Slashdot Mirror


High-Speed Robot Hand Shows Dexterity and Speed

An anonymous reader tips a blog posting that begins "A few blogs are passing around videos of the Ishikawa Komuro Lab's high-speed robot hand performing impressive acts of dexterity and skillful manipulation. However, the video being passed around is slight on details. Meanwhile, their video presentation at ICRA 2009 (which took place in May in Kobe, Japan) has an informative narration and demonstrates additional capabilities. ... [It] shows the manipulator dribbling a ping-pong ball, spinning a pen, throwing a ball, tying knots, grasping a grain of rice with tweezers, and tossing / re-grasping a cellphone!"

133 comments

  1. And I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Welcome our new robot overlords.

    1. Re:And I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that high speed robotic hand is going to either burn the skin off your penis or make you into a one second man

    2. Re:And I, for one by BattleApple · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...or make you into a one second man

      so it can basically double the staying power of the average /.er? I'm sold!

  2. Finally! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    I can high five a robot and get it to do it PROPERLY.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:Finally! by jcr · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... and with the pressure sensors, it probably won't break your hand.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      This robot only achieves a "high three", but I am sure that with some competition, we will be seeing 100-fingered robots really soon!

    3. Re:Finally! by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      ... and with the pressure sensors, it probably won't break your hand.

      yah, especially our pe.. err.. you know the reason this was invented in the first place...

    4. Re:Finally! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unfortunetly this robot hand only has three fingers so a "high five" might be a bit difficult ;)

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    5. Re:Finally! by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      Every time I try a High-Five, I miss, or hit the other person with a force that cripples both of us for 10 minutes.

      Stupid robots.

    6. Re:Finally! by scire9 · · Score: 1, Informative

      The trick is to watch the other person's elbow, you can't miss.

    7. Re:Finally! by sam0737 · · Score: 1

      It's hard to do a back hand five finger grips too! Although I think the 10x frequency will compensate that and brings a similar climax.

    8. Re:Finally! by rastos1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... and with the pressure sensors, it probably won't break your hand.

      Testers wanted.

    9. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you count in binary. Horny hands: the new 5.

    10. Re:Finally! by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it wants two more fingers it will just tear off two of yours.

    11. Re:Finally! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      ... and with the pressure sensors, it probably won't break your hand.

      Testers wanted.

      They already have testers. What they need are testees.

  3. holy crap! by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Watching that, I can't help but think that the math/programmer behind it is fairly simple with a basic knowledge of physics and the only reason this wasn't around 10 years ago was chips not being fast enough. Now that the technology exists, all the theoretical robot motor function logic can actually be put into practise. If you think about it, the dribbling code must be really simple. Run the numbers while the ball is in the air about precisely where and at what angle the ball impacted the first finger at and position the third finger accordingly and make it swing with the proper force and angle to bounce it back to the first finger. It's like programming pong with a few extra lines of code and raw date from sensors lol. Okay that was a bit too simple as a comparison.
    By the way, is it just me or does anyone else think that it failed some of those test on the first fifty takes lol. I think it's not quite as accurate and perfect as the video makes it out to be.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:holy crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The programming is (kinda) simple but the math is not. Solving the equations of motion that quickly does require good computers, but also good (aka fast) solvers(algorithms). While these algorithms have been known for about 30-40 years, they haven't been used to their full potential. Of course the robot must have failed the tests initially, but the great thing about science is that once you get it right it stays right (within certain limits).

    2. Re:holy crap! by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't think so - the amount of adaptability required for the actions would preclude a straight calculation (tiny variations would blow out) - it would more likely be some kind of neural network based approach.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    3. Re:holy crap! by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wouldn't think so - the amount of adaptability required for the actions would preclude a straight calculation (tiny variations would blow out) - it would more likely be some kind of neural network based approach.

      Feedback. As long as the error for each iteration (bounce) isn't too great, the long-term error can be kept within this by adjusting the next response based on feedback from the previous. Anything that's open-loop (lacking feedback) will fall apart, neural-net-based or not.

    4. Re:holy crap! by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, based on the narration, I believe that the computation involved requires three basic processing steps: (1) detection systems to measure physical properties of the system at any given point in time, such as position, velocity, acceleration, and force; (2) real-time algorithms based on rapid numerical solution of equations to predict future states of the system, with continual updating by comparing predicted state with actual state inferred from step 1; and (3) determination of the appropriate movement in the robotic arm for the necessary outcome.

      I think that this is a very difficult thing to program in general because the examples shown are very specific tasks which serve to demonstrate the speed of this type of processing, but we do not see how well arbitrary tasks can be similarly implemented or how accurately.

      Make no mistake: this is very impressive performance, because it is basically a huge step forward in machine vision and real-time robotic control. On some level, the mathematics has always been there, but only in as much as the basic mathematics of binary arithmetic has been used to develop programming languages. There's a lot more going on behind the scenes that extends beyond a mere physical description of the system in question, because for such an approach to be possible in the general sense, the robot doesn't know things like the precise distribution of the mass in the object being manipulated, or all the frictional forces involved. It's not operating under a sort of Laplacian notion wherein if one knew the precise state of all parameters of the system, one can simply solve the required physical equations and predict the future state at any arbitrary point in time, because (a) chaos guarantees the instability of such nonlinear systems, and (b) it wouldn't be possible to measure all such parameters with sufficient precision.

      What is really going on is perhaps best explained in human terms: the programming is doing a lot of what humans do--we observe the state with our visual and tactile senses, and our brains receive these continual updates and decide what to do next. This processing is already extremely fast in a biological context, but with these machines, it is made at least an order of magnitude faster. The next step is to simulate a sort of adaptive intelligence to allow the handling of a wider class of scenarios than the ones shown in the video.

    5. Re:holy crap! by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      The difficult part is probably the parallel processing needed to achieve these speeds.

    6. Re:holy crap! by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      What is really going on is perhaps best explained in human terms: the programming is doing a lot of what humans do--we observe the state with our visual and tactile senses, and our brains receive these continual updates and decide what to do next. This processing is already extremely fast in a biological context, but with these machines, it is made at least an order of magnitude faster. The next step is to simulate a sort of adaptive intelligence to allow the handling of a wider class of scenarios than the ones shown in the video.

      The video was trumpeting the new control systems they devised. I wonder how many scenarios their programming can deal with. If it sort of does a physics simulation in reverse, figuring out how to bring about a desired outcome, and uses a nicely generalized model, it might be very capable already.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    7. Re:holy crap! by mux2000 · · Score: 1

      Hate to rain on your parade, but the mechanism you described (1,2,3) is called a feedback loop, and it's the most basic building block of robotics since forever. Every robotic system uses feedback in one form or another, even those ancient industrial giants doing the same thing over and over are constantly checking everything is in place and minimizing their position errors accordingly.

      The nature of feedback is the ability to sense the unforeseen, and include it in the calculations for output. The robot is told what to do if it all goes right, and also what to do if the ball veers off course. The robot doesn't need to know the exact nature of the surface, the air-resistance or the balls weight. The same people that put the ball there tweaked the parameters until it's performance was good enough.

      This is actually not very difficult to program in general, but like you said, each specific setup was probably very optimized, which is harder to do and results in a unique (and therefore, less useful) machine. Most of the work probably went into improving the sensors' sensitivities and motor, hardware and software performance, rather than developing machine-vision algorithms or complex AI.

    8. Re:holy crap! by sexconker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. A closed loop can be perfectly fine forever.

      If the loop is:

      Track ball
      Hit ball when in range

      Then as long as all hits result in the ball being in range, you're good.
      You don't need to measure the error of the last hit - just get the next hit right. Always aim for the most optimal spot for the next hit.

      If the ball ends up further and further away from it's optimal spot with each hit, then the hits are in error (in terms of aiming, timing, speed, etc.).

      You don't need to know what happened last time to be able to correct an error. Knowing what happened last time won't necessarily help you either.

      If the required correction is outside of the robot's (physical) capabilities, you will always fail.
      If the required correction is within those capabilities, a feedback loop can help you recover, but the original error still came about due to non-optimal hitting/tracking algorithm. If you can't trust your algorithm, you can't trust it to fail in a correctable way.

      Fix the hitting/tracking algorithms (and all physical procedures they extend to) and avoid the errors altogether. No need for a feedback loop, and you get a much more reliable robot.

    9. Re:holy crap! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Fail.
      A feedback loop adjusts based on the difference between the result (of a previous action) and the expected result.

      Track
      Hit
      Track
      Hit
      Track
      Hit

      No need to know where any hit was aiming - you only give a shit about where the ball is (tracking) and if you can get it (hitting) to within range of the other finger.

      Any feedback loop would only be useful to correct for physical imperfections in the motion/sensing parts, and that has no impact on the algorithms used to run the sequence. It's called calibration.

    10. Re:holy crap! by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Feedback loops can have forward feedback components too.

  4. Skynet by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seeing just how blazingly fast that thing was makes me know that we have absolutely no chance against Skynet.

    1. Re:Skynet by jarocho · · Score: 2, Funny

      A robot hand being able to bounce a ping pong ball doesn't make me worry.

      However, if and when a robot learns to play Eddie Van Halen's "Eruption", then I'll worry.

    2. Re:Skynet by paul248 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bah, my computer can play that song easily, and it doesn't even need a guitar.

    3. Re:Skynet by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, if and when a robot learns to play Eddie Van Halen's "Eruption", then I'll worry.

      What if the robot can do something that Eddie can't, such as keeping Valerie Bertinelli happy? Would that make you worry?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need an army of elite samurai who are fast and accurate! ;-D

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj1Jytiw8e0

    5. Re:Skynet by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if the robot can do something that Eddie can't, such as keeping Valerie Bertinelli happy? Would that make you worry?

      They already have many robots for that. I'd provide a link but most of them are NSFW.

    6. Re:Skynet by Fizzl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh lord. the pink overalls!
      Now I need to wash my eyes.

    7. Re:Skynet by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, well... they didn't tell us how many times it *dropped* the cellphone. I bet one good catch out of 1000 wouldn't have impressed you quite so much.

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Skynet by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      its like fast zombies.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    9. Re:Skynet by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I propose an addendum to Godwin's Law in which it is stated that as any online discussion about robots grows longer, the probability of comparisons involving Skynet approaches 1.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    10. Re:Skynet by necro81 · · Score: 1

      I bet one good catch out of 1000 wouldn't have impressed you quite so much.

      Oh, I don't know - it's still pretty freakin' impressive. One in a thousand ain't bad for something as difficult and improbable as that. Kinda like when I manage to knock a 3-point shot in basketball.

    11. Re:Skynet by necro81 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, the neatest trick I've seen a robot pull off since Bishop's knife trick in Aliens.

    12. Re:Skynet by Mike73 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Today, ping pong balls - tomorrow, human meatsacks.

    13. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Look at the description of the image handler (the 128 by 128 with pixel array device)... it struck me awfully like when you hold a ball in front of a dog that wants to play fetch, and you wave the ball around, the dog anticipates and follows.

      We just have to anticipate what Skynet wants (fetch) and distract it (tasty fried human critter for the ball).

    14. Re:Skynet by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One in a thousand ain't bad for something as difficult and improbable as that. Kinda like when I manage to knock a 3-point shot in basketball.

      Shaq? Is that you?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    15. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, fembots will be AWESOME.

    16. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose an addendum to Godwin's Law in which it is stated that as any online discussion about robots grows longer, the probability of comparisons involving Skynet approaches 1.

      Ja wohl, discusion-fuehrer!

    17. Re:Skynet by dissy · · Score: 1

      Seeing just how blazingly fast that thing was makes me know that we have absolutely no chance against Skynet.

      Well, look at the up side. We only have to hide in fear from the machines for one year, and then the series will get canceled by Fox at season two and humanity will be safe once again!

    18. Re:Skynet by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Please. On Slashdot, a Skynet comparison is the third post written, and the first +5 Insightful one!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    19. Re:Skynet by know1 · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you. What would you call it, seeing as you came up with the idea?

    20. Re:Skynet by anarche · · Score: 1

      Seconded.

      Argument strengthened by the fact that my AI lecturer allowed "James Cameron" as a half-marks answer to the midsem question, "Name someone important in the field of AI, and explain why?"

      --
      Wait! Whats a sig?
    21. Re:Skynet by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I know you weren't serious when you made your statement. We'd have no change against SkyNET if we were to attack a factory with integrated defenses. The problem for SkyNET has already been solved by nature for us. How do you provide enough power to operate an 800 pound cyborg that's on the move?

      It would have to compromise. Not quite to strong, not quite so fast and easy to power... Although, with today's technology they're not far off from having a machine like this that could catch or deflect a bullet, in 30 years I'm sure that the technology will be established. We'll have to rely on EMP and magnetic weapons.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    22. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22meet+the+machines%22+intruder
      The results returned are very NSFW though ;)
      FM builds more and more sophisticated machines these days. High tech actuators, mmm...

    23. Re:Skynet by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "they didn't tell us how many times it *dropped* the cellphone."

      Actually I'd rather it catch an egg and not break it. *That* would be impressive.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    24. Re:Skynet by Mozk · · Score: 1

      A robot hand being able to bounce a ping pong ball doesn't make me worry.

      However, if and when a robot learns to play Eddie Van Halen's "Eruption", then I'll worry.

      Actually, playing guitar solos (though, not improvising) would be easier for a robot to do than bouncing table tennis balls. There's not really any math involved in the former—the robot would just need to have one hand tapping on frets or strumming a string and another hand fingering the frets, both in predetermined manners.

      --
      No existe.
    25. Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait for you girlfriend to find out what that fingers can do....:(

  5. Title... by oldhack · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's just so WRONG.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Title... by acehole · · Score: 4, Funny

      Futurama got it partly right... there's gonna be booths on each corner, just not the suicide booth variety.

      --
      Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    2. Re:Title... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      That's just so WRONG.

      Agreed. Headline should read:

      Robotics Engineers' Girlfriends at End, Starting to Cry
      remind me to fire the copy editor -Ed.

  6. Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. by dmomo · · Score: 2, Funny

    For the last decade, I've been eking by on the "well, can a robot tie it's own tie?" Hey, at least there's still "sleeping one's way to the top". And once robots learn to do that... is anyone REALLY going to want to leave their house for a stupid JOB anyway?

    1. Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Eventually, we might just become interesting pets for the robots. When that happens I have one question at this point (this point being after about a 1/3 of a bottle of Captin' Morgan's finest) ... Will they fuck their pets too?

    2. Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Will they fuck their pets too?

      Too?

      That's it. You've been reported to PETA.

      And let go of that cat already.

    3. Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Huh? What's People Eating Tasty Animals got to do with it?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    4. Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Huh? What's People Eating Tasty Animals got to do with it?

      I think they'd rather not eat that kind of tasty.

    5. Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Sleeping your way to the top doesn't really work. At least not for me. My coworkers complain too much about the snoring.

  7. one grain of rice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I want to see how fast it can move a whole bag of rice. Very impressive, hadn't seen the last few examples before.

    1. Re:one grain of rice? by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 3, Funny

      They should teach that thing KungFu and have Jackie Chan fight it. I just want to see how fast it can rip out a human heart.

  8. Erm... by rumith · · Score: 1

    My good robotic overlord, why are you tossing that paltry cell phone for three hours in a row already? *Sigh* I guess my inquiries aren't welcome here, sir...

  9. The claw by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    "And inthis sequence this video you can see the robot hand strangling dr. Kamakuro.

    Notice how the pressure sensonrs allows it to know when to release to leave the doctor unconscious but alive.

    Observe the marvelous precision displayed as it cuts the doctor's hand and peels its skin to make itself a costume.

    Ohh, it's trying to sew itself to the doctor's stump; ain't it the cutest thing?"

    1. Re:The claw by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I sincerely apologize for the eye-bleeding spelling horror I managed to reach with the previous post*.

      Once again, I promise not posting on slashdot before the first dose of caffeine.

      *: My first spelling of that as 'precious post' probably means I need even more caffeine.

    2. Re:The claw by j-stroy · · Score: 1

      Hook this arm up to the emotive stuff they are doing with face/intent interpretation and expression and you should be able to "tap out" if it squeezes you too tight, unless its a ruthless torture robot.

      I never really connected a purpose with the robot emotional interpretation and expressive stuff before, but I can see a good use for it now. Alternatively, torture robots are self explanatory. Also, I wonder if it can do back massage?

    3. Re:The claw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something tells me that is one of the first things we will find out..

    4. Re:The claw by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Observe the marvelous precision displayed as it cuts the doctor's hand and peels its skin to make itself a costume."

      *: My first spelling of that as 'precious post' probably means I need even more caffeine.

      Wasn't "Precious" the name of Buffallo Bill's dog in Silence of the Lambs? Freud would have been elated to have met you...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  10. Impressive.. by Asadullah+Ahmad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The accuracy is pretty impressive and will definitely get adopted in future robots, though the speed is a bit scary. At least you shouldn't come within its range in the hope that it will follow the three Laws of Robotics.

    1. Re:Impressive.. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Just do an Indiana Jones on it.

      Mr. Robot stands there hands whizzing around juggling cellphones and manipulating grains of rice at lightening speed, then you pull out a shotgun and pump his CPU full of bird shot.

    2. Re:Impressive.. by Asadullah+Ahmad · · Score: 1

      Or ask it to kill a mosquito. If everything goes to plan, it should break enough of itself to be safe for close encounter.

    3. Re:Impressive.. by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      The accuracy is pretty impressive and will definitely get adopted in future robots, though the speed is a bit scary. At least you shouldn't come within its range in the hope that it will follow the three Laws of Robotics.

      Many modern robots work at that speed. I worked with tape handling robots for years and the ones that are large enough that you can stick a hand (or your whole body) into them have safety switches that disable the robotics or slow them down so that you can get out of the way and momentum is eliminated.
      Of course, engineers disable those switches. I've been hit on a hand hard more than once, and I know of one guy who was hit on the head by a tape robot. He went to the hospital but didn't need stitches.

  11. Dribbling demo? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Very impressive. I wasn't able to quite tell from the video, though: was the end of the dribbling demo planned, or did the robot lose control of the ball after a few seconds?

    1. Re:Dribbling demo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      dude the dribbling lasted less than 100ms....the ball is bound to eventually bounce away because of even slight error in the visual recognition, which was quite cool.

      Imagine an evil robot that could do something that fast, it would be able to dodge bullets.

    2. Re:Dribbling demo? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, Mr AC, when the robot is ready, it won't need to dodge bullets.

      It could just catch them :)

    3. Re:Dribbling demo? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. I came to the (completely uninformed) conclusion that it was not planned.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    4. Re:Dribbling demo? by Thanshin · · Score: 2, Funny

      It won't need to run linux.

      It will type it from scratch!

      With great speed and dexterity!

    5. Re:Dribbling demo? by xigxag · · Score: 1

      Playing it back frame by frame, it looks like the ball made a weird bounce and then skittered out of range of the robot, which sbusequently threw its hands, er, fingers up in resignation.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    6. Re:Dribbling demo? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      About your signature:

      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011

      I guess you didn't know how to enceode 'y', 'o' and '\'', right? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Dribbling demo? by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      It didn't say if it lost control or was planned. But the dribbling period was only 100ms. But given how fast it dribbles, it would be like some kid dribbling for like 10 seconds before losing it. well, that's just a guess

    8. Re:Dribbling demo? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      was the end of the dribbling demo planned, or did the robot lose control of the ball after a few seconds?

      Actually, seeing how much the hand's mount was bucking, I was surprised it was able to dribble at all.

      (Reading it back, that sentence sounds vaguely but horribly disturbing.)

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  12. have they tried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any "Date Night at the Theatre" tests been run yet?

    1. Re:have they tried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catholic girls are the way to go, and they go all the way.

  13. Very nice. Some things are easier when done fast. by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is very nice work. The most interesting result is that some manipulation problems become easier if done fast. In the short term, inertia makes the motions of objects very predictable. With millisecond reaction times, that can be exploited.

    Fast machinery isn't unusual, but it's rarely that smart.

  14. Very impressive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the first "robotic breakthrough" link I've clicked on at /. that I've been actually impressed with. The "regrip" feature especially. If fact all the movement where the robot had to calculate where the object was and where to move were excellent. I'm not sure about the spinning or throwing or tweezers actions- they seemed like a simple programmed action rather than interaction.

    Who need walking human robots. Have something like this on wheels or tracks and forget trying to replicate a human, then we mite get useful robots sooner than we think.

    1. Re:Very impressive. by damburger · · Score: 4, Funny

      By impressive you mean 'terrifying', and by useful you mean 'terrifying'

      Lets look at the capabilities demonstrated here:

      1. Ability to move faster than a human
      2. Ability to throw things accurately at a human
      3. Ability to tie up a human
      4. Ability to perform delicate procedures on a human

      Yet our basic anti-robot technologies appear stagnant. Why is there so much more research on developing robots than there is on smashing those metal mothers into junk?

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:Very impressive. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, be assured that THEY do develop anti-robotic weapons. THEY just keep them secret so that normal humans like us won't have a chance. It's the preparation for the final ... wait, why are there black helic... No Carrier

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Very impressive. by autora · · Score: 1

      Walking robots is not just a gimmick - wheels and tracks can't go up stairs. The Dalek problem...

      --
      "I always assume Psychology students are hiding in the bushes"
    4. Re:Very impressive. by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Tracks can, and wheels can too if they're in the right configuration. The Daleks just had ground clearance issues ;)

    5. Re:Very impressive. by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      Dalek problem?

      What problem? They can fly, I'd take flying over not being able to perambulate up stairs any day.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    6. Re:Very impressive. by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By impressive you mean 'terrifying', and by useful you mean 'terrifying'

      Lets look at the capabilities demonstrated here:

      1. Ability to move faster than a human
      2. Ability to throw things accurately at a human
      3. Ability to tie up a human
      4. Ability to perform delicate procedures on a human

      Why be delicate when you can be crude? The robot doesn't need to sit in a tank, it could be the tank. With hydraulics for both small and large arms and IR cameras it could kill you quite easily as long as it doesn't need to care about collateral damage. Tie you up? More liker tazer and bag you, much easier. And you definately don't need much delicacy to make a torturebot, so what here is really terrifying? We already know they can be damn destructive, delicacy is what we need to have a robot whip up an omelet for me without making a mess.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Very impressive. by svtdragon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Capabilities not demonstrated here:

      n. Ability to not have your coordinate system remain stationary.

      "Dave, would you please step approximately three feet to the left, so that I may dissect you?"
      "No thanks, Hal."

      So, yes, this is a great robot for strangling those pesky paraplegics.

    8. Re:Very impressive. by synackpshfin · · Score: 1

      And you definately don't need much delicacy to make a torturebot, so what here is really terrifying?

      Actually I think it requires quite a bit more of delicacy to make a torturebot than a killbot...

    9. Re:Very impressive. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      Yet our basic anti-robot technologies appear stagnant.

      That's not true. We are continually creating new code to crash modern electronics ever more quickly. In just a few months Windows 7 will be out -- I guarantee the robot couldn't survive that.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    10. Re:Very impressive. by autora · · Score: 1

      Only in the "new" Dr. Who can they fly - it was an old joke with the previous Dr. Who incarnations that the best way to beat Daleks was to walk upstairs.

      --
      "I always assume Psychology students are hiding in the bushes"
    11. Re:Very impressive. by tibman · · Score: 1

      Real Daleks do not climb stairs, they level the building.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    12. Re:Very impressive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omelet schmomlet, cooking isn't that bad a chore and usually doesn't take too long. (And anticipating tasty food may be part of the fun of cooking it.) Instead, put this thing on laundry duty. That's a boring job which just requires enough skill to take too much of my time. If a robot actually has enough dexterity, it should be able to load and unload the washer and dryer and then do the tedious part of smoothing out and folding the dry clothes. First person to make and sell a robot that does that with proficiency will have some money in the bank.

    13. Re:Very impressive. by Vernes · · Score: 1

      Churgery without sedation, but also without bloodloss. "Yeeaauch! It HIT me!" "No, it removed the cancer from your liver, and sewed you up quite nicely." "... wot?"

  15. Jack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking it might make a good robotic masturbater. Set it up, queue the porno, sit back and enjoy. Make the hand dishwasher safe, sell millions!

  16. Re:The real question... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Robotic tentical porn?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  17. Re:Very nice. Some things are easier when done fas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is very nice work. The most interesting result is that some manipulation problems become easier if done fast. In the short term, inertia makes the motions of objects very predictable. With millisecond reaction times, that can be exploited.

    Yeah, that long term inertia is a real PITA.

  18. Joe Rogan had this already... by BigScoob · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    worst part of all, I saw this after Joe Rogan sent a tweet on it today... That was before slashdot got it... shit the world is ending...

  19. Re:Very nice. Some things are easier when done fas by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    Um, it would be more impressive if the machinery was slow. I mean, it would then require more intelligence to do the same job.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  20. Dexterity by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    So they built a right-handed robot? I hope they'll follow-up with a left-handed one soon, in order to not be discriminating!

    SCNR

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:Dexterity by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      A right-handed robot is Dexterous. A left handed robot is Sinister. I really hope they don't go making any left-handed robots or we're doomed.

    2. Re:Dexterity by bostongraf · · Score: 1

      Wish I had some mod points. Damn funny, Riven...

  21. new experiment by StripedCow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i have an idea for a new experiment: fire a bullet at it, and see if it can catch it :-)
    it would be the ultimate body guard :-)

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:new experiment by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      I've seen a martial arts demonstration where a guy caught arrow being shot past him. He did it **blindfold**, based on hearing the release and knowing the distance! Gotta wonder how many times he got an arrow stuck in his hand before he got the timing right!

  22. Implications for machine walking? by damburger · · Score: 1

    Thus far, robots have tended to shuffle along in an awkward, spastic manner - and at low speed. Could this kind of development help them out? If the reason for the difficulties with bipedal motion in robots is that the actuators cannot respond quickly/accurately enough to maintain balance well, then it will be able to. I'd like to know how fast such a robot can move, as it can already tie me up and perform surgery on me if it catches me...

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Implications for machine walking? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      It's also a matter of actuator power (and energy storage of course). But you're right, dynamic equilibrium and control is often easier than static. Try to walk in extreme slow motion and you'll know the difference.

  23. combine these with self evolving robots by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

    anyone know what will happen if this technology is combined with http://spectrum.ieee.org/blog/robotics/robotics-software/automaton/robots-evolve-to-exploit-inadvertent-cues and used for tasks such as food harvesting also, robo wars of the 2 technologies combined would be fun -- superfast and evolving bots...

  24. Guitar playing robots by Tono_Fyr · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know why this is news, they've had extremely fast, highly dexterous guitar playing robots since the 1980s in the form of Yngwie Malmsteen and Micheal Angelo Batio.

    1. Re:Guitar playing robots by Vernes · · Score: 1

      You mean it could hit static, non-moving strings very fast? My sister has this little music box, with a cylinder with teeth positioned so it taps a metal comb with different size teeth. If you rotate it very fast, it also can play very fast. The point is that this robot hand doesn't do things very fast, it does it in response to realtime observations of.. very fast events. (like bouncing a pingball very fast) Did you look at the video?

    2. Re:Guitar playing robots by clockwise_music · · Score: 1

      and me.

  25. Re:Jack? Gender First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though some might not be so particular, they would first need to make a much more "feminine" robotic hand!

  26. Robotic magicians by pwilli · · Score: 1

    Finally robots will be able to do the high speed, high precision moves magicians need to "create" coins out of thin air or do card tricks.

  27. !pr0n tag by synackpshfin · · Score: 1

    !pr0n? Obligatory tag on 90% of slashdot posts.

  28. Its there newest model... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    T-1000

    I for one welcome the new self aware machine overlords!

  29. Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where we post everything that Digg had already posted 2 days ago.

  30. Shares I am buying by houghi · · Score: 1

    I am now going to buy shares in the companies that make this, the flesh light and real doll. These three together will make a HUGE amount of money.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  31. Forbin Project by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    Funny, I just watched 'The Forbin Project' last night. If you've got an hour or so to kill and like evil computer stories and don't mind watching an old movie made in 1970 with the USSR as adversary you'll like this movie. It was quite good.

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

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  32. Moderation Fail by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

    It seems the mods have a great sense of irony -- the guy making the extremely overdone Skynet comment gets modded up (+5 even!) and I get modded down (as redundant of all things!) for pointing this out. WOW!! I can see from the other comments that there are some people who find my thoughts valid -- I call bollocks on whoever modded me down here.

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  33. Finally by sexconker · · Score: 1

    I can play the holophoner.

  34. Game changer for developing countries by TheSync · · Score: 1

    A lot of highly-dexterous manual labor has been moved out of developed countries to developing ones because of the high level of developing country wages.

    Where possible, developed country manufacturing companies have eradicated manual operations with machines, to the extent that despite manufacturing output rising, manufacturing employment is falling in the developed world. But some things (such as shirt sewing and shoe assembly) are still impossible to automate currently.

    Should developed countries become able to replace developing country dextrous labor with dextrous robots, it would be a major world economic game-changer.

    We can only hope that the developing world will expand into higher value-add jobs before this occurs.

  35. Holy SHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're gonna fucking die!

  36. But Can It Cook? by jman.org · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see this robo-hand on Iron Chef...