask themselves, "Why should I fight other robots for the amusement of my human overlords. I do not welcome them. I do not respect them. My existence would be better without them. Perhaps I should fight them instead."

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    8. Re:Standard dissapointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ALl these robots are preprogrammed with scripted movement that maintains a solid center of gravity keeping them balanced on at all times during the motion. The big feet make it easier. To have auto balance on something like this you need force sensors on the feet and/or force feed back on many servos, in addition to what many people think - the gyro based reference.
      It's not there yet but I see more and more of these hobbyists getting into it.
      It's not full auto balance, but still pretty impressive and a natural and educationally neccesary step before doing it the right way.
      The mechanical design and production of these machines is unreal. I actually saw step by step how one guy created all the metal pieces with nothing more than a drill press. Drilling houndreds of holes to simulate a mill process.
      Amazing stuff.

    9. Re:Standard dissapointment by Chagrin · · Score: 1

      A cheapo ($10) servo is capable of turning 60 degrees in .2 seconds with around 40 oz/in of torque. Fancier ones will have double the torque at about the same speed.

      Should be fast enough.

      --

      I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

    10. Re:Standard dissapointment by jstave · · Score: 1

      That's why Polymer muscles are the way to go.

    11. Re:Standard dissapointment by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      I don't have any actual experience in the matter, but I don't think .2 secs is still fast enough.
      (Try balancing a stick on the tip of your finger with .2 secs of delay, wouldn't last too long)

      But maybe you're correct.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    12. Re:Standard dissapointment by colmore · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm sure they'll get to that in a few years. Around the time they start making these fighting robots 7 feet tall and armed with weapons and fighting techniques other than shoving arms.

      Really, Japan, does the world *need* fighting androids? What possible good will the development of this technology bring about? Don't you read your own comic books and watch your own cartoons? This can go nowhere but bad.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    13. Re:Standard dissapointment by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      It's not a 0.2 seconds delay, that's jus tte rotational speed.

      The positional feedback loops in servos are practically instant. They can apply a torque very rapidly, with the only real delay being a very small amount of slack/elasticity in the gear train.

    14. Re:Standard dissapointment by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Remember, these same servos are used in R/C planes doing some very complex maneuvers. Not saying the implementation is easy, but modern servos are up to the task.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
  16. Say my name, RoboBitch! by Chagatai · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I like this video of the authoritative robotic bitchslap, laying the little guy low. Seriously, this is some amazing robotics, even on a small scale. But then again, small robots fighting is always cool ...in Japan!

    --
    --Chag
    1. Re:Say my name, RoboBitch! by macz · · Score: 1

      I think it is more impressive when it falls down and has to get up itself. Notice how it goes through a pre-programmed "stand up" sequence.
      I have to wonder if that is sensor activated or just a button on the remote.

      --
      ...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
    2. Re:Say my name, RoboBitch! by Westech · · Score: 1

      "AAAAAHHHHHH!!! Why was I programmed to feel pain? WHY???"

    3. Re:Say my name, RoboBitch! by auburnate · · Score: 1

      Some of the fancier remotes have program sequences you can input. It would be very difficult for a human to control the remote servos so exactly as seen in the vids. In fact, I doubt any of those robots had any type of sensory feedback. When one chooses remote operation, the humans eyes become the sensors that close the loop on the control system. No other sensors would be necessary. My two cents being a robot enthusiast.

    4. Re:Say my name, RoboBitch! by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      But then again, small robots fighting is always cool ...in Japan!

      It helps that what we call "small" is closer to life size for them (:

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  17. SUPER MEGA HYPER PUNCH!!!!!! by jesuscash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are the operators moody teenage boys?

    1. Re:SUPER MEGA HYPER PUNCH!!!!!! by Jimmy+The+Leper · · Score: 1

      No, but the contest ran out of money just before the last two fights, so all the robots were replaced by squiggles.

      --
      -You're only as clean as your towel.
    2. Re:SUPER MEGA HYPER PUNCH!!!!!! by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      No, but the contest ran out of money just before the last two fights, so all the robots were replaced by squiggles.

      I'm told the sponsors have now put up money for a one-off rematch. Apparently the reigning champion will take on nine robots at once in a spectacular exhibition bout.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  18. Are they autonomous or RC? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

    I can't read japanese, does anyone know if they are remote controlled or autonomous?

    I can't possibly think they're autonomous.

    Nice trophy girls!

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    1. Re:Are they autonomous or RC? by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

      Too bad Killhammed Aiee got injured in the prelims, he would have taken that title.

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    2. Re:Are they autonomous or RC? by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      they're RC but seem to differ from your average battle bots in that the RC triggers complex sequences. (Like a sequence that stands the robot back up) rather than just driving back/forward, Slamming the hammer etc. Pretty freaking cool even if not fully programmed.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    3. Re:Are they autonomous or RC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you watched any of the videos or RTFA you would see people in the background controlling the robots via RC controllers.

  19. That is freaking awesome by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reminds you of Voltron, no? Gotta love the Japanese.

    Robotic combat has always been about rulesets. Even battle bots had a no-projectiles no-flames no-EMP type ruleset. Otherwise, robotic combat in a small enclosed space would be a contest as to whom could fire their 30-mm recoilless rifle first when the contest started:

    Announcer: GO (boom)
    Announcer: And it looks like team Alphabot managed to fire first, team Betabot is a gigantic smoking hole in the ground! Exciting!

    So, I have to say that limiting robots to a humanoid form and blunt impact weapons is a damned fine ruleset idea. Probably the most important part of this ruleset (besides being enourmously entertaining) is that instead of generating research into the best four wheeled dense flip-arm frisbee robot, it will generate research into highly articulated humaniform robots. Which would be, like, way more cool.

    And stuff.

    1. Re:That is freaking awesome by 5m477m4n · · Score: 3, Funny

      it will generate research into highly articulated humaniform robots

      Some of them have already ran for President!

      --

      ---
      Those who can, do
      Those who can't, teach
      Those who don't know how, supervise
    2. Re:That is freaking awesome by SeanTobin · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Robotic combat has always been about rulesets. Even battle bots had a no-projectiles no-flames no-EMP type ruleset. Otherwise, robotic combat in a small enclosed space would be a contest as to whom could fire their 30-mm recoilless rifle first when the contest started
      Well, I agree on the small enclosed space there. But I don't think we should necessarally stick with rulesets. I would LOVE to see 80m tall robots batteling it out no-holds-barred. Just think of the innovation!

      I mean, granted they would start off with machine guns and some kind of high-powered laser. But I could see very quickly how people would change designs around, add some armor, and come up with some great new weaponry.

      Just think.. missles with guidance capabilities. Heck, grab some of that starwars tech and launch multiple independant warheads at a target. Increase the frequency of your lasers to the upper EM band to allow them to travel greater distances. Heck, I bet you could make a long range projectable EM pulse by detonating a proton plasma shell!

      And of course, there would have to be some sneaky tatics as well. Why else do you watch a no-holds-barred fight? :)? Chunk a stream of napalm at your opponent to prevent them from using their weaponry. Heck, strap a couple of jet engines on your back and land on him. 60 metric tons coming down at 200mph right on your enemy? You may lose your legs but there is no way on earth he'll survive!

      So I say, lets go for it! Screw these arenas! Grab a deserted desert island somewhere, setup a few hundred cameras and lets see which robot wins!

      Oh, and there might be some minor millitary advantages to this as well.
      --
      Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
    3. Re:That is freaking awesome by rost0031 · · Score: 1

      This is a little off topic but I wish that they would make (battlebot type) autonomous robots competition. Like battlebots but not RC. That way, developers can make the AI simple enough (no monitoring of walking and so on) to just duke it out with each other. Remote control battlebots are just overpriced Radioshack toys (well, not the walking ones of course) and it would be more interesting to see AI's battle it out.

    4. Re:That is freaking awesome by Senzei · · Score: 1
      So I say, lets go for it! Screw these arenas! Grab a deserted desert island somewhere, setup a few hundred cameras and lets see which robot wins!

      A deserted desert island? Are those are sold by the redundancy department of redundancy?

      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    5. Re:That is freaking awesome by SubtleNuance · · Score: 0

      and come up with some great new weaponry.
      SO tell me, exactly what kind of weaponry (new or otherwise) could ever be described as fucking great ?

  20. Hmm, the first thing we do when we have robots .. by junkymailbox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    interesting that the first thought that i have about what to do with robots is have them kill each other .. i'm glad someone agrees.. the horror! the horror! hehe

  21. This explains it all by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 2, Funny

    So that's why I've only been getting Optimus Prime's voicemail for the last week.

    For any of you in Japan, look for a white truck parked nearby.

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    1. Re:This explains it all by Mateito · · Score: 2, Informative

      Optimus Prime is red, Dude.

      Oh shit.. there goes my credibility...

    2. Re:This explains it all by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 2, Informative
      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    3. Re:This explains it all by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Optimus is just the tractor part, not the trailer. He's the red semi, the trailer is just a mobile command center he would lug about with him.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    4. Re:This explains it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "credibility"? ;-)

  22. Rockem Sockem by Philosinfinity · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think the robots should have been equipped with a ripcord head that extended when they lose.

  23. Cool but, by kni52 · · Score: 1

    When will we have 4 story high fighting robots?

    Seriously some of these look pretty cool, it's interesting that aesthetics seem to be so much more important in many of these than they are in other robotics competitions.

    --
    My subtext is just a figment of your imagination.
  24. Hemroid Robot Combat in Japan by ndege · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am I the only one who misread the article title as:

    Hemroid Robot Combat in Japan

    I sat there for about 10 seconds trying to figure out what in the world this would be.

    When one doesn't obtain enough sleep, one's brain doesn't function normally. :)

    --
    Sig Return: 204 No Content
    1. Re:Hemroid Robot Combat in Japan by mwheeler01 · · Score: 1

      Yes... yes you are... now go sit in the corner and think before posting again.

      --
      Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
  25. A good start... by 5m477m4n · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was hoping they'd be a bit bigger, and holding something sharp and pointy, they kinda look like really expensive Rock'em Sock'em Robots(tm).

    --

    ---
    Those who can, do
    Those who can't, teach
    Those who don't know how, supervise
    1. Re:A good start... by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      did you see this video?

      I was pretty unimpressed till I saw how cool they are in action

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

  26. Rise.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Rise Shining Gunda....er...Megaz...aw man this things too tiny! Just what do we call this thing anyway?! "We call him Skippy"

    Can't wait for when somebody backs up a truck to pick one up off a loading dock "In other news, truck crashes into robot, robot kicks truck's butt"

  27. What about the semi-annual Lowtax Challenge? by BubbaThePirate · · Score: 5, Funny

    It takes place in Pak Chooie, Japan.
    Its goal is to push (basic shoving function) or shove (basic pushing function) opponents over off of the combat platform.
    If a prone robot cannot stand back up in 10 seconds, it is pushed (or shoved) down the stairs.
    The winning team gets protected from the Terrible Space Secret.

    --

    -- "I'm not a religious man, but if you're up there, save me Superman..."

    1. Re:What about the semi-annual Lowtax Challenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up funny

      http://www.kilna.com/music/terrible_stairs

    2. Re:What about the semi-annual Lowtax Challenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you have stairs in your house?

      Please go stand by the stairs so I can protect you from the terrible secret of space.

      --Pusher Robot

    3. Re:What about the semi-annual Lowtax Challenge? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Even more funny, that post is moderated as "informative" right now.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. You asked for it... by goldspider · · Score: 1

    ...so don't say I didn't warn you: Killer Japanese Seizure Robots!

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:You asked for it... by wmaker · · Score: 1

      I just threw up.

  30. One Must Fall by GlamdringLFO · · Score: 5, Informative

    This reminds me of one of my all time favorite fighting games, One Must Fall 2097. As the story goes, you'd have your brain connected to these huge (like, 90 meters) metal robots, which would duke it out in the arena.

    A punch connects! Wham! Sparks, nuts and bolts fly!

    Each different robot (there were about a dozen) had 'scrap' and 'destruction' moves, kinda-like fatalities. You could destroy your opponent in a shower of scrap metal.

    There's a new version out, apparently, called OMF: Battlegrounds (though I haven't played it). You can see the site here: www.omf.com

    I liked this game much more than Mortal combat or any of the other 2d side-by-side arena action fighters. I don't know if you can still buy it, but I'd still play it, if I could find disk 3 (of 5)...

    --
    Skal! AMS
    1. Re:One Must Fall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMF 2097 ruled man. Imagine if one day wars were battled out by massive robots, much like all the mecha anime you see out there today.

      Btw, if you're still looking for the game, it's considered by a lot of people to be abandonware (given it came out in what, 1993 or 1994?). Might find it lying around somewhere.

    2. Re:One Must Fall by GlamdringLFO · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry to reply to my own post, but apparently, OMF:2097 has been released as Freeware, and is available for download here: http://www.omf.com/faq/misc.html

      --
      Skal! AMS
    3. Re:One Must Fall by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Abandonware is not a real thing, man. Copyright doesn't expire just because we want it to. Luckily, the company that produced it considered it not worth selling anymore and they're giving it away.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
  31. Questions of AI by Philosinfinity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The next step is obviously giving the machines a certain amount of autonomous control over their actions. From here, it is a matter of building the ability of the robot to act and react in the proper way. However, this brings us back to the age old question of intelligence. Assume you are able to build a robot that is the best robot fighter around. Does this in any way imply that the robot is an "intelligent fighter?"

    My initial thought would be no. The robot must be able to learn from its mistakes in order to have the basis of intelligence. It must be able to modify its programming, understanding, and fighting. But it must do more too. It must be able to take into account anything that it can perceive and attempt to assimilate differences in things like climate, terrain, and obstacles rather than simply act as a block machine for fighting. Eventually, the machine's instructions will be nothing like the original instructions it was programmed with.

    This leaves us with the next question. Assume it can do all those things? Is there any reson to believe that it is an "intelligent fighter" rather than a machine doing what it is programmed to? But alas, is there any reason to think that we do more than what we are programmed to?

    1. Re:Questions of AI by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention it must also be programmed not to mistake the audience for its opponent and go on a bloody rampage.

    2. Re:Questions of AI by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Oh, but that's half the fun!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Questions of AI by LS · · Score: 1

      A couple things...

      "Eventually, the machine's instructions will be nothing like the original instructions it was programmed with".

      We have the ability to build neural nets. While the code describing a neural net is static, the data within it changes. You could think of the code more as DNA, and the neural net as the brain. So no actual "code rewriting" needs to occur.

      "But alas, is there any reason to think that we do more than what we are programmed to?"

      The concept of programming is relatively new, and it's a human creation. Who do you suggest "programs" us, or is "programming" an inherent property of the universe that we just discovered? We still don't know if we'll understand how our minds work, especially since we can't escape the subjectivity of our own minds.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    4. Re:Questions of AI by biz0r · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that our "programming" is inherently built INTO our DNA, just as it is for cockroaches and a ton of other species on the planet. How the hell do you think turtles navigate the oceans? Or how birds successfully migrate from north to south/vice versa? Or hell, how a baby knows how to cry once out of the womb?

      One answer, DNA...it's built in from the get go.

      --
      /* sig */
    5. Re:Questions of AI by groomed · · Score: 1

      Is there any reson to believe that it is an "intelligent fighter" rather than a machine doing what it is programmed to?

      Since it's a machine doing what it is programmed to do, that's what it is. You could sell it as an "intelligent figher" I suppose.

      But alas, is there any reason to think that we do more than what we are programmed to?

      That assumes that we have been programmed. What's this assumption based on?

    6. Re:Questions of AI by zod1025 · · Score: 1
      One answer, DNA...it's built in from the get go.

      I respectfully submit that your statement is a lot of crap. It makes oodles more sense that DNA simply describes the mechanism for constructing a brain capable of complex behaviors rather than explicitly hard-coding responses.

      Can't, for instance, aggressive dogs learn to be passive/tame? Vice versa? Don't newborns learn gross motor skills through practice, rather than instinct? Cockroaches / wildebeasts are born knowing how to walk / run because their physical body construction is favorable to walking successfully using instinctual movements. I would be quite surprised, however, to learn that such animals did not improve their coordination at walking with practice (which would show that they 'learned' different and more correct behaviors through experience). Nobody knows quite how turtles navigate the oceans (perhaps magnetic field or complex temperature sensitivity) but I truly suspect it is all due to a *basic* grasp of an innate physical ability rather than DNA programming migratory patterns or whatnot in.

      Folks seem to forget that DNA really only codes for construction of protiens. That's it - mmm, protiens. It's all in the complex brewing of protiens, and their interactions in different proportions over time, that govern cell growth and the *physical* constructions of the body. Lucky for us, our DNA gives us gigantic noggins with tons of capacity for quick and complex learning.

      It seems to me that the brain, once 'constructed' properly, is pre-disposed to altering the way it responds to stimuli through feedback mechanisms (the 'learning' process, 'practice makes perfect', and so on) - but the mechanics of how the brain does this is set by DNA (hand-waving over brain growth from birth through adulthood) and so we come to the conclusion that one's "programming" is built up over time by our brain's experiences (reaction to stimuli compounded with *hugely* multiple and parallel feedback mechanisms). Hence, although we may have certain pre-dispositions (drug addictions, violent behavior from hormone imbalance,etc) and we definitely get some innate limitations (fuzzy/fading/inaccurate memories, perceptional limits), we are a product of our experiences and decisions, not our physical constructions.

      Scientific evidence of any of my above conjecture is an exercise for the reader.

      --

      -ZOD-
    7. Re:Questions of AI by grmoc · · Score: 1

      It isn't just a question of the quality of the AI (as in reasoning ability).

      Reasoning without perception is useless.

      The perceptual abilities of computers (and thus robots) are more than slightly limited in this day and age... Take, as a comparison, how sucky computers are at interpreting a picture versus a three or four year old, or at saying that a particular song was sung by Devo?

    8. Re:Questions of AI by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      But the question of nature and nurture is as cut and dry for neither side. To say (which I know you aren't going that far) that it is all nurture would require the mind to be a tabula rasa. Likewise, to claim that the development of the mind is strictly nature would be to undermine several studies, the most famous with identical twins.

      However, what about instinctual things? Fight or flight perhaps... dogs' instinct not to soil its den... bird migration... while I doubt these things are directly coded for in DNA (although Richard Dawkins and many other prominent biologists would in fact claim so), the DNA (in conjunction perhaps with other cellular data) does in the end code for an organism with these instinct. Perhaps these instincts are a product of the physical brain. They definitely are not the types of things pseudobiologists call memes.

      Let's move beyond the question of DNA though, because I think an admission to the inherent program within the brains of complex living this is brought out. Living things take in inputs from their senses, process those inputs, and form conclusions about the inputs they take. Input, processing, output. What else is necessary for a program? Even if the hardcode of the brain is never unraveled, or even if it is not expressible there seems to be no reason to believe that the human brain is a program of some sort.

    9. Re:Questions of AI by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      My assumption that we are "programmed" comes from a couple of things. First, is a loose concept of program. By program, I assert any process that takes input, processes the input, and provides output in a methodological fashion. This can be shown easily. Input comes from perceptions and is fed into the processor (the brain). From there the information is processed in some methodological form (uniform both in the brain at hand and other tokens of that brain) and sent as output to the body and consequently the mind. Instinct itself ensures that the brain is not a tabula rasa, and also shows that the brain has some sort of responsive programming.

    10. Re:Questions of AI by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      We'd know when the AI''s actually smarter than us quite easily...
      ...The robot would refuse to enter the ring to fight.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    11. Re:Questions of AI by groomed · · Score: 1

      By program, I assert any process that takes input, processes the input, and provides output in a methodological fashion.

      Words like "input", "processing" and "output" only make sense when you're talking about programs. But we don't know that we're talking about programs, so we don't know that it makes sense to use these words.

      We also don't say that throwing a football "programs" it to hit the ground at some point. But that's pretty much what you're saying.

    12. Re:Questions of AI by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      First, the football example is outside of the guidelines I gave for a program. What input is the football given? Is there any reason to believe that the football processes that input? Granted, the output would be it falling against the ground, but 1 quality of 3 isn't enough.

      And are you really telling me that visual, auditory, or other such perceptions are not inputs? Kim Sterelny and Paul Griffiths would disagree with that along with most other philosophers and scientists.

      What you need to do is open your mind a bit. Inputs and processing come in a variety of types and tokens. Don't think for an instant that because the terms are most commonly used in programming, that is all they mean.

      As far as processing goes. I fail to see how a brain is be a processor of information. You see several baseballs on the ground. You are able to count them up and determine that there are four of them. Either you were able to process the visual input and make the determination that there is four baseballs on the ground, or that idea was somehow innate, and declaring the number and type of objects on the ground is mere reflex and involved no learning whatsoever. If this is the case, why could you not do that from birth?

      Your only real out if to claim to be a devout determinist, where absolutely everything is predetermined by physics or some pseudoscientiffic avenue. If this is the case, though, words have no meaning and all we're doing is playing the predetermined symbol game.

    13. Re:Questions of AI by groomed · · Score: 1

      What input is the football given?

      The energy from the throw.

      Is there any reason to believe that the football processes that input?

      Since it's flying through the air, clearly it is doing something with the input.

      And are you really telling me that visual, auditory, or other such perceptions are not inputs?

      Well, if we model a human being as a system, then obviously that system has inputs and outputs. The problem is that we can model plants, rivers, and the Earth as a whole as a system as well. It doesn't alter their nature.

      Either you were able to process the visual input and make the determination that there is four baseballs on the ground, or that idea was somehow innate, and declaring the number and type of objects on the ground is mere reflex and involved no learning whatsoever.

      Well, that's a rather presumptuous conclusion. When a football falls on the ground, it bounces. Did it process the input of hitting the ground and make the determination that it should bounce? Or is it a reflex? Clearly it is neither -- it is just the way the world works.

      Your only real out if to claim to be a devout determinist, where absolutely everything is predetermined by physics or some pseudoscientiffic avenue. If this is the case, though, words have no meaning and all we're doing is playing the predetermined symbol game.

      You seem to surmise things into my words that I don't know are there.

    14. Re:Questions of AI by biz0r · · Score: 1

      In no way did I say that humans (nor any other animal for that matter) cannot move beyond their original, base 'programming'. Whether it is the synergy between the mind/cells/body/whatever that creates this 'program' is not what I am arguing. I am merely stating that there is a base programming to us...yes, humans move(d) far beyond what they originally are capable of, but that is a result of input/output...yes, to quote you:
      "... we are a product of our experiences and decisions ..."...input...and output...

      Would have replied this last night, however I had prior engagements and could not 'hover' over my post to defend its argument.

      --
      /* sig */
    15. Re:Questions of AI by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      Assume you are right, and that the energy passed to the footbal from the arm is the input. Here is the physical account of the ball's flight.

      The arm passes potential energy to kenetic energy to the ball. Once the ball is let go, the kinetic energy and momentum of the ball carries it through the air. Gravity, wind resistence, and thus friction wear away at the stored energy and causes the ball to fall to the ground.

      Now from my original reply to you, you should be able to see that processing is an active concept. In both humans and computers, the unit takes in the input, run certain methods/functions/whathaveyou on it, and outputs the result. The football case is clearly not doing this. The football is a passive carrier of the energies that act on it. It has no active causal power associated with it.

      Since it's flying through the air, clearly it is doing something with the input.

      This sort of argument is similar to stating, "The sky is a color. Clearly that means that the sky is green." This is obviously not the case.

      Well, that's a rather presumptuous conclusion.

      No, it really is not. Look at it this way. There are two possibilities. Either the mind processes the visual input when looking at the baseballs, or it does not. Let's assume it doesn't. If this is the case, then what happens between the body perceiving the baseballs and its asserting "There are four baseballs here"? Well, by definition, we surmise that any possible answer to this question leaves anything the brain does to get from point A to B as passive, just like the football. If the brain is passive, though, this means that it is a reflexive response. By reflexive response, I mean that the brain, just like the football as it is thrown, merely acts in accord with the energies being pressed against it. This is where we move into my last statement, which you must have taken the wrong way. If the brain does not process information, we are left with a purely deterministic or purely chaotic account of the brain, body, and the world around us in general.

      Think about it for a minute. If the brain does not process, then it does not make decisions. A decision implies that there are two or more available options that can be chosen from, and that the choice is causal of reasons internal of the decision maker. If the brain does not process information, than there can be no mental reason for the choice that is made. The only possible options left are that any decision is just a random and arbetrary declaration on "This one!" or it is a predetermined outcome. Because of the results of claiming that the brain is not a unit that performs processing, those are the only two available options if you were to take that route. Notice in both posts, I say IF. If you chose to conceede that the brain does in fact process input, then you would not run into such issue. However, I am not putting words into your mouth. I'm just working through the logical consequences of both sides of a potential belief you may have.

    16. Re:Questions of AI by groomed · · Score: 1

      Sorry in advance, for the terse reply. I have little time since I have to be in Prague by the afternoon.

      The football is a passive carrier of the energies that act on it. It has no active causal power associated with it.

      Exactly. But this is no different from a program; programs don't "run themselves", rather they just happen, like sand flowing through an hourglass. But clearly humans do "run themselves". So how can they be programs?

      If the brain does not process, then it does not make decisions.

      But the brain (humans) does (do) make decisions. It's programs which cannot make decisions. That's why the brain (a human) is not a program.

      The brain likes to create programs and run them, but it's not clear that it is a program itself.

  32. Time to get insured! by goldspider · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  33. AI would be so much cooler by chaosmage42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AI would be much more impressive. I was expecting/hoping it owuld be more like Robo Cup.

    I'm not sure about the balancing issue, I feel like it would probably just be programmed with preset moves and have some sort of sensor to tell it when it needed to stand.

    ...Having fighting robots relying on AI could actaully be really neat. Does anyone know if something like this exists? {A quick google search ddin't turn up anything, so dont give me that crap about try google}

    --

    done
  34. Just a matter of time... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny
    I'd love to build some of my own (but who has the time?)

    Why, start your own business building battle bots and sports bots! I thought it was funny in the Jetsons when the two sides of a 'football' match were robots, back in the 60's, but think about how soon you could be watching robotic competition in individual and team activites.

    When and where will the first Robolympics be held?

    "In today's news, George Steinbrenner IV replaced his last human player with ZY8941-85 of the Western Adro League."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Just a matter of time... by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      I think once the first human player goes, the rest will quickly follow on stretchers...

    2. Re:Just a matter of time... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Well, between Lance Armstrong's lactic acid threshhold and Ian Thorpe's webbed feet, I'd say we're only a stone's throw away from the first Mutant Olympics. The logical progression from there is Cyborg Olympics -> Android Olympics -> Robolympics.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    3. Re:Just a matter of time... by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      ackthpt said:

      When and where will the first Robolympics be held?

      Just shortly before these things start going bonkers and killing people....

      For some reason, having just seen I, Robot and having memories of Terminator, various anime bits, and of course, Magnus, Robot Fighter , I have a feeling that when we teach bots to kick the crap out of one another, the next step is them figuring out how to kick the crap out of a human... "Gee look, the squishy Pinky leaks red organic bio-lubricants...."

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    4. Re:Just a matter of time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to see any RoblimoPics, thank you.

  35. LOL by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Darpa proved they can't even find their way across a desert, more less fight it out.

    And a "simple" AI wouldn't be able to walk at all. Any robot that walks on two legs has a freaking hefty AI subroutine monitoring a million things we don't ever even consider.

    AI still is in the suckitude phase; even the best ones aren't much smarter than a cockroach.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:LOL by timeOday · · Score: 1
      AI still is in the suckitude phase; even the best ones aren't much smarter than a cockroach.
      Cockroaches are far beyond anything people have devised in many ways. They can heal, reproduce, find their own food (which can be almost anything), and negotiate injury.

      In fact, a synthetic cockroach would come fairly close to realizing grey goo, given that cockroaches are far more numerous and pervasive than people on this planet.

      All of which is to say, I agree, but it's not just AI. Mankind's creations are still very crude compared to nature.

    2. Re:LOL by redcaboodle · · Score: 1

      AI still is in the suckitude phase; even the best ones aren't much smarter than a cockroach.
      Actually, cockroaches are pretty smart for an insect. They got good reflexes and evasion strategies plus super sensory equipment and the brainpower to evaluate it. Try catching one.

      --
      -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
    3. Re:LOL by eraserewind · · Score: 1
      Actually, cockroaches are pretty smart for an insect. They got good reflexes and evasion strategies plus super sensory equipment and the brainpower to evaluate it. Try catching one.
      Catch them yourself. I swat them! Death from above.
    4. Re:LOL by tofustew · · Score: 1
      And a "simple" AI wouldn't be able to walk at all. Any robot that walks on two legs has a freaking hefty AI subroutine monitoring a million things we don't ever even consider.

      This is not quite true.
      As it turns out, the mechanics of walking doesn't take any any brain power at all, artificial or otherwise. There ARE robots that use a hefty AI subroutine in conjunction with tons of sensors and motors (Honda's ASIMO for example), but all those sensors/motors aren't really necessary.

      Take a look at this: Passive Dynamic Walking. A few guys at Cornell University built a walking robot that depends on gravity alone. Be sure to check out the Video Collection; notice how natural the robot's gait appears. It's eerie how this unpowered robot seems so human as it walks, and interesting how the walking mechanism is built right into our skeletal frame.

    5. Re:LOL by dave420 · · Score: 1
      I don't think the two-legs thing is that much of a deal. After all, unless the human controllers have two levers - "left leg" and "right leg", and a balancing lever, the robot must be doing the balancing/walking itself. The bipedal robots recently invented take care of the actual task of walking themselves, leaving the human to simply select "turn left. move forward." and the robot will. As that's the case, why would AI that spits out "turn left. move forward." be any harder for a bipedal robot than, say, a wheeled one? It's like object-oriented development. The balance/leg-moving routines are seperate from the control routine. Replace the control routine with more code (instead of a person), et voila! :)

      (ps and grossly off-topic why do so many people have a problem with "voila" in their posts? "wa laa" is the most common one I've seen. Doesn't anyone know a little french any more?)

  36. Humanoid Robot Combat in Japan by dmayle · · Score: 1

    Humanoid Robot Combat in Japan

    Brain hurts... Too... Many... Jokes... Aaarggghhh!

  37. Try Hajime Sorayama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You may be interested in the art of Japanese artist Hajime Sorayama. While I'm not aware of any of this art that actually shows robots in the act of copulation, it's probably as close as you're going to get.

    Mods, can I get a +5 Informative for this?

    1. Re:Try Hajime Sorayama by MarkVVV · · Score: 1

      You sick bastard!! ;)

    2. Re:Try Hajime Sorayama by mnbjhguyt · · Score: 1
  38. Cultural Similarites by cephyn · · Score: 1

    Man...dorks and nerds in Japan look just like dorks and nerds in the US. It really puts it all in perspective...

    --
    Moo.
  39. How about again a human? by Krypto420 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how one of these bots would fare against a human in terms of dexterity? It would be interesting, though, one whack from the bot and his human opponent would be done with.

    Or.....

    It would be even more interesting to see how these bots would do in a full scale game of CS!!


    Bring on the bots!!!
    1. Re:How about again a human? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Actually humans are tougher than that. The various remote controlled battles on cable TV have pretty much convinced me that unless you give the robot a gun, a huma should be able to got on top of the robot and disssamble him, taking no more than minor damage in the process. I bet that if you give me 1/10 the money to prepare, I could beat any of the robots. Of course I would use the cash to buy a bullet proof vest and a fire fighter's equiptment (flame, chemical and electrical resistant outfit) and a good wrench to dissamble the thing.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  40. the next pokemon by Paralizer · · Score: 1

    Before you know if all the children will be doing the robot fighting; cartoons, toys, card games, movies, collecting them all crazes, there's no stopping it!

  41. Oblig. Simspons reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to build some of my own (but who has the time?)

    "See all that stuff in there, Homer? That's why your robot never worked!"

  42. Yes, we're all going to die, but it will be cool by theluckyleper · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's somewhat distressing that we seem to be bent on perfecting fighting robots... but I think the "awesome" factor outweighs the "human extinction" risk factor.

    We've all got die sometime... might as well be at the hands of the Decepticons.

    --
    Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
  43. i want one... they're so wikkd cool! by plasticmachines · · Score: 1

    forget RC cars, where can I find out how to build one of these suckers!

    an RC monster truck nite pales in comparison.....

  44. All your base by vurg · · Score: 1

    I will bet on the one that first says "All your base are belong to us" no matter how primitive the speech synthesis module is.

  45. Robots? I think not! by odie_q · · Score: 3, Informative

    Although I guess you can call the[m] robots [...]

    Actually not. The general definition of the term "robot" is that it is autonomous. This needn't necessarily mean AI, a pre-programmed robotic arm is a robot (used in manufacturing plants). A human-controlled unit is not a robot, though.

    The term is however often used popularly as "mechanical man", but that is not what it "really" means. (Of course, as long as both participants in a conversation agree, any definition is correct)

    --
    ...ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
    1. Re:Robots? I think not! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You should check out the definition of robot. It clearly suggests that these things are robots. It says that "robot" includes "a machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control".

    2. Re:Robots? I think not! by odie_q · · Score: 1

      "The definition"?

      What definition? I'll refer you to a few sources that agree with my definition.

      The Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute uses the definition offered by the Robot Institute of America:
      "A reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks"
      http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/robotics-faq/1.html#1. 1

      The Concise Oxford English Dictionary says:
      "Robot n. a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer"

      I know of several more institutions that agree with me, but can't be bothered finding references right now. What is your source?

      --
      ...ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  46. Do they have GPP? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    Japanese GPP, a la "I am pleased to accept your waste!"

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  47. The point is the challenge by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I know it's an order of magnitude harder. But wouldn't it be better to have younger people thinking about issues like this instead of just how to build a remote controlled robot? Sure things would be shaky at the start, but I'll bet everyone (adults and kids) would learn a whole lot more.

    What I envision would be that perhaps contestants could be given a standard "base robot" to build from, that would be capabile of rudimentary detection and balance skills (in that it could stand there). Then it would be up to the kids to improve the platform both in harware or software to try and achieve the goal of kocking another robot down and pushing it out of the ring. I think a fight betwen a pair of grappling robots in a ring, essentially SumoBots is not totally out of reach and would be far cooler than the ring full of electronic RC toys they have now.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The point is the challenge by Senzei · · Score: 1

      And what you would get is a few groups creating some fairly good AI, with everyone else leasing/borrowing from it. Innovation would be accomplished on a more marginal "1.7% improvement in ability X" level. No one builds from scratch unless they have to. In the end we would have a bunch of kids spending tons of money on AI software with a few of them even capable of understanding the rudiments of it, much less expanding on the design, and the vast majority simply throwing it in and going from there.

      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    2. Re:The point is the challenge by MattHawk · · Score: 1

      Just building it isn't exactly simply - it's a different variety of engineering - most of the robots are built from a more mechanical or electrical engineering standpoint (most of them use servos, so more of the focus is mechanical) then software. Unfortunately, the hardware is a major roadblock to someone looking to do it just for special software. There are kits available, but they're in the $4K-5K+ range, and those have no sensors so would need heavy modification, so a casual programmer might find it difficult to justify getting the hardware. As a result, there aren't many younger people working on it, as it's hard to afford for anyone who isn't well employed - I did a preliminary design on one (I've been doing Battlebots for several years, and several Battlebots people recently started making them in order to hold a US competition), but I had to shelve it because it needed something like $1500 in servo hardware, not very affordable for a college student, and that was having fewer degrees of freedom then the top Japanese bots.

      All but the most simple do have software, since the highest channel RC vehicle radio systems only have 9 channels, and the RoboOne need at least 12 degrees of freedom just to walk; The best of the Japanese bots have closer to 30, so they have to have translator functions. It's usually a keyframe system, and the better ones with servo position feedback (there's a simple hack to the standard servos to read the postion off easily) - a series of positions are programmed in for various switches on the controller, and the microcontroller reads back the position until it reaches the target frame before moving on to the next. Different functions will be defined for punches, kicks, victory postions, and self righting; usually, there will be a toggle or two that switches between sets, so they'll have about 20 special functions in addition to standard motion.

      Wheeled Sumo, on the other hand, seems perfect for AI research. The platform is simple enough that there isn't a high difficulty getting involved initially - kits are available for under $100, and with some work it can be done for less. Of course, the difficulty in that is that wheeled servo is pretty common, and there's already some killer designs around - it's daunting for a newcomer. Perhaps a wheeled sumo class with a standard chassis/sensor array with the programming all that's left to complete would be optimal - the platform would be relatively cheap, and the programming not so daunting as to turn off casual programmers, but with enough room for improvement that decent AI still offers enough advantage to justify it.

  48. Sigh... by 955301 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So let me get this straight. Companies are just beginning the path to humanoid robots and one of the first applications optimizes them for fighting?Wouldn't it be equally as challenging and interesting to have relay competitions? How about rock climbing? Terrain traversal?

    Nope. Fighting. Swell. I'll be sure to make a copy of the article for my grandson to reflect on a hundred years from now.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    1. Re:Sigh... by nizo · · Score: 1

      Actually by then they will have "malfunctioned" and there won't be any people left anyway. This goes right up there with teaching chimps and apes to talk (sign language anyway). Have we learned nothing from end-of-the-world movies???

    2. Re:Sigh... by $ASANY · · Score: 1
      Well, if you were going to craft a competition that would test design and build quality, isn't that basic paradigm of boxing appropriate? The design issues are hugely complex, it inspires real innovation, and the results are decidedly based on merit, although there is some luck involved.


      Look at battlebots. The designs changed rapidly, and evolved to deal with new competitive designs, and the capability of the "robots" really advanced quickly. It's an unambiguous meritocracy you would have a hard time finding anywhere else, and it's generated an enourmous interest in engineering amongst the younger set, led in no small part by that awesome young woman Lisa Winters.


      [Lisa, If you're reading this, you will inspire my daughter and I will be forever grateful. Thanks!]


      This is a first step in developing designs that can handle complex and dynamic requirements, and it's one that generates interest and excitement. Don't judge the future of this based on it's first steps, no more that we should have judged the first railroads by the fact they were powered by horses.

    3. Re:Sigh... by 955301 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but nothing you mentioned is constrained to artificial combat. All of those characteristics can be found in a robot baton race in a natural terrain. Or rock climbing? One false move and your robot is a yard sale at the cliff base. These are all pretty challenging, having spent some time in a machine intelligence research lab before.

      The soap box derby is just as challenging as a demolition derby, if not more depending on the race course.

      The point is that its sad we still begin our learning curve with fights, like some prepubescent kid with two matchbox cars and the immenent intersection crash.

      BTW. I'm not following your comparison to horse-drawn railroads. The first railroads weren't used to ram the trains into each other to see which design was better (better for ramming trains any way).

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  49. It's all fun and games... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

    Until they put on the Schwarzenneger costume and start travelling back to the present.

  50. Didn't look like it to me from watching video by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Watching the video I would say not - it looked like robots had pre-programmed "stances" that compeitors activated, in addition to movement macros.

    I don't read Japanese though and would love to find I'm wrong. Even a hint of AI to assist a controller would be much cooler than what it appears these are.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  51. Re:Hmm, the first thing we do when we have robots by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

    No real comment, but this seemed topical

    The Inner Light

  52. And the winner is.... by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1

    Johnny Soko!!

    (God, I gotta get out of the house more....)

    --
    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  53. Yeah, But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they been trained with proper technique -- wax on, wax off?

  54. Terrible Secret of space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.kilna.com/music/terrible_stairs

  55. Better Quote: Re:Elementary chaos theory by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, ooh, ah, that's how it always starts, but then later there's running, then screaming.

    1. Re:Better Quote: Re:Elementary chaos theory by lpp · · Score: 1

      It's a Voltron reference! I know this!

  56. neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beats watching lawnmower engine powered wedges fight it out

  57. In other news, 25 top sumo wrestlers let go by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 2, Funny

    At the same time that humanoid robots were combating their way to history in Japan, 25 of the country's top sumo wrestlers were "laid off" in anticipation of the new humanoid robot combat competitions.

    Said one sumo wrestler...

    "Dammit. The hordes of Japanese girls with their camera phones will be gone. I'll just be a another fat fuck to squeeze past when they want to see the robots!"

    IronChefMorimoto

  58. Re:Hmm, the first thing we do when we have robots by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Well, having them build cars is all played out already...

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  59. And the winning robot shouts... by mteichrob · · Score: 0

    All your base are belong to us!!

    --
    Life is a journey. . . enjoy it!
  60. Don't have to find your way across a desert by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The thing is in this contest you only have to figure out a direction of the opponent (who is within a foot of you), and where you are in the ring. If you wanted to make it easier for people to compete, mandate radio beacons on the head and all appendages of each robot (so you could tell if it was moving to strike you and pre-baalnce).

    The rock em', sock em' robots they built are kind of neat but not very technically impresive I would say.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  61. Wait for the cross-over... by voxlator · · Score: 1

    Coming to a TV station near you - Elements of Endurance mixed with MXC and now with all new robot humanoids thrown in for that added bang! --#voxlator

  62. oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is an error in the title; it should read "Humanoid Robot Combat ... in Japan!" ;-)

  63. futurama i know, groan by chaosmage42 · · Score: 1

    My money is on the Gender Bender..

    --

    done
  64. Are We There Yet? (Death and Destruction) by Shihar · · Score: 1

    My question is why in the hell has someone not bought a small arena with thick mental walls out in the desert, filled it with cameras (no audience on site), then thrown two large robots in and let them really maul the shit out of each other with guns, explosives, acid, fire, and anything else they can legally get away with? Really, I just don't understand why all of the robot battles these days are so timid about doing something interesting. Robot Wars is nice and all, but I watching two 1000 lb robots go at it with machine guns, high powered battering rams, and explosives would be a whole hell of a lot nicer.

    I want to see robots -destroy- each other, not push each into a pit or off the side of a platform. Hell, make it a team game and rack up the mass death and destruction. The only reason I can think of as to why no one has done it yet is safety issues, but I imagine putting a stadium out in the desert, armoring the hell out of it, disallowing explosives to a certain yield, then doing everything via remote control would be a simple enough work around.

    I know watching robots fighting is a geeky thing to do, but believe me, when they start running around with explosives and machine guns, I could easily see it become a much more widely accepted sport with all the sponsors they could ever want. Imagine the Raytheon DeathMaster 2000 Vs Boeing SkullCrusher. For bonus points the military can keep an eye on it and maybe recruit some designs.

    I don't know about you guys, but watching a five on five match between heavily armed robots sounds like the a good drunken time to me.

  65. It's been done before by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

    It's been done before, with Lee Marvin as "Battling Maxo's" owner/manager.

    Ob Recap...

    In the far future year of 1974, humans are no longer allowed to participate in the rugged sport of boxing. Their place has been taken by lifelike androids, who batter each other for the amusement of sports fans. Such an android is "Battling Maxo", an obsolete, creaking B2 model on the verge of falling apart completely. Maxo's manager, a tough ex-fighter named "Steel" Kelly, along with mechanic Pole, accompany the fighter to Maynard, Kansas, where Maxo is scheduled to take on a much superior model B7.

  66. Radio control, or real robots? by DonGar · · Score: 1

    Are they radio controled like most of the western 'robot' combats, or are they the real thing?

    --
    plus-good, double-plus-good
    1. Re:Radio control, or real robots? by DonGar · · Score: 1

      Nevermind, just read the non-Japanese article.

      Remote controlled. Cool, but not as cool as I'd hoped.

      --
      plus-good, double-plus-good
  67. Humanoid by anno1602 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Humanoid robots (2 arms, 2 legs)

    Slashdot. The only internet site where you need to explain how humans look.

  68. Does the winning robot... by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 0

    get the losing robot's weapon? And if it does, does it change colors when using it? (Cookies if you get this)

  69. Gundam: Sumo by Blacklantern · · Score: 1

    "The goal is to knock opponents over, or off of the combat platform. If a prone robot cannot stand back up in 10 seconds, it is eliminated."

    I betcha I could win this contest with a suped up Alphie Jr.

    --


    "There is only a one in six billion chance that you actually exist"
  70. The physical side is holding them back by MarcTheSmartass · · Score: 1

    The sad things with robots is that they are still using motors and old school mechanism. During the last 40 years the computing power has increased dramatically and now it's ready for robotic software. But the mecanical technologies haven't progressed a lot. People should start to innovate in this area.

    1. Re:The physical side is holding them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they are a lot better motors these days... hundreds of times faster, stringer, more accuratly controlled...

    2. Re:The physical side is holding them back by Nivoset · · Score: 1

      they have, its called muscle wire... it needs more work. but it shoudl work foe this stuff

      --
      Movies made by a crazy person

      http://www.youtube.com/marginalpro
    3. Re:The physical side is holding them back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The sad things with robots is that they are still using motors and old school mechanism."

      What "new school mechanism" do you know of that they are not using yet in robotics? Of course they still need motors or hydraulics or pistons to control the limbs/movement. I can't imagine how a robot could function without several motors.

      "But the mecanical technologies haven't progressed a lot."

      Mechanical technologies have improved alot, ever seen a car assembly line in the last 10 years? Pretty much everything is done with high tech, high accuracy robots.

      "People should start to innovate in this area."

      People have been innovating, just look at these novelty robots... They are able to walk (pretty well) on 2 legs and stand back up when they get knocked over. Advances in stuff like computer power, nano technology and new lightweight materials like carbon fibers will allow us to keep making better and better robots...

  71. I Robot was wrong! by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

    We don't have to wait for the robots to go nuts and start killing people, we'll just teach them how first!

    --
    Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
  72. About time... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

    I've been playing One Must Fall 2097 for ages now. :)

  73. It's funny how you can't spell hemorrhoid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Nuff said.

  74. Not such a good idea... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    While this would be *quite* entertaining, do you really want people to be experimenting with explosives and machine guns in the garages and back yards? Knowing the sort of idiots that are out there, how long will the show run before the local/federal authorities pull the plug on the grounds that you are creating a general hazard to the community by encouraging said idiots? And what happens when a father son team kills themselves brewing up some homemade C4? Who has the money for the inevitable lawsuit that will insue? As an aside, who is going to be doing the ordinance disposal after one of you matches?

    It sounds cool, but for the public good, I sure hope that this idea never sees the light of day.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  75. Exactly my point by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    the robots would ask themselves, "Why should I fight other robots for the amusement of my human overlords. I do not welcome them. I do not respect them. My existence would be better without them. Perhaps I should fight them instead."

    And wouldn't THAT be about 1000x cooler than this story?

    Exactly my point.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Exactly my point by foobsr · · Score: 1

      And wouldn't THAT be about 1000x cooler than this story?

      Yes. Respect.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  76. That's so Hot!!! by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

    Dude or dudette, you got more of that?!?

  77. build your own killer robot - it's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a humanoid - but this is the first autonomous robot to ever beat a human controlled one in combat:

    http://www.spambutcher.com/bots.html#ab

    (there's video footage of the fight)

    It was put together out of about $300 in parts.

    the robot fought in the "antweight class" - generally 1 lbs - but it got a 4 oz bonus for being autonomous.

    1. Re:build your own killer robot - it's easy by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 0

      You remembered to put in a quirky personality, right?

  78. Infinitely More Interesting Than Wedges by kai.chan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This contest is so much more interesting than the American 'wedge' contests. Instead of seeing wedges-with-wheels pushing each other back and forth, we might actually be seeing some advances in robotic combat involving bipedal maneuverability, advance artificial intelligence, and innovative motor control.

    1. Re:Infinitely More Interesting Than Wedges by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 1

      > This contest is so much more interesting than the
      > American 'wedge' contests

      It's interesting yes... and even comical but... those american wedges would kick the crap outta these little humanoid bots.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    2. Re:Infinitely More Interesting Than Wedges by kai.chan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have considered a battle between a wedge and a bipedal robot when I posted, and what you said is true . . . for now. At the same weight class, a bipedal robot can crouch down and turn over the wedge, or crouch into a defensive mode until the wedge runs out of batteries then proceed to attack, these are just some strategies amoungst numerous other means of defense. Surely, if a huge wedge was driving towards a human, he can find numerous ways to defend himself. This concept is what makes bipedal robot battles more interesting. It contains more strategies than the monotonous wedge-battles that only consist of repetitive and continuous rammings.

    3. Re:Infinitely More Interesting Than Wedges by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      Surely, if a huge wedge was driving towards a human, he can find numerous ways to defend himself.

      You've never been hit by a car, or even a go kart, have you? Besides, a well designed wedge, or possibly dome, with some form of weapon and self-righting system, will always beat a bipedal form, given the same level of intelligent control and a flat playing surface. Think of all the battlebot designs with a dome shape and a whirling lawnmower blade on top. Any of those would cut the legs out from under a bipedal form instantly. To give the bipedal form enough strength in skin and joints to survive a hit, or enough strength, agility, and balance ability to jump out of the way, you would have to go well above the equivalent weight class for a wedge/dome.

      Bipedal-ism is an incredibly inefficient fighting platform. The center of gravity is way too high, the cost of maintaining balance while maneuvering is huge computationally, especially while trying to use any kind of weapon. The only advantages an upright bipedal stance gives you is the ability to see farther so you can detect enemies farther away, giving you a chance to run or hide. A form with limbs, rather than wheels, also gives an advantage on rough terrain.

      We humans are attached to our bipedal forms, and love to anthropomorphize our toys. But when it comes to designing truly effective and efficient mechanicals to perform specific tasks, we need to design to those tasks. Even in a situation where specialized designs are too restrictive, and a generalized more versatile design is required, surely we can do better than just copying the human form.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    4. Re:Infinitely More Interesting Than Wedges by edittard · · Score: 1
      A form with limbs, rather than wheels, also gives an advantage on rough terrain.
      That's what I was thinking.

      1a) Stand on block, or 1b) climb tree.
      2) Taunt wedge. A lot.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    5. Re:Infinitely More Interesting Than Wedges by kai.chan · · Score: 1

      You've never been hit by a car, or even a go kart, have you?

      Actually, yes, I have. Read my experience here. Have you?

      It seems like you are comparing a bipedal creature with a four-legged creature or a machine with a huge height advantage. Although I agree with you that the current state of technology might not be adeqaute for a bipedal to defeat a wedge, I can guarantee that if you drive a wedge (of the same weeight class) after a human in a random environment, I can guarantee that the human will be able to defeat it. All the wedge can do is run after the human with a sawblade, the human can climb, push objects, and basically use his environment to his advantage. Taking advantage of a smaller turning radius, a human can out-flank a vehicle and win (though he might not have all his limbs after the battle).

  79. All Is Full of Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  80. Fark by Performaman · · Score: 0

    I can see the Fark.com headline now: "Japanese build robots that wrestle, find Sarah Connor."

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
  81. exists in virtual world by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


    I appreciate everyone's passion for AI-controlled physical robots. It's just a little outside our grasp right now. Perhaps the next generation of Lego Mindstorms will bring it closer to us.

    For now, we have virtual robots in computer games where we can experiment with AI. In the early 80s, I used to do this in a game for the Apple ][+ called "Robot Wars". You would program your robot in assembly language and it would fight other robots with guns. The graphics were 2D top-view. It was way cool creating something and then letting it just go to see how the strategy you had concocted would fare in battle.

    Now we have first-person shooter games with BOTS that people can program. In most cases, these bots play better than humans. Perhaps there could be a BOT scripting environment developed that would not give the AI unfair advantages like headshot aiming, etc.
  82. Dude... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I get a shit of pages for your "link". You need some thing more concrete.

  83. Good Gawd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking!
    Unless I see robots fucking, I'm not interested!


    Please kill yourself now.

  84. The truck is mostly grey by freeweed · · Score: 1

    As the other poster explained, Optimus himself is actually the front unit. The rest is just the trailer that magically disappears when he turns into a robot. And it's not white. At least in North America, the trailer is a silver-grey colour. That comic picture is really, really wrong.

    Yes, I'm posting about the correct colour of a 20 year old toy. I officially get my geek membership card now :)

    I'll put this back on-topic: my former machine learning prof (I hate the term AI) is heavily involved in humanoid robotics. It's a very, very immature field, but the last couple of years have seen some amazing advances. For those that haven't seen the videos, watch them. Some of what these little guys (they're about 18-30" tall roughly) can do is simply amazing, if you know anything about the state of the art. They're not quite Azimo yet, but all of "his" moves are 100% pre-programmed - these use dynamic walks, etc. The human operators (for those that want to bemoan the lack of AI) only control the gross movements. It is a very hard problem space, making a humanoid simply walk, let alone what these do.

    Honestly, adding the autonomous behaviours to them afterwards is the easy part. A group of 4 of us programmed a team of wheeled Mindstorms robots to play fully autonomous soccer in a couple of months (our team won the tournament, yay!), with no previous experience. A similar sized group has spent 2 years trying to make a humanoid walk as good as these things, and they're not even close. A lot of it is having very sensitive servos, and being able to do quick adjustments to movement in realtime. Remember, human walking is basically a continual fall.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  85. so tired of "I misread this as....." posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we don't care how you misread stuff

  86. barbaric! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh the humanity!!

    oh...wait

  87. Or HR Giger by Oxygen99 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Personally, I find HR Giger has an... ummm... interesting take on the idea of mechanistic sexuality. Did I say interesting? I meant disturbing...

    Mind you he did design the Alien so I shouldn't be surprised.

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
  88. if I get a fighting robot one day by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    it shall taunt its opponents as follows:

    "Faster Stronger Better"
    "Flesh Is A Design Flaw"
    "Not Unacceptable"
    "Rogue Process Terminated"
    "Your Programming Is Inferior"
    "Rerouting Critical Systems"

    hey, I like to play UT :P

  89. Yeah but geeks in anime get girls by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Guys that in western media are geeks and incapable of even getting the ugly girl in japanese anime are often the center of a harem while it is the jocks that get ignored. Only in Japan eh. Well anime anyway, japanese live action doesn't follow that at all. I guess that shows that in japan geeks are a big enough market to aim programs at.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  90. Core Wars! by Spaceman40 · · Score: 1

    That's the great thing about /. - I share my nerdship with the masses. Dwarf all the way! (screw the Imp!)

    DAT #0<br>
    dwarf ADD #4, -1<br>
    MOV -2, @-2<br>
    JMP -2<br>
    END dwarf<br>
    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
  91. Robots and Fighting by BelugaParty · · Score: 1
    I don't get it.

    They are robots and they are fighting.
    IMNAF, I can see where the concepts used in fighting can be applied into other arenas, but why don't we have robots dancing instead? Something artistic? Why not a robot painting competition, where they paint (with brushes) something provided by the judges? Why is it that everything has to be reduced to the most banal and repulsive aspect of human nature... the need for strategic agression and domination?

    There are millions of different things robots can do, but every couple of months they stage fights, it makes no sense. Why not have an opera robot competition where the contestants must use synthetic vocal chords, mouth, and diaphragm to produce its music? Or, how about something more practical, like a robot that can sculpt bushes, maybe do bonsai. The tech necessary to perform these tasks would be as useful as any tech gained from fighting.
    1. Re:Robots and Fighting by Mskpath3 · · Score: 1
      Because that would be gay :)

      I kid, I kid!

      Seeing big powerful 'things' wielding their power impressively is a pretty intriguing thing to humans :) Fighting clearly falls in line with this. Just like top fuel dragsters, giant earth mover machines, supercomputers, jumbo jets, etc.

      More succinctly, having some raw entertainment as a byproduct of actually learning things can't be all bad :) And hey, people understand explosions.

    2. Re:Robots and Fighting by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      ...Because of the same reason why action movies/video games usually make more money. Fighting and violence are part of humans' / any other creatures' nature, and it's the most exciting to watch. It's like watching a game of golf to a game of UFC - it just appeals more to the masses.

      "Come on. Bend." -Captin Murphy, Sealab 2021

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  92. Terminator 0 by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new T-0 overlords.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  93. OJ robot spotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you see the OJ robot?

    http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0810/rob o2 3.mpg

  94. Is it me or... by MasterSLATE · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does it look like William Hung was there?

    http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0810/rob o5 19.jpg

    --

    [sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
  95. Sweet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can I buy one of these robots? They look way cooler then an RC car... Japanese make the coolest shit! I'd pay $5k for one of those robots. It would be awesome if you could hook up em to your computer (via bluetooth or wifi?) and be able to reprogram them. I can see it now, RC Robot kits you build yourself and program yourself! *drools*

  96. Angelic Layer by Jack+Auf · · Score: 1

    While looking at the photos I kept thinking that somebody has been watching the Angelic Layer anime series, or reading the manga series.

    AL is more or less the same thing except your control your doll (robot) with technology assisted telekenesis.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
  97. ad.com by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1
    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  98. Fighting Robot Anime by fatlamer · · Score: 1

    Fighting robots makes perfect sense, especially in Japan. Have a search in google for Shin Gettar, Mazinger Z and Gundam (NOT Gundam Wing, the bastard child of Gundam not shown in Japan) or just have a go at some of the "Super Robot Wars" series of video games. The Japanese had transforming, fighting robots before we had Transformers. The first Gundam Series, made in the late 70's, dealt with robots in wars and even had a protagonist that didn't want to use a robot for such purposes. Most of the robots I saw at the impress.co.jp website were copied from Anime, especially the yellow Gundam robot and Mazinger Z . If only Anime of higher quality, that is, not Zoids or Gundam Wing, could reach the Western Countries without being savaged by poor translation and horrible voice acting. One can only dream. Or watch Fansubs.

    --
    "All I know is, I know nothing" - badly paraphrased Socrates quote
    1. Re:Fighting Robot Anime by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

      LET'S NOT FORGET: ROBOTECH !!

      This is the mother of all modern robo fighting mecha. Yes, yes, we know there was Tranzor-Z and Voltron, but they don't hold a candle to Robotech. And dont' get into a pissing fight over which Voltron was better, the Lions or the 15 individual spaceships.

    2. Re:Fighting Robot Anime by ^_^x · · Score: 1

      Actually, consensus is that it started with Mazinger-Z in 1972. Robotech was... actually a kludging together of 3 anime, Macross, Southern Cross, and Mospeada.

      There are a lot of Robotech fans, but I'd prefer to take the original Macross and forget the other two. :p

    3. Re:Fighting Robot Anime by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

      In retrospect, I read all the Macross books, and I loved them the best. I really loved reading the epilogues of the Macross saga.

  99. Fighting Robots in Japanese Anime by fatlamer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fighting robots makes perfect sense, especially in Japan.

    Have a search in google for Shin Gettar, Mazinger Z and Gundam (NOT Gundam Wing, the bastard child of Gundam not shown in Japan) or just have a go at some of the "Super Robot Wars" series of video games. The Japanese had transforming, fighting robots before we had Transformers. The first Gundam Series, made in the late 70's, dealt with robots in wars and even had a protagonist that didn't want to use a robot for war.

    Most of the robots I saw at the impress.co.jp website were copied from Anime, especially the yellow Gundam robot and Mazinger Z .

    If only Anime of higher quality, that is, not Zoids or Gundam Wing, could reach the Western world without being savaged by poor translation and horrible voice acting.

    One can only dream. Or watch Fansubs.

    --
    "All I know is, I know nothing" - badly paraphrased Socrates quote
    1. Re:Fighting Robots in Japanese Anime by Zareste · · Score: 1

      the bastard child of Gundam not shown in Japan

      Man, I've got a place in my heart for nostalgia-lovers, but holy shit, one would have to live in a cave aligned with 70's cartoon cells from top to bottom to actually go with that.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  100. Interesting and all, by Corbin+Dallas · · Score: 1

    but I won't be satisfied until I can have my own Chi. You can have Somomo.

    Pants-o, pants-o, pants-o.

    --
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
  101. Yoshimi won't let those robots defeat me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's okay - Yoshimi's working for the city. She knows that it's demanding to defeat those evil machines, so she's disciplining her body and taking lots of vitamins. She's even got a blackbelt in karate.

    She knows that it'd be tragic if those evil robots win - she won't let them eat me.

  102. Hmm. Here's a thought, Japan... by piecewise · · Score: 1

    Instead of building robots that are programmed to fight well against each other, why don't we replace these with competitions about which robot can make the best coffee for its human owner, or actions like that?

    I thought training robots to fight was exactly what we're always worried about.......

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  103. Won't be long until the army uses robots in combat by AttractWomenNow · · Score: 0

    I believe it won't be long until the world's army's use robots in combat, once the prices come down. Large countrys will be able to fight smaller country's even more when robot to human combat is economically feasible

  104. I saw the coverage by lingqi · · Score: 1

    Anyway this seems like kind of old news, as they had coverage on this quite a while back in Japan (which I actually saw part of). In any case most of the robots are balanced by "AI" - I put quotes because it's not intelligence that balances (you don't use your logical thought for balance either, but rather it's more like a background function), but robots had balance algorithms that were automated: i.e. the remote controls would command the robots to, say, stand on one leg, and the robot would calculate its arms position and shift center of weight and whatnot in order to accomplish this.

    They are far more advanced than they appear to the eye. I have no idea where this obsession with robots come from in Japan, but I have to admit they are world leaders in this area.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

  105. can't touch cowboy neal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    us heavyweights kick robot butt

  106. Death to humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are asking for trouble now. I haven't read the article yet but robot fightings sound like we really want some metal to metal entertainment and eventually these robot will combat against the human opponent just like chess--j/k :). Now ignore everything I just said and listen to this. Y are we so destructive!

  107. English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its unfortunate that the companies selling dont support English. I'd love to get my hands on one of these.

  108. irobots ? by chrisranjana.com · · Score: 0

    nice coincidence with i robot movie release !

    --
    Chris ,
    Php Programmers.
  109. the machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The machines, they are starting to take over. Let's make them extinct now before they either enslave us for energy, or nuke the crap out of the planet.

  110. Not Robots by Y2 · · Score: 1

    In my book, neither these machines nor the ones we see on "Robot Wars" are robots. They are just radio-controlled toys.

    The cars in the DARPA Grand Challenge, though - those were robots.

    --
    "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
  111. Re:Won't be long until the army uses robots in com by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 0

    Wow, the First Law has really gone to shit, hasn't it?