Slashdot Mirror
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.""
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?
...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.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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
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.
No bastard ever won a war by dieing for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb, bastard die for his.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
...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.
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.
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.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club