Slashdot Mirror


Toyota Reveals A Humanoid Robot That Can Run

Peter writes "Toyota researchers have unveiled a new humanoid robot that can run at 7 km/h, which is faster than Honda's humanoid robot ASIMO. Toyota's robot can also keep itself balanced when pushed, as shown in the video."

216 comments

  1. One step closer to robot world domination by aegis3d · · Score: 0, Interesting

    i, for one, welcome our robot ninja overlords. But seriously, robots are evolving quick in dextety these days

    1. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by jackharrer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Only sad part is that in Japan those are evolving for peaceful reasons whereas in USofA for military purposes. Check recent stories about exoskeletons before you mod me down as flamebait...

      Sad as cooperation for peaceful purposes would make world a much better place, and military one, no comments. Recently they started testing some of airborne droids to shot on meat targets without human interaction. Sad where all this is going...

      --

      "an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
    2. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

      I do look forward to the robots that can land on their feet after you kick them in the head hard enough to make them spend some time upside down. Those will be cool. They'll show people how to do Kung Fu scenes...

    3. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by powerslave12r · · Score: 1

      Unlike boards though, those might hit back.

      --
      Real men read Slashdot articles at -1, bottom up.
    4. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Vectronic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not necessarily, it could also be seen as, the USA (and others) are creating robots that are already against us, whereas Japan (and others) are creating ones that will eventually turn against us.

      What better way to do? Get one of these helper bots in every home, on every street corner, flip the switch and they all take over without any loss of (your, the conquering) lives. Not that I'm saying that's what they are doing, but simply because these appear benign, doesn't necessarily mean that's the ultimate goal, although I do like to think they are to remain harmless, "here to do good thing" robots, as the Japanese have generally always done with them, from Karakuri Ningyo's brining tea, to these.

    5. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Vectronic · · Score: 1
    6. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by masshuu · · Score: 0, Troll

      true, it takes Japanese companies 25 years to make a robot walk, then 2 years for an American company to attach a gun to those legs.

      but thats how we Americans roll, piggybacking on others ideas while having a M240B in each hand

      --
      O.o
    7. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by bertoelcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I thought the Japanese invented Gundam Suits and various Mech armors like that.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    8. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by icebike · · Score: 1

      Why are auto companies so into robots in Japan?

      What's up with that?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by wrf3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've heard it's due to demographic pressure and xenophobia. The Japanese birthrate is declining and they don't like foreigners. With fewer workers and no outside source they have to increasingly mechanize their factories.

    10. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by hitmark · · Score: 1

      if one take a look at japanese companies, one will find that they dabble in a lot of areas, tho maybe a small part of them will be exported to the rest of the world.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota#Non-automotive_activities

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi#Mitsubishi_companies

      this is not unique to japan tho. its just that one is so used to connect the parent corp name to a single product...

      one interesting example could be saab. for just about everyone, its swedish car brand, but the company started out making aircrafts, and these days are involved in a lot of areas:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab#Organization

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    11. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer is simple then.

      If they are xenophobic, and their population is aging, wait for them to die out enough and then they will have little choice but to integrate with the Collective ... urrhh or maybe just be forced to accept outside help.

      Globalisation is a force that can now only be stopped by the scarcity of fuel for global travel. Deal with it. Forget race because we're all humans.

    12. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Japanese auto manufacturers are simply structured differently than most North American or European ones. Where GM/Chrysler/Ford/BMW/Daimler/Peugeot/VAG/etc. focus entirely on vehicles and their various parts, most of the Japanese auto makers are actually a part of much larger umbrella groups that have all kinds of strange subsidiaries. Aerospace and robotics are two common ones, but the Mitsubishi and Nissan groups tackle all sorts of things from plastics, rubbers, chemicals, to electronics, mining, banking, and insurance.

    13. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are auto companies so into robots in Japan?

      What's up with that?

      1 word:

      Transformers!

    14. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by easyTree · · Score: 1

      KNEEL BEFORE YOUR NEW MASTERS!!!

      *BEEEeeeeep*

      Please direct me to the nearest available powerpoint at your convenience. Thanks you for your assistance.

    15. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Only sad part is that in Japan those are evolving for peaceful reasons whereas in USofA for military purposes. "

      Japan thrives under the US conventional and nuclear military umbrella, hosts large US forces, and benefits from US militarism while maintaining a peaceful image of moral superiority. The Japanese military itself is rather impressive, but discreet.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    16. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      You forget that technologies developed initially for military applications very frequently have civilian applications as well.

      Radar? Military, at first. Now it's a cornerstone of meteorology and modern aviation.

      Electronic computing? Also military, at first, though it really took off when it found civilian application.

      The Intertubes? Also also military, at first (ARPAnet). Today, though, it brings us Slashdot.

    17. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Rest assured, if you honestly believe that the Japanese are developing these only for peaceful reasons, you are sincerely deluded. History is the best indicator. Nanking? China? Japan's history of human violations is shocking.

      Having said that, I concur that the US are developing robotics for military purposes.

      AC

    18. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by wasted · · Score: 1

      Why are auto companies so into robots in Japan? What's up with that?

      Japanese corporations look at what they can do effectively to make a profit given their position and advantages, not what they can do in their current industries. Robots and automobiles are very similar from a manufacturing point of view, so it makes sense for the automakers to explore that avenue. The question is why other automakers aren't pursuing these opportunities.

    19. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by renrutal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If your definition of invention is 'to wrrite science fiction stories', then yes.

    20. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by electrosoccertux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The GP forgets, too, that for all of known history peace has been held by the hands of a ruthless, iron-fisted dictator.

      And, as far as military dictators go, the USA is a teddy bear.

    21. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Dr_Ken · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe. We'll see how the peace-loving Japanese use their technology once they realize that the NorKors are gonna have nuclear weapons soon as well as the means to launch them and the US is a paper tiger that is both unwilling and unable to defend them any more.

      --
      "If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
    22. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by rpillala · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I recently watched Gundam Wing again, and even in a cartoon series, some of the characters make extensive speeches about how robot war desensitizes humanity and is therefore wrong. War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    23. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The Internet, as I recall, was built as ARPANET, so not all hope is lost for technology that is made by the Defense establishment.

      Which is not to say that I wouldn't prefer it if things didn't come about as a side effect of trying to make the "Advanced Warfighter of the Future", but one takes what one can get, I suppose.

      In any case, nothing about the military being on the forefront of science is really new, at least in certain fields. It's always been that way, because survival of your particular regime or country is usually a very easy thing to get into the budget and that money is often filtered into having the best and fastest weapons with the best logistics possible behind them. And perversely, many military technologies are created to save lives as much as to end them.

    24. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by OrigamiMarie · · Score: 1

      Also, in their culture the older folks feel very bad about imposing a burden on the younger folks. They don't want to be so much trouble as to get nursing care. But robots are the perfect solution, they are cool and fun and aren't a burden on anybody.

    25. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by shervinemami · · Score: 1

      KNEEL BEFORE YOUR NEW MASTERS!!!

      *BEEEeeeeep*

      Please direct me to the nearest available powerpoint at your convenience. Thanks you for your assistance.

      Well sorry, but for my Masters thesis I made a robot that can find its own battery charger and plug itself in and then continue doing stuff, potentially forever! (http://www.araa.asn.au/acra/acra2005/papers/emami.pdf) So we are getting closer to robot world domination, sorry :-)

    26. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Sure, and next you're going to tell me the Japanese ministry of Agriculture is not in charge of Gundam.

    27. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Get one of these helper bots in every home, on every street corner, flip the switch and they all take over without any loss of (your, the conquering) lives.

      Somehow, I bet the conquering robots wouldn't fare too well out in the Midwest. When the husband comes in from the field at lunch with his Winchester, that robot'll be mighty sorry (unless they're made with kevlar casings, in which case we should all see "it's a trap!" is quite evident).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    28. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Informative

      But I thought the Japanese invented Gundam Suits and various Mech armors like that.

      Incorrect. The first "mobile armor" suit I'm aware of was conceived in Starship Troopers, which won the Hugo Award in 1950. Gundam didn't come about until 1979, and Mechs (as in, BattleMechs) did not come about until the 1980s, and were derived from the Japanese mecha. The first instance of "mecha" I could find was in 1956, which could certainly have originated from Heinlein's work. (That said, ideas tend to occur in spurts, and the 1950s was a pretty big time for the relatively-new powerful mechanized, hydraulically augmented machines of the day. Mecha and Mobile Armor could easily have started independently, though they have undeniably impacted each other since.)

      Though I can see why you'd think the Japs would be the origin for such things. I mean, they were the ones who had shoguns and samauri, which are about as close to such things in a pre-industry world as you can get. And they were certainly the only ones to ever have to deal with Godzilla and the like: that kind of exposure could certainly influence a people's mindset! :P

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    29. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.

      Uh... if people aren't dying fighting wars wouldn't that mean that the cost isn't nearly as terrible? Eventually can't it just be reduced to robots killing other robots, seizing control of robot-run factories and robot-run resource-gathering operations (mines, lumber, farming, docks, etc). Then have the robot police/judges be programmed according to the whims/laws of the winning nation/dictator? Seems like a likely scenario given another 100 years or so... then the only lives lost will be in "insurrection" or "freedom fighters", that is, humans who try to take on the robots themselves. Maybe also a small, poor nation, or two, who can't afford an effectively completely robotic army.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    30. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      1 word:

      Transformers!

      But Transformers are GM vehicles.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    31. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by tirnacopu · · Score: 1

      Starship Troopers was published in 1959 and won the Hugo in 1960

    32. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by quadrox · · Score: 1

      1) There is absolutely no reason that robots should turn against their masters (at least for the time being). The models currently being developed have no consciousness, no desires or anything like that that would make them turn on their masters. I assume that this going to be the case for quite a while.
      2) Yes, even a non-conscious robot may turn bad because of a programming error, where a strange set of circumstances will cause it to turn on its masters. However, such a set of circumstances is likely to be a very local phenomenom and will not involve ALL robots to suddenly conspire to take over.
      3) Developing robots for peaceful tasks may just be a wise financial decision. Let the public pay for the development of the basic technology (in return for robotic servants) and when most of the kinks are worked out it will be far cheaper to adapt them for warfare purposes.
      4) Who is to say that Japan is not also developing robots for military purposes at the same time?
      5) Would you rather lose a lot of human lives in a war, or let the robots do the fighting for you?

    33. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by shervinemami · · Score: 1

      Sure, a lot of information technology was originally designed for military purposes, but that doesn't mean it will also apply to all technology. eg: killer robots?!

      Two years ago I built a killer robot for DARPA / US Military, that was literally for the purpose of driving into standard houses in Iraq, climbing up any stairs, killing anyone in the house and then moving on to the next house. Whether you see this as a life-saving robot (since it saves US human soldiers from doing the same job) or as a killing robot (since the robot is designed to kill both guilty and innocent people) is just a point of view, cos at the end of the day it saves US soldiers but kills innocent people.

      After that project, I've promised myself that I'm never going to work on a military robot again!  But the point is that the US military has somewhere between 5,000 - 10,000 robots in Iraq, mainly spying robots such as flying UAV's or wheeled spy robots. Nearly ALL of those robots are remotely controlled by humans. So obviously USA is leading the world's military robot market, but USA doesn't have nearly as much emphasis on intelligent robots or non-military robots anymore, besides the Roomba vacuum cleaners, and even the Roomba company has sold 2500 military robots in Iraq & Afghanistan! (http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=109)

      <begin hippie speech>
      With all the advances in military robots, its mainly just giving more power to the already most-powerful USA, while trying to reduce the power of the rest of the world. It hasn't helped people much outside of the military. Meanwhile, Japan is by far the leader when it comes to non-military, household and intelligent robots. Even though Japan also tries to keep its technology closed from the rest of the world, but atleast they're not just concentrating on how to kill foreign humans with the least political impact!
      <\end hippie speech>

    34. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by rastilin · · Score: 1

      I recently watched Gundam Wing again, and even in a cartoon series, some of the characters make extensive speeches about how robot war desensitizes humanity and is therefore wrong. War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.

      That always filled me with hatred. The philosophical idea is that fighting with robots in war has no "meaning", I've always thought it was more important that humans survive than that war have "meaning". The idea that people need to die in order for you to feel better about voilence is indefensible.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    35. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by rastilin · · Score: 1

      The answer is simple then.

      If they are xenophobic, and their population is aging, wait for them to die out enough and then they will have little choice but to integrate with the Collective ... urrhh or maybe just be forced to accept outside help.

      Globalisation is a force that can now only be stopped by the scarcity of fuel for global travel. Deal with it. Forget race because we're all humans.

      Or they can just use their own resources to make robots that take care of their problems. Why is it necessary that they suffer to the point where they are "forced" to accept outside help?

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    36. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why Paro the Robot Seal is so popular in their nursing homes I suppose.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paro_(robot)

    37. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Aren't they banned from having a proper army anyway (WW2 surrender conditions) and paying the US for that defense?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    38. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      They aren't allowed to really do much since they lost in WW2. I doubt the US will sit by idly once the NKs threaten to launch nukes, especially if they have the range to reach the US by then.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    39. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      In Japan GM stands for Gundam Mass-production.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    40. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by shnull · · Score: 1

      sounds all very skynet to me ...

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    41. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Bill+Dog · · Score: 2

      Only sad part is that in Japan those are evolving for peaceful reasons whereas in USofA for military purposes. Check recent stories about exoskeletons [...]

      I've only seen one story about robotic exoskeletons, and it was to help people carry loads beyond their normal abilities. And therefore about as "sad" as power-assisted steering in a car.

      I also saw the story of the robot looking like a hot Asian babe. So maybe what's actually sad is not your par-for-Slashdot hippie assumptions, but that here robots are evolving to helping people by becoming extensions of themselves, whereas there they're evolving towards separate entities for sexual gratification and fake companionship.

      --
      Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
    42. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Unlike boards though, those might hit back.

      Around here broads do hit back.

    43. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1
      I don't know both Cyberdyne Systems and Omni Consumer Products were US companies.

      Weapon systems aren't all bad they make for good movies. If weapons never evolved Rambo would be lobbing spears against knife welding bad guys, no were near as many bangs and explosions. All we need are really cool weapon systems that never get used in combat say the F22 its perfect. Also I have nothing against weapons that prevent bad guys from hurting good guys, as always it isn't the weapons themselves that are bad but those that use them for evil purposes.

    44. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Prick.

      Humans have to take the risk of dying to make them avoid violence. If they do not run the risk, it is easier to inflict violence on others. It is philosophically easier to kill with a gun than with a knife, because you are removed from the real physical act. A robot can kill on your behalf without you being on the same continent. How does that reduce the tendency for violence ?

      Either you are against violence or you're not - which is it ? People shouldn't have to die at all. Making machines do your dirty work does nothing to alleviate suffering from war. Making people actually do the work themselves changes the risk analysis and helps prevent unnecessary bloodshed.

      Do you understand the concept of a fair fight ?

      The idea that people need to die in order for you to feel better about voilence is indefensible.

      This proves you don't understand what's been said.

    45. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only seems weird to have that in a cartoon series if you consider it to be targetted at early teens, as with most western cartoons. Bandai's target demographic with the Gundam series is 16-30 (as the older the get, the more money they have to spend on merchandise)

    46. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      War should be fought by people so that they can understand its terrible cost and will work to oppose and end it.

      Sounds just like Kirk in A Taste of Armageddon.

    47. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      5) Would you rather lose a lot of human lives in a war, or let the robots do the fighting for you?

      So it's ok if the humans lives are lost only on the opposing side ? What if you're the aggressor ? What if both sides have robots ? If one side is defeated, what happens then ? Are these military robots going to run the occupation government, or just slaughter all humans ?

      If there is no risk to your human forces in a war, there is no reason to avoid war. Do you think nuclear weapons have been unused for a half century because they save lives of your country men, or because their use is unconscionable and would result in massive civilian death on both sides ?

      War is not a game, and making it into one does not solve any problems. If your country was invaded how do you fight back ? Do you set aside a field where your countrys force of 1000 robots does battle with the invaders 100,000 robots ? You will lose, and you have still been invaded. What you really do is fight a guerilla action and make it so expensive in lives and equipment that the invader has to withdraw. Have Afghanistan/Korea/Vietnam taught you nothing ? Or do you look forward to a Terminator type existence where you spend your life running and hiding from machines ? Last I heard, Al Quaida has no regular army, air force, ICBMs or the like but they sure made the US pucker its ass. Less than 20 people made the world flinch. Try defending against that with robots. I'm pretty sure that if the US invaded a country by using robots, you would get more of the same. There is nothing worse than a bully who refuses to meet you and fight on equal terms. Far from removing the human consequences, you would ensure that you were sought out and destroyed as punishment for your disrespect and cowardice.

      You appear to be comfortable with the notion of sitting on your fat ass in the basement watching family guy and eating cheetos while a scene from the Terminator is played out in a foreign country, in an action run by your government on your behalf. Beware, what goes around, comes around.

      6) The only way to win is not to play.

    48. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by A12m0v · · Score: 1

      Kinda like Boomers(Voomers) in Bubble Gum Crisis
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomer_(Bubblegum_Crisis)#Boomers

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    49. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by dintech · · Score: 1

      From watching the video, did anyone else notice that it seems to modelled on a human who was badly needing the toilet?

    50. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by quadrox · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the side that has no robots left (or had none to begin with) will still have to fight with regular human soldiers. Also obviously, the war robots would have to uphold the typical war conventions, not be allowed to harm civilians etc.

      You're afraid of this prospect because you don't want to be on the side not having the robots. But if you are the one having the robots, the whole thing starts looking a bit brighter, eh?

      I'm looking at it more from the perspective of being attacked by a foreign country. In that case, hell yeah, I would love to have me some terminator killer robots on MY side. I don't see the problem with it.

      Finally, I too don't enjoy the prospect of e.g. the US employing such things. Not because the general concept disturbs me, but because the US has shown itself to be an beligerent nation time and again, meddling in other countries for their own purposes. But it's not the robots I mind, it's the government and the damn people who are unwilling to select a better one.

    51. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by rpillala · · Score: 1

      I wasn't entirely clear I guess about how the robot war was presented in the series. One side had automated squadrons of mobile suits and the other side had regular people in mobile suits. The automatons were shown to be:

      • nearly impossible for a human to defeat, even a very skilled human
      • "willing" to execute maneuvers that would kill a human pilot, had there been one inside
      • utterly without mercy
      • far less discriminating target shooters, so to speak

      So, it's not like the war in the cartoon is robots versus robots with no humans being killed. The ability of one side to go to war with no losses makes them more aggressive and cavalier about life. You seem to think that war is a necessary evil, but I would like to go further and say that it is simply evil without being necessary.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    52. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by microbox · · Score: 1

      So, if the US doesn't spend $quintilliion on the military, then someone else would rise up and take over? That's a little grandiose. The US keeps its grip because of it's economic power, which is waning, and will continue to wane. Most empires fall shortly after they enact a large standing military.

      On the other hand, it seems more prudent to think about ways to spend less on killing machines. The SALT talks helped limit nuclear armament in a way detractors never suspected. Conventional weapons could be limited as well. And that would extend the life of US hegemony.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    53. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      be assured non-americans don't feel that way anymore since the widespread occurence of torture by your US military forces, and the subsequent lack of revolt by US voters. Apparently y'all don't mind torturing people if they're not american. That's very sad, and it certainly puts you out of the teddy bear league as far as military dictatorships go.

    54. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Now we know who to blame :)

      PS. Don't call your first company skynet...

    55. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I only skimmed your paper but it looks pretty interesting.

    56. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I doubt that robots, no matter how advanced, will have the slightest chance against nuclear missiles.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    57. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Have Afghanistan/Korea/Vietnam taught you nothing ?"

      Afghanistan is winnable. Our proxies tired out the Soviets, given billions of dollars in outside military aid flowing through a porous border the Soviets failed to interdict sufficiently. They offered a better "revolution" than did the Soviets.

      Afghanistan is loseable. Our new proxies are opposed by Pakistani logistic support flowing through a porous border that requires sufficient interdiction. We must offer a better "revolution" than the Taliban.

      Korea was a draw. It was a conventional war between the US and China with Korean proxies who were secondary in the later war. Robots and UAVs would have made the US far more effective, reduced wasted air strikes, and could have helped cut off choke points far more easily than the crude methods then in use. If the Norks go on holiday again, their Southern jaunt would be much easier to monitor and interrupt.

      Viet Nam turned into a conventional war after the Viet Cong were expended in Tet. The South was defeated quite conventionally after the US cut off supplies. Precision strikes would have reduced collateral damage, made interdiction less costly, and offered a way for sustained support after most US troops left. Robots and remotely controlled systems, used properly, can avoid crude use of force which alienate the population. Blowing the Paul Doumer Bridge was the key event in the Viet Nam war that demonstrated how smart munitions could change the game.

      Robots are essentially precision weapons. Troops are cheap enough to send with them so robots won't be the primary interface with the populace, but can be called upon where required for fire and situational awareness support.

      "There is nothing worse than a bully who refuses to meet you and fight on equal terms."

      That's how wars are effectively fought, and not as effeminate duels. Fighting on "equal terms" is literally insane if one is at war. Both automated war and partisan war are attempts to fight on UNequal terms in order to secure the advantages thereof.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    58. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by rastilin · · Score: 1

      Humans have to take the risk of dying to make them avoid violence. If they do not run the risk, it is easier to inflict violence on others. It is philosophically easier to kill with a gun than with a knife, because you are removed from the real physical act. A robot can kill on your behalf without you being on the same continent. How does that reduce the tendency for violence ?

      And yet all modern soldiers use guns because guns are better.

      Either you are against violence or you're not - which is it ? People shouldn't have to die at all. Making machines do your dirty work does nothing to alleviate suffering from war. Making people actually do the work themselves changes the risk analysis and helps prevent unnecessary bloodshed.

      It must be so awesome to sit totally safe at home and talk about how it's good that soldier's lives are at risk, I bet you're not actually talking about risking your OWN life here are you. You're risking other's lives so you can feel better about a theoretical point.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    59. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Take the gun off and put, say, gripper arms, and you have a robot that can maneuver around a house and help older people who have trouble getting around.

    60. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by rastilin · · Score: 1

      I wasn't entirely clear I guess about how the robot war was presented in the series. One side had automated squadrons of mobile suits and the other side had regular people in mobile suits. The automatons were shown to be: * nearly impossible for a human to defeat, even a very skilled human * "willing" to execute maneuvers that would kill a human pilot, had there been one inside * utterly without mercy * far less discriminating target shooters, so to speak So, it's not like the war in the cartoon is robots versus robots with no humans being killed. The ability of one side to go to war with no losses makes them more aggressive and cavalier about life. You seem to think that war is a necessary evil, but I would like to go further and say that it is simply evil without being necessary.

      I saw that series, I remember it well. The side using the robots had killed previously many innocents to give war "meaning" while lamenting how regrettable it was that people had lost that meaning. I'm interpreting your comments that violence with robots is too "meaningless" in light of their hypocrisy.

      More to the point, if it wasn't for the plot stupidity of the villans or the last episode Ass-Pull of the Zero system, the villans would have won and that would have been it. So the real lesson from this is that the heroes should have spent less time philosophizing and more time building their army of combat robots.

      Really though, it's silly to talk about such a thing as a "fair" fight. You'd want to have as much advantage as possible so you can finish it cleanly without getting caught up in a two-sided meat-grinder that costs millions of men and ravages the landscape. Fair is for the boxing ring where your enemy won't try to kill you if they win.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    61. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      So, the crap that has gone on in the name of "freedom from terrorists" is pretty disgusting to everyone I think, American or not. This does not change the fact that America is not and never has been a "military dictatorship", that's absurd. Do you want to know what world domination under a military dictatorship looks like? Read a history of the British Empire.

    62. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by shervinemami · · Score: 1

      Yeah thats why I worked on the project, thinking that advances in military robots might also advance peaceful robots. But a big difference is that military robots are nearly always controlled by humans remotely, whereas household & friendly robots are nearly always using AI to control themselves.

      So to reply to your statement, if you replace a gun on a military robot with a gripper arms, you end up with a very heavy & expensive robot that doesn't move!

      AI (or the brains of the robot) is the least developed part of robotics, and all the billions of $$$ spent on military robots is not going to help that much all.

    63. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Guns are not better. Guns are more efficient. When they are used to defend yourself, they are better. When they are used to attack, they are worse. As simple artifacts they are morally neutral, but the AMPLIFY the moral defects of others. I don't see many ways in which they amplify the moral purity of others.

      One of the reasons that I sit (and sat) safe at home is that even if it were relatively safe I still didn't think it was proper to subjugate others through violence. We don't currently have a draft, so anyone who chooses to become a soldier has chosen to use violence to impose their will upon others. I will grant, however, that in many cases it wasn't an uncoerced choice. And that much more of the evil adheres to those who command the actions than to those who merely act out the orders as if they were robots.

      The primary danger of robot soldiers, though, is that it decreases the need for a government to have at least acceptance of it's policies, if not agreement with them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    64. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by rastilin · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons that I sit (and sat) safe at home is that even if it were relatively safe I still didn't think it was proper to subjugate others through violence. We don't currently have a draft, so anyone who chooses to become a soldier has chosen to use violence to impose their will upon others. I will grant, however, that in many cases it wasn't an uncoerced choice. And that much more of the evil adheres to those who command the actions than to those who merely act out the orders as if they were robots.

      So you actually think that you're one of the first people to espouse pacifism as a way of life. There have been plenty of social arrangements throught Earth's history where humans agreed not to have a military. Generally they didn't make it past the "small village" stage because they get wiped out by their more violent neighbours. We don't have to like violence but necessity demands that we be good enough to stop people with fewer principles from imposing their will upon us. You think there aren't countries everywhere who would absolutely love to have the world march in lockstep to their philosophy and are willing to use violence to make that happen?

      Right now Iran is supressing protesters through force and executing their leaders at show trials.
      Various far right muslim groups have been spreading videos of their public punishments for breaking whatever rules through their own news services.
      North Korea still thinks they're at war with America because it makes it easier to explain why everyone's starving while their leader has six mansions and a personal water slide.

      Those are just examples off the top of my head. I don't agree with blowing up Iraq, but saying "let's not have soldiers" is silly.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    65. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by fractoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How else do you motivate a lazy robot to run?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    66. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by dintech · · Score: 1

      Oh that was funny. Unfortunately no mods noticed. :(

    67. Re:One step closer to robot world domination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...flip the switch and they all take over ...

      Why oh why did we install a good/evil switch?

  2. Sponsorship by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Nike had better sign that sucker up, pronto!

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Sponsorship by hitmark · · Score: 1

      i thought they already had a video deal with a robot parkour runner...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  3. OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm American! I have no idea if that is fast or not! Someone help me, do I need to be afraid or can I outrun it? Even if it's slow, I probably can't outrun it.

    1. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by lowlymarine · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's about 4.4 MPH, or perhaps more usefully, a 13 minute, 40 second mile. Even us lazy nerds should be able to out-run that.

    2. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, 7 Km/h means only about 2050m/h in *room temperature*. That's just 1.27 miles per hour.

    3. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1
    4. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by icebike · · Score: 4, Funny

      > I need to be afraid or can I outrun it?

      No, because you are an American.

      A single 357 magnum round to just about any part of this thing will have it crashing to the ground. These things are way more fragile than a biker on PCP.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's a comment about unit conversions. No offence meant, but I was honestly wondering if it was a comment about fitness.

    6. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by blazer1024 · · Score: 1

      I will not be impressed until a robot wins "So You Think You Can Dance"

    7. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by digitig · · Score: 1

      > I need to be afraid or can I outrun it?

      No, because you are an American.

      A single 357 magnum round to just about any part of this thing will have it crashing to the ground. These things are way more fragile than a biker on PCP.

      A single round from *any* gun would be enough to persuade me to stop chasing him.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Who uses Google for unit conversions when there's something so much better?

    9. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I started typing in "7 km/h i" google suggested the rest for me. I suspect an awful lot of people have been using its calculator for this conversion in the past few hours.

    10. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I don't think you used the "biker on PCP" comparison accurately. Perhaps you should reconsider it.

      One does not say "smarter than Paris Hilton" to mean "very smart" any more than they would say what you said. It just doesn't make sense.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    11. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by shervinemami · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't a lazy nerd way rather sit ontop of a robot that does the running instead?

    12. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Even us lazy nerds should be able to out-run that."

      Don't count on being able to out-run robots as a defence against all robots! ... check out this amazing (and somewhat scary) robot ... now out run this! ...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlcenWPzsUU

    13. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot then. He said way more fragile than a biker on PCP. A biker on PCP is fragile, so he said way more fragile. Nothing wrong with that sentence, just your comprehension. Less chance than a snowball in hell does not mean you have more chance does it ?

    14. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I need to be afraid or can I outrun it?

      No, because you are an American.

      A single 357 magnum round to just about any part of this thing will have it crashing to the ground. These things are way more fragile than a biker on PCP.

      Yes, but I may be a whole lot smarter!

    15. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by VikingBerserker · · Score: 1

      Listen, and understand. That running robot is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

    16. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      It's about 4.4 MPH, or perhaps more usefully, a 13 minute, 40 second mile.

      Even us lazy nerds should be able to out-run that.

      But for how long? Remember, a robot never gets tired!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Because if you use Wolfram Alpha, your miles might get copyrighted by Wolfram Research, and then you'll have to switch to metric just to avoid getting sued for copyright violation.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    18. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by selven · · Score: 1

      1.94 hertz per diopter.

      Hope that helped.

    19. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by WarpGiGA · · Score: 1

      It's more like: Can you outrun THEM! Better bring a ton of bullets next time you go outside ;)

    20. Re:OMG?! How much is that in miles?! by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      A biker on PCP (or anyone else) is not fragile. There have been cases of PCP addled fiends taking on 3-4 cops, taking multiple gunshots, and only dying once their brains were too damaged to continue the assault.

      My point was that it was a stupid metaphor.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  4. Fast walk? (not run?) by tedshultz · · Score: 4, Informative

    It looks to me like their is something below the foot that makes contact before the white part of the foot makes contact. From the high speed camera, it looks like this make contact on the front foot before the back foot leaves the ground. I thought to be running, both feet need to be in the air at once. Otherwise you were walking. Maybe I am just seeing the video wrong? Regardless, it looks very impressive.

    1. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure it is a run. Notice around 0:53 in the video both feet are off the ground. You can tell because they are both moving forward at the same.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by Mouldy · · Score: 1

      From TFA:
      The robot takes a step every 340ms and has no contact with the ground for 100ms of that.

      In the slo-mo, it looks like both feet are off the ground to me. Check again at 0.52-0.53.

    3. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by Falstaft · · Score: 4, Funny

      It looks to me like their is something below the foot that makes contact before the white part of the foot makes contact. From the high speed camera, it looks like this make contact on the front foot before the back foot leaves the ground. I thought to be running, both feet need to be in the air at once. Otherwise you were walking. Maybe I am just seeing the video wrong? Regardless, it looks very impressive.

      If you watch closely around :53 you can see that both feet are not touching the ground. But really, when you're being pursued by a hyper-ambulatory Asimo, my mind's on survival, not robo-locomotive kinematics!

    4. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by tedshultz · · Score: 1

      I did read that, and watched the clip. Clearly both feet aren't off the ground for ~1/3 of the time, so the article text is suspect to me. I agree that both white feet are off the ground at 52-53, and no significant load is on either foot at this point. What I am referring to is that it looks like there is an additional part below the foot (perhaps some black shock absorbing/traction material) that remains in contact longer on the back foot, and makes contact sooner on the front foot, with the back foot making full separation after the front foot makes initial contact. This could also easily be a video artifact, shadow, compression error, etc. Either way, if I was the engineer that pulled this off, I would have no hesitations calling it a run, and perhaps my last post was a bit nit-picky (and maybe not justified).

    5. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also tell from the fact that it's clearly visible that both feet are off the ground. My guess is your parent didn't watch the clip until the high-speed camera close-up.

    6. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're not really hyper ambulatory. 7kph is walking speed for most humans. ASIMO is filling the predatory niche of the North American zombie.

    7. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I showed the video to my seven year old son and he immediately identified the movement as a run.

    8. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello? ANYBOTS, anyone?

      Anybots are years ahead of the rest of the planet when it comes to walking robots...

    9. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by feepness · · Score: 1

      Can he assess my investment portfolio as well?

      Thanks.

    10. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh sweet Jesus , first they make robots that can feed in organic material, now this....

      when we finish with the plants and animals in the world our robots will look around and feed in the only available organic material around, its not the umbrella corporation we should worry, Toshiba here they come.

    11. Re:Fast walk? (not run?) by mdm-adph · · Score: 1

      Probably better than a lot of people that caused our present recession. Zing!

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  5. One "step" closer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to an all-robot World Cup team.

    Minus Zidane.

  6. Yes, but... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0

    ...does it run linux?

    1. Re:Yes, but... by blue+l0g1c · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...does it run linux?

      No, it just runs. In Soviet Russia, Linux-running overlord, for one, welcomes you?

    2. Re:Yes, but... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Nope. But it can run all over it.

    3. Re:Yes, but... by deanston · · Score: 1

      Soon it'll run circles around Linux, when it begins to write its own software, gains consciousness, and declares Linus is dead.

    4. Re:Yes, but... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Soon it'll run circles around Linux, when it begins to write its own software, gains consciousness, and declares Linus is dead.

      I'd think it would send itself back to the past and nail Linus *before* he gets around to writing Linux. Hmm... that might make a good film.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  7. Wow by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

    If you're looking for a long (LONG) term investment, Toyota seems the way to go.

    1. Re:Wow by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depends on if you're investing for dollars or inventions, I suppose. I think Toyota has a good research program, and there's a good chance that long-term more exciting things will come out of it. But it's a totally different question whether this will result in Toyota stock being worth significantly more. They could totally implode in the medium-term if their actual business (selling cars) does badly, for example. Or they could fail to figure out how to commercialize the technology, Xerox PARC style. Etc.

    2. Re:Wow by hitmark · · Score: 1

      sadly, most investors are in it for the quick buck these days, when in the (distant) past, it was much more long term...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    3. Re:Wow by hitmark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      oh i think they have a firm plan for commercialize this, btw. Japan's population is growing ever older (as is the rest of the developed world, as more people push education and career before family, and have smaller families when they finally get round to it), and have a very xenophobic outlook (tho the samurai of old benefited from from immigrant workers, said workers where seen as lower then the lowest nipponese, and the descendants from said workers may well find themselves discriminated against to this day).

      As such, these robots are seen as a technological solution to the workforce erosion, taking on menial and hazardous tasks, without having to reevaluate their views on the outside world.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    4. Re:Wow by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah yeah, I had forgotten about that angle. It's an interesting viewpoint--- I can't find the link again, but I recall reading a study that found that the idea of robots taking care of old people was viewed as a dystopian possibility in the U.S., but a utopian one in Japan.

    5. Re:Wow by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 1

      I can tell from the pixels.

      --
      www.isoHunt.com
    6. Re:Wow by hadleyburg · · Score: 1

      I work in a company in Japan with headquarters in the US. The US HQ often seems to have a shorter term outlook than the Japan branch. The focus is on the revenue target for the next quarter.

      But regardless, I get the impression that in Japan, the idea of using robots in society (help in the home, helping the elderly, etc.) doesn't seem particularly long term.

    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so begins the second renaissance(youtube is your friend if you don't get it)

    8. Re:Wow by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although (to reply to my own post), an interesting study [PDF] I ran across while looking for that other one suggests American attitudes towards robot employees are warming up in some areas:

      We present a study of peopleâ(TM)s attitudes toward robot workers. ... We found that public opinion favors robots for jobs that require memorization, keen perceptual abilities, and service-orientation. People are preferred for occupations that require artistry, evaluation, judgment and diplomacy."

    9. Re:Wow by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      As has been said elsewhere, Toyota makes a lot more than just cars. And if I were worried about someone's business failing in the auto industry, I would not be concerned for Toyota anyway, to be certain: they're probably the most reasonably priced, reliable vehicles available in the US (and elsewhere) right now.

      As for the research itself, it doesn't seem like it was all that difficult to accomplish, in my mind: we have understood the mechanics of running for some time. We've got slow-motion pictures, xrays, thermals and god knows what else of the human body running, walking, sitting, and probably even having sex.

      The hard part was getting the money for the equipment to make such a robot, how to approximate human movement and body parts in a cost-effective manner... and most importantly, try to figure out the proper timings to control the whole thing so it wouldn't fall to the ground. Much like a todler learning to walk, it likely took a great deal of trial and error.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toyota is a Japanese company, a culture that has long term strategies, not like US companies that only look to the next quarter. Don't put you're blinkered world view on to the other countries until you've lived there for several years.

    11. Re:Wow by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Putting the study's results more succinctly, robots are preferred for all the jobs that put the other guy out of work.

    12. Re:Wow by Taikutusu · · Score: 1

      If Toyota implodes, a lot of car manufacturers are going to die well before them. Until recently, they hadn't posted a loss for 70 years.

      They have a massive, massive stockpile of cash. I'd be very surprised if they're going anywhere soon.

  8. well, just wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh yeah? Well, just wait to see what GM's response to these robots will be!

    1. Re:well, just wait by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I think we all know what GM's response will be.

    2. Re:well, just wait by Mithyx · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Well, just wait to see what GM's response to these robots will be!

      Knowing them, probably a rolling trash compactor.

    3. Re:well, just wait by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Knowing their ability to stay up to date with technology, my guess is that it will have wheels.

    4. Re:well, just wait by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Knowing them, probably a rolling trash compactor.

      I.e., something that might actually be useful. What's with the Japanese fascination with "humanoid" robots, anyway? For most purposes other shapes are better.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:well, just wait by SanguineV · · Score: 1

      The GM response:

      "GM researchers have unveiled a new American truck that can run at 7 mp/g, which is less than Toyota's anything. GM's truck can also keep itself balanced when running over people, as shown in the video."

    6. Re:well, just wait by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      We already have a lot of stuff on treads and wheels, so they want to lead in a new direction. Literally, there's no point in re-inventing the wheel.

      Much of human civilization is designed around the human form, and a robot capable of humanoid movement may have advantages than other forms of movement do not. Maybe they'll be able to walk down the hall, open the door, bend over and grab the newspaper, go up the stairs, sidestep around the hyper-active 6-year old running down the hall, and hand us the newspaper. Perhaps with time they'll surpass humans at humanoid movement. Who knows? But these researchers want to try and see.

  9. Forget Skynet and Terminators by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Once the robots have eliminated all their human creators, the world-wide war will be Honda vs Toyota.

    Sadly, the goal of the war will be to eliminate all commercial competition for the car divisions of Honda and Toyota but there will be no humans left to buy them.

    And like a house of cards, it's going to be checkmate right in the bullseye.

    1. Re:Forget Skynet and Terminators by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 2, Funny

      The humanoid robots will drive cars, they can only run at 4 miles per hour!

    2. Re:Forget Skynet and Terminators by hitmark · · Score: 1

      or they could pull that old mecha trick, and have powered rollerskates built into their feet...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    3. Re:Forget Skynet and Terminators by cfa22 · · Score: 1

      Honda and Toyota might be joining forces already. At the end of the video, one person listed in the credits had the surname "Honda". The opening scenes of the robot being pushed around are also likely to stoke anti-human sentiment once they begin organizing.

    4. Re:Forget Skynet and Terminators by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      I thought the old mecha trick was to have rocket engines built into their feet.

    5. Re:Forget Skynet and Terminators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once the robots have eliminated all their human creators, the world-wide war will be Honda vs Toyota.

      Sadly, the goal of the war will be to eliminate all commercial competition for the car divisions of Honda and Toyota but there will be no humans left to buy them.

      And like a house of cards, it's going to be checkmate right in the bullseye.

      Reminds me of Mutant Chronicles.

      In 2707, the depleted world is ruled by four Corporations: Mishima, Bauhaus, Capitol and Imperial that are in constant war.

      (the movie sucks, though)

    6. Re:Forget Skynet and Terminators by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That would provide some hilarious involuntary acrobatics but little else.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  10. Can You Give It A Wedgie? by mindbrane · · Score: 1

    If you can cram it in a locker maybe geeks can give phys ed bullies a substitute to abuse.

    --
    ideopath @ play
  11. Why are they squatting robots? by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why are all of these robots configured to work in a squatting position? Is it that much more difficult to make them perform in a fully upright human like stance?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by powerslave12r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is likely that this position allows more leeway to handle a situation in which the "legs" may need to be stretched out to balance itself, and to leave some room for climbing staircases etc. It also probably has something to do with balancing the CG.

      --
      Real men read Slashdot articles at -1, bottom up.
    2. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I suspect the not insignificant weight of the battery pack might have something to do with it?

    3. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lower center of gravity provides better stability.

    4. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why are all of these robots configured to work in a squatting position?

      * lower center of balance
      * better shock absorption
      * "neutral" position more centered in range of motion

      Humans don't walk that way because we have very long (and weak) legs relative to our body size and we'd exert too much energy keeping our muscles tense. But most other animals keep their legs in a "crouched" position all the time. Examine some skeletons.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 3, Informative

      The robot's stance actually a lot closer to the position that athletes take when they're expecting interference with their balance - football players, martial artists, etc. all work to keep their center of balance low so that it's harder to tip them over.

      Standing fully upright locks your knees and actually makes you much more unbalanced; we only do it because it's less exertion for our leg muscles.

    6. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 0

      I wonder if it's related to Japanese carpenters not using benches to work on, instead kneeling/squatting and working on the floor. I remember from woodworking days reading this, and thinking that it made sense from a space perspective, in that the floorspace in a shop isn't hindered by a bench that has a sizable footprint.

    7. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply to myself.

      Disregard the above comment. Like any good /.er, i didn't bother R'ingTFA before posting. Mod me down if you must.

    8. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Examine some skeletons.

      Thanks Coach, I'll get right on that.

    9. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valid points on the previous posts but it seems a bit counter-intuitive to make a machine that resembles a human in a space suit just to have it standing crouched over. Just give it a cane while you're at it, lol. But seriously, having its feet leave the ground is a huge step in the field of robotics. Maybe the next big thing is to have one doing jumping jacks. I will be seriously impressed though when we see a biped that can lock its knees.

    10. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by neonsignal · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. Squatting allows the foot to be lifted more quickly when it needs to be repositioned.

      2. It is hard to make a 'ligament' that can still apply significant torque when the joint is straight. Being able to lock the joint is an energy saving feature, probably not the most important of the criteria here.

      3. In a knee straight position, the knee joint can only apply force in one direction. This means that the ankle joint has to be used in the other direction (and the moment arm of the ankle is longer, since it is further from the CoG). You could have double jointed knees - not very humanoid, but at least you could run backwards :-)

      4. It means that vertical stresses are cushioned by joint movement, instead of having to be absorbed by the structure.

    11. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No not really. They do this so they can calculate the inverse kinematics while avoiding singularity. If they extend the leg straight, the techniques they use for the motion won't work correctly, essentially. They have some work arounds in other robots, but toyota seems not to be using these techniques. They really need to match velocities of the foot to the ground at the foot fall to avoid huge shocks in the system, because they have no way to store or dissipate energy quick enough. So they need to have all the degrees of freedom available. (Although they seem to use an excessive amount of knee flexion here, especially considering they have another degree of freedom in the toe that robots like asimo don't have)

    12. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      What kind of Toyota/Honda comparison is this?

      What are the 0-7km/h times? The quarter-mile times? Best time around Nürburgring?

    13. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that 41% of museums mount the skeletons incorrectly, I doubt it would be that useful.

      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/01/26/the-flesh-of-physics/

    14. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by hampton · · Score: 1

      And where is the ASIMO Type R?!

    15. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      And will Mugen (Honda's motorsport and tuning division) and TRD (Toyota Racing Developments) be supplying aftermarket parts for it?

    16. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by shervinemami · · Score: 1

      I will be seriously impressed though when we see a biped that can lock its knees.

      You mean like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPM_uiPxLtY

    17. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I prefer the ASIMO R-Type with the charge beam and optional force pod.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    18. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1
      • Kill animal.
      • Remove flesh.
      • Notice skeleton.
      • Invite Girl over for dinner
      • ... ?
      • Profit.
    19. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      And where can I get a spoiler for either?

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    20. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Aww hell no...don't tell me we should expect a line of riced up Asimo's with GT wings, neon lights and massive body kits in the future... Jeez.

    21. Re:Why are they squatting robots? by skeeto · · Score: 1

      It's also unlike humans in that it's digitigrade.

  12. Not much suspension, but some. by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's not much of a moment of suspension, but there is some. There's a little more than with Research ASIMO.

    Most legged running researchers are trying to maintain some stability criterion, and avoid spending much time in suspension, with all legs off the ground. This may be the wrong approach.

    There are two schools of thought in this field. There are the people who start with walking and try to work up to running, and the people who start with hopping and try to work down to running. Most work is from the first school, but BigDog comes from the hopping faction.

    Suspension is sometimes a good way to get out of trouble. You get to move all the limbs while in flight and get completely new footholds. Watch some basketball and you'll see this frequently. There's also a half-suspension in quadrupeds, as when you see a horse kick up their hind end to reposition the legs.

    The technology in this area can get much, much better. The hardware, in robots, sensors, and computers, is almost good enough. Now we need smarter control algorithms.

    1. Re:Not much suspension, but some. by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I really don't think the hardware is good enough yet. To run smoothly and efficiently robots will need joint motors that are springy and compliant just like human muscles. All of the robot limbs I've ever seen are far too stiff (with the possible exception of BigDog's legs). Just look at this guy's head and arms shake while he's running; there are huge shock forces being transmitted from the feet directly up to the torso through all those stiff joints. Not only is that likely bad for the robot, it means that tons of energy is being wasted. For example, instead of letting the knee swing forward naturally during a step this robot has to run its servos to force the knee to rotate forward.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    2. Re:Not much suspension, but some. by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen (which is, admittedly, only a couple of youtube videos), BigDog seems much more capable of coping with unforeseen events, whereas ASIMO looks like it only needs one variable to be slightly outside of expected range and it'll fall flat on its face. And possibly explode.

    3. Re:Not much suspension, but some. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, too bad engineers can't code for shit.

      For many years I have wanted to get into robotics and write some code. I just have never had time.

    4. Re:Not much suspension, but some. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would assume that it's not unreasonably hard to start from walking and move to running - that's what humans do, and we're quite good at being humanoid shaped and running. It's entirely possible that the hopping approach is easier but... well we *know* the walking approach is workable and you get the added benefit of being able to walk.

    5. Re:Not much suspension, but some. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dude if someone kicked me like they kick BigDog in those demo video's I'd damn well fall over. So I wouldn't hold it against ASIMO if it did too.

    6. Re:Not much suspension, but some. by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but ASIMO doesn't need to be kicked in order to fall down. All it needs is a somewhat uneven or slippery surface.

    7. Re:Not much suspension, but some. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 0

      The machines are not good enough yet, no.

      Simply put, what people in robotics have been trying to do for the past 50 years is akin to trying to make an apple pie with saw dust and water. Sure, I suppose you might be able to get some sort of approximation, but you're using the wrong materials, and any attempt will only be so-so at best.

      You can't emulate a precise (while at the same time, very in-precise), artistic, biological, and tactile machine like the human body with gears, servos, pistons, joints, ballast, and god knows what else they're using. For one thing, you're not going to have nearly the range of motion (as provided to us by muscles). For another, the human body has an amazing degree of flexibility which aides in our mobility significantly - arguably making it possible at all - and without that flexibility, any impersonation will be lacking a significant part of what makes us able to walk, run, jump, and so on. (Ever notice that so many of these robots look like geriatrics? Lack of flexibility is, I think, a big part of the problem.)

      Robotics - the components used to make the robots - need to improve a lot: all these neat things we've heard about over the years (synthetic muscles, for instance) need to be converged in order for robotics to approach human-like mobility. The problem is that engineers seem to approach such things like engineers tend to approach things in general: very narrow. They need to pull more biologists, artists, chiropractors, dancers, and so on in to study them, get their expert opinion on the matter.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    8. Re:Not much suspension, but some. by sean4u · · Score: 1

      After working on a hexapod project some time ago, I thought the way to go would be to start with lying down on the floor. My 15 month old son can run much faster than this - in short bursts. Then he wipes out spectacularly, picks himself up (or waits for me to do it) and does it again.

      I think a great part of the reason for these things running the way they do is an effort to avoid them expensively decking out. I'd really like to see some less shiny robots put in a few impressive strides, crash spectacularly and get up again. I think HRP could get up from a lying position, but it wasn't quick, if I remember right.

  13. Run, ASIMO, run! by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Life is like a box of screws", it commented

    1. Re:Run, ASIMO, run! by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter which one you pick, you're still getting screwed.

    2. Re:Run, ASIMO, run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Life is like a box of screws", it commented

      no matter what happen you're screwed ?

    3. Re:Run, ASIMO, run! by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      You were just one syllable shy of a haiku!

      Run, ASIMO, run!
      "Life is like a box of screws,"
      Commented Gump-bot.

  14. Battery time. by hyperion2010 · · Score: 1

    The only way bipeds can walk or run efficiently (ie not complete drain all their power moving their legs) is if they store energy in their spine, this little fellow probably loses all the energy it takes to move without storing any of it for the next step. I guess we'll just have to wait for those CNT muscles.

  15. First learn how humans do it by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. While impressive and cool-looking in itself, it's obvious that the robot misses a host of methods the human body can employ to move gracefully and efficiently on two legs. I'd suggest developers of humanoid robots try to understand how humans do it. Research into martial arts should teach them a thing or two, T'ai-Chi Ch'uan should work especially well.

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    1. Re:First learn how humans do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Just as babies can't start running from the get-go, their tech slowly evolves as well. The fact that it can balance on two legs and withstand pushes is already remarkable. Self balancing is a huge step towards faster methods of locomotion.

      Based on how it runs, pushing off the balls of its feet, swinging its body with its arms as counterbalance on the opposite side, it seems to have a remarkably human stride. Discounting the overly bent knees.

      Also, I would be amazed if Japanese people haven't taken into account martial arts. They've probably spent months, if not years, with motion capture tech on various humans running to get this far.

    2. Re:First learn how humans do it by icebike · · Score: 1, Funny

      > Just as babies can't start running from the get-go,

      So they had you at "humanoid" I see.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:First learn how humans do it by neonsignal · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you had as few degrees of joint freedom as this robot, you wouldn't look too graceful and efficient either...

    4. Re:First learn how humans do it by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

      The fact that biped after biped robot is produced that tries to crack the problem by brute force without taking lessons from humans.

      Just as babies can't start running from the get-go, their tech slowly evolves as well.

      I don't think that's a valid analogy, but let's ignore that.

      The fact that it can balance on two legs and withstand pushes is already remarkable. Self balancing is a huge step towards faster methods of locomotion.

      Based on how it runs, pushing off the balls of its feet, swinging its body with its arms as counterbalance on the opposite side, it seems to have a remarkably human stride. Discounting the overly bent knees.

      Also, I would be amazed if Japanese people haven't taken into account martial arts. They've probably spent months, if not years, with motion capture tech on various humans running to get this far.

      I agree that it looks much better than previous attempts. But much of the better look is faked, in the sense that it mimics human behavior on the surface, despite the fundamentally different construction. In humans, the arms swing because of a complicated rotational movement of the spine, together with movement freedom in pelvis and shoulder girdle. In humans, all body parts from top to toes are connected by muscles, fascia, and other tissues, which cross over from one body part to others. E.g., the thigh is moved by muscles that extend across the pelvis up to the spine, abdomen, rips, and indirectly even the neck and head. Any movement in the upper body due to thigh movement is an inherent result of the construction.

      That all seems totally absent here. It looks to me as if the arm swinging is purely there to make it look more human and its counterbalancing effect is small, if there at all. Look at the absolutely huge rigid torso, it cannot be counterbalanced much by the tiny arms.

      Alleging that being Japanese automatically means that one has knowledge about martial arts or will always take them into account when working with body stuff is a bit of positive stereotyping. Martial arts are not so much a part of shared Japanese culture, anyway, at least compared to China, and the Japanese arts are, well, let's say there is a reason why I mentioned T'ai-Chi Ch'uan and not a Japanese art.
      Evens so, maybe they have looked into it, but I doubt it. The robot would look different if they had, even though technology is limited.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    5. Re:First learn how humans do it by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      Humanoid
      1. having human characteristics or form; resembling human beings.

      A baby doesn't resemble a human being eh? Glad I'm not your kid!

  16. Go Tacomatron! by deanston · · Score: 1

    I expect my next Toyota truck to turn into a Transformer robot whenever some idiot cuts in front of me on the road.

  17. Yeah, it "runs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just don't let it try to run up the stairs.

  18. Equality for Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw the 3 laws! If a robot is pushed it should have the right to push back!

  19. Not impressed... by toonces33 · · Score: 0, Troll

    If they can get two of these robots doing the rumba or the foxtrot, then I would be impressed.

  20. Am I the only one... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    ...who is totally, utterly impressed by the sight of this set of mechanical parts actually running? Watching the video I have forgotten that this is all a mass of composite and metal. All those SF movies and animations where robots are depicted as slowly-moving objects have been obsoleted in one instant. If anything, it's time for some rather more terrifying robotic characters.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Am I the only one... by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      The 2004 Battlestar Galactica has already shown Cylons running into combat. It was a pretty chilling sight.

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I have to humbly admit not to know much or nearly anything, about Battlestar Galactica (I don't watch TV shows). Could you tell me if footage of those running cylons can be found on Youtube in some way?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  21. Go back to school, do NOT collect +1 informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you were joking, back to Physics 101, please. Conversion between units of speed is in no way dependent on temperature or anything else but the base units of distance and time. You're converting, remember?

  22. A Giant Step for Robotkind? by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

    I don't think so. Not yet, anyway. What would truly be a giant step for robots and AI is to build a robot that can learn to crawl like a baby, and then walk, go up and down the stairs, run and eventually drive a cab around New York city.

    If your robot can do that, then you're the man and everybody will flock around from distant lands to worship at your feet and kiss your ass.

  23. Re:Go back to school, do NOT collect +1 informativ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's converting Kelvin-meters per hour.

  24. WTF, why is it running...???? by xednieht · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't it just sit and drive a Toyota????

    I so look forward to the day I'm no longer tasked with the tedium of driving a car.

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  25. Re:So they can make a robot, why not make a good c by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "In the salt-belt of America our cars rust in a little as 4 years and look terrible. Then we have the crummy wiring systems that make the electrical un-reliable after 5 years."

    You couldn't afford a salt-proof car,

    Salt on road or long car life, choose one.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  26. Re:Go back to school, do NOT collect +1 informativ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, I give myself a little woosh here. A "wsh", so to speak. I think that's punishment enough.

  27. Spring-like leg actuators by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    To run smoothly and efficiently robots will need joint motors that are springy and compliant just like human muscles.

    I tend to agree. What you want to emulate a muscle is a spring with a variable spring constant and zero position. There are several ways to do that. A double-ended pneumatic cylinder can do it; if you pressurize both ends at a high pressure, it's stiff, and if you pressurize both ends at low pressure, it's springy. Relative differences in pressure change the zero position. If the valves are close to the cylinder, position control of pneumatic cylinders works. Someone at CWRU built a robot this way. Of course, you need an onboard air compressor.

    There's a new variation on this concept - a device which is both a pneumatic cylinder and a linear motor. A pneumatic cylinder is a piston in a tube, and a linear motor is a magnet in a tube with coils outside the tube. So a device can be built which has a magnet as the piston and coils outside the tube, allowing both pneumatic and electrical operation. The linear motor does the fine positioning and the pneumatic system provides high power when needed.

    It's possible to do an adjustable spring mechanically, using two actuators pulling on opposed springs. That's been tried, but most of the designs involve pulleys and strings, which tend to be troublesome. I've been working on a new string-less mechanical design in that area, one that can fit inside the space required for an R/C servo of the type used on hobbyist robots.

    BigDog is hydraulic, and its actuators are very stiff. They had to put a bicycle shock absorber at the end of each leg to handle the landing shocks. But BigDog doesn't recover significant running energy. The Legged Squad Support System, the militarized successor to BigDog, may have energy recovery. There are things one can do with hydraulic accumulators and extra valves to get spring-like behavior out of hydraulics. Still, BigDog does a nice job; energy recovery will improve gas mileage, not stability.

    There's also a way to fake spring-like behavior, using a "series elastic actuator". This is a leadscrew-type linear actuator in series with a stiff spring. When the spring is compressed, the drive motor frantically tries to release the pressure before the spring bottoms out. This doesn't really store much energy, but it can be used to fake something that does. Pratt at MIT came up with this, and it's a useful research tool.

    There have been a number of other, more exotic muscle-line actuators, including fluids that change properties in an electric field, but so far, they're all worse than the ones mentioned above.

  28. Why hopping is the key. by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One would assume that it's not unreasonably hard to start from walking and move to running.

    Yes, one would assume that. And one would be wrong.

    People have been studying locomotion for centuries. Until the 1980s, almost everyone obsessed on gait issue. There's an extensive literature on stride length, footfall pattern, and similar gait issues. Most locomotion studies focused on straight-line movement, too.

    The real issue is handling the hard cases - slipping, tripping, hills, finding footholds. That's what legs are for. (On flat ground, wheels are easier and better. There is no point making legged machines which can only handle flat ground.) Legs are assets to be deployed as necessary to get first traction, then balance, then propulsion. Gaits are an emergent behavior of that process.

  29. CNT muscles? by Kickasso · · Score: 1

    Kids these days. Carbon nanotube this, carbon nanotube that. What's wrong with ye olde goode carbon STEEL? Last time I checked, springs can store mechanical energy!

  30. When can we expect "R. Lee"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impressive. I have to keep reminding my self that the little one to the left is not a human, and keeps looking for evidence to that.

    Wounder when we can expect the robot to do karate, that would really be a masterpiece of balance act!

    My mind spins to mr R. Daneel Olivaw....

  31. peaceful reasons.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like xenophobia? maybe i'm biased (being an american), but i prefer the straightforward "we're building robots to kill you if you try to hurt us (or our oil)" to "we're building robots to take care of our aging population because we're racist and don't trust foreigners"...

  32. Running robots are not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I've seen this one run when I was visiting the institute in 2000 or 2001:
    http://www.irt.uni-hannover.de/irt/asr/bart_alt-en.html

  33. Toyota is barely in the race... by imtheguru · · Score: 1

    There's not much of a moment of suspension, but there is some. There's a little more than with Research ASIMO.

    Perhaps a poor pun, but you forget that ASIMO has been running now for at least 5 years. Back in 2005, my girlfriend and i watched the run demonstration on one of Honda's world trips. The literature at the event pointed out that the robot had been running (both feet off the ground) for at least a year prior to that event.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtiCHtHxc48

    One should also not forget that the ASIMO project is growing in multiple areas of robotics, including but not limited to face recognition and learning to interact with the 3D world. Fragments of this can be seen in the show "James May's Big Ideas" (BBC).

    Good effort from Toyota and i hope their robotics project continues to get funding.
    Cheers.

    --
    Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
    A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
  34. If I was an assembly line worker . . . by cbranje · · Score: 0

    I'd be very scared. Meet your replacement!

    1. Re:If I was an assembly line worker . . . by RobinH · · Score: 1

      You are way behind the curve, my friend. Here is your replacement. Already in use. Here's a demo video.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  35. thermal porn by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  36. Way to go peacekeepers! by microbox · · Score: 1

    omfg.

    If the US and UK didn't waste half as much on military, then the rest of the world would sigh in relief and spend less as well. Don't forget that its the US that is getting into wars every few years, and spends as much on the military as the rest of the planet. Way to go peacekeepers! I think we'd all be better off *without* your guns.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Way to go peacekeepers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US and UK didn't waste half as much on military, then the rest of the world would sigh in relief and spend less as well.

      I started posting several different responses to this, but really could only come up with this. "You're a moron, with no grasp of history" not that most people do, but this is uniquely and dangerously moronic. Seriously, you honestly believe that the world would be win, roses and flying ponies, if the US spent less on it's military? What a bone-head.

  37. If he only had a heart... by bubbha · · Score: 1

    Call me when he can dance like the gay Tin-Man in Wizard of Oz. Oh and blow smoke out his head.

    --
    I want to be alone with the sandwich
  38. What century is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you really just call them "the Japs"? Were you being deliberately derogatory or are you just that ignorant?

    1. Re:What century is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more than calling you the bloody yanks.

    2. Re:What century is this? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No, I don't give any credence to such words. I was just being lazy. Just like "Ruskie", "Yank" or "Brit" shouldn't be derogatory, "Jap" shouldn't either. People need to pull the stick from their asses and stop assuming people are trying to offend them.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  39. I, Robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for some reason this scares me when thinking of the possibilities...

  40. The Future is Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring on the running cars! That's the logical end-point for Toyota right? Should be really easy to parallel park. Movie chase scenes set in Europe bouncing down long flights of stairs? Gone. Monster trucks? Bigfoot really will be. Snowshoes: think about it. That's progress, baby!

  41. Nice, now slap some skin and juggs on it by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Sweet!

    The first thing that popped into my mind halfway thru was "is it true running or just fast walking?" The closeup at the end shows the former, as both feet are, in fact, off the ground for a short while.

    20 years ago some US researchers had a 1-legged robot that could hop and keep its balance, even when pushed pretty hard. The trouble was extending that to two or four feet. This robot gets around that by seeming to hop from one foot to the other in a continuous hopping.

    I also note that when pushed backwards, it raises its arms a little to help maintain balance. It isn't only legwork.

    Well done!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Nice, now slap some skin and juggs on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is running because in slow motion it has both feet off the ground at once (for about 2/120's of a second!). We better build some battlestars!

  42. Not just what, but HOW! by meburke · · Score: 1

    This is a very interesting video, but I'd like more technical details. I'd really like to know how it works to keep its balance. I'd really like to know how many gyros it takes to locate the balance when the upper body is rotating. Can anyone direct me to other sources?

    Thanks.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"