Slashdot Mirror


Segway's Robotic Mobility Platform

XopherMV writes "USA Today reports a military project aimed at building smarter robots has given researchers the wheels they need to make their automatons go. Originally developed by New Hampshire-based Segway for a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program, the firm's Robotic Mobility Platform (RMP) allows robot developers to focus more on the thinking power of their machines while providing a quick mode of transportation. Segway's self-balancing robot platform takes up about 2 square feet and comes equipped with software and interface electronics necessary to receive, process and execute commands from an onboard robot payload. "It was a minor modification to what we had," Morrell said. "The challenges for us were largely in declining to get too fancy, and keeping it really simple." Capable of carrying 100 pounds (45 kilograms) and moving about 8 miles (12 kilometers) an hour, the platform has two different modes. Researchers can choose between its standalone function as a robot's wheels or a tractor-like mode for towing trailers or other loads. "The goal is not to have researchers worry about transportation," Morrell said. "That way, if [a robot's computer algorithms] work on an RMP, then you could put it on a Hummer or anything else.""

90 comments

  1. yikes! by Scythr0x0rs · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one welcome our Segway powered over^H^H^H^H... oh, found the on/off switch!

  2. keep it simple to start with! by TAGmclaren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that's the hallmark of a number of awesome inventions - the aim was simplicity at the outset. That's not say it won't get complicated later on, but when you start out complicated more often the complication (and the associated cost) takes over from the crux of the idea.

    --
    Iran has endorsed
    1. Re:keep it simple to start with! by moonbender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the adhered to KISS, why not just put a third wheel down there and get rid of all the then-superflous balancing? I mean, I guess I can see how the two wheel system is nice for humans, but what does a robot care? And I don't see how it's more useful for getting around and avoiding obstacles, if anything the opposite seems to be the case. It's like creating a self-balancing computer desk with two legs.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    2. Re:keep it simple to start with! by jtrascap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The turning axis is immediate on a 2-wheeled vehicle, whilst not so on a three-wheeler. Add a bomb field, a bomb-sensing arm a foot in front of the wheels and you should immediately see what I mean...

    3. Re:keep it simple to start with! by dnixon112 · · Score: 1

      By keeping it simple, I don't think they necessarily meant keeping the platform archaic. I think they meant that they should use a tested and reliable self-balancing platform that is 'off the shelf' such as the Segway, as opposed to developing their own.

    4. Re:keep it simple to start with! by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you look at http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/land/SegwayRMP/S egwayRMP.html
      It seems as though it can be used in a four wheel configuration by towing for added carrying capacity. Seems as though it could have many uses while remaining simple.

    5. Re:keep it simple to start with! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear!

      If the 3rd wheel were on a caster, then you wouldn't lose the ability to turn in place. Hell, while we're at it, why not put a 4th on on as well?

      The Segway balancing technology is neat and all, but really, it's basically useless.

    6. Re:keep it simple to start with! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one thing, this platform balances on inclines, making for a more stable ride. That could be useful.

    7. Re:keep it simple to start with! by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      A 3 wheeled robot can also turn in place. It depends on how the wheels are arranged---not on how many there are.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    8. Re:keep it simple to start with! by mburns · · Score: 1

      Segway tech is not useless simply because the competitive tech is not yet out of the lab, and even then the competition will not be decisively superior.

      Consider "The Ghost in the Shell" combat tanks with wheels on jointed legs. A simple trolley of wheels does not compare to Segway at all. Where is the example of a wheeled vehicle which compares?

      --
      Michael J. Burns
    9. Re:keep it simple to start with! by danila · · Score: 1

      Possibly because so far noone has demonstrated a practical transportation device based on 3 or more wheels that would have all benefits of a Segway. You've seen the modern robots, haven't you? Some of them have 3 wheels, some have legs, but in the best case they move at 3km/h on a perfectly flat surface. You can badmouth Segway as much as you want, and be a smartass about the third wheel, that doesn't change the fact that Segways are revolutionary, cool and useful. And you know what, after all these years the jokes are kinda old. Why don't you go bother Ford about a fifth wheel they are missing?

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    10. Re:keep it simple to start with! by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Huh? I wasn't joking. I had no intention to badmouth the Segway, either. I just don't see how the Segway's arguably existing (if it makes you happy: revolutionary) benefits translate to a roboter: things that are beneficial to a human operator don't have to be for a bot. For instance while speech control can be nice for humans, nobody would consider it a sensible interface for a bot - granted this is an extreme example.

      The two benefits mentioned by others above - you helpfully didn't mention any - are the fact that the Segway rotates in place, and that it keeps it's operator in a balanced position. Okay, I didn't think of either of those. But at the same time, you can also realise the in-place rotation with more than two wheels (allegedly), and I can think of simpler ways of keeping the operator balanced, although I'm not sure how feasible they are. I don't know how useful the balance would be for a bot - again, humans seem much more affected by being out of balance than most appliances I can think of. But I don't claim any kind of expertise on this matter - which is why I asked if and why I could be wrong.

      All in all, and with no offense intended, I think your post was extremely non-productive. You bashed me for things I did not do, were rude about it and didn't provide any sort of argument at all.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    11. Re:keep it simple to start with! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      ...caster... The Segway balancing technology is neat and all, but really, it's basically useless.

      I invite your caster-riding overlord out on the sidewalk or an average parking lot.

    12. Re:keep it simple to start with! by danila · · Score: 1

      It looked like you are just repeating the 3rd wheel joke, sorry. The main benefit of Segway is that by being dynamically balanced it's much more mobile and manoeuvrable. 3-wheeled and 4-wheeled platforms will be unable to quickly accelerate/decelerate (without toppling over) and turning around (without either requiring a lot of space or doing it in many steps). You can solve these two problems, but you are bound to spend more resources on that than was spent on Segway's dynamic balancing. So even though 2 wheels look like a gimmick, they are not, just like 2 legs that we humans have are not a gimmick, but a nearly perfect design uniquely suited to our environment and our daily tasks.

      Of course, there are other advantages the Segway has, not just the 2-wheeled design. It has amazing wheels with excellent traction on any surface, it has a great battery that recharges when the Segway is breaking, it has brillianly designed interiors - few moving parts, brushless design for the generators/motors, isolation from the environment and resistance to bad weather, water, etc.

      It's not an exaggeration to call Segway the perfect robotic mobility platform, because it really is. For a vast majority of robotic projects and for many real robots there is no better way to solve the mobility problem with our existing technologies.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    13. Re:keep it simple to start with! by juancn · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the 2-wheeled platform is more stable.

      It's easier to tip a three wheeled vehicle an make it fall, whereas a self-stabilized two wheeled vehicle can handle different terrains.

  3. 100 pounds / 45 kg by helfen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Capable of carrying 100 pounds (45 kilograms)
    so it is rather for thin people, very thin
    1. Re:100 pounds / 45 kg by Luigi30 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it's for robots.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    2. Re:100 pounds / 45 kg by rob13572468 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      100 pounds capacity is enough to shuttle supplies to ground troops in forward areas, or to take a surveilance camera into an occupied building, or down a street that is under fire, or even to quickly clear a path through a minefield.

      The conflicts today and in the near future are not going to involve large scale movements; they will likely be in civilian areas and involve activities that are more akin to policing and patrol. M1A1 tanks and even Striker APC's will simply be too large to move around in the types of urban settings where are troops are likely to be needed.

      These sorts of conflicts will require lots of ground troops to go in on foot and patrol in areas where they may not be able to tell enemy combatants from civilians and in these cases, a mobile robotic platform will be invaluable. Just imagine troops moving into an unsecured area. They will send in a few dozen segbots that will move ahead into position, see around corners and down alleys and even remotly fire tear gas. If a sniper fires a single shot, the units will automatically and instantly triangulate the position of the shooter and report it back so that the troops can quickly respond. If troops come under heavy fire, the units can be sent right to the enemy as a sort of ground strike force to quickly respond with any choice of weapons.

      By using the segway platform as a base, the developers now have the entire mobility issue taken care from the start and instead can focus on the (more difficult) task of developing a robust navigation system. the segway is proven to be reliable so that is one less aspect to worry about on what is obviously a very complex project.

    3. Re:100 pounds / 45 kg by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

      >thin people

      Do try to RTFA before posting. At least RTF /. story.

      It's a generic wheelbase for robots. It's intended that researchers (at this list of institutions who got them) will be able to work more efficiently if they are freed from the mechanical details of moving their robot around.

      The subtler point is that Segway and others can then work on competing mobility platforms that outperform Segway's current model - giving Segway a leg up, er, or something like that.

      (That's Read The Fine Article for the hypersensitive out there).

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
  4. Scale it up by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny
    They're missing a possibility in the entertainment market:

    Monster Segway Robot Challenge! (Only this Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:Scale it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we already have Segway Soccer (click on the picture for more photos of the soccer demo and the Segway RMP).

    2. Re:Scale it up by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Not quite the nitro-burning, car-crushing Monster Segways that I was thinking of. :)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  5. Remember folks, by DLR · · Score: 3, Informative

    You saw it here first!

    --
    "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
    1. Re:Remember folks, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you also capable of sucking your own dick?

    2. Re:Remember folks, by danila · · Score: 1

      No, you silly, we saw it here first! Roland forever!

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    3. Re:Remember folks, by DLR · · Score: 1
      Hah! No weapons! :) It's still my idea first!

      Seriously tho, I was wondering why someone hadn't done a robot based on a Segway yet since it seemed so obvious. Glad to see MIT's not gone totaly stale yet.

      --
      "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
  6. Want to make Dean Kamen REALLY mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just point out that the Segway ain't nothing but a sidewheeled scooter with a Pentium in the base.

    Maybe that is why Steve Jobs shits his pants whenever he sees one.

  7. Thin man or tin man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    so it is rather for thin robots, very thin.

    Rosy the Jetsons maid, Tik Tok of Oz and B9 are out of luck this time.

  8. The real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    How easy is it to mount hydraulic hammers and saws and slamming pickaxes onto this thing? I need to know in time to finish my new "RoboGinsu" in time for the next battlebots tournament.

  9. Modular design in action by MrRTFM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I like this idea - I dont really care if Segway is the best method but its great that researchers (and hobbiests if the price goes down) can use a simple building block.

    Anything that gets robots out to the consumer is good - I am still suprised that robots have taken such a lot time to be sellable. I want my drink retrieving, vaccuum cleaning, walking, talking robot - Damnit!!

    --
    You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
    1. Re:Modular design in action by TAGmclaren · · Score: 2, Funny
      I want my drink retrieving, vaccuum cleaning, walking, talking robot - Damnit!!


      These things have a scientific name in meatspace - they're known as "wives". ::ducks:: :)
      --
      Iran has endorsed
    2. Re:Modular design in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I dont really care if Segway is the best method but its great that researchers (and hobbiests if the price goes down)"

      Why did I read this as "hobbitses"? ;)

    3. Re:Modular design in action by MrRTFM · · Score: 1

      These things have a scientific name in meatspace - they're known as "wives". ::ducks:: :)

      No - I meant the model with a mute button, and 'dont remind me again' checkbox :)

      --
      You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
    4. Re:Modular design in action by droleary · · Score: 1

      I like this idea - I dont really care if Segway is the best method but its great that researchers (and hobbiests if the price goes down) can use a simple building block.

      Exactly how is a Segway a simple building block compared to any other electric scooter that costs an order of magnitude less?

    5. Re:Modular design in action by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Woman v1.0 Addendum.
      Issue:
      You put a tick in "Never remind me again".

      Identification:
      Woman v1.0 going haywire, throwing your clothes in the street, changing the locks.
      There are reports of possible security problems if your Woman 1.0 has local network access with other Woman devices. Though this problem may infact be a fundimental flaw.

      Resolution:
      To rectify this issue, you must perform the following steps*:
      1) Disconnect all other Woman devices and concentrate 100% on your errant model.
      2) Install Flowers v1.2.
      3) Distract your Woman with numerous retail items, this will disorient her and give you a chance to reflash her firmware.

      *Please note, these steps are discussed in chapter one of the "Never piss off your woman" handbook you recieved with the unit.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    6. Re:Modular design in action by rts008 · · Score: 1

      By being a simple building block, of course. Just because you seem to have a different opinion of building blocks doesn't mean the rest of the world has to conform to your opinions.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    7. Re:Modular design in action by SidV · · Score: 1

      It's software controlled, and the user is handed the software.

      Now maybe you could build a robot with hands to move a throtttle and turn a steering wheel.

      But tha'ts what this dos. Take that out of the developments so that others can work on the more specefic stuff.

    8. Re:Modular design in action by polecat_redux · · Score: 1

      Anything that gets robots out to the consumer is good - I am still suprised that robots have taken such a lot time to be sellable.

      The reason robots are slow to make it out into the public is because previous versions were found to eat old-people's medicine for fuel.

  10. Nice above the article about failing tech in war by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I totally can't see the use for this.

    Well actually I can, if I walk around the "battlefield training" areas where americans test their weapons. You know, like the bombing range where they tested the norton bomb sights. A location chosen for its all year around clear weather.

    What can a segway possibly be used for. Well it is slow as well but about as fast as a marching soldier so it can save them energy. Well true. If the battle field is nice and smooth with a hard surface. No rain, mud, loose sand, rivers, streams, shell holes, trenches, fences, barbed wire, loose stones etc etc etc. None of the stuff in fact that makes up a battlefield

    Even an urban battlefield doesn't stay clean enough for long for this thing to be practical.

    Behind the battlefield? Ehm yeah the thing is still damn slow and your still standing. So no replament for a truck.

    Carrying supplies or wounded? Same problem, at the battlefield where trucks and such are to big it can't move and behind the lines it is to slow.

    Even a soldier on patrol is useless, he needs his hands on his weapon not on the controls of this thing, at least with a truck you got 1 driver and 2-3 passengers.

    No I can see this as another way to make war look nicer and cleaner. This will not be the revolution that the jeep was.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

  11. A use for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That could potentially make a mean battlebot! Combined with some army effort to incorporate real firepower and combat effectiveness on the platform and woohoo, battlebot world championship, here I come!

  12. Re:Nice above the article about failing tech in wa by ri0tdude · · Score: 1

    Dude, did you read the article? It was talking about robots using them - Not people.

  13. Re:Nice above the article about failing tech in wa by re410 · · Score: 1

    "...about as fast as a marching soldier..." Wow! that's one fast march. An average walking pace is 2 to 3 mph. At 8 mph you'd have to be running to keep up with it.

  14. read kilometers :P by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Funny

    stupid americans and their imperial system, I blame bush.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

  15. Military Robots by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

    As a person who is right in the 'likely to get drafted if there's a draft' demographic, I say bring on the military robots ASAP! I look forward to the day when pilotless aircraft and driverless vehicles battle it out instead of humans. Who knows, one day we might have a world war with no human casualties. The winner would be the side who manages to get their robots past the opposition's defensive lines to trash up the enemy's electricity, computer systems, telecommunications etc, thereby essentially crippling any semi-modernised economy.

    Plus suddenly the draft won't seem quite so scary - "Son, how you like to sit on your butt playing with hi-tech gadgets that can really fly and blow each other up?" sounds a lot more fun than "Son, how would you like to stand around on a street corner in Baghdad waiting to get blown up?"

    Of course, as an alternative I could just ask all of you to be smart enough not to re-elect Bush. But if I have to pick between the average voter being 'smart' and giant cyborgs fighting our wars on a high tech battlefield of the future, I guess I'll have to forget about crazy pipe dreams and bank on the robots...*

    *NB - even if you do re-elect Bush I'm going to dodge the draft anyway, so it's really you who will be drafted, not me, but the point's the same I guess.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Military Robots by SidV · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dolt

      The draft will not be instituted because we saw what happens with a draft during Vietnam. That is why we moved to a volunteer military, because we saw (In the form of the Marine Corps) that a volunteer force always does better than a drafted force.

      As such, even the military DOES NOT WANT A DRAFT. They do not want people like you in the military because they know you will be less than useless. You will actually drag others down with you.

      Now should the living Ent Kerry be elected we might need a draft. Because every tin-pot dictator and terrorist knows that, the worse response they can expect is that we will meet with the French. Therefore they will "test" us about every chance they get.

      PS, Bush has stated un-equivocally many times, there are no plans for a draft. There have been two proposals before congress. Both bills proposed by Democrats. Sounds to me like the Democrats are the one who want the draft.

  16. Re:Nice above the article about failing tech in wa by colinemckay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Read the article. It is just a test bed for the software and other sensors. The scientists developing software and other sensors won't have to also develop the components to move the sensors around. The sensors and software can later be added to other, more capable, mobility platforms.

    For example, there is no reason the software and sensors couldn't be added to a truck, to either deliver cargo between point A and B automatically, or to follow one lead vehicle in a convoy.

    >Even a soldier on patrol is useless, he needs his hands on his weapon not on the controls of this thing, at least with a truck you got 1 driver and 2-3 passengers.

    Yes, but if the robot could be programmed to follow the soldier automatically, carrying his ruck or additional cargo (weapons, ammo, sensors, commo gear), then the soldier is better able to shoot, move, and communicate.

    The soldier could also have the option of making a relatively inexpensive robot travel in front, tripping mines or other booby traps, serving as point man. (Which the packbot already does.)

  17. its a robot by bluGill · · Score: 1

    It isn't meant to carry people. Put a gun on it, and you can send a bunch to places where you expect 90% casually rates, without worry. The few that make it take out the target, then people come latter, gather all the ones that didn't make it and fix them. No loss of life.

    Issues like knowing who to shoot, telling the good guys from the bad, and the laws of robots are left as an exercise for the reader. :)

    1. Re:its a robot by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would think that if you're going into a spot where there's likely to be a 90% casualty rate you're not likely to find a high proportion of good guys to bad guys.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:its a robot by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Thats exactly the point. Any good general who knows that a target must be taken, but it will cost 90% of his men, will start looking for alternatives. Sending 1000 robots to get shot is a lot better than sending 500 men.

    3. Re:its a robot by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      Or even 10 men.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  18. So ... by wobblie · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Masters of Useless Technology have finally discovered the biggest consumers of useless crap that has ever existed - the US military, and boy those pockets are deep.

    This is sort of like when the RIAA discovered the disposable income of teenagers, but with added gore.

  19. Follow politics, don't just listen to claims by bluGill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bush has said often that there will not be a draft, there are enough troops. In fact more than enough, the military doesn't take everyone who walks through their doors trying to get in.

    Kerry says we need 40,000 more troops. Where is he going to get them? True he can start with those who were refused, but is that enough?

    Kerry has said that he would go to war in Iraq. He hasn't been real clear, and who knows what he would have really done, but there is a good chance that if he was president now there would still be troops in Iraq.

    Some democrats (Not kerry, AFAIK) have tried to start a draft. Call a political play, but the fact is it is the democrats that are trying to start the draft.

    In short, you are more in danger - on this issue - if Kerry is elected. There are, of course, thousands of issues. Study them and make a decision based on facts, not feelings.

    1. Re:Follow politics, don't just listen to claims by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Ok. The democrats are the bad guys because they say that they need more soldiers to clean up the mess the republicans created?

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Follow politics, don't just listen to claims by burns210 · · Score: 1
      OK... Way off base their buddy...

      "Bush has said often that there will not be a draft, there are enough troops."

      Other than (another) verbal slip-ups a few nights ago, both Kerry and Bush have repetedly said there will be no draft. They have never left wiggle-room on the issue, they are ALWAYS very clearly against the idea, from both sides.

      "Kerry says we need 40,000 more troops."

      So does the General on the ground, I believe, who was quoted as saying we didn't have enough troops(correct me if I am wrong, that was from memory). Kerry, hasn't specifically outlined, as far as I know, from where he will get the troops. Most likely, he will do what Bush was considering to do in place of a draft, relocate troops from Europe and Asia(not all, just some) and have them go to Iraq... Since they are trained army and marine soldiers(and not National Guardsman), I am surprised this didn't happen earlier... Why weren't National Gaurdsman being sent to replace European-based American Soldiers so more veteran better trained troops could fight the war in Iraq?

      "Kerry has said that he would go to war in Iraq. He hasn't been real clear, and who knows what he would have really done..."

      OK, seriously, for all practical purposes, Kerry has explained what he would have like to see done(what he would have done) multiple times. A couple of times in the debates, even. A handful come to mind. John Kerry's website, which he has stated multiple times on national tv, explains in detail his plans(esspecially how he plans to pay for things like Health Care and such).

      Kerry, so he has said, would have passed the UN resolution, and let UN inspectors do their job. Bush did not put the resolution to a vote and pulled the UN inspectors.

      (This would have likely shown that Saddam did not have the WMD the Administration originally believed. Heck, I admit, the Federal Government as a whole(both parties) believed it. So everyone made that mistake. However, Bush pulled the inspectors before they could determine if there actually was a threat or not. Big mistake.)

      Assuming those two acts would have failed(you have to atleast TRY the peaceful way before you try the military way) Kerry would have moved forward with the invasion. He would have also stressed the creation of a coalition... (don't EVEN start to defend our coalition today... Look at troop count, look at countries on the list, it is a JOKE. Palau, Rwanda, Latvia, Ethiopia. The vast majority are relatively miniscule, with only a few 'core' allies that are still supplying less than what, 5% of the troops?

      So Kerry would have put a coalition together, one similar to the Gulf War(I). This would have been far more practical then, then now, because the US went through the diplomatic steps that Bush skipped over. We wouldn't look like war mongers to the world, so they would be more likely to support our cause.

      Kerry, then, with his reasonably larger(but not necesarily Gulf-War-I-sized coalition, would have gone ahead and invaded Iraq to remove Saddam as Bush did. Prior to the invasion, Kery would have spelled out a plan for the peace. Iraqi police training and such, to get Iraq to support itself. This is essentially the way Bush has acted, only to my understanding, Kerry would have made a plan prior to attacking and make it public, Bush has a more after-the-fact peace plan.

      Some democrats (Not kerry, AFAIK) have tried to start a draft. Call a political play, but the fact is it is the democrats that are trying to start the draft.

      There were 2. Two moronic Democrats that put the bill out their. The Republican leadership did the right thing, called this rediculous bill for a vote, and almost unanimously had it denied. Kerry was in no way a supporter or backer of it... Neither was any sane man on the planet. It was a petty political move, don't blame Bush OR Kerry for that.

      "In short, you are more in danger - on this issue - if Kerry is elected."

      I have to disagree, s

    3. Re:Follow politics, don't just listen to claims by burns210 · · Score: 1
      "Follow politics, don't just listen to claims
      by bluGill (862) on Saturday October 23, @07:30AM (#10608488)"

      Props to your User ID, that has to be by far the lowest I have seen on /.

  20. Re:Nice above the article about failing tech in wa by wobblie · · Score: 1

    Have you ever been on a military march? it is close to running slowly, with 40lbs on your back. It's hell the first few times you do it. Average pace is about 10 minute miles.

  21. Well thats a little HYPOCRITICAL!!! by ferrellcat · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Dean Kamen's super-mobility wheelchairs will help the people maimed by Dean Kamen's super-mobility killer robots!

    1. Re:Well thats a little HYPOCRITICAL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next best thing to "find a need and fill it" for the entrepeneur is "create a need and fill it".

  22. Here at CMU... by Xerotope · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We've had a couple of these for the past year or so. They're currently being developed into soccer-playing robots as part of Robocup.

    The goal there is to have a team of humans on segways play segway robots in an actual soccer match.

    The project's website, which has a movie page with a ton of movies of the thing in action is here.

  23. you ignorant, stupid bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im sorry, do you really think that BOTH SIDES are going to have robots? do you really think its going to end up robot vs robot?

    what you are going to have, is a bunch of robot soldiers going in and killing humans, human soldiers and human civilians of the country that has the less money.

    god, people like you make me want to vomit

  24. good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are like charlie in wonka's chocolate factory. maybe there is one honest kid on slashdot.

    the rest? their eyes glaze over and they make up lies about how this will 'save life'. in order to justify their techno lust.

  25. Have you seen the Centaur? by racerx509 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Judging from the replies here, I'm guessing none of you have seen the new segway centaur prototype. It has been shown working its way about grassy terrain, and moving over obstacles such as boxes. While it is a 4 wheeled vehicle, it also has the power to do the two wheeled balancing act of its older segway cousin. i suggest you all check it out, before dooming this military project.
    http://www.segway.com/centaur/

    --
    13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
  26. What is DARPA's goal? by kallistiblue · · Score: 1

    What do they want these robots to do?

    If they want to trasport supplies, the ground-based is a requirement.

    However, if they want Robot Scouts or Soldiers, I think that there are better ideas.

    --
    Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
  27. Closeup picture and more details ... by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    here.

    1. Re:Closeup picture and more details ... by polecat_redux · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know why the silly little thing still has handlebars....

  28. NIce. But there are already many "platforms" by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    About fifteen years ago,the big problem with robotics R&D was the lack of off the shelf platforms. Too much academic time was going into building motorized bases.

    But that's no longer the case. There are many good off the shelf bases. Cybermotion, iRobot, Arrick, ActiveMedia, Klephera, and Zagros all make wheeled robot bases. Even legged machines are available.

    Right now, the big bottleneck is sensing. Visual processing still doesn't work (the hardware is fine, but the theory doesn't work), true 3D laser rangefingers aren't here yet (although I've seen one working on an optical bench) and submillimeter radar hasn't reached production yet (millimeter radar has limited resolution.) Most of the hobbyist world is still using 1980s ultrasonic devices, IR reflectance sensors, and feelers, which don't work any better than they did in the 1980s.

  29. movies of Segway RMP at USC by rtv · · Score: 1
    The RMP has been around for a while - in fact you slashdotted USC's robotics lab about 18 months ago when they posted their Player drivers for RMP.

    Anyway, Here are some movies of the RMP running the Player Robot Server (GPL, naturally). If you want to try programming a Segway RMP, but haven't got one sitting around, you can use the Gazebo robot simulator with Player - your code won't know the difference.

    (Please, please somebody mirror these movies before we brown-out Southern California. Sorry Andrew...)

  30. Sweet by LS · · Score: 1

    So when do I get one of these??

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  31. This is great. I bet a robot warrior will be next. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Look at this funny page:

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-afghanista n2.html

    After we move on to robots, we don't have to put any more of our own at risk of DU. Just send the robot platoon to mow them dogs down with DU. WAHOO!

  32. Looks like trouble... by thewiz · · Score: 1

    Looks like the military segbots are already getting in trouble with the police: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~carmen/segbot/images/cops /index.html

    I can see it now: "World's Wildest Robot Chases"

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  33. Re:Nice above the article about failing tech in wa by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
    it is close to running slowly, with 40lbs on your back.

    Sounds like mind-bogglingly good exercise.

  34. Cool but Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked on developing software for a Segway RMP at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC. While it's kinda cool to have a self balancing robot, it has no real advantages over more conventional models.

  35. Draft in 2005 by Generalisimo+Zang · · Score: 1

    Bush has said repeatedly that there will not be a draft.

    It is true he said this, and it is also true that this is a lie on his part.

    It will not be the first lie that he has told, and it wouldn't even be the biggest lie that he has told.

    A vote for Bush will be a vote for 1) A military draft, 2) Massive social disruption and unrest as a result of the draft, and 3) Draconian supression of free-speech and free assembly in an attempt to enforce the draft.

    If Bush is elected, expect a draft to begin no later than December 2005, and probably earlier.

    1. Re:Draft in 2005 by SidV · · Score: 1

      Yeah but if Kerry is elected Plan on Government sponsored madatory cannabilisim. Fear mongering works both ways.

  36. Cool! by ComputerSherpa · · Score: 1

    So as I understand this, this is a free-standing propulsion system for robots. Would-be robot-makers need no longer worry about keeping the thing on its feet--just buy one of these modified Robo-Segway packages, configure your software, and plug it in. It's sort of like open-source, except with hardware and for money. (Emphasis on "sort of".)

    --
    Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
    1. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. I worked on the Segway RMP before, and it is as much of a robot as any, except there is virtually no software for it. Which means you have to do a lot of integration to get two robot working together if the RMP is gonna be used as transportation. That and there's only 12 of them out there right now with no plans to make more.

  37. Facts, not fear. by Generalisimo+Zang · · Score: 1

    Except... I'm quite serious.

    The US Army currently is almost completelly out of unutilized soldiers.

    There are currently 500,000 Regular Army troops, and there are currently 500,000 total Army troops stationed overseas.

    If it wasn't for the 200,000 Army reserve troops who are currently assigned "indefinately" to active service, we'd be OUT of foot soldiers.

    As an example of how low manpower reserves are, they've reassigned the 11th ACR from the NTC at Ft. Irwin to duty in Iraq.

    The unit that is tasked with TRAINING other units in desert warfare, has now been sent to the front.

    When you start sending your training cadres to the front, it means you have NOTHING left to assign.

    Either we start to bring troops back from Iraq within the next 12 months, or we HAVE to have a draft.

    Or... hahahaahaha.. raise the pay of infantry troops to market rates to increase the number of volunteers.

    Let's see.. will the staunch supporters of free-markets and capitalism follow the rules of the free market and raise pay for soldiers because of rising demand, OR will they simply institute involuntary servitude to force people to die for a cause they're not willing to volunteer for?

    Right. A Draft. In 2005. If Bush wins.

    1. Re:Facts, not fear. by SidV · · Score: 1

      Except that you are quite wrong.

      There are not 500,000 Regular army troops; it is closer to 750,000 down from a million.

      There are not 500,000 Army troops stationed overseas, though there may well be 500,000 mixed forces troops overseas.

      Yes, there have been many Reserve forces called up. That is exactly what they are there for; it is the entire reason for their existence. I know I was a corporal in the USMC Reserves.

      The reason why PARTS of the 11th ACR have been sent on tour in Iraq, is that in order to train troops they need real world experience. The military is not a lesson in book tactics; people with experience train those without. The only way for he people to get the experience is to actually do it. The 11th ACR back home will then be supplemented with troops that fought in the early days of Gulf War II so that they can train those that were not there. There is nothing abnormal about this. To not send your training cadre to get real world experience would be abnormal.

      Quick check of the 11th ACR's website, and the list of those stationed in theatre shows 18 troops stationed in Iraq. Only one of which is below the rank of 1st Sgt, and is probably a clerk for the officers. Not exactly a desperate measure to send 18 people out of hundreds. And if your in desperate need of manpower, you send the lower ranks, the fighters, not the officers and non-commissioned officers by themselves.

      (Sarcasam)FLASH NEWS: War not going well, sending of SPC Angelic DeJager to Iraq definitive evidence that draft is coming.(/Sarcasam)

      It has nothing to do with no troops left to assign. More troops were sent during Gulf War I, and even then, there were plenty of troops left behind in the states and Germany to continue normal duties.

      In other words. You are completely wrong. You don't know what your talking about, and your fear mongering because you have an inexplicable and illogical fear of Bush, and rather than bring up the merits of your guy, which are lacking, you'd rather make up lies about the other guy.

  38. My guy?? by Generalisimo+Zang · · Score: 1

    I can't bring up the merits of "my guy", because there is quite frankly no one running who represents me or my interests in this election.

    I'll be voting for John Kerry, largely because Kerry had the good fortune to be born "Not Bush".

    That's not a pro-Kerry stance, that's an Anti-Bush stance.

    In fact, NOBODY should ever have to bring up even one word in defense of John Kerry or his record, because John Kerry and his record have ZERO relevance to the George Bush presidency.

    Whether Kerry is too tall, too thin, too rich, not wounded enough, too flip-floppy, too windsurfy, or too much or too little of anything, has NO relevance to George Bush's record.

    George Bush's record should speak for itself.

    1. Re:My guy?? by SidV · · Score: 1

      "inexplicable and illogical fear of Bush"

      Nuff said.

      BTW. Do you know who actually wrote the words for the Patriot act. That would be John Kerry.

      And I'm not Pro-Bush. I'm anti-Kerry.

      Anyone but Kerry in '04

      I notice that when confronted with real facts, and not just fear mongering blather, you dropped the entire Draft discusion and went to the only reason people have to vote for Kerry "Bush sucks". Kerry Edwards should have a button like that made up.

      To address that point (draft) again. Not only is there no evidence of a draft forthcoming. But even if we did draft 50,000 troops, sent them to the Middle-East, the CIC would say. Send them back, I don't need them. Not because he couldn't use more troops, but because there is no place for draftees in this kind of war. What is needed are specially trained troops in Police duties, anti-terrorisim duties, and Urban combat. Draftees are only good for handing a rifle, telling them to get in a foxhole and shoot anyone that comes from that direction. We have absolutely 0 need for those kinds of troops right now. Hence, no need for a draft.

      And don't you think if we were going to draft a bunch of soldiers, we wouldn't be sending members of the 11th ACR of to Iraq. We would need them to train the incoming Draftees. So your BS evidence actually points to a draft NOT happening.

      And if the Bush record spoke for itself, why do you have to create lies. Why not just point out truths. Is it because the evidence is so slim, you need to manufacture things to complain about?
      _________________ "People are not only stupidier than you think, they are stupidier than you can imagine." - McFeelme Johnson

  39. WTF? Use a motorcycle instead. by blueberry(4*atan(1)) · · Score: 1

    Segway: Cool, but over-hyped solution to a solved problem. The bicycle and motorcycle are much better solutions. Give it up, already. Anyone remember the days when people like Steve Jobs were saying this gadget would "change the way cities are made"? Please, let the segway fade into obscurity and die.

  40. always the military by Matt_Joyce · · Score: 1

    Why does tech always get hijacked by the military ?

    This mobility platform would be totally useful for firefighting, aid distribution, disaster relief, surveying...i'm sure there are other non violent use.

    How about connecting a number of them in series to form a n-wheel drive cross country train, which can split into smaller parts and recombine as nessesary ?

  41. Obligatory Simpsons quote... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

    "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."

    --
    In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199