Slashdot Mirror


Stanford and Volkswagen Create Autonomous Vehicle

nght2000 writes "Stanford University has created an autonomous driving robot to compete in the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge Race. The race will be held on October 8, 2005 in the desert Southwest. The team that develops an autonomous ground vehicle that finishes the designated route most quickly within 10 hours will receive $2 million. The route will be no more than 175 miles over desert terrain featuring natural and man-made obstacles. The Stanford Racing Team's vehicle is a Volkswagen R5 turbo diesel Touareg that was donated by Volkswagen of America. The Stanford Team has been working with the Volkswagen Electronics Research Laboratory on the project."

235 comments

  1. hah! by Bananatree3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    My lego mindstorms vehicle can beat this car any day! Except maybe on sand dunes, but oh wel.

    1. Re:hah! by Joshua53077 · · Score: 1

      But can it autonomously go through a McDonald's Drive Thru and bring me a value meal?

    2. Re:hah! by shadow303 · · Score: 1

      If you can figure out that whole dune thing, then I would think that NASA would be knocking on your door.

      --
      I've got a mind like a steel trap - it's got an animal's foot stuck in it.
    3. Re:hah! by mwood · · Score: 1

      Your Mindstorms vehicle has a range of more than 175 miles and can avoid or bridge ditches, boulders, and tank traps? This I must see.

  2. Red Team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the bona fide leader in this competition the Red Team from Carnegie Mellon?

    1. Re:Red Team by dangerz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes it is as far as I remember. Actually, one of my friends was telling me they're writing software to give the car the ability to powerslide.

      --
      The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
      - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Red Team by john_anderson_ii · · Score: 1

      I too believe you are correct.
      Now if only the could work around that 256kb directory struct size limit CODA imposes on all directories in a volume, I'd be a very happy guy.

      --
      Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
    3. Re:Red Team by beefstu01 · · Score: 1

      That's what everybody thinks, but I wouldn't get to cocky if I were them. A lot of other teams have a lot of potential, and with site visits wrapping up soon, we'll see who the real competitors are. Remember, they made 7 miles (not even 5% of the course) last year, so there's a LOT of room for improvement. Stanford, Cal Tech, Cornell and MIT are just four other colleges competing, and those guys aren't stupid, so watch out for them.

    4. Re:Red Team by lowrydr310 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes, but the Carnegie Mellon Team has a very strong advantage. Keep in mind that last year their vehicle rolled over during tests just a few days before the competition, and they had to replace just about all the electronics - they STILL made it farther than anyone else...

      Not only do they have a well designed system, they're using a Hummer H1. I know it doesn't matter what vehicle wins, but when you're competing in a DARPA funded contest, using a HUMMER is more impressive than a VW.

    5. Re:Red Team by cheesy9999 · · Score: 1

      The also only made it about 5 miles miles in the first DARPA Grand Challenge...

      --
      -tom
  3. The people's car... by FlameboyC11 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...without people! Gotta love that.

    1. Re:The people's car... by Penguinoflight · · Score: 3, Funny

      Kinda adds new meaning to their slogan "Drivers Wanted" huh?

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    2. Re:The people's car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...without people! Gotta love that.

      Ummm...without people *driving*, you must mean. I can't think of a better blessing upon mankind.

    3. Re:The people's car... by pcmanjon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "So what's the purpose of this? It's a waste of money and it will never benifit anyone. Why do people waste so much money on projects like this."

      Actually, it DOES help with the goal of making cars that can drive themselves eventually. This could help lots of people who can't drive a car, or who wouldn't want to. Eventually leading to every car thats made being automatic.

      That's a good thing, and it's not a waste of time. It's progress under the guise of a contest, to make it fun and competitive. There's nothing wrong with this.

      Look at the big picture.

    4. Re:The people's car... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      The picture in the article has "Drivers Not Required" painted above the wheelwell.

    5. Re:The people's car... by netsphinx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      God, yes.

      I live in Atlanta. I work on one side of town, I room on the other. I go 25 miles each way. Average speed of 25mph. That's 2 hours a day I spend in the car.

      If I could get into my car, type in a destination, and read, have breakfast, catch the last 10 winks, or write the great American novel while the car did the work, I would jump at it like a shot.

      I realize that what I want out of an autonomous car is available, mostly, as public transportation. Unfortunately, public transportation in Atlanta is a joke. To do the 25 miles from my house to the office takes 2 hours, on 2 different systems, with three transfers. That's 4 hours a day in transit, provided nothing breaks down and the buses aren't late. I tried it, and I had just enough time left over in the day to sleep. Not eat, just sleep.

      I saw a test car and strip of highway (somewhere in California, IIRC) that worked together as an autopilot. Drivers could enter the freeway, tell the computer what exit they wanted to get off at, and let the car drive itself. Little pips in the tarmac told the car where the lanes were, the on-board did the steering, and the central controller managed congestion by telling the cars what speed was best for the volume of traffic, when to change lanes, and when to wake (pardon me, alert) the driver that the exit was near.

      Anyone out there remember this? Is it still under development?

      Anyone care to speculate how soon I can get a robot chaffeur or auto-highway?

      And does anyone remember...Sally? Asimov fans will know what I mean.

    6. Re:The people's car... by rackrent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So does this mean we can all take a "Johnny Cab" just like Gov. Schwarzenegger in Total Recall?

      --
      --- There is a man in a smiling bag.
    7. Re:The people's car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      going for redundant now, instead of off topic? ;p

    8. Re:The people's car... by QMO · · Score: 1

      If you're arguing for self-driving cars, citing a homicidal/vengeful car doesn't help.

      Besides, the field of positronics in platinum-iridium just hasn't progressed as expected.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    9. Re:The people's car... by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      I do want an autonomous car, but I don't think I want one that could get annoyed and try to run over me.

    10. Re:The people's car... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Is public transportation that bad in Atlanta? I prefer to take it when I can because I can read and whatnot and not have to deal with traffic etc.

    11. Re:The people's car... by mwood · · Score: 1

      You have *buses* in Atlanta? I hear we have buses in Indianapolis -- come to think of it, I see them every now and then...*downtown*. There are no buses anywhere near my home. I'd have to drive to the bus stop, so why bother with the bus at all?

      (We *had* a nice rail system but we tore it out decades ago. Stop 11 and Stop 12 Roads are about the only part left, and those are just names. And it didn't go anywhere near my home either.)

    12. Re:The people's car... by metlin · · Score: 1

      Well, Atlanta as a city has been particularly badly designed. The traffic is there is quite hellish.

      Ofcourse, cities like NY or LA are much worse, but still.

      I'm spending the summer now in Cincinnati - and even at the peak hour, there is almost no traffic jam. The city is neatly divided into grids and traffic is extremely smooth.

      Atlanta on the other hand...

      *shudder*

    13. Re:The people's car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If I could get into my car, type in a destination, and read, have breakfast, catch the last 10 winks, or write the great American novel while the car did the work, I would jump at it like a shot.


      Don't lie. You'll just spend that time reading and posting to slashdot.
  4. Uhhhh... No... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just when you thought it was safe to cross the street...

    1. Re:Uhhhh... No... by EdelFactor19 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      maybe theyll make some autonomous pedestrians for the cars to avoid; now that would be entertaining to watch!

      --
      "Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
      EdelFactor
    2. Re:Uhhhh... No... by NightSpots · · Score: 1

      It's stanford ... at least the streets are wide enough that people can run. Put it in MIT and you'd have a much harder time getting out of the way.

    3. Re:Uhhhh... No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The ultimate goal, Dupont said, is safer roads as future cars might help their drivers avoid accidents."
      The ultimate goal, DARPA realizes, is an autonomous SUV driving the roads near the Syrain border firing an autonomous 30mm cannon at anything it autonomously feels like.

    4. Re:Uhhhh... No... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The ultimate goal, DARPA realizes, is an autonomous SUV driving the roads near the Syrain border firing an autonomous 30mm cannon at anything it autonomously feels like.

      It might work better in Texas. They could try to do that in California but they would have to remove the cannon, use California-certified fuel and give one to Arnold.

    5. Re:Uhhhh... No... by Nivoset · · Score: 2, Funny

      anyone else having "herby" flashbacks.... maybe just me.... i hope not though...

      --
      Movies made by a crazy person

      http://www.youtube.com/marginalpro
    6. Re:Uhhhh... No... by Efinel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just when you thought it was safe to cross the street...

      Don't be a chicken.

      ---------
      Remember, drive defensively! And of course, the best defense is a good offense!

  5. I worked on this project for a few hours by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I only did some roadmapping for CMU. Outside of creating true artificial intelligence, only luck can win this goal. You map a route then calibrate your GPS, and hope the vehicle can stay on the road you drew, and hope it doesn't hit any obsticles in the way.

    1. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by vishbar · · Score: 1

      Is this competition of any significance, then? If it's just a bunch of cars that follow a predetermined route, then it doesn't seem too exciting. The organizers of the event should hold the event at a random course with a maze of radio-emitting beacons that the "robot" has to follow. The robot would be forced to overcome the obstacles on the fly as opposed to following a predetermined course....

      --
      Ride the skies
    2. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No one has come even come close to the finish line on this race, so it would be very significant if a team was able to finish it. In 2004 "The furthest any of the teams had gotten was the Red Team's 7.4 miles" in a 150 mile course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

    3. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by Urusai · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The university I attended was planning to field an entry, and I had considered briefly going into reinforcement AI, having taken courses with the prof doing the entry. I don't think these challenges are doing AI research any favors. The trick to winning is no doubt like IBM's chess machine--hardware engineering, brute force, and optimization, rather than better algorithms. You end up with degenerate research that improves diminishingly at sort of working on the contrived problem at hand.

      Reinforcement AI has promise, but it seems to have too much hand-waving and magic black box functions for its own good. Unifying it with algorithmics and logic AI would probably be more useful, but not nearly as sexy as RoboJeep terrorizing the desert fauna. They should award points for the ability to project flame or ripcut undergrowth, now that would be bitchin'.

    4. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      What, an accurate odometer and electronic compass won't do the trick?

      And that's just the simple solution. A truly skilled solution would also involve a camera and software to identify the road boundaries.

    5. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      The route may be predetermined, but the car doesn't know about it in enough detail to drive blindly. All it has is a set of waypoints, so it still has to 'overcome the obstacles on the fly'.

    6. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      If it's just a bunch of cars that follow a predetermined route, then it doesn't seem too exciting.

      Instead of simply assuming you automatically know what it's all about, why don't you go read about it, then tell us what you think if you still feel you have something interesting to say? (Hint: It isn't just a bunch of cars that follow a predetermined route. Hence, everything else you said is pointless. Indeed, your "idea" would actually be far easier than the real event.)

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    7. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by jrboatright · · Score: 1

      go read the grand challenge specs.
      Your concept is FAR simpler than what is needed.

      1) off road
      2) random obsticles
      3) tunnels and GPS interdiction
      4) intentionally obscured terrain

      etc. This is hard. YOU might have trouble driving a HMMV along the route.

    8. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      No, I'm just laughing at everyone's lame reliance on using GPS to find out where they are at.

      This is the first time in my life I've said this, but: Damn kids, when I was your age , we had to track things using compasses, sextants, etc. Didn't have things like GPS (available to the general public anyway). But we also didn't get confused by tunnels.

      So have we advanced, or fallen behind?

    9. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This race has only a tiny bit of luck in it. Most of winning this race is about testing and robustness. There are so many conditions in which your systems can fail that you need to have the vehicle working early enough to do extensive testing.

      The luck is in not hitting a scenario you haven't tested. The hard part is in testing most scenarios. If you anyone knew what all the scenarios were ahead of time it wouldn't be so hard. (Which is why indoor robotics demos are often successful, or can be made to appear so.)

    10. Re:I worked on this project for a few hours by mwood · · Score: 1

      I understood it to be a bunch of cars, each of which is given a destination (or several) and has to determine its own routes. That's about as far from a slot-track, or 1950s notions of the radio-guided handsfree highway, as you can get.

  6. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you captain obvious.

  7. this specifically won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The course is specifically designed to defeat the gps+road map method of solving the puzzle.

    It is guaranted that the vehicle has to pass through a tunnel or other type of obstruction that disables GPS.

    Also, it is guaranteed that all roads will have obsticles at random locations that must be avoided. I understand that there are points where the vehicle must do an obstacle course and avoiding it or jumping over it is banned.

    1. Re:this specifically won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm working on the project for a different team. This can work. The competition is aimed towards making military vehicles that can drive autonomous. The military will look at satellite photos and choose a path for the vehicle to follow. The vehicle is then given these GPS points and must go. There will be cases where GPS may not be available for a short period of time; this problem is solved by an inertial navigation system, which uses gyroscopic sensors and accelerometers to give location based on the last known GPS location. There will also be situations where there will be obstacles and the vehicle must navigate through them using lasers and cameras. They are creating a real environment to test these machines in.

    2. Re:this specifically won't work by BigFoot48 · · Score: 1

      I can't wait to see how the vehicles unlock padlocked gates!

    3. Re:this specifically won't work by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Informative

      GPS isn't the only positioning system in existence -- GPS plus intertial navigation could do it. Inav sums micro changes in direction along a path to give you a resultant vector.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    4. Re:this specifically won't work by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1

      Pf... Steer straight and accelerate hard towards gate... Where's the problem?

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    5. Re:this specifically won't work by john_anderson_ii · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's true that GPS and "turn here", "turn there" technologies won't work, if that was all it took the U.S. Military could have done it themselves.

      I do recall reading in Leatherneck magazine about a project the USN was undertaking involving unmanned subs that were to be used as long range sonar platforms and possibly very long range torpedos.

      While operating underwater GPS is useless, but dead reckoning (Speed * Time = distance, distance @ bearing = position relative to start position) is still useful. The subs they were working on used a combination of surfacing for GPS, dead reckoning, and sonar navigation to avoid obstacles to reach their goal. I haven't read Leatherneck since I retired from the USMC, so I don't know what became of this project.

      I think the point of this exercise is to use a mix of technolgies to accomplish the task. The most efficient mix, in theory, will win.

      --
      Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
    6. Re:this specifically won't work by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is guaranted that the vehicle has to pass through a tunnel or other type of obstruction that disables GPS.

      Guess you're a little behind on GPS-gyros. Here's an example:
      http://www.brilliant-electronics.com/car_positioni ng_system_kenwood_knadv4100.htm

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    7. Re:this specifically won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, good for terrorists too, put an warhead in it and tell it to drive to a big city...

      thanks DARPA, don't forget that every weapon you invent can be used against us.

    8. Re:this specifically won't work by mwood · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. There are times when I would love to have a Bolo on my side.

    9. Re:this specifically won't work by mwood · · Score: 1

      Neither inertial nav nor GPS can help you when you find something that wasn't there when the route was planned. Trees fall across roads, opponents dig ditches or pile up berms, bridges wash away in floods, other vehicles are disabled on the road....

      An autonomous vehicle must be *autonomous*. It must be able to sense *and evaluate* its environment in realtime, and to update its route plan whenever conditions require it. Knowing where it is, and where it could have gone had it gone hours ago, is valuable, yet it is only the smallest and most insignificant part of that capability. An autonomous vehicle must be able at all times to make good decisions about how to proceed.

    10. Re:this specifically won't work by mwood · · Score: 1

      Just remember that every weapon we *don't* invent can still be used against us when someone else invents it.

    11. Re:this specifically won't work by I'm+not+god+any+more · · Score: 0

      I went to the 2004 qualifying, and learnt that the course is not chosen via satellite images. Real people in real hummers come up with the various course routes. The final route selected is secret until shortly before the start of the "race".
      I also heard that they broke a couple of their hummers scouting out the routes, so sections of the course are really off road.

    12. Re:this specifically won't work by DanThe1Man · · Score: 1

      Yea, I've seen self driving military vehicles at CMU. Pretty neat stuff. I bet that's where you work ;-)

    13. Re:this specifically won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations! That is the worst explanation of INS ever! Youse win teh prize!!!!

  8. What if... by WhyCantIBeYou · · Score: 0

    Do they build in a self-destruct mechanism? I know it's the desert, but surely there's a congregation out there watching the goings on.

    1. Re:What if... by RallyNick · · Score: 1

      Oh shit, the car ran over a bunch of people. Must self-destruct to remove any evidence!

    2. Re:What if... by zero_offset · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose you may have been joking or trolling, but just in case -- there is a remote-kill and all vehicles are continuously monitored by event organizers (e.g. not the team itself, who might take advantage of their proximity to cheat). There are guidelines for things like maximum deviation from pre-planned corridors, etc. (These are quite wide and by design involve a lot of unfriendly terrain -- it wouldn't be possible to do simply exploit the existence of these imaginary corridors as a navigation aid).

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    3. Re:What if... by WhyCantIBeYou · · Score: 0

      Why do you assume I'm trolling or joking? I thought it was a serious question... thanks for the info just the same.

  9. Re:mac = great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the best you can do?

  10. market potential? by moviepig.com · · Score: 3, Funny
    The...autonomous ground vehicle that finishes...most quickly...will receive $2 million. The route will be...175 miles...featuring...man-made obstacles.

    Bulk purchases of these robots, modified for high-speed runs of less than 30 minutes, is under consideration by Domino's Pizza.

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
    1. Re:market potential? by meringuoid · · Score: 2
      Bulk purchases of these robots, modified for high-speed runs of less than 30 minutes, is under consideration by Domino's Pizza.

      Music, movies, microcode and... yep, here it comes. It'll be robots doing the delivery and not samurai or skaters, but near enough I suppose.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  11. CMU did this year ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And anyway, wouldn't a robotic vehicle be more likely to run into pedestrians like school kids?

    1. Re:CMU did this year ago by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And anyway, wouldn't a robotic vehicle be more likely to run into pedestrians like school kids?

      Only if Grand Theft Auto was pre-installed.

    2. Re:CMU did this year ago by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, if I ever get to work on one I'm going to program everything we know about Darwinism into the thing.

    3. Re:CMU did this year ago by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 1

      I think you should base the first robotic vehicle that can repair itself on an old Beetle. I think I could train my dog to change the cylinders on one of those.

    4. Re:CMU did this year ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they did it a year ago because its an annual competetion. There aren't any school kids running around on the competition course.

    5. Re:CMU did this year ago by dotgain · · Score: 1
      I think I could train my dog to change the cylinders on one of those.

      If you say so. Would you kindly tell me, first, how you "change cylinders", short of replacing the entire block? Or was it pistons you meant?

    6. Re:CMU did this year ago by TinyManCan · · Score: 1

      Um, no. I am too lazy to google you up a link, but the Volkswagens of old (i.e. the "Bug") had a motor where the cylinders screwed into the crank-casing. You could remove any one of the four cyls, head and all, extremely simply.

      Most modern engines do not have the same design or construction.

    7. Re:CMU did this year ago by mwood · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of watercooled engines. The VW Type 1's engine was aircooled -- the cylinders stick way out of the crankcase in open air and have fins all over them. They are just stuck into holes in the crankcase and bolted down. It's much more like an aircraft engine, at least in this way.

    8. Re:CMU did this year ago by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I obviously didn't know that. I knew the VW didn't use water cooling, but clearly know nothing else about the engine.

  12. They're a bit optimistic.. by ElScorcho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The team that develops an autonomous ground vehicle that finishes the designated route most quickly within 10 hours will receive $2 million.

    Considering no vehicle has made it more than a couple miles in these races before, I find it pretty funny that they include the "finished most quickly" bit. If anyone could finish at all it would be a huge leap forward. Some of the footage last year was pretty amusing. One in particular I remember was a big SUV looking vehicle that was really moving, made it about 2 miles before it got stuck. Seems to me they'd be better served if they laid off the emphasis on speed for the time being and just got to the point where a sharp turn can be safely negotiated.

    --
    Evil will always win, because Good is DUMB
    1. Re:They're a bit optimistic.. by hugzz · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it would be reasonably easy to do the race really slow. Most companies could probably make a car that can finish the track in a few months. that's not really worth 2 million though. What is valuable is being able to have an autonomous vehicle that can actually move at a speed which is useful to humans

    2. Re:They're a bit optimistic.. by SuprCzr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Theres a time limit to make sure that no one tries this... i believe you have ten hours from when you start to finish the ~150mi course... you do the math.

      --
      SUPRCZR
    3. Re:They're a bit optimistic.. by sturat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seems to me they'd be better served if they laid off the emphasis on speed for the time being and just got to the point where a sharp turn can be safely negotiated.

      This is the same advice I give to my mother and it's yet to have an effect.

    4. Re:They're a bit optimistic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      13.5 Miles a hour?

    5. Re:They're a bit optimistic.. by lopgok · · Score: 1

      I have seen true optimism. I was the main programmer for another DARPA grand challange team. The main architect for the vehicle had no clue that writing the software needed to finish the course would be difficult. I wrote a GPS NMEA (datastream) parser as well as a RDDF (the DARPA supplied route file) parser. Even though my code worked fine, he grabbed and/or wrote the GPS code in Visual Basic.

      When the site visit happened, the car could not move at all due to some poorly flashed code in a controller. Of course they had no spare controller. I had hoped to see the vehicle move, because the code simply seeked to the next waypoint. The DARPA guys were very polite, even though they were expecting to see the vehicle run the course.

      For the site visit, you have to do a Z shaped route, and DARPA gets to put two trash cans on the route and the car has to avoid them. This vehicle has some sensors installed the week before, but I don't think they were hooked up to anything. I am sure the vehicle would have crashed into the trash cans, if it could follow a GPS path.

      Since the team didn't seem to understand software
      (and system) design, testing, or small details like that, I decided to leave the team. They still think they will win, if not in 2005, in 2006.

  13. But how many humans can do the job? by tftp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Driving a 4WD in a desert, with obstacles and detours, arriving at a destination within a time limit... I dare say not every human driver is up to the task. And they want to achieve this with a computer?

    1. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by good-n-nappy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The motorcycle was pretty sweet though. It used only steering to keep it balanced rather than doing the whole Segway thing. You got to at least admire the engineering on that one. I heard the guy running it say that he was sleep deprived and forgot to turn on the auto-balance thing right before the race. That's why it only went about 5 feet. They knew they wouldn't be able to finish in time anyway.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of fiber.
    2. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by Eivind · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually, the course is by no means that hard. It's no longer than 170 miles, and you've got 10 hours, that means an average speed of 17 will do it.

      Parts of that is paved roads, parts unpaved roads and parts "offroad". This means you can do like walking-speed on the offroad-parts and still manage it fine.

      Infact I'd take a bet that 9 out of 10 got-drivers-license-yesterday humans would be able to do this in less than half the time allocated to the robots, probably a good driver would do it in a quarter the time the robots get. That'd require him to average 68mph.

    3. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by d474 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The desert is the easy part. What I'd like to see is thing commute in L.A. rush hour traffic.

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    4. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In the definition of last year's event one of their spokesmen said something to the effect that a skilled off-road driver with a typical off-road vehicle should be able to complete the course with no problems.

      Of course it's supposed to be hard - but of course the goal is for the computer to do at least as well as a person would -- otherwise they'd just let a soldier drive (duh, and a soldier is certainly cheaper, so I'd expect the goal is to do better than a person).

    5. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by wahsapa · · Score: 1
    6. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      I dare say not every human driver is up to the task. And they want to achieve this with a computer?

      Aspects of it are close to production ready now http://www.mmsi.com/autonomous.shtml, including schedules, obstacle avoidance and more. The flaw with current autonomous vehicles for this test is the need to train them. I still reckon an autonomous 210 tonne dump truck would get further than most of the competition though, especially if they got in its way early in the race.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by Essef · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I agree. Autonomous Offroading might have military applications for ensuring the next US invasion only has collateral damage on the Enemy's side...

      This money can be much better spent developing similar applications whereby urban congestion can be relieved by enforcing "Autonomous Zones". i.e. once you're off the highway, your can goes into Autonomous mode to negotiate the congested city streets.

      S.

    8. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      The Hummer (CMU I think?) made it 7 miles.
      I think another team made it something like 1.5 miles.

      Nobody else got very far, and a lot never managed to even start.

      It's far more difficult than people raised on a steady diet of sci-fi believe it to be.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    9. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by zero_offset · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You've clearly never driven off-road. Indeed, with your statement that somebody could average 68 MPH in terrain like this demosntrates that you've probably never raced in your life, either.

      Even in relatively benign terrain, a speed of about 15 MPH is actually moving pretty quickly. These aren't $2M one-time-use lightweight 500HP Paris-Dakar desert racers with a navigator, an 8-ton supply-laden chase truck. These are extremely heavy fully autonomous machines. If you read the rules, they're even supposed to refuel themselves without human intervention should it become necessary. It's really, really easy to break stuff at only 15 MPH, particularly when you consider how heavy these robots are.

      Also, the paved sections are very short -- I haven't looked at the 2004 course in quite awhile and I'm not sure if the 05 proposed courses are up yet, but it was something like only 10% of the entire route -- and then you're not permitted to exceed the speed limit, which I think was pretty low -- 50 MPH or thereabouts.

      It's very, very hard.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    10. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but in all the cities I've driven in across the country, it's the highways which are congested -- and they consider that to be a relatively difficult problem.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    11. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by Eivind · · Score: 1
      "clearly" in your world seems to mean very very fogged.

      First, "terrain like this" in this case means a mix of paved roads, unpaved roads, trails and "desert". It does *not* like you seem to think mean "offroad-only", I was never suggesting even a skilled driver would do 68mph average on the off-road sections.

      You're correct that the speed-limits migth prevent even a skilled driver from completing in a quarter of the alloted time, obviously if he can't go over say 55 even on the paved parts that's going to hold him back.

      My point wasn't by the way, if a skilled driver will need a quarter of the time or if he'd need half the time. My point was that this challenge is infact very easily won by a not-particularily-skilled driver and crushed by a skilled driver.

      What exactly *is* the average speed in the Desert managed by say the Paris-Dakar rallyists by the way ? It's certainly higher than 17mph, that's for sure.

    12. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      You are only reenforcing the fact that you have probably never really gone "off-road" or ever raced in real life. Off-road in this sense doesn't mean "gravel road" or sand as you seem to think; it means hilly rock strewn landscape. It is amazingly easy to flip or snap an axle (which happened to the leading team last year) and most drivers would simply not be up to the task.

    13. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just requires armor vs. hand weapons.

    14. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Informative

      Last year's Dakar rally had about 5400 km of 'special stage' (where the cometitors are timed, as opposed to liaison routes that are untimed, and add another ~5600 km to the trip), with the fastest competitors completing those in about 52 hours, ie about 100 km/h.
      There are stages where the fastest cars reach about 200 km/h. Other stages took more than 24 hours for some people (average 20 km/h), but most of that would be spent standing still and digging the vehicle out.

    15. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right. Of course the VAST majority of all robotics tasks can be performed much more reliably by a 4-year-old. That's what this is all about: getting us up to the 10-year-old level.

    16. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by mwood · · Score: 1

      The problem with Autonomous Zones is the transition. What does the car do if the driver, for whatever reason, doesn't reclaim control? How will the car even know if the driver is fit to drive?

    17. Re:But how many humans can do the job? by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Others have already posted adequate responses to most of your points, but I'll add the observation that the terrain mix is very heavily biased towards desert and very low quality trails. I don't remember the specific details off the top of my head but actual roads comprised only a small fraction of the total course distance.

      And unless you actually have spent a lot of time driving off-road (I have), or racing (I do), then I stand by my assertion that you clearly have no real world experience with either of these activities. If on the other hand you do engage in these activities, then I will merely express relief that you probably don't do it anywhere near me.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  14. What do you get when you cross ... by lheal · · Score: 1, Funny
    Stanford University and Volkswagen?
    • Lunch. Cardinals love beetles. Mmmmm, beetles.
    • A really smart, pricey, air-cooled, diesel-powered, politically correct skateboard ... that floats!
    • A driverless car. Wow, that's kinda cool.

    I wish I had more, but I kinda ran out of gas. Really I should have hit the brakes after the first one, but once I'm in gear I can't stop until I crash and burn.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:What do you get when you cross ... by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      Except that Stanford is not the "Cardinals" as in the bird, but the "Cardinal" as in the color red.

    2. Re:What do you get when you cross ... by lheal · · Score: 1

      >the color red

      Oh. How gay.

      --
      Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    3. Re:What do you get when you cross ... by wan-fu · · Score: 1
    4. Re:What do you get when you cross ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, aren't the birds named after the color too?

    5. Re:What do you get when you cross ... by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      Their vehicles would also have:

      -Doors that dont have keylocks, but you have to put in your driver's license to check your family's history for worthiness to enter. Midwesterners are automatically rejected per Stanford Policy.

      -The ignition is controlled not by keys either, but there is a slot that accepts only $100 US bills to start (regularly, anything lower are taken in only 10% of the time per Stanford Design), but takes anything from the current H-1B/L-1 countries resembling paper currency.

      -Automotive horn is replaced with a nautical horn not unlike the one at the stadium at Stanford.

      -Ignition interlock systems activate if driver is from the Midwest, but will still accept currency if said Midwesterner has somehow subverted Stanford Policy and has attempted to use the vehicle.

      -GPS Navigation systems are replaced by a refined Google Maps's service.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    6. Re:What do you get when you cross ... by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      Possible, but you don't pluralize the mascot of Stanford. It is just "Cardinal" not "Cardinals"

  15. Yes.. by isny · · Score: 0

    but how big is it in standard Volkswagen units?
    Oh...sorry

  16. Mod Parrent.... by Zeebs · · Score: 2, Funny

    What slashdot really needs is a +1 *Groan* Mod, but I suspose you'd need to do some work under the hood for that. Someone should really get in gear on this.

    Crap....

    --

    Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
  17. China and Autonomous Robots: the Military Angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Stanford University and DARPA should designate this contest (of robotic technology) as "top secret". This technology would be a boon for the Chinese military, which has been aggressively trying to create a robotic soldier.

    The Chinese aim to use robots to project the Chinese cruelty to all corners of the globe.

  18. Robotic Technology and the Chinese Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Stanford University and DARPA should designate this contest (of robotic technology) as "top secret". This technology would be a boon for the Chinese military, which has been aggressively trying to create a robotic soldier.

    The Chinese aim to use robots to project the Chinese cruelty to all corners of the globe.

  19. Watch for my Jetta... by jmcmunn · · Score: 1


    Ha, I am going to enter my Jetta which will be piloted by my Robosapien that I picked up at Best Buy. It'll blow that Touareg out of the water!

  20. I wish them well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish them well and want to inform them that, if their vehicle holds up as well as the rubberized door handles on my wife's New Beetle, they're doomed.

    1. Re:I wish them well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking that breaking a door handle on an autonomous vehicle isn't going to be a big issue.

  21. YAY!!! by Vombatus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Herbie Rides Again

    --
    This sig is intentionally blank
    1. Re:YAY!!! by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Herbie Rides Again"

      I can't believe that Herbie is taking precedence over KITT here. I know it's a VW and all, but yeesh, KITT's got der bliken lights!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:YAY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the mod that marked parent offtopic.

      If mentioning a VW that could drive itself is offtopic then you are a genius. But since you are obviously retarded, I think the offtopic may be a bit wrong.

    3. Re:YAY!!! by phxhawke · · Score: 1

      NUTS! beaten to the punch! or is it Love Bug in this case? :P

  22. Google / Stanford team too? by chachacha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was driving through campus near the Stanford Golf Course the other day and saw a robotic solar vehicle emblazoned with the Google and Stanford logos. There was a large van outfitted with all sorts of sensors and gadgets on the roof and hood. Has anyone heard of Stanford attempting to build a robotic solar-powered car too?

    --
    I do like programming things that work super quickly, especially when they work super quickly, super quickly.
    1. Re:Google / Stanford team too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the Stanford Solar Car project Not robotic, human driver

  23. Good thing, too... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'm glad they made it autonomous because I heard that the back of a Volkswagen is a very uncomfortable place.

    ;p

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Good thing, too... by fbform · · Score: 4, Funny
      I heard that the back of a Volkswagen is a very uncomfortable place.

      Only on Slashdot would that statement be qualified by "I heard that". :-P

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    2. Re:Good thing, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you not seen the movie in question?

      "He wants to do her in a very uncomfortable place."
      "Where, like the back seat of a volkswagen?"

      And no, it's really not that uncomfortable... one of my exes had a jetta.

  24. Herbie! by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Didn't VW do an autonomous vehicle back about 1970 (in association with Disney)

    1. Re:Herbie! by Garabito · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but they did it again. Fully loaded now.

    2. Re:Herbie! by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Audi had one too around 1986.

    3. Re:Herbie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This news coincides with the re-make of the Herbie movie.

      http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/herbie_fully_ loaded/

  25. Watch out for that tree! by chachacha · · Score: 1

    It would be kinda' ironic if it crashed into a tall tree, then got broken into by a bear during it's journey.

    --
    I do like programming things that work super quickly, especially when they work super quickly, super quickly.
    1. Re:Watch out for that tree! by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      George, George,
      George of the Jungle,
      Strong as he can be.
      (Ahhhhhhhh)
      Watch out for that tree!

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  26. "On the road of life... by samkass · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "There are passengers and there are drivers. Drivers not wanted."

    As someone who went to CMU, I'm of course rooting for the home team, but it is fun to read about the other guys. For the on-road stuff, they had those trucks zipping driver-less, pretty fast, through Schenley Park back in the 90's, so it'll be interesting to see if they can keep on the trail this time for the off-road challenge.

    --
    E pluribus unum
  27. Hi Stanford & CMU by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1, Interesting

    See you folks at the race.

    -Cornell

    1. Re:Hi Stanford & CMU by hendrik42 · · Score: 1
      Earlier this month there have been site visits conducted by DARPA to narrow the field down to 40 contenders. Judging from the reports posted on the DGC Forums, the field is much stronger this year. A lot of people believe there will be at least one team to finish this year.

      Does anyone know a bookie accepting bets on the outcome? With 117 teams still in the race and plenty of media coverage there would be a huge market.

      Go Stanley!

  28. You brake, I brake. by bronney · · Score: 1

    Show me a computing power that enables you to run over skunks versus kids. If you see a kid, you look into the mirror, and brake enough. The car on the back brakes enough but hits your bumper anyway, broke it, you get out of the car, and it's just money. But you saved a kid. If the same thing happens with a skunk, how're you gonna feel. Or if you're following a robotic car and it brakes suddenly, and you didn't brake or steering away fast enough and smash your head in the windshield~.. hmm

    1. Re:You brake, I brake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should reword that.

    2. Re:You brake, I brake. by Velk · · Score: 1

      There's a reason that in a rear end accident the driver behind is almost always automatically assumed to be at fault.

      If you can't stop without hitting them if they brake suddenly, you are too close.

  29. Re:China and Autonomous Robots: the Military Angle by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    Which seems weird, as China has more humans to use as soldiers than anyone else.

  30. CMUers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -- read this as "Stanford plans to outdo CMU autonomous robotics researchers".

    You're not going to take that lying down, are you?

  31. I only have one thing to say.. by robpoe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fukengruven!!

    --
    = Grow a brain...
    1. Re:I only have one thing to say.. by Exluddite · · Score: 1

      Given the outcome of last years race it'll probably be more like Farfromfinishing.

      --
      What does this button do...
  32. But the Love Bug really lost its luster by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

    with the advent of HIV and all

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  33. Combine with the other car dream by Wizarth · · Score: 2, Informative

    One of the advances that would be a lot more likely once this is done is: Flying Cars.

    The biggest complaint against flying automobiles is how every-one (and their dog) would be able to drive (fly) like a bat out of hell. Literally, in this case.

    So, get autonomous driving working, get people used to it on the ground, then going airborne is just a next step.

    1. Re:Combine with the other car dream by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      So, get autonomous driving working, get people used to it on the ground, then going airborne is just a next step.

      You've got it very backwards. Airplanes have been flying autonomously for more than a decade. Flying is very well suited to automation, driving is a much more difficult problem. The aviation industry has reached the point now, under recent reduced separation rules, there's a lot of pieces of airspace where manually flying the airplanes isn't even permitted anymore.

  34. I Cried by LordMyren · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I cried when I saw how the DARPA desert race was done. I was thinking vehicles actually had to do pathfinding, you know, like, interesting stuff.

    Thats simply not the case. DARPA hands out the final destination a day before launch and the teams madly scramble to find a route to send their vehicle down (on nice sat photos). Then they send the vehicle off on its own. What sort of fun is that?

    Knowing this, I'm ashamed how poor last years competition was. The winning team was pretty sweet, but I certainly expect a lot more competitive entries this year. Hand most any college worth its salt $25,000 and let the CS & ME's go to. In a year they should build something which could at least contend with the DARPA incumbent.

    As it stands the whole thing requires almost no intelligence. The whole point, from a computer engineers' biased persepctive, was to get people building robots aware of their surroundings. The Berkeley city auto-mapper robot is a perfect example; couple that with Sandstorm and then maybe I'm interested. But so many teams can make a robot which FAILS to track a GPS path while staying moderately on the road is just beyond me.

    I understand the whole point is that the terrain is supposedly "hostile"... But when you're driving an `86 Hummer, its quite apparent that any area full of enough dangerous terrain to give you a problem will likely be seen on the sat-maps.

    Myren

    1. Re:I Cried by bryce1012 · · Score: 1

      I see and respect your sickeningly low UID. Nonetheless, I think you're totally mistaken here.

      Before you can walk you have to learn to crawl. Right now there are issues with even the simple stuff, like you said - these robots fail to track a GPS path while staying on the road. Surely you don't think that all 100+ teams just didn't put enough effort into that one aspect? So they have to ask, "Why?" What problems were being encountered? How can they be resolved? These are the simple issues that must be identified, solved, refined, etc.

      Sure, your concept is much cooler and definitely more useful. All the same, it's obviously not completely feasible at this point.

    2. Re:I Cried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The winning team was pretty sweet, but I certainly expect a lot more competitive entries this year.

      There was no winning team.

      You fucking idiot.

    3. Re:I Cried by chinakow · · Score: 1

      You do realize that no one "won" last year, right?

      The team that failed the least horribly only made it a dozen or 2 miles before the converted Hummer broke an axle, some of the "finalists" never made the first turn at about 50 feet. so I would say that it is actually pretty tough even given a CD with all the GPS coordinates and course widths.

      Of course all of this is from memory so everything above is probably factually incorrect except that NO ONE made the entire trip autonomously, within the time limit or not.

      Unless you are talking about some other DARPA desert race besides the Grand Challenge, in wich case all of your above statements might be right. so take this all with a grain of salt.

      Also, why are people so fascinated with low user ID numbers?

    4. Re:I Cried by daniel_mcl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, several teams (including my school's) did use pathfinding, and did a pretty decent job of it as well. The CMU team was one that preprogrammed the entire path, and they got one of the best scores, largely because it's really, really hard to develop an autonomous robot in your spare time while attending classes all day. It also doesn't help not to be able to run very many tests on site.

      For instance, my school's robot was doing well until it hit a chain link fence. As it turned out, the chain-link fence was almost invisible to the car's vision system -- think about it, it's a bunch of air with these little tiny lines which are pretty hard to distinguish from debris in the air and such. You try writing a computer program that can accurately determine the presence of chain link fencing in a photograph and then see what you think.

      As for GPS, again it doesn't tell you whether there's a fence, cow, brick wall, etc. standing in the way, and GPS was blocked for large sections of the course. If you're suggesting dead reckoning instead, note that that's really, really hard even under ideal conditions and essentially impossible outdoors. If a car gets one degree off course and travels 60 miles, it'll end up a mile off of the road, perhaps gleefully crashing through houses / oncoming traffic.

      --
      I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
    5. Re:I Cried by larytet · · Score: 1
      i understand that speed is not that important. just to finish the distance is a great achievement.

      why not to slow down near every obstacle and wait for actual impact. then try to estimate the obstacle using the information gotten from the impact. then decide about turning 40 degree and attemptiing again and so on.

    6. Re:I Cried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not to slow down near every obstacle
      I think the problem is that you don't know where the obstacles are. At least in his example, it hit a chain-link fence, which it didn't know even existed. How will you detect it?
      So, if your suggestion is to be implemented, it will have to go very slow throughout.
      Better yet, get a stronger body for the car, so when it hits a chain-link fence, nothing happens to it.

    7. Re:I Cried by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      ...and yet nobody has won. Methinks you underestimate the difficulty of this task a tiny bit (all too common in computer vision and AI). If more than two or three of this year's teams succeed, I will agree with you in saying it was too easy. But nobody says the challenge must end after somebody wins; DARPA will likely increase the difficulty and hold it again. After all, their goal is a useful combat vehicle and even the winner of this contest would still be a long way away.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    8. Re:I Cried by dajak · · Score: 1

      Methinks you underestimate the difficulty of this task a tiny bit (all too common in computer vision and AI).

      In my experience getting a car to follow a precalculated path at decent speed in the first place is quite hard, even in a simulation.

      I did this for a game running on a karma physics engine, and I was not allowed to cheat with physics. Controlling oversteer and understeer, and accurately predicting the consequences of wheels loosing contact with the ground, is a lot harder than I expected, even in an idealized artificial environment.

    9. Re:I Cried by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      why not to slow down near every obstacle and wait for actual impact. then try to estimate the obstacle using the information gotten from the impact. then decide about turning 40 degree and attemptiing again and so on.

      For one thing, there is a time limit. You'd never come anywhere close to finishing if you took the bumper-car approach. On top of that, some of those obstacles aren't of the "bump into it" variety -- streams and ditches, for example. There are also obstacles which are designed to require visual interpretation -- picking your way through a narrow gate, for example.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    10. Re:I Cried by Gruneun · · Score: 1

      I was thinking vehicles actually had to do pathfinding, you know, like, interesting stuff.

      Actually, if you had read a little bit about the competition, you would know that there start/end points and designated waypoints, along with acceptable corridors of varying widths between and around those waypoints. The "routes" that were pre-loaded could only be considered recommendations, at best.

      As it stands the whole thing requires almost no intelligence.

      While not a competitor, I was very close to one of the teams that participated in the first race. Trivializing the hard work that any of those teams did makes it quite apparent that you're clueless as to the difficulty of solving the problem.

      If you think you can do better, step up. I guarantee it will be a very humbling experience.

    11. Re:I Cried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do not mistake automation for intelligence.
      neither is trivial, but only one is divine.

      -Myren

    12. Re:I Cried by LordMyren · · Score: 1

      I've tried writing a reply a number of times now, and I'm still failing short.

      My main qualm is that the details became the competition. If there had been a higher calling to the competition, a more integrated dream, many of these issues could be resolved as simply symptoms of the bigger picture problem. Instead of building an AI to cope with surroundings, we built algorithms to patch issues.

      The best part of the GC was watching robots in the test courses; this was the only place competitors really felt alive. Where you could watch them interact. Handing out GPS paths eliminated that interactivity, the problem became "can we track the road".... the rest is history (35 mph with a slight left pull), but ultimately fairly boring, uninteresting and, I dare say, not that useful.

      -Myren

  35. Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by melted · · Score: 1

    Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars available in the US instead (I mean not just Golf and Beetle)? With the prices we're paying for gas right now, they'd sell like freakin' hot cakes.

    1. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What the hell vehicle do you want?

      Golf. Check.
      Beatle. Check.
      Jetta. Check.
      Passat. Check. (after a little bit of a dry spell.)
      Touareg. Check (V10 Goodness, new for 2005)

      Lupo?

      http://www.tdiclub.com

    2. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by wahsapa · · Score: 1

      VW cant pass california smog. california has THE most stringent emissions regulations in the WORLD. which VWs diesels can't/barely can pass.

      in fact, a couple months back i remember reading about a mans quest to find a new diesel beetle and no VW dealer would sell it to them because they are trying to 'conserve' their 'emission points' to sell the tourag v10.

      you cant get the v10 diesel tourag in california btw, atleast not yet

    3. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard that the reason VW does not sell more diesels is due to emissions -- the diesel fuel in the US is not as clean as that in Europe, so it burns dirtier.

      I have heard of people waiting over 1 year on a waiting list to get a TDI (diesel) VW.

    4. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by dotgain · · Score: 1
      With the prices we're paying for gas right now, they'd sell like freakin' hot cakes.

      Yeah, that was one of the reasons for the huge influx of Japanese diesel cars here in New Zealand in the 90's. They go so popular so quickly...that our government threw the price of diesel up about 55% to make up for it.

      Hooray if you use Diesel gennies / tractors a lot.

    5. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by istewart · · Score: 1

      See the comment below about US fuel being dirtier than the rest of the world's. The introduction of low to no-sulfur diesel will probably drive up costs, but it'll also bring down the emissions and allow for more fuel efficient cars like the Lupo to finally be brought in.

    6. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how much do you pay for gas?

      In UK we pay between 80 and 90p for a litre, which is extortionate. A standard fuel tank is about 40L, and it therefore costs about £30 (about $50?) per refuel. On my car this lasts for about 250-300 miles.

      The US has a reputation of having CHEAP gas compared to other places...

    7. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iPODs!
      they'd sell like ipods, not hot cakes.
      come on, this is slashdot!

    8. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Dirty diesel is why my TDI gets biodiesel. It runs pretty happily on it too.

    9. Re:Hey, VW, how about making diesel cars by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What the deuce? I've been driving around in a Jetta Wagon TDI for two years. The only reason we got a Jetta TDI instead of a Passat is that the Passat isn't available with a manual transmission.

      Golf, Beetle, Jetta, Passat, Toureg are all available with TDI engines. Try em out, but the waiting list is pretty lengthy because they are selling like freakin' hot cakes.

      My wife and I keep our TDI pumped with biodiesel too. Less emissions, less smell, and our gas was living plant material mere years (or months) ago. Staying in the current carbon cycle is better than releasing carbon stored millions of years ago.

  36. Re:175miles @ 10 hours = 17.5mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If it's all so easy why don't you just start your own team? Like those 195 other teams this year who have some of the nation's smartest persons working on this. Just some points to consider:
    • There are speed limits imposed by DARPA, based on safety considerations. Every time the race comes close to humans or something expensive (like a power tower), the robots have to drive 5mph.
    • Those speedlimits are just for the safety of others. In turns, mountains etc you don't want to go fast either, for the safety of your own car. So you'll be doing a lot of slow driving and you have to make up for it.
    • You don't know if finishing in 10 hours would be enough to win this race! Last year it would have but this year there are a number of strong teams.
  37. Let me venture a guess... by d474 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    FTFA:
    "Pamela Mahoney...said her firm hopes that technologies conceived during the project might lead to "really interesting applications that could generate new start-ups.'"
    Really interesting applications... like maybe, heavily armed "hunter-killers" patrolling around outside NWO prison camps looking for escapees to eviscerate? How about enforcing curfews in (American?) urban streets during martial law after a "terrorist" attack? Gee, how could DARPA possibly find a use for these technologies?

    *Remove tinfoil hat*
    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    1. Re:Let me venture a guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there is, in effect, very little military value for these technologies.

    2. Re:Let me venture a guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, everything the DARPA funds and researches is for the jack booted thugs to use... like the internet for example! Geez, there's a zillion other uses for this technology, not just military.

  38. Hire a Berkeley team and get it won by Kmow · · Score: 0

    VW and Stanfurd ? BMW should contact Berkeley and get this thing won...Stanfurd people don't even have to finish their courses -- they can just drop out and start again at any time -- how can they ever meet a deadline ? Hey BMW, give Cal a call and squash these overpaid and underworked right-wing fart-arounds.

    1. Re:Hire a Berkeley team and get it won by wan-fu · · Score: 1

      Parent is a troll but I'll bite: http://www.stanfordrejects.com

    2. Re:Hire a Berkeley team and get it won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah those pathetic Stanford people...all they do is drop out and found Yahoo and Google. I hear Blake Ross is thinking about dropping out too. I guess that silly little project (what was it called...firedog or something?) of his was a complete failure after all. Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear about the great accomplishments of our Cal brothers.

      Hey I heard Yugo's still interested in partnering with Cal!

  39. Rugged travelling salesman problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be extremely interesting to see what technologies the contestants are putting to work in their quest to win this thing. I remember reading a piece about genetic classifier systems that used the example of "maze running ants" to describe a method of evolving solutions to maze running problems. It would be extremely interesting to see the same idea applied to this problem such that the navigation strategy of the vehicle is controlled by an evolving set of genetic classifiers which are rewarded by the degree to which they avoid peril and move toward the target.

    From what I've read, genetic algorithms are one of the fastest ways out there to solve path optimization problems such as the "travelling salesman" scenario. On the surface it looks like a very similar problem to me. Anyone know if this is being or has been tried in this contest?

    1. Re:Rugged travelling salesman problem by mwood · · Score: 1

      Path optimization has very little to do with it, fuel economy aside. The travelling salesman problem doesn't deal with salesmen breaking their legs by walking into ditches, does it?

      "How do I get there efficiently, given that I can see the whole area from above" is not nearly as interesting, in this application, as "what is that in front of me and what do I do about it?"

    2. Re:Rugged travelling salesman problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole idea of this as a traveling salesman problem misses the point that you don't even know what's out there.

      The hard part is really not planning a good path. The hard part is figuring out what's out there and how much you trust your own belief. Once you've got that it's pretty straight-forward to plan a good path. Unfortunately LIDAR, RADAR, and certainly vision are far from being very robust. (Even if you buy the expensive ones.)

  40. My school is in this competition by Antilles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dont understand why their team is getting this much press, other than the fact that Volkswagen's PR dept is probably hyping stanford to get some marketing exposure for their company, as this year almost 200 teams applied to get site visits.

    In terms of technology, well, outside of the Turing test, this is sorta like the Super Bowl of AI. My team/part of the project dealt with Machine Vision, which has proven to be quite difficult for a lot of people (including me!). Real time scene analysis is *very* computationally expensive, and you have to make guesses and inferences as optical signal data fluxes around constantly, a lot of the time completely rendering your approach useless.

    Even though from life experiences I know that Life Isnt Fair, and the playing field is never level, some of these teams get insane advantages. I wont even go into CMU (ok, I will: they have basically Defense Contractor backing, parts, and consultants, and like 7 million dollars to spend on the project), and here stanford has sponsorship with volkswagen. I was suprised Cal Tech didnt get more major sponsors, but they might have for round 2 of the challenge. No one has near the advantage of CMU though, their main LIDAR cost more than a lot of people's whole car/setup.

    Aside from that, for me this project has been a blast. The work, needless to say, is very unique and its almost like a mini-1960's space race, "first one to the finish line!". Its funny how some people try different angles, spend millions of dollars, and then get foiled by a rut in the road that hangs their car up (I'm tellin ya, if the sun shifts even slightly all vision input outside of lidar can basically go to sh!t if you arent careful, and if your lidar doesnt pick it up, well...)

    Regardless of whoever makes it to the top 30, it will be interesting to see if anyone finishes this year. Darpa3, maybe?

    1. Re:My school is in this competition by SpyPlane · · Score: 1

      "I dont understand why their team is getting this much press"

      I was thinking the same thing. My team has spent fractions (small fractions) of what these big University teams have spent, and we did really good during the site visit. Maybe next time, slashdot can post a more general DARPA GC post rather than some advertisement for a single team. *NEWSFLASH* CMU and Stanford don't need ANY additional sponsors.

      As tempting it is to pimp my team, I won't, but just look around the GC site and read about some of the truly cool teams out there.

      --
      "We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"
    2. Re:My school is in this competition by autophile · · Score: 1
      Even though from life experiences I know that Life Isnt Fair, and the playing field is never level, some of these teams get insane advantages.

      Yeah, but that's part of the challenge. We know that throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it, and sometimes the cheapest, dumbest solution is best. So imagine the embarassment of the high-rollers if they get beat out by a school that spent under $100k.

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    3. Re:My school is in this competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice fantasy. :) It would be cool but I can't see it happening in 1 year's time. There's so much time-pressure that you can't afford to not just buy what you need.

      Of course if it does it will be because the expensive ones were driving >10mph and the cheap one was doing about 3. That's not very impressive to win this race at 3mph at the moment. That would have been cool last year, but it's not even close to competitive this year.

  41. Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The competition is at least 10x more serious this time. The competitive teams could already surpass last year's best earlier this year and have had months to improve robustness.

    There are a lot of teams out there that are making the mistake of assuming that the competition is as easy as it was last year...

  42. it had to be an SUV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pfft. Typical Palo Alto. Why not use a frickin hummer while you're at it? No, seriously. Hummers a military vehicles with a much higher capacity to withstand the adverse conditions of a race course such as this. Lower center of gravity, better engine, ability to smash into thing unaffected: they were made for 18 year olds pumped up on amphetamines to drive into combat, for goodness sakes.

  43. No no no. by kf6auf · · Score: 1

    The waypoints are given to each of the teams something like 3 hours before the beginning of the race. My school's team then takes the CD and puts it into the onboard computer system which then does everything. Certain other teams have (in the past :) simply used the time to specify an exact course themselves, resulting in little useful technology for the military like you said. Our vehicle staying within 20 cm of the computed path, mostly due to the actuators because the vehicle was built by us as opposed to bought from a company that makes remote control drones for the military. While this would undoubtedly have been easier the point of the class is for the students to learn, not to put all the effort we can into winning the DGC.

    -Random Caltech Student (and the other team I mentioned not so positively is CMU, but feel free to correct me on anything).

  44. Surprised the autonomous mining companies aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprised the autonomous mining vehicle companies aren't involved.

    These things can handle strip-mining entire landscapes in quite hostile environments - chaning terrain, etc. and have been doing so since the early '90s.

    http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&saf e=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Ao fficial&q=autonomous+mining+vehicles&btnG=Search
    http://www.robominer.com/laser.html
    http://www.robominer.com/guidance.html
    http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~ssingh/fastnav.html

  45. A perfect tool for terrorists alike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking what a terrorist, specially those that use 'carbombs', would put on their wish
    list for Xmas soon.

    The Evolution continues.

  46. Re:Surprised the autonomous mining companies aren' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides the fact they don't want to mine anything,
    they DO want vehicles that can do the course *fast*!

  47. Go Germans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, it looks like the Americans are using the Germans again.

    No doubt the Germans can provide the engineering skills required - they did for the Apollo project. But what happens when the Germans go home?

    1. Re:Go Germans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that most of the engineers at the Volkswagen research division in Palo Alto are Americans...

  48. Re:175miles @ 10 hours = 17.5mph by zero_offset · · Score: 1

    For starters, when you're driving off-road, 17.5MPH *is* pretty fast. Go rent a 4WD Jeep one day and find yourself some wide open terrain and see what kind of speed you can average. You can easily brake axles and half-shafts even at only 10MPH in vehicles of the size and weight typically represented here. On top of that, unless you're spending big bucks on high-end racing grade drivetrains, a 4WD system isn't going to last 10 hours at that kind of speed. Be sure to read the manual in that Jeep you rent -- even in 4-high you can't exceed about 20 MPH, and shouldn't run it at that speed for any period of time. (Most full-time 4WD systems are not designed for off-road use beyond "the dirt road down to the campground" sort of thing.)

    Oh wait a sec...

    yet no-one thought to put in something that will do something like:

    Damn, I wrote all of that before I realized you're just a troll.

    --

    Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  49. If google are involved... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ...at least they'll be able to do a quick search and find it easily if it gets lost and goes missing!

  50. "most quickly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you pusillanimous poltroon!!

  51. Re:China and Autonomous Robots: the Military Angle by Gulthek · · Score: 1

    Your link is misleading. It a depressingly standard report on human rights abuses in China and says nothing about robots.

    China has the largest infantry in the world, they don't need robots.

  52. Totally Herbie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are 2 reasons that I can see:

    1- Herbie came first.
    2- KITT got by on tech, but Herbie did it by "heart." (Kind of like Drago vs. Balboa)

  53. Re:China and Autonomous Robots: the Military Angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all propaganda. I wouldn't be surprised if they do have the largest infantry of software and DVD pirates.

  54. Now to find a market for this. by tankd0g · · Score: 1

    I find it laughable that all these automakers and sinking millions of dollars into taking driving out of the hands of Americans. Are they looking to get their asses shot? It will never happen. If people wanted to be able to read the paper while driving, they would ride the bus. Americans think seat belt laws infringe on their basic rights and freedoms, a no steering wheel law, now that's something worth launching a few missles over.

    1. Re:Now to find a market for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this has nothing to do with autonomous driving for civilians - the only reason a company like vw is backing it is to get publicity.

    2. Re:Now to find a market for this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't think your assessment of the American public is accurate, a poll would be nice. For example, I would love to take a quick nap or read on the way to work. But the only option for me to get from my house to my office is by car. If a car comes out that can drive itself, I'd buy it in a heartbeat (assuming I could afford it).


      But lets assume you're right, and American consumers wouldn't buy automated cars. That still leaves trucking, buses and taxis where a bunch of money could be saved by not having to pay drivers.

  55. Electrical problem by chrisnewbie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well! If this robot as the same electrical wiring as all the north americain volkswagen made in mexico! he's not gonna make it at all!!!!!

  56. Windows by sjonke · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing, given they are using a Volkswagen, that part of the criteria for winning isn't being able to autonomously open or close the likely non-working power windows.

    --
    --- What?
    1. Re:Windows by hawk · · Score: 1
      See! See!

      I told you so!

      They *are* putting MS Windows into cars!

      :)

      hawk

  57. More like "Terrorist Dream" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think: suicide car bombs without the suicide.

    Keep your firearms pointed downward so they shoot you in the foot by default.

  58. Re:175miles @ 10 hours = 17.5mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'High-end racing grade drivetrains' are far from necessary. If I were designing a vehicle for this challenge, and off-road budget performance was a necessity, here's where the money would go:

    Start with a 1978 Ford Bronco, a legendary budget offroading vehicle. The 400M motor is a torque monster. The drivetrain is nearly indestructible - C6 transmission, NP205 transfer case, 9" differentials front and rear. If you invested in aftermarket axles, you'd have a driveline that can handle repeated 5000rpm clutch dumps when sitting behind a 400 cubic inch motor. To accomodate a drive-by wire system, I'd fabricate a sheet metal intake crowned with a squarebore 4bbl throttle body, and swap in a Megasquirt fuel injection system.

    Gearing would be an area requiring much deliberation. I'd run the numbers and choose a final drive ratio that yielded 25mph@~1900rpm in second gear, and possibly swap in a different transmission valvebody to get the shifts timed properly. One of the newer electronically controlled Ford transmissions could also be utilized, but they are very pricy and not as durable. I'd stay away from them.

    The NP205 transfer case was utilized in many Ford vehicles, notably the Bronco2, where it sported an 'electronic shift on the fly' system. This would be swapped in and (I'm no electrical engineer, mind you) controlled by some sort of gyroscopic mechanism, I.E. whenever you went off-camber by X degrees, the transfer case shifts into 4-low or 4-high. This same mechanism could be used, to some degree, to control the application of throttle.

    All of this could be done for WELL under the cost of a brand-new Volkswagon, and the parts are more durable an order of magnitude. If you think otherwise, you simply have no experience with any of the components listed. I've left out many things, such as an additional fuel cell or two in the back of the truck controlled by the F-150's fuel-tank switchover system, but I'm sure you can use your imagination =)

  59. Nothing revolutionary here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the future, at some point, commuting will mean you can lay back in the car and it will drive itself," he said. "It's just a matter of when it's going to happen."

    In history, this device is referred to as a train.
    BTW: When is the last time you bought new tires for your train?

  60. Obviously no VW owners here by bradleyland · · Score: 1

    They could have chosen a better make of car. My 2002 GTI likes to melt fuse boxes. Let's just say VW wouldn't be my top choice for autonomous vehicle.

    1. Re:Obviously no VW owners here by GTIChick · · Score: 1

      Is yours a 1.8T or VR6? My 2001 VR6 has been pretty reliable after a rough period at first. For some reason, it would lose all the coolant overnight. Other than that, I've had the power window regulator problem and the serpentine belt pulley go out, but nothing else (knock on wood).

      --
      "Show me on the doll where the bad man touched you."
    2. Re:Obviously no VW owners here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't driving a Touareg much, have you? Particularly not one with full skid-plating and heavy-duty tiers? Pretty good choice for this race, actually.

    3. Re:Obviously no VW owners here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a '99.5 Vr6 GTi and am the proud current owner of a 2004 R32. My GTi had both window regulators go out and had the MAF replaced once in the 4.5 years I owned it. Both of these wound up fully covered by VWoA and cost me only the loss of use of the vehicle for 2 days. My R32 has had 0 problems so far and is the most fun vehicle I have ever driven.

      I had way worse problems with the Hondas I've owned than the VWs (about $4.5k in unscheduled repairs over the course of 5 years and Civic's)

    4. Re:Obviously no VW owners here by bradleyland · · Score: 1

      It was a joke folks.

      VW reliability is world renowned... to be crappy. I'm glad you've had good experiences, but answer me this. Why does every defense of a VW car contain the phrase "other than that" somewhere in the statement?

      *more humor* from a 4-time VW owner. I'm well acquainted.

  61. broad range of competitors by jgilbert · · Score: 1

    it's interesting to compare this team to the single high school kid profiled on, i believe, this episode of "the science of star wars" on the discovery channel. he appeared to be building everything himself based on an a.t.v., but i missed some of the beginning.

    1. Re:broad range of competitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would have to be one amazing set of algorithms (and air-conditioners and generators and sensors) mounted on an ATV to make it competitive with a full-sized SUV platform.

      If a human wouldn't be comfortable driving the vehicle for 10 hours in the hot desert what do you think that does to the chances of making the vehicle do it reliably?

  62. MIT team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The MIT team is gonna own this competition. It's not even a question. http://grandchallenge.mit.edu/

  63. DUI by hawk · · Score: 2, Interesting


    In addidition to convenience, autonomous, or even street-directed, vehicles could nearly eliminate the problem with DUI.

    With smart streets, traffic control could also be much improved, with, for example, the freeway directing vehicles to shift position slightly for injection of merging vehicles.

    Speeds could be significantly increased, and vehicles could be placed on bulk carriers (e.g., trains).

    With good enough control and timing (many years after initial introduction), vehicles could be sent through intersections in the holes in cross-traffic . . .

    1. Re:DUI by GreenSwirl · · Score: 1

      Once we have autonomous cars, you can go ahead and make it legal to drink while on the road. I foresee people getting much drunker on weeknights and then sleeping in on their way to work.

      Doesn't eliminating the threat of intoxicated drivers also remove much of the argument against any illegal drug?

  64. Swell . . . by hawk · · Score: 1

    t there are points where the vehicle must do an obstacle course and avoiding it or jumping over it is banned.

    Swell.

    *Now* what am I supposed to do with this JATO unit?

    I suppose that I could mount it in the back of my father's old Chevy wagon . . .

    hawk

  65. On the road of life by PMuse · · Score: 2, Funny

    there are passengers, and there are drivers. And there are vehicles that don't want either.

    Great. That's just great.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  66. That's because by hawk · · Score: 1

    When they dumped "Indians," the administration supressed the overwhelming first choice in the student vote: "Robber Barons."

    Apparently, checking your sense of humor and history at the door is a requirement to be an administrator there, too . . .

    hawk

  67. don't cry: LAGR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Darpa has another, more science-oriented program called LAGR (Learning Applied to Ground Robots) whose purpose is what you are describing.

    The program started last December. 8 teams have been selected to participate. Here is the short description from the DARPA announcement:

    The envisioned outcome of the LAGR program is a revolutionary methodology for developing autonomous navigation software systems. Current systems typically rely on hand-crafted, hand-tuned algorithms for obstacle detection and avoidance. In LAGR, algorithms will be created that learn how to navigate based on their own experience and by mimicking human teleoperation. It is expected that systems developed in LAGR will provide a performance breakthrough in navigation through complex terrain.

    More details here: http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/lagr/.

    1. Re:don't cry: LAGR by LordMyren · · Score: 1

      now thats what I'm talking about! thanks for the linkage.

      I think Berkeley might have an edge in this one. ;)

      -Myren

  68. One little problem with IMUs...cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One little problem with that -- an IMU good enough to give you more than a few seconds worth of reliable tracking (even with a properly tuned unscented Kalman filter) costs about $5k. Want more than that and you're looking at $10-25k IMUs.

    Subs use million dollar IMUs. Doing it just this way will quickly dominate the cost of the whole project, and you need at least 2 for redundancy...

  69. Let's see...they have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's pretty obvious why they got more press: they have better connections.

    As for cool teams, I'd say there are a lot of them, but most of them aren't very serious competitors. A lot of them have ATVs or some other such inappropriate vehicle. (Well, at least they are at a major disadvantage compared to a full-sized SUV.) Furthermore, if you can't afford 8 LIDAR units you're not going to have much of a chance vs. a team that can. That's $40k right there.

    So good luck, but at this time in history being competitive in this event requires a lot of money. Doing as well as last year is nothing in this race. A bunch of teams will finish and the only real question is who can do it the fastest.

  70. I would too... by jrushton · · Score: 1

    I'd love to be able to do that too. The only problem is the way our society works, its quite likely that employers everywhere would contractually oblige you to spend those hours doing work!

  71. Not in WA by melted · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find Toureg with TDI in WA a couple of months ago. I doubt it's available now either.

    1. Re:Not in WA by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Sure, because they sell before they get to the lot. Did you talk to a dealer or just look around?

      I've only seen one Toureg TDI and that was on a brand new Volkswagen Dealer's lot, and it was sold. Impressive torque numbers on that thing.

    2. Re:Not in WA by melted · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the problem I've tried to underscore. As far as I'm concerned, diesel cars should be at least 30 percent of the cars sold, and I shouldn't have to pre-order them and wait for half a year.

  72. Re:175miles @ 10 hours = 17.5mph by zero_offset · · Score: 1

    I'd say it was pretty obvious that your mathetmatical wizardry was not in question. The trolling started when you, some random-wanker slashbot, is going to come up with the Secret Ultimate Solution to Grand Challenge Success with one line of pseudo-code that eluded the entire CMU team for an entire year.

    Kudos. You are a master of robotics and engineering.

    --

    Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  73. walk by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

    why doesnt someone enter a walker? they entered a bike so number of wheels is not an issue. 6 legs move one at a time. even a speed of 3 miles an hour would make it more successful than any of the wheeled entrants, much more stable, spiked feet (its not like damaging the road is an issue) with enough weight behind them should do it. funding would be the problem here but im sure someone entering has the cash.

  74. Saving soldiers lives. by unholyness · · Score: 2, Insightful

    `autonomous ground vehicles that will help save American lives on the battlefield.'
    Wouldn't it be easier to just stop invading other countries?

  75. Happy Hanukaust! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your uncle is a bar of soap, your cousin is a lampshade
    Your best friend is a candle, and you're a fucking jew
    Your neighbors are a landfill, too bad you got away
    But all the jews that didn't have rotted in the lime pits
    50 years later, you've still got an agenda
    For world domination, but you'd better think again
    To when we had the upper hand, der furher had control
    You kikes were in the cattle cars, then shoved into an oven...
    Think of all the friends and family you lost...
    Happy Hanukaust!
    You claim six million, i wish it were true
    But you're a pack of lying fucking jews
    A holocaust memorial is built on the land
    Where most of your relatives are buried in the sand
    In bulldozed graves to cover the pollution...
    Too bad you weren't part of the final solution
    Wearing long sleeves to cover your tattoo
    Will never hide the fact that you're a dirty jew
    Think of all the friends and family you lost...
    Happy Hanukaust!
    Light the menorah and think of the time
    When you sold out your neighbors for a handful of dimes
    All those filthy jews... they must have been pissed,
    They couldn't buy their way onto Schindler's list
    Think of all the friends and family you lost...
    Happy Hanukaust!