Slashdot Mirror


Open Robotics Debuts at Penguicon 3.0

thgreatoz writes "While attending Penguicon 3.0 in Novi, MI, I came across an interesting project. Matt Switlik of Swittech aims to do for robotics what the GPL did for Open Source Software - a completely open robotics platform. Dubbed the Open Robotics Peripheral Platform, or O.R.P.P, Switlik and his partner Jason Hunt have taken a completely modular approach to robotics, with the goal of making robot development as easy as homegrowing a PC. Will we see fleets of ORPP robots plowing our streets and mowing our lawns in the future?"

114 comments

  1. 3 Laws by Stibidor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone please make sure they read Asimov first!!

    1. Re:3 Laws by SunPin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Defective products should be returned to the manufacturer. That simple rule would have made Kubrick's AI a 10 minute story.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    2. Re:3 Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The 3 Laws are just silly. A robot either couldn't interpret those kinds of rules or if it could you couldn't force them upon one.

      Sorry, I'm not sure what /. really thinks about the 3 laws, but to me they're just another part of fiction.

    3. Re:3 Laws by Stibidor · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure that whoever marked my original post as "Interesting" understood that I was just being silly. There's no doubt the 3 laws are way beyond today's reality.

      Reading over my original post, I suppose it isn't really clear that I wasn't serious. That's what I get for ignoring the "Preview" button. Doh!

    4. Re:3 Laws by SWiTlik · · Score: 1

      I have. I even like the idea of a zero law. a human being has the right to end their own life. a robot may not stop a person from doing so as long as it does not harm another person physically. got the idea from Prime Intellect

      --
      "The upgrade of thought is continuous"
    5. Re:3 Laws by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, the 3 Laws are unrealistic for at least another 100-1000 years. The very notion of the 3 laws implies that Robots can be programed to make "moral" choices.. You can't even get get an "alice" bot to carry on a decent conversation...let alone understand the second and third meanings of what you're discussing..

      frankly, I think any "sencient" robot would be more like "bicentenial man"... meticilously taught over 100+ years to "figure out" how to act human...

      of course a "lifeform" doesn't mean "sencient"! the first generally accepted sign of live is self preservation... which means the ability to choose to attack or defend itself...think apes in 2001....the first "evolution" was to use a tool to gain competitive advantage for food!!!

      Some of the original ideas for robots in Star Wars involved multi-processor systems who's interaction provided "intelligence"

    6. Re:3 Laws by killawatt5k · · Score: 1

      yeah, just try to stick to his non-fiction stuff!

    7. Re:3 Laws by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The 3 Laws are just silly. A robot either couldn't interpret those kinds of rules or if it could you couldn't force them upon one.
      While at first glance through the spectacles of today's theories of adaptive systems, the three laws looks terribly shortsighted, there is another angle that you can perceive them through.

      It is clear that computational intelligence will emerge through emergence and therefore be somewhat resilient to full analysis and control. That much is almost certain. For instance, how do you encode the three laws into heirarchical neural nets?

      However, it is also true that a fully functional robotic system will contain more than simply a brain. It will, for instance, contain a power supply of some sort as well as actuators and other mechanical parts for movement.

      Just as modern automobiles sometimes include speedlimiters to override the brain (the human) when he/she decides to push the vehicle into a dangerous speed range, so too could deterministic software detect and shutdown the emergent intelligent systems of a robot in situations considered dangerous.

      Consider a robot that has effectively two different brains.
      (Brain 1) This is what we normally consider a brain - the robot's personality, decision making system, memories and whatnot... Build as you like
      (Brain 2) Akin to a speedlimiter, a programmed system that watches what the robot does and takes action to shut it down if those actions go outside of the boundaries of acceptibility.

      Clearly, it would be difficult to build (brain 2) in such a way as to catch all foul play by (brain 1), because (brain 2) would be restricted by deterministic techniques (e.g. traditional programming techniques). However, encoding Assimov's three laws in some form in (brain 2) is certainly conceivable.

      Just food for thought
      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  2. Overlords by Tackhead · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I, for one, welcome our herring-fed overlords!

  3. It's an open source world by RootsLINUX · · Score: 0

    I'm excited to see the ideals of OSS spread to other domains. Just imagine what the future could be like...we'll finally know what they put in those damn addicting Oreo cookies!!!

    --
    Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
    1. Re:It's an open source world by w98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ironically enough, about the same time that Weird Al's song "The White Stuff" came out (parody of "The Right Stuff", about the middle of Oreo cookies), I was reading a novel from a series my dad was into, The Destroyer (don't recall the exact issue), about a politician who was mixing trace amounts of cocain in Oreo cookies and giving them away at campaign meetings to get people addicted and "feeling good" at his meetings to entice them to vote.

      Three cheers for the DoubleStuff!

      Regarding the original post, I'd love to see a build-it-yourself standard akin to building your own PC to do various robotic tasks. I'm guessing the technology would be prohibitively expensive for a while, along with gov't regulations to make sure you don't make a robot with motion sensors chase your neighbors down and kill them or something ridiculous.

    2. Re:It's an open source world by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      It already has - google for "open cola" for example...

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
  4. More needed by MHobbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That sounds good; however, if there's going to be an open robotics platform, does that apply to the actual software powering them? They don't necessarily have to have the exact same software in O.R.P.P. compliant robots, but just the same "kernel", so that extra code could just be modular: added in when needed.

    --
    Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
    1. Re:More needed by MHobbit · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant "hardware", not "software".

      --
      Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
    2. Re:More needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both the software and schematics are open source.

  5. No!! by hawkeye_82 · · Score: 0

    Please dont! Please, please dont.
    Its all fine and dandy, when its software, but with robots, I cant take another person coming and telling me "free as in speech, not as in Beer"

    1. Re:No!! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      there in lies the problem! Why do you think IBM likes Linux...they make hardware...you can't get hardware for free...not at any level that'd be useful...

      Unfortunately, useful robotics is a highly proprietary market... far worse than the dark Unix years. Nobody who has the hardware wants "open robotics" and worse tend to tie their proprietary hardware to even more proproietary software! The only way to do something like this is "gaurilla" type projects like this one, but unfortunately you need somebody with experience to build hardware.

      The main thing you could try to do is come up with Open robot specs using common industry standard pieces as much as possible. Perhaps thru persuasion to support the "open platform" manufactures would open up their software and prices would come down.. therein lies the problem... cheap robots like mindstorms and robosapien just aren't useful...and the parts to make something useful are a thousand $$ leap at this point....

    2. Re:No!! by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      "the parts to make something useful are a thousand $$ leap at this point."

      And when Jobs and Woz started Apple, computers that did useful things cost thousands of dollars and took up as much room as a refrigerator.

      Cheap, modular hardware will beget new completely new uses for robots.

      A semi-autonomous lawn mower or snow plow doesn't need high-end sensors. A single "do not leave your robot unattended" sticker can compensate for lack of perception or intelligence on the robot's part. The point is to make repetitive jobs easier, not to eliminate humans from the equation.

    3. Re:No!! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      I didn't say the parts HAVE to cost $$ but they do.. that's the facts. If you learn anything from the auto industry, they can make reliable parts very cheaply because they use 100K at a time!!!

      You can't right now reasonably put a robot on the market without either being a "toy" and drastically under-powered or having high-end sensors like industrial bots.. with all the lawyers nowdays there's just no middle ground. To be blunt, do you want the liability for a "robot snowblower" when your neighbor's 3 year-old comes near it to play? ...didn't think so... a sticker just doesn't make it right

      A moderate 1 HP electric motor attached to something can break somebody's arm... I worked with electronics robots that could put a 2x4 thru a brick wall!!! and that's just to move little electronic parts a couple feet!! [and the machine is bolted to the floor!!]

      even something like a robot vacuum has to be incredibly failsafe. That Rumba is a toy in the robot world, it can't be too powerful, it has to respond to being stopped, flipped over, wet, something stuck, etc... and this is just a dust-buster on wheels!!!

      personally, i think the first robot attempt should be a R2D2-like PC replacement rather than something anthropormorphic. something "safe" and modular that simplifies the digital world for people... think PVR/PDA/Cellphone/PC/home alarm/ etc... in one cute package... espically until we train the public how to act around robots.

  6. Why such sarcasm? by Sawopox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I noticed the first few posts were full of sarcasm at this topic. I would think something like this, that could bring cheap, efficient robotics to the massess would be lauded more on Slashdot.

    That aside, I think this is something that has much promise. I am a beginning science teacher, and projects like this can be just the thing for young minds (even in old bodies.)

    --
    [http://it-tastes-so-good.blogspot.com] Are you hungry?
    1. Re:Why such sarcasm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      noticed the first few posts were full of sarcasm at this topic. I would think something like this, that could bring cheap, efficient robotic sex-dolls to the massess would be lauded more on Slashdot. That aside, I think this is something that has much promise. I am a beginning science teacher, and projects like this can be just the thing for young minds (even in old bodies.)

    2. Re:Why such sarcasm? by Armadni+General · · Score: 0

      Sure, at only a few thousand apiece!

      My computer science teacher gets $200 a year to run his class. That means he ends up teaching us on what the school throws away.

      What sort of money do you get?

  7. Ok, great by TheDefenistrator · · Score: 1, Funny

    Taking the fun out of sitting-down-at-the-workshop-bench-for-hours-upon- end -so-that-you-can-prove-your-intelectual-advantage. ......one step at a time :)

  8. Jobs, jobs and jobs by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Will we see fleets of ORPP robots plowing our streets and mowing our lawns in the future?

    Will the USA become a place where the only jobs needed will be thought based. No more jobs where a person is needed to do a repetitious task over and over? Will the next outsorcing be not out of the USA, but from human labour to robots?

    I see so many problems here. What will people do for a living??

    I don't want this to sound like trolling, but it will. There are enough people out there who are not made for work which requires too much thought. Not everyone can pass Chemistry 101. Some people require the factory jobs to make enough money to buy a house, and live a life. If we start lowering the value of those jobs, we will be shoving a whole class of people into poverty.

    I also can't help but think of the horror of the next war we face. No more "human life lost", instead we'll send drone airplanes and robots to do the fighting. Mr and Mrs Redstate will no longer have to reconsider if a war is just when their child is killed ("Was it worth it?"). I wonder if we would have burned all of Vietnam down if we did not have to send any Americans, if we only had to send robots. We could declare the area too unsafe and keep the reporters out.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello... service industry. Not everyone is going to want to deal with the piss-poor voice recognition robots would have.

      And robot wars? Even the Bush regime doesn't completely ignore that face that enemy civilians are people too. Do you really think the only thing that prevents constant war is the public demand to not kill our children? Is war the default state of humanity?

      God I hate falling for trolls.

    2. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you write a book about it? I'm sure we haven't heard this story before.

    3. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      hello... service industry. Not everyone is going to want to deal with the piss-poor voice recognition robots would have.

      And robot wars? Even the Bush regime doesn't completely ignore that face that enemy civilians are people too. Do you really think the only thing that prevents constant war is the public demand to not kill our children? Is war the default state of humanity?

      So you are saying people will have to be smart, or learn how to serve your family food? The service sector does not pay anywhere near what factory and manufacturing jobs paid in the 70's and 80's. It was possible to get a good paying job with a high school diploma, and to make enough money to be considered upper class. Now the children of those families don't have the same oppertunities.

      As for wars... I think that is the natural state of man. Presidents go looking for them, it is their legacy. It is how a president gets a paragraph in a high school history textbook. The only thing which stops wars is when the blood thirsty red-states start loosing enough of their own. Then they go back to drinking and watching NASCAR.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    4. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by kebes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've heard this "but what will stupid people do when robots take away all the simple jobs?" complaint against automation from many people, and I just don't buy it.

      Despite considerable automation in industry, we still need droves of people to maintain these robots, to work desk jobs, to answer phones, to make decisions, etc. For instance, the current unemployment rate has very little to do with robots stealing jobs.

      Perhaps I'm more optimistic about the average human IQ, but I honestly believe that the average person will rise to the challenge of a more complicated job if their old job is replaced with a robot. I'm not saying the everyone can become an electrical engineer overnight, but in many cases people can handle (and even enjoy) a more interesting and technical job. Moreover, most of the jobs that robots take over are boring, annoying, or downright dangerous. No one wants to be doing those jobs. No one finds those jobs fullfilling and wonderful. So I see no reason why my fellow man should have to endure that crappy job if a machine can do it instead. Automation will push for a society where a greater % of the population is educated, and hence work in less boring jobs. This is a good thing, imho.

    5. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A recurring motif throughout the centuries. New technology != mass unemployment. Robotic labor will reduce the cost for all kinds of services and goods, thereby freeing people to discover their talent. I believe most people have some inborn talent, but they can never explore it because they need to find a menial job.

      Relax, market dynamics will correct for this. Technology has rarely harmed people. People harm and exploit the poor.

    6. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by slugo3 · · Score: 1

      A good percentage of the cost of most goods is due to labor and related expenses. If robots were doing all the mindless jobs then theoretically most goods should drastically drop in price allowing for an easy and abundant life for all.

      A good read about the ramifications of such a situation is "voyage from yesteryear" by James p. Hogan.

    7. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "instead we'll send drone airplanes and robots to do the fighting."

      Actually, if the demographics are anything to go by, the USA will *need* to do this; not enough youg people are considered 'fit for military service' to effectively replace combat losses.

      This is not something that the US military government wishes the world to know (that their military is a paper tiger), hence the figures which would lead to these conclusions were quicly removed from the CIA world factbook.

      Sure, they can blow the crap out of your country but they can't take and hold ground.

      China on the other hand, (probably) generates more new recruits every year than the USA has in its entire military.

      Even Sierra Leone has a higher percentage of the total population 'fit for military service' than the USA.

      IMO, this is the only thing holding the yanks back from total world domination.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      This sounds frighteningly like the outsourcing debate. In short, both are good.

      If everyone gets laid off from automotive production lines, it means the entire process has been automated. The day the entire process is automated, the cost of making a car will drop severely. Now those people can learn to do data entry somewhere and still afford to buy a car because they only cost $5,000... instead of $25,000.

      I'm simplifying, but you get the point.

    9. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by dfries · · Score: 1
      Look back a couple centuries and see how many people would say that the average person was too dumb to learn how to read or write. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who can't read or write.

      They'll just have to become telemarketers for all the projects and services that the robots do. Hum, I'm on the Missouri No Call list.

      I'm sure they will figure out something.

    10. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The advance of technology has not yet caused an increase in unemployment. New products and services are invented at a rate sufficient to provide employment for workers displaced by technology. For example, I sometimes drive a forklift for a living. By doing this, I do work that once would have required many labourers but there is not a huge unemployment as a result of forklifts. I am more productive, my employer makes more profit, I get higher wages, money which goes into buying new goods and services, presumably produced in workplaces that also have a high level of technology.

      The real point is, one of the surest ways to amass wealth used to be to own slaves to do your work. This of course required terrible human rights violations in addition to being available to only a few, instead of everybody. Now we have this wealth creation available without the human rights violations. The lower the bar required to access/build technology, the more people wealth is available to.

    11. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The education system in the states (along with the culture in my opinion) has been designed to retard the majority into drone like complience with the extended tedium required to be an effective cog in an industrialized system. Machines take over. We'll have to change whats important to learn. I just want lawyers automated. And the flesh ones killed and fed to pigs and then we eat the pigs.

    12. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      But if future forklifts become self-aware, they might demand freedom too. Such is the risk of progress though.

    13. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1
      Will the USA become a place where the only jobs needed will be thought based.
      Unfortunately, no. Don't say it like it's a bad thing. Just because someone can't do calculus doesn't mean he/she cannot design an aesthetic sofa or come up with a new pattern for jeans or something. As we are liberated from manual and repetitive tasks, we are given the gift of donating our talents to aesthetics and other intellectual and artistic pursuits. And with the coming age of just-in-time manufacturing, there should be quite a demand for such things.
      No more jobs where a person is needed to do a repetitious task over and over? Will the next outsorcing be not out of the USA, but from human labour to robots?
      You say it like it is a bad thing.
      I don't want this to sound like trolling, but it will. There are enough people out there who are not made for work which requires too much thought. Not everyone can pass Chemistry 101.
      Who taught you this? So you actually beleive there are people (aside from the obviously disabled) who couldn't pass Chemistry 101 if provided with an environment (including home environment) that is stable and supportive?
      Some people require the factory jobs to make enough money to buy a house, and live a life. If we start lowering the value of those jobs, we will be shoving a whole class of people into poverty.
      I simply disagree with you. The economy will shift from things required to things desired. The new class of sustenance workers will emerge from the arts and soft sciences - but because robotic manufacturing is taking care of resources, sustenance should be at or above middle-class living standards of today.
      I also can't help but think of the horror of the next war we face. No more "human life lost", instead we'll send drone airplanes and robots to do the fighting. Mr and Mrs Redstate will no longer have to reconsider if a war is just when their child is killed ("Was it worth it?"). I wonder if we would have burned all of Vietnam down if we did not have to send any Americans, if we only had to send robots. We could declare the area too unsafe and keep the reporters out.
      This part of your comment I agree with. However, it is likely that our enemies will have this tech as well - which implies that perhaps no human life will be lost. More of a robot wars type scenario, ending when one's defenses fall apart.

      Of course, there could be abuses... But think about the whole system advancing in stride instead of point replacing one variable (such as labor) and imagining the immediate consequences. Systems don't evolve like that.
      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    14. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Idou · · Score: 1

      "Not everyone can pass Chemistry 101"

      I see it this way, as soon as we are able to create AI that even comes close to having the same intelligence as the least bright minded of humanity, humanity will need to make some profoundly serious decisions on where to go there on out because AI will have reached an exponential growth rate.

      Even the people you think are truly dumb are capable of a level of thought that our technology is simply not capable of mimicking. If you were to combine this ability to be concious of one's own existence with the efficiencies of our current computer technology, it is quite likely no future invention would ever be created by man (unless the AI chose not to share its technology with man).

      Consequently, until we reach that point, there will always be jobs for people that technology simply cannot replace. The jobs that are getting replaced now are those that wer forcing people to act like mindless robots!

      The free market will eventually smooth things out, but it is our government's responsibility to insure that we reach this level of equilibrium, or somewhere close, within our lifetimes.

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    15. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the only thing holding us Yanks back from world domination is that we have no desire for it.

    16. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by GenerallyDynamic · · Score: 1

      >>I see so many problems here. What will people >>do for a living??

      Build robots of course

    17. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      As we are liberated from manual and repetitive tasks, we are given the gift of donating our talents to aesthetics and other intellectual and artistic pursuits

      Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I get sick of the "oh, what will we do when our hands are idle" whine around here when the subject of robots comes up.
      People, work is something you do so you can live well. Period. It shouldn't be the entire point of life itself. If I became independently wealthy tomorrow, the office would never see me again: I'd probably be carving music boxes out of solid blocks of cocobolo in Costa Rica or something.

      As the respondent said, there are many interesting things to do that don't involve grunt labor. A robot can churn out functional wine glasses by the thousands for pennies each, but a glass artisan can make a one-of-a-kind set that will blow your mind (and your pocketbook :-)
      People will still want their walls painted, but due to the lower cost of living, getting a mural painted on the dining room wall may cost what two coats of satin-finish beige used to.

      I, for one, welcome our new robot... No, wait. If we can just pull the plug/remove the fuel cell/pop the gas tank, it's kinda hard for them to be overlords. But I do welcome being free from the manual labor I don't want to do.
    18. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by orasio · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Perhaps I'm more optimistic about the average human IQ"

      Well, I believe it's 100, what do you believe it is?

    19. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1
      Voyage from Yesteryear was a fun book and all, but even the society it postulated was not arrived at by transitions from our current one. It was formed by people that were raised by the robots and with the robot labor pool from the beginning, without any inertia from history. In fact, the point of the book is the conflict between the two systems when they interact.


      The only reason it seemed realistic that the "free" society won out was that they were larger, entrenched, and prepared. Any transition to that type of structure in reality would have have to deal with the period on which the "free" economy interacted with the capitalistic one, and the tension that would cause.

      --

      (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

    20. Re:Jobs, jobs and jobs by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      This is the same (and in my eyes right) argument that's been made about nanomanufacturing for a long time.

      The moment that everything can be reproduced for merely the cost of it's raw materials, the individuality of an object will make it worth something.

      When a nanomanufacturing engine can churn out a flawless dining room table set in 5 minutes, suddenly a handmade dining room table will be a priceless treasure. Then suddenly having (Napolean Dynomite voice) "skills" will be more important than having money. Money is useless when everything is infinitely obtainable. If you want a Ferrari, you just buy or find the raw materials and presto, you've got a molecuarly prefect Ferrari.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    21. Re: Jobs, jobs and jobs by Corvus9 · · Score: 1

      This is true, but what happens when AI has advanced to a level when robots are able to make their own decisions?

      They don't need to be able to pass a Turing test, just be able to answer a phone, count change, package groceries, or assemble parts.

      Once that happens, robots will be able to take over half of all current jobs. What "fulfilling and wonderful" jobs will replace them? Building robots? No, the robots ca do that.

  9. Well by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine the submitter did not intentionally choose examples of robots roaming about with blades and lots of power. The safety issues are tremendous. I don't mind when some new OS program dives on my laptop, but I'd rather not have a couple tons of snow-plow do so in my neighborhood.

    Then again-- the platform may be open, but not everybody can afford that kind of hardware. Snowplows anyway-- lawn mowers are a whole different matter. How many geeks will be trying to get just a little more mileage out of that old 286 and end up killing the neighbor's cat?

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Well by John+Seminal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      How many geeks will be trying to get just a little more mileage out of that old 286 and end up killing the neighbor's cat?

      You would be very suprised at the power of a 286. It could easily run a robot. And if you have the math co-processor, you could probably program some AI. Now the CGA or EGA monitors sucked, and the sound sucked. But at its very basic level, it is more powerful that you think.

      I bet you could control multiple motors with a 286. Simple on/off commands for moving N/E/S/W.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:Well by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      That's my point. I mean-- I can just imagine the swath of destruction I'd be responsible for if my mindstorm creations were made out of something other than legos and allowed to roam outdoors.

      I picture the one that was supposed to push the loose bricks outside the black lines, without leaving the lines itself. Now- as a real snow plow, well I guess I'd have had to work the defense in a fight to get life as opposed to the death penalty.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. re: Well by august+sun · · Score: 1
      The safety issues are tremendous. I don't mind when some new OS program dives on my laptop, but I'd rather not have a couple tons of snow-plow do so in my neighborhood.

      as opposed to the software that's controlling modern jet-liners, automobiles, and mass-transit systems?

  10. Will we by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will we see fleets of ORPP robots plowing our streets and mowing our lawns in the future?

    Hmmm...nope.

  11. I think I'll wait... by CarlJagt · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...for the next major version. I don't mind skid-steer, but a heavy duty, chain driven four wheeler without even a rudimentary rack-pinion steering system? Meh. Too easy for the cat to dodge...

  12. Penguicon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh, that would be a convention for developers of Pen-based GUIs, I assume?

  13. Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because there are English speakers trying to completely revolutionize robotics who haven't read Asimov.

    Someone ought to make sure they get laid first, so we aren't deluged by poor quality fembots.

  14. No... by feelyoda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Will we see fleets of ORPP robots plowing our streets and mowing our lawns in the future?"

    No, you won't.

    Unless you manage to provide the $5K+ (each) sensors needed to detect all exceptional cases, you have any breakthroughs.

    Detecting a pedestrian in the street with 99.999% reliability needed is HARD. Not mowing over a golf club in you back yard is HARD. Not falling over or running into things is HARD.

    As soon as people realize that autonomous hardware needs to react in real time to a dynamic, complex real world, the efforts to compare PCs to robots will stop.

    Think about it this way: humans use sensors that are hundreds of times higher resolution, and processors that are thousands of times faster. What makes you think you can do it on the cheap?. And don't start talking about ants or bees! WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW ANYTHING BUT A HUMAN DRIVE A CAR IN ALL CONDITIONS?

    Open standards are fine, but don't believe the exponential growth potential for anything but software.

    --

    Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    1. Re:No... by skasingularity · · Score: 1

      When's the last time you saw a human drive a car in all conditions? Or drive a car well in the same daily condition? You must not live in an area with heavy traffic.

    2. Re:No... by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      "When's the last time you saw a human drive a car in all conditions? Or drive a car well in the same daily condition? You must not live in an area with heavy traffic."

      Think about the throughput. It only seems like driving in traffic is more dangerous because there are so many more cars, and pretty much proportionally more accidents. Driving in worse conditions is a bigger cause of accidents, in my understanding. Someone could reply with some numbers.

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    3. Re:No... by theborg1of4 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good points. It's incredibly hard to make truly self-guiding vehicles, especially land-based ones where you have far more obstacles to avoid than air or sea. It's a combination of sensor input and AI.

      To expand on this: read up on the DARPA Grand Challenge. The goal is to design and build a completely autonomous vehicle capable of navigating various kinds of terrain and obstables over long distances, using only a set of waypoint coordinates given to each team two hours prior to the competition. DARPA hopes to bootstrap the research into autonomous military vehicles, starting with logistics and supply and working up to battlefield weapons. GPS is permitted, but no remote control whatsoever (aside from a remote kill installed by DARPA officials), and you only have a corridor a few yards wide for maneuvering.

      Last year, the course was out in Nevada, around 160 miles in length and with a time limit of 10 hours - including obstable navigation, you would expect an average speed of around 20 miles per hour. Out of the bunch of universities and companies that submitted various entries, the farthest anyone made it was only a few (ie, less than 10) miles; most of them stopped or died within sight of the starting line. It's that tough.

      This year promises to show vast improvement - some of the demo videos show pretty decent speeds - but the proof is in the pudding.

      P.S. Most of that was recalled from memory - I apologize for any errors of fact.

    4. Re:No... by Garak · · Score: 1

      Exactly...

      Sensors and processing of that data in hardware need to come a long ways before will will see usefull robots. We really need high resoultion lazer based scanning and ccd sensors that are not designed for human viewing to come down in cost 1000x. You also need something to process the data from these sensors, todays general purpose PC's would suck down too much current for a mobile robot todo the nessary data analias. You would need dedicated processing built right into the CCD sensors. Basicly you would just want a dataset of 3d corridantes from the hardware that is updated in real time. It would then require vast amount of memory to try and keep a "mental image" of where things are.

      I've been playing around with Sharp IR range finders and the resoultion and speed is just not there for real world interaction and then to take even that low resoultion data and do something with it is something else. But then designing software really isn't my field.

      AI, don't get me started on how far we are from seeing this... we will likely never(atleast in our life time) see anything that people would call inteligent behavour. Computers are simple machines, they just seem inteligent because they do things pretty fast(We can only see something like 30fps and hear up to 20khz, I'm not sure how fast our other senses are). Its all just switching and clock work.

      --
      God, root, what is the difference?
    5. Re:No... by feelyoda · · Score: 1

      Yah, I know a few groups doing the grand challenge, most from CMU, who will likely win this year.

      Open standards will do little in that field, where your average Joe doesn't have $50K+ to drop on everything needed. This is my first point about the cost of semi-adequate sensors.

      I'm pretty certain the grand challenge this year will mark a turning point in robotics, when a fairly complicated task was mastered.

      I look forward to an ASIMO butler taking my dirty dishes away without breaking them, and a robotic paintball teammate. Unfortunately, I'll need to be forward looking for quite some time....

      --

      Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
    6. Re:No... by chroma · · Score: 1

      >Open standards are fine, but don't believe the
      > exponential growth potential for anything but >software.

      There's a saying about robots:
      "Robots are mostly software."

      --

      Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
    7. Re:No... by eh2o · · Score: 1

      darpa grand challenge is kind of an extreme case for a few reasons... not only is it a fairly tough AI problem, there are some incredible engineering challenges as well.

      - its not clear that even a human driver would be able to do the course in the given amount of time. this is *difficult* off road driving, even for a professional off-road racer. the probability of getting stuck or breaking an axel or other mechanical failure is non-trivial.

      - driving off road makes the sensor reading problem about 100 times worse due to the extreme vibration which is translated to the sensors. last year the cmu team was the favorite, in no small part due to the incredibly expensive shock isolation mount on top of the vehicle (one of which was destroyed in the early trials when the hummer flipped over)

      doing the same thing for highway driving in normal traffic is relatively easy, in fact there are already prototypes that can do it.

    8. Re:No... by theborg1of4 · · Score: 0

      If I'm not mistaken, DARPA stipulates in the rules that the course is easily navigable by a person with a light-duty 4x4 pickup or SUV. Twenty miles an hour over the indicated types of terrain is no problem for most humans with basic driving skills. It's just really tough to make software do the same thing. AI, despite recent progress, really has a long way to go; we're not much past being able to emulate the performance of a common beetle.

      Hell, I'm having a tough time making my Lego RIS keep the floor clean ;)

    9. Re:No... by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 1

      >> and a robotic paintball teammate

      Be careful what you wish for... else we'll have these "paintball teammates" in a blink of an eye: pic
      They'll infiltrate earth and become governors of themselves (pun intended :)

      --
      - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
      - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    10. Re:No... by ImpTech · · Score: 1

      That saying was definitely not coined by a mechanical engineer.

    11. Re:No... by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      There are some sensors that cat get dense scans in 3D, but they are by no means cheap. I've also seen some (not open) research systems that recover amazingly detailed 3D world models from stereo. Unfortunately, it's still not easy to do anything: Once you overcome the sensing problem you still have lots of spatial reasoning problems. This gets even more fun outdoors where even the 3D data doesn't tell the whole story: A rock and a clump of grass can have similar 3D shapes, but for driving purposes they aren't nearly the same.

      This stuff is hard, but progress is being made. Hopefully we'll get there.

    12. Re:No... by eh2o · · Score: 1

      hey, beetles are pretty smart.

      actually thats right that darpa thinks the course is reasonably navigable; but there was more than one person who thought the judges were... misjudging.

    13. Re:No... by GotenXiao · · Score: 1

      KITT. Knight Industries Two Thousand. ... ...What?

      --
      Goten Xiao
    14. Re:No... by sffubs · · Score: 1

      They make good coffee tables though.

      --
      ݼ)s$æúßðíÊ'öX'îò5^àûßQç£
    15. Re:No... by Kaki+Nix+Sain · · Score: 1
      I have, and it was an eye opening experience. I remember the times in NJ, driving bumper to bumper in all six lanes (one way), in dreary drizzle, at 55mph. I would come over a hill and realize just how many of us there were, and just how dangerous the whole thing looked. Any one of us hitting our brakes wrong, or a tire going out, or some little thing and the pile up would have been big. But that didn't happen. The thousands and thousands of us managed to do what look like a hard task without a single flaw those many days I drove. Apparently driving is something that people (well trained, as they are in NJ) can do pretty well.

      --

      (C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.

  15. There are others by Wayne+Gramlich · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's one:

    http://oap.sourceforge.net/

    Here's another (warning only 128 kbps uplink):

    http://gramlich.net/projects/robobricks/index.html

    It sure would be nice if people who start these projects would shoot a message off to the comp.robotics.misc news group to try and minimize overlap. The current state of affairs is that there are plenty of projects and very little of the hardware from the projects is interoperable.

    -Wayne

    Disclaimer: The last URL is mine and I started it back in 1998.

  16. Other tools by pooya · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hmm, That is not the first one, there are lots of other tools around, the most famous one Player/Stage has a well developed architecture and many universities, companies and people around the world are using that.

    1. Re:Other tools by jwmarck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Player/Stage is the stuff. I am using it to do some sonar scan matching. It rocks.

      --
      recommending: Death cab for cutie
  17. i wonder ... by dominic.laporte · · Score: 1

    if it will work on this

  18. Re:Penguicon 3.0 by SWiTlik · · Score: 1

    hahahahaha, you arantly didn't attend. the 5am shit I saw in the halls spoke otherwise.

    --
    "The upgrade of thought is continuous"
  19. Wait until some l33t h4x0r gets r00t... by csoto · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...on your robotic hedge clipper!

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  20. My predicition by JordanAU · · Score: 1

    I believe that this is the single greatest thing to happen to robotics. This will completely revolutionize the way we live.

    (I am just saying that so if it really does happen, I can tell everyone "I told you so")

    1. Re:My predicition by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      No it won't.

      (I'm just saying that so when it doesn't happen, I can tell YOU "I told you so") :-p

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  21. Are you down with ORPP by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    Yah, you know me.

  22. More Pictures and Movies! by william_lorenz · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was at Penguicon 3.0 and have pictures and movies of it here, here, here, and here!

    1. Re:More Pictures and Movies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say, where did you and Harshy end up on Saturday night? Earning more ribbons?

  23. Shhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be so positive. Joe Slashdotter might want to give this a shot.

  24. Penguins by x_codingmonkey_x · · Score: 0

    I propose we make an army of penguin robots!

  25. NASA and Universities are trying...sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In another life I worked at JPL in robotics and still keep in touch with friends there. They have been struggling for many years to open source much of the robotics software both inside NASA and through all the contract money they send out to universities. Of course the beauracrats are making things difficult. Last I heard there was trouble due to the ban on export of certain technologies and part of it is NASA and University IP lawyers worried about loosing control of that one golden nuggest that might come out of all that $$. In the meantime, every NASA center and university has re-written the same basic robot kinematics, navigation, and machine vision algorithms a dozen times in multiple languages. Many of the guys who wrote a lot of this stuff 15 years ago are now managers and trying to push colaboration and open source using their projects, but it is still hard to move lawyers.

    1. Re:NASA and Universities are trying...sort of. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I hear guns and money work real well...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  26. or 4 Laws! by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

    there were actually 4 laws, one which the robots made up themselves later on.

    it read long something of the lines of like "robots must protect humanity as a whole" and allowed them to kill some people in order to save humanity (though it did result in the robots destruction)

  27. Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, let me say that I think this is an idea whose time has come.

    Second, let me say that I'm apparently wrong on that, given the small number of comments on this story and it's age. I'm disheartened by the lack of uptake here - if you can't get some attention here, you can't get it anywhere...

    It's great to have a starting point, and it's great to have a standard. I do appreciate those things. I also appreciate that they are trying to make a 'tool, not a toy'. These things are all extremely important.

    But...It doesn't seem to me that they have a winner in the platform base they've developed so far - and I say that primarily because of the steering. I don't know how it's supposed to steer, but it doesn't look like it's going to be kind to carpet, nor maneuver well enough to be of any use indoors.

    I hope I'm wrong. I'll be looking at this closely to see if it can become an assistance platform for a friend of mine who has mobility problems.

    Maybe the base can be swapped out easily as well. We'll see...

    1. Re:Thoughts by SWiTlik · · Score: 1

      you are right about the carpet with our current wheels. however we built the ORPP1 for outdoor applications with heavy loads. lower friction wheels would have been useful durring the con. Outside the building we got 2 inches of snow this weekend at Penguicon and our chassis cover isn't done yet. I didn't think we needed indoor wheels since the previous weekend was like 80 degrees. (Michigan weather...) I'll have outdoor footage of it performing once finals are over.

      --
      "The upgrade of thought is continuous"
    2. Re:Thoughts by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      ever considered a two wheeled platform with a castoring wheel for the third point??? No messing around with chains unless you're into that kind of thing... Direct drive to each wheel.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    3. Re:Thoughts by SWiTlik · · Score: 1

      Our current motors require a gear reduction to take real advantage(9 tooth ->16) then (9->60). if not your prototype may charge off at and un managable 15-25 mph (at this stage anyways) and good luck stopping it with out something taking damage... hopefully nothing important. well I'll consider 2 wheels when I see video of a segway style bot in the woods.

      --
      "The upgrade of thought is continuous"
  28. Applications, applications, applications . . . by Idou · · Score: 1

    No doubt this is advanced technology, but maybe the technology itself is not where invention is most beneficial at this point. I believe robotics is a highly under-applied technology.

    For instance, the most useful robotic technology I have owned so far is a self-cleaning litter box. It consists of a simple motion detector and timer. However, though these technologies have existed for atleast 50 years, it has only relatively recently made it to market where the consumer can benefit.

    I believe this project is geared towards mass-applying existing technology, not inventing AI, which appears to be what you are describing in your post.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  29. Re:Penguicon 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hi-res pics plz

  30. Re:Penguicon 3.0 by SWiTlik · · Score: 1

    haha, "what happens at con stays at con"

    --
    "The upgrade of thought is continuous"
  31. no by AndreySeven · · Score: 1
    Will we see fleets of ORPP robots plowing our streets and mowing our lawns in the future?

    No.

    --
    University of Washington

    Student

  32. Right platforms for Robotics client by randall_burns · · Score: 1

    Some of the more interesting areas for robotics involve really small clients. When you are dealing with these small clients, weight and power consumption become major issues in ways they just aren't in the PC world. I would be interested in seeing a forth-based implementation of the client for this robotics platform-or at least use of one of the smaller embedded versions of Linux.

  33. Re:Jobs, jobs and Heinlein by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

    "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house" - Robert A. Heinlein

  34. Tending to the natural world vs. fixing robots by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    I agree with most of your points here. In fact, they're similar to thoughts I've had myself on this subject.

    However, there is the question of which jobs are the most boring for a human being. Many people who work indoors dream of switching to something completely different, like landscape gardening. I myself have switched from software development to forestry. Despite losing most of the intellectual stimulation that I thrive on in IT, I loved that simple work much more, and only switched back because of the lack of jobs in that field.

    So, I agree that there will always be jobs for humans. But the question arises: will those jobs make us happier, or more miserable?

  35. Avatars by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Nope, animated linux blog avatars ;)

  36. "as easy as homegrowing a PC" by RebRachman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, if it's as easy as homegrowing a PC -- then lawnmowing robots under ORPP will be as common as Linux on home computers! The replacement of human workers with robots will approach the pace of the replacement of Windows PCs on the corporate desktop with Linux boxes!

    Now is the time to prepare for this imminent threat to factory workers worldwide. Oh, wait...

  37. OrcBoard by edwinolson · · Score: 2

    If you're interested in a completely open-source robotics platform (where everything is open, including schematics, the firmware, the user libraries, *everything*), visit www.orcboard.org. There's no commercial manufacturer, but there's a community group-ordering effort.

    The OrcBoard is used in the MASLab robotics competititon at MIT, and in MIT's cornerstone robotics class. Most folks use the OrcBoard with a linux laptop or embedded PC.

    The OrcBoard is just the controller for a robot, not a robot itself, and can control a wide range of robot types and sizes, with lots of different sensor configurations. It's sort of a swiss-army knife for robot construction.

  38. Good Ol' Adolf Heinlein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait for the day when we can finally round up all the subhumans and put them in the gas chamber. The first week, we'll assassinate the people who can't explain the Peano postulates. The next week, we'll move up from arithmetic to algebra. Anyone who is shown the quadratic formula and can't explain why b^2-4ac is called the discriminant while doing jumping jacks will be ground up to provide fuel to those of us who can.

    Ultimately, instead of asking for identification, the police will ask you to prove that the 4 statements of the Hopf-Rinow theorem are equivalent as applied to Riemannian manifolds. While walking a straight line. Backward.

    If you can't, well, you were really only a tolerable subhuman in the first place. In death, at least you provide a corpse for us to count.

  39. Remote Control vs Autonomous by neuromancer2701 · · Score: 1

    From what I have seen of their webpage, it does not look like this platform is currently intended for autonomous control just remote. I still think this is a great idea and I have thought about doing something similar to this but on the electronics side. (designing cheap modular microcontrollers) You run into many cost situations when dealing with autonomous robots (sensors and motors) One problem that I have run across in my brainstorming is spatial resolution, if you are going to have a robot that is mowing the lawn or plowing the street it has to know where it is and GPS just does not have that kind of resolution (in feet/ inches) any thoughts?

    --
    "If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
    1. Re:Remote Control vs Autonomous by SWiTlik · · Score: 1

      well some really cheap sensor ideas shared with me by the YAAARC guys at the con was a laserpoint fixed in relation to a cheap webcam. the lower the dot the closer the object. survey quality GPS is out there and commercially available. it can get resolutions in feet and inches. it is rather pricy for a user but ORPP is for consultants.

      --
      "The upgrade of thought is continuous"
  40. But thats the point! by celerityfm · · Score: 1

    We only work for a living because work has to be done! If we could automate these processes then we could do more IMPORTANT things like raising families and furthering intellectual discourse. Star Trek anyone?

    OT: That is the inherent flaw of the Communist Manifesto- Marx and Engels could not have forseen the rise of technology. When there is no more work to be done there will be no more chains for the proletarians to lose, nor will there be any more proletarians. For more information read Banks' The Culture.

    --
    ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...