Tom's Looks at Two DARPA Grand Challengers

skeeball writes "As a follow-up to this article, Tom's Hardware has a behind the scenes article on two of the teams competing in the DARPA Grand Challenge 2005. "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) hosted the first Grand Challenge Project last year, offering a reward of $1 million. This year, the prize money has been doubled, making the competition all the more interesting.""

Comments

Big money in defence

[mfloy]

This just goes to show all the money that is being tossed at defence research. If you can even give the smallest example of how your research can be used for defense you are almost guarenteed to get grant money. I know many researchers who do just that just to get their projects funded.

Re:Big money in defence

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever would have thought the government likes to remove fences? This whole time I thought they were errecting them! Heh-heh, I said erect.

Re:Big money in defence

[fjf33]

And you think that 1 million dollar is a waste? That is probably the best money DARPA has spent. They are getting a LOT more than 1 million dollars worth of reaserch by doings this. The field was advanced more in these two years than ever before. I much rather they do this than give the money to some University so that a graduate student can waste it. Whenever there is a competition people get innovative. I think this is great. Besides DARPA's reason of being is to put money into things that no private enterprize would. Things that have no direct application in the next 10 years or so but that seed the field for the private industry to pick from there and make a project that they think they can make money in 2 to 3 years which is the maximum horizon for private industry.

Re:Big money in defence

[BJZQ8]

I can remember back in the 80's, the AIM-54 Phoenix missile was derided for being $1 million a shot. The MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3's we're now deploying everywhere are about $2 million each. I think 2 or 3 missiles would be worth it, if we can spawn a generation of autonomous airplanes, cars, tanks, whatever. This is the Internet's ARPANET. These are the first steps, and it will demonstrate clearly what works and what doesn't. Then someday, rather than sending in a C-141 full of paratroops, we can send in a planeload of small tracked vehicles to do the "dirty work" of urban warfare.

Re:Big money in defence

[cerebis]

we can send in a planeload of small tracked vehicles to do the "dirty work" of urban warfare.

...and potentially lose the deterent and historically shared commonality that the cost of war is largely measured in lives lost for either side of a conflict.

The capacity to wage war has rarely, if ever, been precisely equal. As a highly technological approach, the capacity to wage war in this manner will not be shared by all.

If the time comes, I certainly would hope that the powers that be have also reached a sufficient level of rationalism and ethics -- and the resolve to adhere to it -- to be in possession of such a capacity.

Re:Big money in defence

[mbius]

I much rather they do this than give the money to some University so that a graduate student can waste it.

Psst...Don't let on I told you this...(leans in close)...that's where scientists come from.

Re:Big money in defence

[MindStalker]

We have had the atomic bomb for around what 70 years now. It has these capabilities. Given the ability to completly destroy your enemy seems to cause atleast some rationality to enter into the minds of the controllers of such weapons.

Re:Big money in defence

[zippthorne]

Afaik, no one's won the challenge yet.. so they haven't actually spent the money.

Re:Big money in defence

[Magada]

I strongly disagree. The A- and H- bombs (as tools of war) share a very unpleasant characteristic: they are not usable in anything less than all-out, civilisation-ending conflict, due to the "logic" of nuclear escalation. This characteristic is conspicuously absent from the tactical usage requirements of current and/or planned autonomous weapons. Do not expect restraint to be exercised in the use of weapons whose effects (including political ones) can be very precisely controlled.

Re:Big money in defence

[MindStalker]

Lucklily political effects matter a lot nowadays. Hell a century ago if we had todays weapons we woulda just nuked the Middle East by now and been done with it. Luckily media has also come a long way. While you may think the little things our current administration gets away with is atrocious, its nothing compared to the atrocities comitted during WWII or to the Native Americans or the Jews in concentration camps. So with technology the restraint has tilted from personal well-being to one of political stance. The people would revolt if our government did anything truly atrocious. Its all relative really.

And before you say that X was atrocious to you, you have to consider that WHAT the people as a whole consider atrocious has changed with time. It will be a long time before the population as a whole share the views of some of the radicals. But consider just a hundred years ago you would be been considered radical if you suggested desegregation. Things do improve, just don't expect everyone to be in the same boat.

Re:Big money in defence

[mikiN]

The people would revolt if our government did anything truly atrocious ...at which point the government could quickly brand those people as un-patriotic conspirators, unleash hordes of remote-controlled 'crowd control vehicles' on them and subdue the crowds in a haze of tear gas (or worse).

Which shifts the question of war ethics and rationale right back to the people in bunkers pushing buttons and their commanding officers, precisely as the GGGP (cerebis) stated.

Re:Big money in defence

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst...Don't let on I told you this...(leans in close)...that's where scientists come from.

Haha, very funny. Everyone knows that the stork brings them.

Re:Big money in defence

[MindStalker]

Go find your tin-foil hat please. History teaches us that militaries often refuse orders when told to attack their own people. Sure a few nuts might follow along, and you'd end up with different sections of the military fighting among eachother. But its a far cry from what you suggested. And yes, I guess theoretically we could end up with robot armies that can all be controlled by a push of a button from one commander and not be changed by others. Of course such atonomy would require skynet type AI, and I don't see us leaving ourselves in such a situation, but I guess its possible.

Re:Big money in defence

[cerebis]

The detente due to the advent of nuclear weapons was entirely selfishly motivated. Not only did it mean the annhiliation of both sides, but before proliferation it was also a very heavy hammer not applicable to many situations, and in all cases carried with it the problem if nuclear fallout.

Re:Big money in defence

[mikiN]

Sorry, no tinfoil hat needed, it's all out in the open already. According to this article, Israel decided to deploy remote-controlled bulldozers to demolish Palestinian buildings. I don't know if the Israelis actually used those bulldozers for real, but if they did, what could stop the Israelis from using them to clear away those disputed Jewish settlements next?

If Israel can do this, so can any other country with access to sufficiently advanced technology.

By 'pushing buttons' I meant a type of control that is already widely used in the remote handling of hazardous materials and in remote surgery, not total autonomy. 'Watching a video screen, moving a joystick and pushing buttons' would be more accurate.

Re:Big money in defence

[MindStalker]

The point is, even if the technology exist expecting a person to attack their own citizenry is tough. Sure its definatly possible in many dictatorships where people are used to such things. But this simply makes it easier, it doesn't remove any of the decision making facilities of couse.

Article Link?

[sH4RD]

Thanks for the article link! I love having it at my finger tips here on Slashdot!

Re:Article Link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I'm surprised they didn't also link to the wikipedia definition of 'competition' in their haste to link everything except the actual article.

Article was misquoted in the summary

[hobotron]

"The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)


hosted the first Grand Challenge Project last year,


offering a reward of $1 million.


This year,


the prize money has been doubled,


making the competition all the more interesting."

Article Link

[Kozz]

Too bad the submitter didn't Link the Article itself.

Re:Article Link

[zardor]

They'll probably get it right tomorrow in the dupe.

Re:Article Link

[kryzx]

They'll probably get it right tomorrow in the dupe.

Oh, if only you had been joking....
if only...

Except there is no article at Tom's Hardware...

[Anonymous Coward]

The story links to all sorts of irrelevant pages, as is Slashdot style, but does not contain a link to the actual article in question.

And when I visit Tom's Hardware, the article providing an in-depth view of the Grand Challengers is nowhere to be found.

Sigh.

Article link

[rdwald]

Right here.

Semantics

[Savatte]

This year, the prize money has been doubled, making the competition all the more interesting

um, how does more prize money make the competition itself more interesting?

Re:Semantics

[QuantumG]

"let's make this interesting" is a common phrase in the english language meaning "let's increase the amount of money we are betting". You might also have heard "let's up the stakes" which is a phrase taken from Poker that means the same.

Re:Semantics

[thegamerformelyknown]

more competition maybe? or more drive to create a better vehicle

Re:Semantics

[wakejagr]

More prize money, more teams, more interesting

Re:Semantics

[jlarocco]

Basic economics.

Entering the contest has a certain cost (materials, time, research, etc.), and there's a certain risk (that you're machine will fail, someone else will do better, etc.).

At the same time, there may be other uses for the materials, time, and research, which have lower risk, or require less material, time, or research in relation to the payout.

Basically, there's an "expected benefit" from entering the contest, and an expected benefit from choosing the next best alternative. The expected benefit can be summarized as x*y, where y is the payout, and x is a multiplier that's calculated from the risk involved. If x1*y1>x2*y2, and x1*y1 is greater than the cost you pay, you select option 1, otherwise you spend your time and material working on something else. By doubling y1, they're effectively doubling the expected benefit. So rational people who would've spent their materials and time working on other stuff will now spend their time and material on entries to the grand challenge.

Re:Semantics

[Dal Platinum]

Because I don't get out of bed for less than 1.6mil.

So this time I *will* enter.

Thus, more interesting.

Great.

However...

[lightyear4]

...it would be a MUCH more interesting contest if the teams did better than the last time around. (the best team only got 7 miles out of 175 total.)

I wish the best of luck to all of those competing.

Re:However...

[Illserve]

On the contrary, I think the fact that the best teams in the entire world only made it 7 miles is the interesting thing. And a little humbling.

Re:However...

[leonardluen]

there is a reason it is called the "grand challenge" instead of the "mediocre challenge"

this thing isn't meant to be easy! that the best team only made it 7 miles shows how difficult it is. that the best team only made 7 miles shows we have a lot to learn.

They also pictured the wrong vehicle

[mtrisk]

I know for a fact that the Hummer pictured is the newer H1ghlander, which CMU acquired after the first race. Their first vehicle, Sandstorm, is an older 1986 military hummer with the top shaved off. Both vehicles will be competing in the upcoming challenge.

Re:They also pictured the wrong vehicle

[brilinux]

Yeah. Stupid Sandstorm almost ran me over in the Morewood parking lot. It was pretty cool, though, almost getting run over by a high tech robotic military vehicle. Makes for a great story.

RC

[milktoastman]

Pascal Thompson will win. I've seen him win with the rain and a peaking moon overhead. Night doesn't bother him ha. His robot car's eyes are far off the left hand color chart, so lack of light isn't an issue. And he had soft-go tires for the bumps. This guy is all the way gone to win.

The Line up is not complete!

[locokamil]

Just so all you geeks out there know, the final lineup for the DARPA GC has not been decided yet.

Several teams with extremely competent designs will be site tested by DARPA officials during the week of August 15th.

Keep your eyes on the Princeton University team (disclaimer: I'm heavily involved in developing software and lasers for them). We barely missed the cut in April, but we're gearing up for the second round of qualification tests in August. We've taken an approach very different from the other teams (we love to hate on CMU and Stanford for their bloated budgets and hardware), insofar that we've refused to let our budget rise over $40000. Furthermore, our work is done ENTIRELY by a team of six undergraduates, three of whom are freshmen (I'm the only senior on the team).

Is this a shameless plug for the Princeton team? Hell yeah. But I just felt that it should be known that there are people in this competition who are trying to THINK their way out of the maze instead of BUYING their way out of it.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[CyricZ]

Why would I keep my eyes on them? Like you said, you guys missed the cut in April. What's to say you won't miss it again in August? And like you also mentioned, it is being done by people without much education nor experience. The best of luck to you, my friend, but please don't go into this competition with too much of an ego. It may be hurting once you get your ass kicked by the big boys.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[rbarreira]

I suppose they have to prove that the vehicle isn't being guided/helped remotely? That must be a non-trivial task...

By the way, I hope no camels die. (kidding, I know there are no camels on the US - but there are probably many other animals on that desert, I guess :P)

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just felt that it should be known that there are people in this competition who are trying to THINK their way out of the maze instead of BUYING their way out of it.

How bout just finishing the damn competition?

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[locokamil]

I forgot to mention that we went into the April test with a little bit more than one month of development time...

Yesterday, we had an 12 hour stress test where we covered all of last year's course, and a little bi more-- without any outside assistance. All we have to do now is work on speeding the car up a bit... but we've left enough slack in our systems to allow for that.

I generally put my money where my mouth is-- this is no exception.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[HermanAB]

Not many camels, but they may end up with a few flat armadillos...

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[CyricZ]

That is very interesting. Can you describe your setup a bit more? Since you worked in the software portion of it, could you please elaborate? What sort of computing hardware are you using? Did you choose to go with a traditional embedded OS, or have you written one from scratch? What language is the software itself written in? What are some of its notable capabilities?

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[rbarreira]

Wow, we don't have those animals here...

From wikipedia:

Armadillos are often used in the study of leprosy, since they are the only known non-human animal species that can contract the disease. They are particularly susceptible due to their unusually low body temperature, which is hospitable to the leprosy bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae).

The 9-banded armadillos also serve science through their unusual reproductive system, in which four identical quadruplets are born in each clutch of armadillos. Because they are always identical, the group of four armadillos provide good subjects for scientific, behavioral, or medical tests that need consistent biological and genetic makeup in the testees. This phenomenon of multiple identical birth, called polyembryony, only manifests in the genus dasypus, not all armadillos as is commonly believed.

Great stuff! :)

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[Snorpus]

in which four identical quadruplets are born in each clutch of armadillos.

I was wondering what the automotive connection with armadillos is, although I imagine the Grand Challenge vehicles will be using automatics.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[locokamil]

Off the shelf hardware: we use one P4 3.2Ghz for general control, and an Athlon64 3800+ for vision processing. Software wise, it's a bit of a hodgepodge-- we fully recognize the need to clean it up. The control comp is using Windows Server 2003, and most of it is written in C#, simply because it helps us to develop interfaces with our control hardware quickly. The vision computer runs gentoo Linux, 2.6.12 kernel. All the vision code is written in C-- simply because that's what most of us are most comfortable with. Whether or not we port our C code to C#, or back port our C# code to C remains to be seen. Notable features? We use three primary sensors: GPS, Vision (stereo and single lens cameras) and LIDAR. We take immense pride in the fact that our primary lane detection camera is a $100 webcam operating at 640x480 resolution. Our design is robust enough that the car can continue on its merry way even if two of the three primary sensors are taken out of action. We absolutely refused to shell out 10K (250K in some cases) for a commerical LIDAR solution. We basically built, stabilized and hardened our own LIDAR. The judges are out on whether or not its better than commercially available solutions, but it certainly equals any (reasonably priced) solution out there-- and my buddy and I built it for only 2.5K. Algorithm-wise, we're taking the mountaineer option instead of the God option. That means that we're using genetic optimization techniques in conjunction with kalman filters to 'grow' our way around obstacles and stay within bounds instead of detecting every single obstacle in an x km radius, plotting it and calculating splines/best possible courses through the minefield. The three inexperienced freshmen came up with this solution... and in most of our benchmarks, it doesn't take more than 45% of our control CPU's power to use this algorithm. We're not trying for overkill. Our objective when we started the project was to find out what was *just* enough to get past the course. This means that we've been able to keep our costs under control. I'd direct you to our website... but we've not had the time to put one up. Eventually, we'll get around to it-- but right now, the car has taken priority.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[locokamil]

Off the shelf hardware: we use one P4 3.2Ghz for general control, and an Athlon64 3800+ for vision processing.

Software wise, it's a bit of a hodgepodge-- we fully recognize the need to clean it up. The control comp is using Windows Server 2003, and most of it is written in C#, simply because it helps us to develop interfaces with our control hardware quickly.

The vision computer runs gentoo Linux, 2.6.12 kernel. All the vision code is written in C-- simply because that's what most of us are most comfortable with. Whether or not we port our C code to C#, or back port our C# code to C remains to be seen.

Notable features? We use three primary sensors: GPS, Vision (stereo and single lens cameras) and LIDAR. We take immense pride in the fact that our primary lane detection camera is a $100 webcam operating at 640x480 resolution. Our design is robust enough that the car can continue on its merry way even if two of the three primary sensors are taken out of action.

We absolutely refused to shell out 10K (250K in some cases) for a commerical LIDAR solution. We basically built, stabilized and hardened our own LIDAR. The judges are out on whether or not its better than commercially available solutions, but it certainly equals any (reasonably priced) solution out there-- and my buddy and I built it for only 2.5K.

Algorithm-wise, we're taking the mountaineer option instead of the God option. That means that we're using genetic optimization techniques in conjunction with kalman filters to 'grow' our way around obstacles and stay within bounds instead of detecting every single obstacle in an x km radius, plotting it and calculating splines/best possible courses through the minefield. The three inexperienced freshmen came up with this solution... and in most of our benchmarks, it doesn't take more than 45% of our control CPU's power to use this algorithm.

We're not trying for overkill. Our objective when we started the project was to find out what was *just* enough to get past the course. This means that we've been able to keep our costs under control.

I'd direct you to our website... but we've not had the time to put one up. Eventually, we'll get around to it-- but right now, the car has taken priority.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so all you geeks out there know, the final lineup for the DARPA GC has not been decided yet.

I wouldn't get my hopes that high. Somebody has to falter for you to get on the track.

The alternates will take the place of any of the 40 semifinalist teams announced last
month that are unable to attend the September 2005 National Qualification Event (NQE) at the
California Speedway, Fontana, California. During Grand Challenge 2004, three semifinalist
teams experienced vehicle problems in the final weeks before the event and were unable to
attend. In identifying alternates for the NQE, DARPA is ensuring there will be a full field of
competitors at the NQE.

http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/Press_Release_ Final_July_5.pdf

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[locokamil]

Actually, we've received clearance to take part in another site visit to qualify for a spot as a semifinalist in the NQE.

We've been give a second change.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 interesting. Much better than the post above.....

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[redrocknomad]

You sound a lot like our setup at MIT -- except you're much further along -- we're completely student run, with just a bunch of undergrads. I agree that just throwing money at the problem might solve it, but where does the innovation come in? And yes, what team doesn't hate on Stanford and CMU with their titanic budgets and press and teams of people who don't have 24 semester hours to deal with in addition to building a Grand Challenge vehicle.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[mikiN]

All the vision code is written in C-- ...

If you're talking about C--, what adwantages are there in writing code for the application in a code generator intermediary language vs. writing code in a language that has a front-end to C-- and optimizing that front-end?

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[SeventyBang]

And if you've been to the South, you can appreciate this one:

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: To show the armadillo it could be done.

Re:The Line up is not complete!

[rbarreira]

I've been to some Souths, but never to the USA ;)

That's so Tom's Hardware

[Animats]

That's so Tom's Hardware. "7 Pentium M CPUs!", and no word about the algorithms. They could have at least said more about the sensors. Actually, everybody's sensors suck. The radars can't profile terrain, the LIDAR units are only line scanners, the stereo vision systems have trouble locking up on dirt, and the vision systems are a long way from being intelligent. True 3D LIDAR is coming, but not this year. The Grand Challenge rules prohibit the use of the best available 3D LIDAR system, because it was developed with Government funding and wasn't available by August of last year.

So we have a line-scanning LIDAR on a tilt head, like CMU, which is an adequate but bulky solution..

We have two industrial Pentium 4 machines running QNX, on our Grand Challenge entry, along with five Galil programmable motor controllers. We have room for 3 CPUs, but the compute load fit on two of them, so we took the third one out.

Technically, QNX was an excellent choice, but because few people know it and many don't want to learn it, using it has made recruiting difficult.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[afidel]

Why is the vision processing so poor? I remember back in 1997 reading a paper on a system that could read American Sign Language in realtime using an Indigo Graphics Indy 2 workstation with builtin camera. Today's processing power is many times greater and better imaging can be accomplished by modern CCD's, so what is the fundamental problem? Are there just no algorithms capable of pulling the fundamental data like contour lines out of the image in real time, or can they do the basic but just get messed up by things like shadows or rock color changes?

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[Animats]

Why is the vision processing so poor?

Because, despite decades of work, vision processing of unstructured scenes still sucks.

There are things that work in computer vision. You can do stereo, if the image has strong edges in it. You can pick out big moving objects. You can find the horizon. You can work out your own positional movements from video. You can find faces, align, and recognize them, sort of. You can find known objects in any orientation (which is very useful in industrial systems.) You can follow roads.

Beyond that, not much works.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[superid]

Are there toolkits available for this? Like maybe something for SciLab I'd love to let a linux bot roam around my yard if it could recognize the boundaries.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[Animats]

OpenCV is useful if you want to play with vision. The LK tracker is pretty good. The stereo algorithms are weak. The tool to get camera params by looking at a moving checkerboard is clever, but flakey.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[ShawnDoc]

That's so Tom's Hardware. "7 Pentium M CPUs!", and no word about the algorithms.

Yeah, I wonder why Tom's Hardware didn't have much to say about the software and instead focused on the hardware that makes these beasts work... Hmmmm.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[Phat_Tony]

While it's true that the article hardly touches on the interesting aspects of these teams' design choices, I did find the closing somewhat interesting- the contrast that one team concentrated all their money/effort on the sensors and control of a normal car, while the other team concentrated their money/effort on a vehicle with bad-ass off road capability and didn't worry as much about the sensors and driving systems.

Who would I put my money on? Well, from all the pictures I've seen of the course, I'd bet that I could significantly kick the ass of all these autonomous vehicles (even if they perform two orders of magnitude better than they did last year) driving my '97 Subaru station wagon. On the other hand, whether you're driving a dune buggy, a Humvee, a Sherman tank, or NASA's space shuttle launch platform, boulders, mountains, canyons, underpasses, and rivers will put a real crimp in your style if you don't navigate well. Thus, I think that control systems are where it's most worth concentrating one's effort.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[Animats]

on the sensors and control of a normal car

Actually, no. Stanford's VW Touareg was provided by VW with the ability to be driveable via a serial port. This is apparently a mod they use internally for testing.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[FleaPlus]

One interesting project is USC iLab's Beobots, which basically puts a very small Beowulf cluster on a mobile robot, with available source code and design plans. They also have a very neat neuromorphic vision toolkit in general.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[incuso]

TerraMax team is using vision for both obstacle and path detection: http:vislab.ce.unipr.it

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[springbox]

The problem is, I think, is that people don't understand how the human brain processes these sorts of images, which is why most people are having limited success doing image analysis on computers like this.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Every image has sharp edges... the problem is, extracting those images in real time, at high enough frame rates... if you have to run the image by 2-3 (gimp/photoshop etc) filters to extract out the edges... well the CPU load just got pretty high, unless you've got a dedicated GPU that can perfom those kinds of detailed image processing in better than real time.

So, you could get a $1,000 profesional graphic card, and program it to run all the needed processing off the video input in real time to extract out edges... so the cpu's which Aren't Designed To process images that fast can stick to running the whole the ai making sure everything works...

Sounds like most people are going for the 'easier' to write/program for general purpouse CPU, instead of actually incorperating a chip specially designed for processing image data...

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[term8or]

The problem is, I think, is that people don't understand how the human brain processes these sorts of images, which is why most people are having limited success doing image analysis on computers like this.

Not entirely. I agree that part of the problem is that not only do we not understand how the image processing capability of the human brain works. Some of the rest of the problem is that we also don't know how to reproduce the years of specialist training surveillance experts spend to be able to detect unexpected but significant information from grainy pictures. But the most significant problem with image processing is the computer power: a decent estimate ( http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/book97/ch3/retina.c omment.html ) in 1998 was that to reproduce the power of the human brain would require 100 million MIPS of computing power. This doesn't include the computing power of the nervous system and retina that seem to have significant functional value in reducing the complexity of the picture, and are virtually irreproducible in current technology.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[Animats]

Every image has sharp edges.

You wish. Sand. Dirt. Snow. Good quality concrete.

Some road surfaces just don't have many sharp edges. Stereo lockup by brute force correlation won't work on them.

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[BillyBlaze]

I have no idea if this has been done already, but why brute force? There are a lot of shortcuts you can take. One big one is, you have a general idea where the ground is. It's a roughly horizontal approximate plane. On the horizon, check for matches with no shift, at the bottom, with whatever shift is right for however far the ground is usually at that point in your vision. Another huge simplification is that each frame is almost the same. No need to start fresh, look for a lock at the same shift it was before, then try closer (if you have other evidence you're moving forward.) You only really need brute force for large areas where these strategies don't work. You could probably find some way to let the focus of the cameras and which parts of the image are sharp give you information also.

I'm sure it's clear that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'll post anyway...

Re:That's so Tom's Hardware

[Behrooz]

One big one is, you have a general idea where the ground is. It's a roughly horizontal approximate plane.

"Roughly Horizontal" covers an awful lot of ground.

Off-road, the only constant is that the ground isn't a road.

More an advertisement for VW than anything else

[QuantumG]

Yah, Tom's Hardware does it again. I guess we'll have to wait for the actual race to see whether or not the big companies will steal the show from the university researchers. Personally I think the teams that have done this on a budget will perform better than the companies that are pouring millions into it. Just because they have to come up with more intelligent solutions.

Re:More an advertisement for VW than anything else

[phobos13013]

IIRC last year a bunch of different people threw money into this compeition and NOBODY won, so really it didnt matter whether the amounts spent on it were large or small, nobody rose to the challenge. Which really goes to show its not necessarily the money spent but the quality of the developers involved in this project.
Though if i read correctly elsewhere, the Hummer team (im sure they have oodles of cash to throw at this competition) have really shown a possibility of pulling this one off.

The developments won't be used for "defence".

[CyricZ]

None of these developments will be used for true "defence". They won't be there to protect the average American citizen. But judging from the past several years, there is a very good chance that they will be used for offensive purposes. Perhaps against Iran or Syria.

These days the defence industry isn't about defense. It is about creating offensive weapons used to instigate conflict in non-American, resource-rich areas.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[CyricZ]

You have the old saying reversed. It is actually: the best offense is a good defense.

LOL, it looks like you guys are getting your asses handed back to you daily by the citizenry of Iraq.

But my point still stands: these developments are not directly defence-related. They are completely offense-related.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Adrilla]

...and we wonder why people hate us. Some people even have the nerve to call us arrogant. Imagine that.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[majikenny]

actually, i'm pretty sure that the AC is correct. Searching google (the almighty, the all-powerful), for "The best defense is a good offense" and "The best offense is a good defense" yields 30,400 hits for the former and only 5,340 for the latter. By far, the AC has the most popular of the two phrases. And if you think about it, the same holds true in real life. If you kick someone's ass before they kick yours, they cannot hurt you. Thus you are defended. If you, instead, only defend when attacked, you can never conquer. Thus your attack has failed. As to your other point, these developmnts are completely defense related. The above arguement aside, an autonomuous SUV can as easily be used in Kansas or Arizona as in Iraq. All this is is a car that drives itself. While this is quite a complicated task, having no driver in a car does not suddenly make this an attack only vehicle.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[antispam_ben]

From Google.com:
the best defense is a good offence: 600,000
the best offence is a good defense: 242,000

I'm surprised the second one give so many in proportion to the first even though it's over 2 to 1, but it's surely because all the words, regardless of order, appear on so many pages. Redoing with quotes:

"the best defense is a good offence" about 1,940
"the best offence is a good defense" "about 91"

Yes, "the best defense is a good offence" wins again, this time by over an order of magnitude.

And watch out, because We Arrogant Americans are more offensive (all puns intended) than ever. Someone knocked down Our Towers, and We're pissed.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[QuantumG]

Shall we get into this? It doesn't matter if the US military has painted the streets with gold in Iraq. Your military invaded a sovereign nation. The world isn't safer now than it was before the US went and did this, as evidenced by the military build up in the pacific. Your government has shown that it is willing to break international law and other sovereign nations (like North Korea, Taiwan and China) are taking preemptive measures to ensure that your military wont do it again. That puts all of us at risk. The US deployment of nuclear arms to staging positions in South Korea has been condemed by everyone in the region and has resulted in declarations of willingness to use nuclear weapons from all her neighbours. That doesn't make the world a safer place, it makes the world a dangerous war charged place. The kind of place that helps the people who run your country sell the goods that are made by companies they work for. The people of Iraq didn't want your help. They didn't want you to bomb them. They didn't want their system of government removed and replaced with the travesty that you call democracy. Even if your government were just trying to make the world a better place, the ends do not, have not and never will justify the means.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[LnxAddct]

I really didnt want to get into this, but what country are you from? Also, how many people from Iraq have you talked to, how do you know what they want, or did the media tell you what they wanted? You see, before this noone knew what the Iraqi people wanted because they weren't allowed to say what they wanted. Didn't the Europeans learn from the World Wars that if you sit around and wait for countries to get strong then it ends in a big mess. N. Korea, etc..., would all still be doing the same thing they are now, except now they have an excuse. If you think they started this within the past 5 years you're nuts, this stuff has been planned by N. Korea for nearly two decades. These countries want world domination, they think they are elite, they are the next Germany as it was under Hitler, but this time they seem to be willing to go even further. The other major governments of the world and their inability to act before things get out of hand continuously astounds me and shows their lack of foresight. You convince yourselves that if you just ignore the problem then it'll go away or that it'll stay contained within its country of origin. Then one day you have armies invading your neighboring countries. America is not starting senseless wars, there is a longterm strategy behind this. Appreciate it and get some perspective.
Regards,
Steve

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[QuantumG]

I'm an Australian, from one of countries who's government acted as co-conspirators in your government's unprovoked attack on Iraq. The country your government attacked had no military capability what-so-ever. To claim that it was necessary to invade it to prevent a war is nonsense. If it is the goal of your military to prevent wars then why don't you go invade the countries in Africa? Oh that's right, they have no oil. I never claimed "America" was starting senseless wars (especially seeing as the vast majority of that content isn't part of the USA). There's sense behind them: to get the resources. The problem is that we have laws for which your country is a signatory that state that they will not invade a country to procure its resources. So they lied and said it was to prevent Iraq from attacking her neighbours. An argument that, although still illegal, holds weight with people like you. They made up stories about Iraq's military capabilities. They explained the fact that Iraq didn't have any significant military might by claiming they had non-conventional weapons and were close to obtaining more. Of course, when they got there they couldn't find any of these non-conventional weapons. Then the argument became one of how much "good" they have done since they entered the country and how "better off" the people were now that they were there. This kind of argument also happens to have weight with people like you, so they got away with lying about the reason why they went there in the first place. Oh, and don't forget the simple dogmatic belief in democracy that people like you have. Because even when you are presented with evidence that life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein your government can always say it doesn't matter because the people of Iraq are now able to vote.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[mi]

Your military invaded a sovereign nation.

You can shriek all you want about things political, but legally we are squeky clean.

We were at war with Iraq since 1991 (you don't disapprove of our defense of Kuwait, do you?). In 1992 there was a cease-fire. Iraq broke most of the terms of it and we (finally) resumed active hostilities. End of story.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[mi]

your government's unprovoked attack on Iraq.

Unprovoked? How about:

• continuing targeting and occasional firing at our aircraft?
• overt financing of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel -- $10K per homicide bomber)?
• continuing mistery about citizens of our other ally (Kuwait) captured in 1991 and never accounted for?
• last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?

The country your government attacked had no military capability what-so-ever.

Iraq's army was fourth largest in the world (after China, Russia, and US). You were saying?..

If it is the goal of your military to prevent wars then why don't you go invade the countries in Africa? Oh that's right, they have no oil.

Thanks to our firmness on Iraq, we did not even have to invade Liberia -- Charles Taylor ran away, when Marine transports approached his shores. Several years earlier we "invaded" Somalia, but our then-President did not have the guts to do it right... Check the map to find, where these two countries are...

An argument that, although still illegal ...

Illegal? Well, this one will be the easiest for you to prove -- no need to argue about politics. Just quote me the UN Security Council resolution condemning our invasion as "illegal".... Thanks!

Because even when you are presented with evidence that life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein your government can always say it doesn't matter because the people of Iraq are now able to vote.

Should I really be surprised? I'm arguing with a citizen of a country, which still considers British Queen to be its Head of State!

Jokes aside, what is your evidence of life in Iraq being worse than before? And what value (if any) do you place on the ability to vote? Is it worse 10 daily food rations, in your opinion? Or only 5? Perhaps, 8 and free tank of gas?

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[mudetroit]

I won't say that the situation in Iraq is perfect, because frankly it isn't.

But to say that the US has never intervened in situations that didn't involve resources; Somalia and Kosovo ring a bell? I will say that at times we miss the important ones though Rwanda, and the current situation in the Sudan for example.

I have some pretty severe questions about the reasoning that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. But don't make a mistake it was justified for other reasons. Sadam Hussein wasn't a boy scout; he had been killing and torturing people at a whim for decades, and much of that was our fault. There life isn't perfect now, anyone who says it is does nothing but fool themselves. The road won't be easy, but hopefully in time they can reach the level of success some other US building efforts have, Germany and Japan. But it also can't happen if the US just pulls troops out right now, because the situation isn't stable there at the moment, and since we went in we have a responsibility to stay until it is.

I don't kid myself into thinking the US is anything resembling a perfect nation, but I also don't buy into the constant arguements that the US is some evil superpower either.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but your analogy of kicking someone's ass first is out-dated.

Concerning nuclear technology and using your same analogy, if you decide to kick's someone's ass and it's inevitable that their ass is gonna be kicked, they will make sure your ass gets kicked too (either by someone else or a radio controlled shoe...lol)

That's why the US is pushing so hard for this missile defense shield.

Using your same analogy, it's like putting a metal plate in your pants, and then going around and kicking people's asses while the consequences of their counter-attacks are nullified. UNLESS those other people figure out ways of penetrating that metal plate, like sharper shoes etc..

That's why the US's push for the missile defense shield is sparking a fear of another arms race.

It's obviously not a high priority defensive system, but high priority for offensive plans.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Scarblac]

Well, those words have several spellings, and you're being inconsistent with them.

Pro-defending:

• "the best offence is a good defence": 214
• "the best offence is a good defense": 73
• "the best offense is a good defence": 219
• "the best offense is a good defense": 5340

Sum: 5846.

Pro-attacking:

• "the best defence is a good offence": 571
• "the best defence is a good offense": 761
• "the best defense is a good offence": 871
• "the best defense is a good offense": 30500

Sum: 32703.

So still a factor of over five. Oddly enough, your choice of defense/offence is skewed towards the pro-attacking side.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[hamburger lady]

uh, dumbass: the war in 1991 was a UN war. the ceasefire wasn't between the US and iraq. ergo, we alone didn't have the right to resume hostilities.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[mi]

uh, dumbass: the war in 1991 was a UN war. the ceasefire wasn't between the US and iraq.

The point is, it is the same war... We do not need UN's approval for every step.

ergo, we alone didn't have the right to resume hostilities.

See if you can find UN resolution condeming the resumption as "illegal"... I'll wait.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Do you speak German or Russian? LOL, if you don't it is probably due to the actions of the United States. As for the offensive versus defensive it all depends on which level you look at it. Simply add another layer of indirection and an offensive weapon becomes defensive.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[kryzx]

I have actually talked to one of the handful of DARPA people who hatched this idea in the first place.

Interestingly, the primary motivation for this is for cargo and supply-line applications.

I am not saying that it couldn't be used for ground-based unmanned attack vehicles eventually, clearly it could. Eventually. But that kind of use would require a much smarter and more flexible maneuvering capability.

If you think about the requirements for a supply truck, they are pretty simple. Get from point A to point B, without getting stuck, or running over anyone. Requirements for an autonomous combat vehicle would be orders of magnitude more complex.

If you look at the situation in Iraq, a disproportionate number of people have been killed while driving trucks in supply convoys. It turns out that in the situation we have there truck driving is one of the most dangerous things a soldier can be doing.

Add to this the fact that you have long stretches of flat, uninhabited terrain, and you have a high-payoff "easy" starting point for automating supply vehicles.

As it turns out, about at least 80% of waging war is logistics. Figuring out not only how to get soldiers and equipment to a certain place, but also how to bring all the supporting parts, like food, fuel, ammunition, and establish a supply chain to continually bring more. All while the forces keep moving. In a location where you had no presence just days before, and where you now have forces spread out over hundreds of miles, this can be very difficult.

Automated supply vehicles could do a lot to help in this kind of situation. If you look at how the challenge is set up, it might look a bit similar to the challenges faced by a supply vehicle in Iraq.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

You such a funny guy.

* continuing targeting and occasional firing at our aircraft?
You mean the ones flying over and bombing Iraq "targets"?

* overt financing of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel -- $10K per homicide bomber)?
Not relevant to US

* continuing mistery about citizens of our other ally (Kuwait) captured in 1991 and never accounted for?
Not relevant to US

* last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?
Guilty until proven innocent?

Somalia stopped massive famine - saved 200,000 lives at a cost of about 40 US lives. What has Iraq accomplished?

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and don't forget the simple dogmatic belief in democracy that people like you have.

lol, cus everybody on Earth absolutely looooves to be oppressed by a dictator.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this sovereign nation BS. So what? Iraq was led by a dictator. Who appointed him dictator? No one. He appointed himself. He started a war with Iran that led to the deaths of millions (no exaggeration). He killed hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. He funded Palestinian suicide bombers. He harbored Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and gave medical assistance to Zarqawi and was milking the Oil for Food program to fund a WMD project.

As for the nonsense that North Korea, Taiwan and China are preparing to ensure we will not do it again. What are you talking about? North Korea has long been in the process of making nuclear weapons. China is arming to ensure its status as a world power- it has nothing to do with Iraq. As for Taiwan, I do not know where you are coming from.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post. You can add Haiti to the places where the U.S. intervened where resources (oil etc.) are unquestionably not involved. Simply trying to keep the peace.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anakron]

last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?

I can't believe you brought this up.
They "proved" it. Go take a look at what the UN inspection team found. For that matter, take a look at what the troops found (or didn't find, rather).

Iraq's army was fourth largest in the world (after China, Russia, and US). You were saying?..

Where did you get this? Do you mean before 1991? Since they lost the war, their army was completely decimated. Also note that they had no air force to speak of.

Illegal? Well, this one will be the easiest for you to prove -- no need to argue about politics. Just quote me the UN Security Council resolution condemning our invasion as "illegal".... Thanks!

Would you accept draft resolutions? Those that didn't pass because the US vetoed them?

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic concept of this whole thread is just asinine. More hits from Google do not mean "better" or "correct" or anything else. Example:

"nuclear war" 827,000
"conventional war" 81,100

Wow, according to Google nuclear war is way better than conventional war! We've got it all wrong in Iraq!

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[mi]

last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?

I can't believe you brought this up. They "proved" it. Go take a look at what the UN inspection team found. For that matter, take a look at what the troops found (or didn't find, rather).

No, they did not prove it... You are revising history. Here is to to refresh your memory:

Jan. 27, 2003 The UN's formal report on Iraqi inspections is highly critical, though not damning, with chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix stating that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

What our troops did or did not find after the war is irrelevant. Per 1992 cease-fire, the burden of proof was on Saddam. Absent (or insufficient) evidence to the contrary, he was to be presumed guilty.

Iraq's army was fourth largest in the world (after China, Russia, and US). You were saying?..

Where did you get this? Do you mean before 1991? Since they lost the war, their army was completely decimated. Also note that they had no air force to speak of.

True, actually, they were the 4th in the world before 1991. However, according to this:

The key units Iraq depended on to stop the Coalition were six Republican Guard divisions (strength: 85,000), two Special Republican Guard brigades, two Special Forces brigades (strength: 15,000), and internal security forces. The Iraqi Army was 300,000 strong.

they were nothing to sneeze at. The grand-parent's claim, that they had "no military capability what-so-ever" is totally ridiculous. Not that it matters very much, mind you...

Illegal? Well, this one will be the easiest for you to prove -- no need to argue about politics. Just quote me the UN Security Council resolution condemning our invasion as "illegal".... Thanks!

Would you accept draft resolutions? Those that didn't pass because the US vetoed them?

Only if you will accept draft resolutions explicitly authorizing our resumption of hostilities. Those that didn't pass because France, Russia, China vetoed them. Our veto power is just as much part of the legalities of the issue, as are theirs... Oops...

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[mi]

• continuing targeting and occasional firing at our aircraft?

You mean the ones flying over and bombing Iraq "targets"?

Our "flying and bombing" was according to the 1992 cease-fire agreement. Their "targeting and occasional firing" was contrary to it. Thank you for confirming my bigger point, however -- that this war is, actually, just a continuation of the 1991-92 one and not "an unprovoked attack on sovereign nation".

• overt financing of terrorism against one of our allies
• continuing mistery about citizens of our other ally

Not relevant to US

That's just foolish. Of course, allies are relevant. Anyway, that is just another cease-fire violation making our resumption of hostilities even less "unprovoked".

• last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?

Guilty until proven innocent?

Yes, exactly. Failure to prove, he has no WMDs left was, in itself, a violation of the cease-fire agreement.

Somalia stopped massive famine - saved 200,000 lives at a cost of about 40 US lives. What has Iraq accomplished?

The point I was making about Somalia and Liberia was that we do, in fact, intervene in oil-less African countries -- contrary to QuantumG's limited world view. Had he not limited the scope to Africa, I would've mentioned Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and Korea as well.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[meme_police]

That's about the most naive, braindead, mainstream media-influenced dreck I've ever read.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

What on earth is a "homicide bomber"? A redundancy, or tautology, it sounds like. A bomber is by nature looking to commit homicide? I think you mean "suicide bomber"? Or is this some new word I missed?

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[QuantumG]

That's cause you're an ignorant fuck who can't even pick up a newspaper let alone do some research yourself.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[CyricZ]

Either way, it's not being used for defence. Whether such vehicles are directly involved in attacks, or supplying necessities to the attackers, the vehicles are still not being used for "defence"-related purposed. They are offensive vehicles.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you had yourself instead of spouting profanities, you would know Taiwan doesn't fit the trend. Taiwan is not considered a sovereign nation by the UN. Furthermore, if Taiwan arms itself, it's arming against China, not the US. There has been disagreement between the past 2 administrations wrt Taiwan, but you're flat out lying if you think the US is going to invade Taiwan.

As to breaking international law with Taiwan, yes, we are, against China. China though breaks international law everyday, esp. economic, human rights, and environmental. You think North Korea threatening to lob nukes is in agreement with international law?

If you think the US was looking for an excuse to invade an oil rich country, then you better apply that also to North Korea looking for an excuse.

You are the worse example of why this country is split. You're flat out ignorant, swearing, and yet pointing out some other person is wrong even though he has his fundamental facts straight when you don't.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither Syria nor Iran has anyone quaking that they may get run over by an autonomous SUV.

For /., where people should know by now that tech cuts both ways, it's always odd when people point to the "tech bad" side of the equation when it supports their political ends.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[hamburger lady]

"The point is, it is the same war... We do not need UN's approval for every step. "

we do if we want to enforce a UN ceasefire. just liek we can't enforce UN resolutions by ourselves, it makes no sense.

"See if you can find UN resolution condeming the resumption as "illegal"

so what? we all know how neutered the UN is. doesn't mean it was our job to resume a ceasefire that was clearly enforced only by the UN.

if i beat up my neighbor for being a drug dealer, and the cops look the other way, does that mean that i broke no law?

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[mi]

if i beat up my neighbor for being a drug dealer, and the cops look the other way, does that mean that i broke no law?

If you want analogies, then USA is the police. We were asked to subdue a violent criminal in 1991, and we are still subduing him.

That said, the notion of Citizen Arrest is not unheard of (even if my link may be infuriatingly Conservative). So, even by your flawed analogy, where the US is another "common citizen" (and not the enforcer, that it really is today), we are in the clear.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[QuantumG]

Actually, I was implying that your entire country is ignorant.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[hamburger lady]

"If you want analogies, then USA is the police. We were asked to subdue a violent criminal in 1991, and we are still subduing him. "

you keep ignoring that GWI was a multi-national UN war. we weren't the only force there. the entire UN force was the police in your analogy.

that's why it's the UN's decision to enforce their own resolutions and cease fires, not ours.

Re:The developments won't be used for "defence".

[mi]

you keep ignoring that GWI was a multi-national UN war. we weren't the only force there. the entire UN force was the police in your analogy.

(No, in my analogy "the entire UN" is the jury. Only the countries, that actively fought the war, are the police. Whatever.)

In my opinion, we are still in GWI. The war did not end in 1992 -- it was suspended by the cease-fire, as a convict's sentence may be suspended by parole.

Iraq violated many terms of that cease-fire many times -- an undisputable fact. What is disputed is whether there was a need for another UN authorization explicitly authorizing invasion.

I say, we did not need a UN authorization to resume the hostilities any more, than a parole officer needs another jury trial to take a paroled, but relapsed criminal back to prison.

Go CMU!

[monsterX]

But seriously, come on, we all know the DARPA challange is just a warmup for next years buggy race.

To bad PiKA will still beat the robotics department, an unmanned buggy just cant compete againt frat boys and 5 foot tall female drivers.

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/buggy/

Re:Go CMU!

[FleaPlus]

Did any of CMU's DARPA vehicles go down the buggy course this year? I wasn't able to go back for Carnival this time. Are there any videos available?

Re:Go CMU!

[Snorpus]

But will it pass the brake test?

Those look nice, but

[Anonymous Coward]

My money's on the TerraMax vehicle from Oshkosh Truck.

http://www.terramax.com/

How did they manage to write

[btempleton]

A long article, full of photos and pointless details, and yet after a dozen pages tell me nothing?

Amazing.

Re:How did they manage to write

[Biogenesis]

The writer must be practicing to go into government.

Seven Pentium-M CPUs

[Humorously_Inept]

/* just kidding

Sure, Tom. Give Intel product all the coverage in the world, but what about AMD?

"AMD-powered DARPA Grand Challenge competitor overheats and explodes. Kills millions and incinerates $2 million prize. Intel steps up and offers 2 million Pentium MMX Bunny Man dolls ca 1997 to winning team."

just kidding */

Giant Laser Space Frisbees...

[JohnPerkins]

...or a ring of dollar bills around the entire planet?

Dear Slashdot Editors:

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't put links to .gov, .mil etc websites in article bodies without warning. You have a warning for urls in square brackets within follow up posts please include a warning in stories too.

Oshkosh

[LoRdTAW]

What ever happend to Oshkosh Truck and there MTVR? I liked the idea of making an autonomous 6x6 heavy truck. It would prove an extream help in a combat zone as supply convoys can be robotic removing drivers from harms way. Cargo handling can be done once the convoy reaches it destination by humans. Imagine for a minute that you are a solder driving a wheeled tanker hauling 5000 gallons of diesel when an RPG strikes the tank. You're either dead or badly burned. If it were autonomous well uncle sam lost money and fuel but no one was hurt. Same for a truck loaded with ammo or explosives or just about anything else.

Re:Oshkosh

[jericho4.0]

Somebody linked it just above. Terramax

After seeing photos of the hardware, and learning how loaded with tech these things are, I have a hard time imagining that the prize will not be won this year.

should there be a "should"?

[H310iSe]

"While there should be no misconception that the ultimate goal of DARPA is to turn autonomous vehicles into killing machines"

Feel I should at least mention the idea that doing really, really cool development for DARPA is the kind of thing you need to ask ... should I?

Not sure if this is possible w/o yafw (yet another flame war) but someone has to say it ... these people could be doing the exact same research without involving the US military... couldn't they? And, um, I suppose it's possible they could actually not give that research to the US military after they'd perfected it...

OK, I can see that one way or another if you build it the US military will get it, but it doesn't have to be soooooo, like, readily handed over. Could at least make them ask or something...

RIP SAW

[ThisOne]

My buddies from prep school are in this and if you want to see some whiked pissah video clips (wmv), check this out:

Fully Remote Control:
http://howeandhowe.com/videos/remote.wmv

Adrenaline Junky:
http://howeandhowe.com/videos/Movie_0001.wmv

It never ceases to amaze me what New Englanders can do over an 8 month long wintah!

Re:RIP SAW

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Like get their expensive ass toy stuck in a pond while listening to a shitty cover of "Shout".

It's still not too late to join in the fun...

[Mr_KnowItAll]

Team CyberRider is still recruiting folks in the Orange County (CA) area. Visit our website for more information http://www.cyberrider.org/

Some Errors

[kf6auf]

A couple of corrections:
Two Teams Compete for Best Robot Car in DARPA Challenge
I would just like to point out that the headline is off by over an order of magnitude! We here at Caltech and many other people at many other schools are also competing to have the best robot car too!

The vehicles are given no more than 10 hours to complete the 176-mile route, which will be kept secret until the beginning of the race.
The map is given to each of the teams several (3?) hours prior to the start of the race. One result of this subtle difference is that teams can program a general path into the vehicle and have it deviate from it only as necessary instead of just popping the DVD into the computer and having the computer do everything.

Something that people should keep in mind is that many schools are using the program as a learning experience and solely out to win the competition, but provide their students with not only a limited budget, but make them do things themselves even when it might be cheaper and undoubtedly easier to simply buy premade parts elsewhere. The use to the military will not be the machines that are built with all sorts of fancy equipment and sensors that Tom's Hardware liked to talk about, but the algorithms and techniques that are used to guide the vehicles.

Scott

Re:Some Errors

[Animats]

The map is given to each of the teams several (3?) hours prior to the start of the race. One result of this subtle difference is that teams can program a general path into the vehicle and have it deviate from it only as necessary instead of just popping the DVD into the computer and having the computer do everything.

CMU tried that last year. They'd obtained custom aerial and LIDAR imagery of the route, and had a semitrailer full of people at workstations manually programming the route in the two hours before the race.

It didn't work. They crashed three times in eight miles. Notably, they plowed through a sheet metal fence DARPA had placed on the route, and which apparently wasn't in their aerial photographs.

This year, the USAF colonel running the Grand Challenge made it very clear that preprogramming wouldn't work. Many of the teams groaned when he put up the slide with the pictures of tank traps.

We just put in the waypoint file, exactly as DARPA gives it to us, and go. We don't do any manual preprocessing.

Re:Some Errors

[leonardluen]

Many of the teams groaned when he put up the slide with the pictures of tank traps.

hehe, it appears darpa has a sick sense of humor!

There are camels in the US (OT)

[airConditionedGypsy]

(kidding, I know there are no camels on the US - ...)

Not to disappoint you, but I know for a fact that this statement is false. I recently drove from El Paso, TX to Trenton, NJ and did in fact see a herd of camels in Texas (somewhere between Lubbock and Witchita Falls).

Re:There are camels in the US (OT)

[rbarreira]

You don't dissapoint me at all :)

I'm trying to find some references on this. Here's one:

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6528E/X6528E01.htm

In Italy, Spain, South Africa and Texas in the USA camels were also introduced as pack animals, but they soon disappeared.

So maybe they didn't dissapear completely? Another one:

http://www.lsjunction.com/facts/camels.htm

The camels fell into Confederate hands at the beginning of the Civil War, then back to the Union Army in 1865. Most were sold at auction in 1866. A few escaped into the west Texas desert and are known to have survived until late in the nineteenth century.

PS: I'm really not doubting what you're saying, I'm just trying to find something which confirms it. Of course, that something may not exist on the web...

Re:There are camels in the US (OT)

[airConditionedGypsy]

Yeah, I don't think the Internet exists in that part of Texas.

They looked like they had been domesticated. Perhaps 'domesticated' is the wrong word -- they were in a fenced-in pasture.

As we cruised over a small hill, my friend and I turned to look at each other: "Did we just see camels?"

Well, they sure looked like camels.

Re:There are camels in the US (OT)

[schon]

in the USA camels were also introduced as pack animals, but they soon disappeared.

So maybe they didn't dissapear completely?

Cool - semi-transparent camels! (Stealth Camels?)

Sorry, couldn't resist :o)

Another DARPA entry featured at JavaONE 2005

[bsandersen]

Tommy, another project for this competition, was featured at the lastest JavaONE in San Francisco in July. You can find the link to the group here.

In addition to some really interesting technology, they've got a great video demonstrating the vehicle in action that drew whoops and applause in their talk at the conference.

-- Scott

Obligatory MGS reference!

[llamaluvr]

DARPA Chief!

Re:Oshkosh... Osh be gosh...

[davidsyes]

"Imagine for a minute that you are a solder driving a wheeled tanker hauling 5000 gallons of diesel when an RPG strikes the tank. You're either dead or badly burned."

Would that solder be hot or unplugged? Either way, solder or soldier, either will be badly burned.

One thing they can try with the truck, since DARPA is in the giving mood, is to divided the tanker into modules that have a safety factor calculated to eject the segment that is just about to be hit by the RPG, this way, the contain can be ejected to the side, hopefully away from the convoy, and the RPG just slams into dirt and hits no module in the tanker.

But, that assumes there will be longer tanker trailers to allow another margin of safety to let the missile pass without scraping any tanks outside the "window".

But, less expensive might be some tethered ROV that flank the convoy, or act as aerial point-men, seeking out heat signatures of shooters. But, then there is a chance the shooters will see the RPV and shoot it down before it registers signatures (that depends on the data processing rate of the seeker gadgetry, and whether or not nested or accompanying or networked RPVs can receive hand-off data before the sighting/transmitting RPV is knocked down.

What about RPGs that don't hit at 90 degrees

[Anonymous Coward]

Or from behind ?

Re:What about RPGs that don't hit at 90 degrees

[davidsyes]

Oops. Then I guess you'll have to "take up the rear", or in USN Boatswain's UNREP parlance.... "up behind"...

I guess I didn't ummm, analyze my "half-ass" thoughts on that one...

I that case, though, it sucks to be the point man (tends to get it between the eyes) or the man taking up the rear (takes in in equally crippling places...).

anthrax nukes osama bush cia carnivore clinton

[Anonymous Coward]

anthrax nukes osama bush cia carnivore clinton extremists chopper pgp department of defense david koresh fbi echelon tank new world order united nations takeover wtc korea file china rpg rumsfeld electronic implant fema nwo satellite com communism saddam ammo mao anti-aircraft nuke overthrow coup 911 9/11 bomb ashcroft terrorist coverup national kaczynski government eyeball hostage data holograph black helicopters arpanet deepthroat nsa watergate d.o.d. homeland security encrypted document unabomber uplink nasa b.e.a.s.t. biometric haarp star wars gas cyanide

Re:A top improvement would still be armor

[Anonymous Coward]

I always find it amusing when I hear the story about how a Marine HMMWV without doors or even a top drives up next to an Army HMMWV that looks like it could survive a nuclear blast, and a Marine simply nods with a slight scoff at the shocked Soldiers and then drives off.

Armoring vehicles greatly increases the weight, which means they consume more fuel, handle very differently (which requires retraining), and poses new issues for an already intensely complex logistical nightmare.

The IEDs are always going to be there. Armoring vehicles, while it has saved the lives of Marines and Soldiers, is not the complete solution. Defeating the threat of IEDs is a difficult problem.

No coalition fighter wants to see an ally die, but this is war. If a vehicle isn't already armored, then it's not armored because it's a light vehicle, and was never designed to be. That's why there are different classes of vehicles.

Disclaimer: I am a Marine 0511.

So, in the future...

[Jambon]

...who will be responsible when someone gets hit by an autonomous vehicle?

Re:So, in the future...

[Jedi Alec]

well, as Tom so vehemently pointed out there's 7(seven!) Pentium M's on that baby, so I guess that's 7 counts of manslaughter for Intel?

And that is bad because....?

[Anonymous Coward]

... I fail to see your point.

Re:And that is bad because....?

[Freexe]

doublethink, they tought you well!

Re:And that is bad because....?

[Freexe]

taught*

Ultimate goal...

[Jeffus]

While there should be no misconception that the ultimate goal of DARPA is to turn autonomous vehicles into killing machines, other more noble goals are possible. Senior citizens who are too old to drive themselves could be transported by robotic cars. Mr. Schoenmeyr says, "The problem with our Social Security is not money. It doesn't matter if you have tons of money, but you can't even go to the store and buy groceries. Robots are the answer to giving people the services they need."

So the main purpose is to develop autonomous assault vehicles? Yeah, but they'll also drive old people to the grocery store! Ohhhh, now it all makes sense. That makes me feel better. And the problem with Social Security is not due to our current debt or overspending? It's due to our lack of robotic chauffeurs? Hey! What's that over there!?

Re:Ultimate goal...

[mbius]

Apparently they think we've gotten dumber. Ask your average retiree whether they'd prefer robotic cars or affordable health care. I s'pose the ones who can't walk will also benefit from civillian apps of bionic commando gear.

Probably futile..

[dtietze]

.... but would it really be too much of an effort to include half a sentence (roughly) in the write-up telling us what the DARPA Grand Challenge actually IS ABOUT?

I know I could RTFA, but why should I be forced to, just to find out wether I would actually be interested?

This seems to be a recurring pattern on Slashdot posts. Which doesn't make it any better, it just makes it consistent.

Dan.

Re:Probably futile..

[Anonymous Coward]

but would it really be too much of an effort to include half a sentence (roughly) in the write-up telling us what the DARPA Grand Challenge actually IS ABOUT?

Dude, be patient. It will probably be in the explanation when the articles duped.

how cares about Tom

[Anonymous Coward]

After years of poorly written half factual articles, why should we listen to Tom's hardware on such a critical issue as any relating to DARPA? Serious /. news submitters and editors, get some better sources.

thrumm , cough, splutter

[pedicabo]

IIRC, last year's non-event was a fiasco where the only person who agreed with the result was the guy who 'won ' it.

*rings in*

[mbius]

"40...41...$2,407,842.53. Ice cream's on me!", or something to that effect.

For what it's worth...Stanford's team

[V_drive]

I started as a Stanford CS (AI concentration) grad student in the fall and found the following in the list of available courses:

CS294 DARPA Grand Challenge
Goal is to develop an entry into the DARPA Grand Challenge to build a ground vehicle that can drive autonomously from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. $2 million aware to winner; success requires major advances in core problems in artificial intelligence including robotic perception and high-speed control. Focus is on team-based design, development, implementation, and evaluation of cutting-edge AI algorithms in the context of the Grand Challenge. [prereq] Classes in basic AI algorithms, system design and methodology. Limited enrollment.
3 units, Autumn (Prof. Thrun)

Being a first year student with no AI experience, this wasn't really an option for me, but it still got my attention and looked like fun! (and...probably...a hellovalotta work).

Re:For what it's worth...Stanford's team

[mikiN]

Talking about setting high stakes for a grad course!

Maybe next we'll see something like this:

AS421 NASA Grand Challenge
Goal is to develop an entry into the NASA Grand Challenge to build a manned space vehicle that can yourney safely round-trip from Earth orbit to Mars and deploy a landing vehicle. $2 billion award to winner; success requires major advances in core problems in space exploration including efficient spacecraft propulsion, biosphere management and better insight into the effects of extended missions on human physiology and psychology. Focus is on team-based design, development, implementation, and evaluation of cutting-edge space technology in the context of the Grand Challenge. [prereq] Classes in basic spacecraft design, human physiology and psychology, system design and methodology. Limited enrollment.

3000 units, Autumn (Prof. Cochrane)

I guess I'll just stick to my lowly medical data acquisition with millihertz spectral analysis project, thank you.

Re:Big money: The winner !

[Azzhole]

And the winner is ! Noelle Bush's boyfriend, Ice~Z.

Anyone else wish...

[Timbotronic]

...that this was written up on Tom's *Software* ? The hardware side's pretty interesting, but the software's where this baby's gonna be won and lost. It'd be good to see a high level overview of the algorithms involved.

VW sucks and stuff...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep your eye out for who? CMU's Redteam recently traveled 200 miles in 7 hours with their vehicle...

http://www.cmu.edu/cmnews/extra/050712_sandstorm.h tml

funny because my car can't travel 2 miles with a driver...

Yes, so how do we excuse Rumsfeld....

[expro]

Yes, so how do we excuse Rumsfeld sending up-armoring kits (as the article described) rather than sending a vehicle designed for the job.

Clearly there are different classes of soldiers doing different types of jobs.

So if those who are, for example, glorified delivery services have not been trained / cannot be retrained to be safer in armorless vehicles than in an armored one, they need to send the armored vehicles or bring them home if it isn't worth the price of sending them more-appropriate equipment (bullets, personal armor, etc.).

Re:Yes, so how do we excuse Rumsfeld....

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, so how do we excuse Rumsfeld sending up-armoring kits (as the article described) rather than sending a vehicle designed for the job.

It's a quick fix? That makes it look like the military is doing something (regardless of how effective it is)? Because it kind of works? Because it's all we've really got right now?

The simple fact is we cannot have the type of protection needed to protect against IEDs in a vehicle light enough to replace ALL the HMMWVs in use today -- and you must remember, the basic HMMWV is used in many, many different vehicles, from a topless two man troop transport to ambulances to specialty vehicles.

These issues are what make the IED so 'great' as one of the insurgents' key weapons.

Just like in the present...

[nnappe]

...the victim. Or the "civilian casualty", considering these are military vehicles.

Re:Geez! You missed the whole point!

[vertinox]

The point of making robotic vehicles was to run over senior citizens, not pay for their doctor visits! Geez! How else do you think we are going to have social security in 40 years!

That and encourage them to buy Old Glory insurance.

And what exactly is your point?

[CyricZ]

And what exactly is your point? Just because Google finds the incorrect phrase more often doesn't mean that the incorrect phrase is semantically correct. Considering that that most likely takes into account numerous entries and forum posts from bloggers who have no idea what they're talking about, I consider your findings to be completely useless.

Do you want me to prove how truly useless your "Google returns oh-so-many hits" method is? Check this out for yourself:

Google:
"windows is unstable": 1090
"windows is stable": 1280

Sorry, my friend, your method of proving the correctness of the meaning of a phrase based on the number of hits that Google returns is completely flawed! Only a cockfool would dare use such a method.