Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lego Robot Solves Any Rubik's Cube In 12 Seconds

Posted by timothy on from the yes-yes-it's-not-the-world-record dept.

kkleiner writes "Cube Stormer is the latest creation from Mike Dobson, aka Robotics Solutions, and not only is it made entirely out of Legos, it can solve any 3x3 Rubik's cube in less than twelve seconds. Often it can finish in less than five! This thing looks bad-ass and is incredible to watch."

169 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Stickers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And heres me expecting to see a robot that can quickly rearrange the stickers.

    1. Re:Stickers by JesseL · · Score: 3, Informative

      And here's me expecting not to see stories from 9 years ago repeated.

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/07/0133248

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    2. Re:Stickers by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      You do realise it was just spray painting it on the far side hidden from camera view!

    3. Re:Stickers by djh2400 · · Score: 3, Funny

      As I scroll through looking for "Funny", I see jokes from 9 years ago repeated.

    4. Re:Stickers by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I was a small child of 4 or 5 in the early 80's, my Dad got a Rubik's Cube for Christmas. He found it amusing. A few days later I brought it to him, completely solved. He was amazed! Not only had his genius son shown remarkable problem solving skills at such a young age, I had even managed to put a few of the stickers back on straight.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    5. Re:Stickers by Garridan · · Score: 1

      FWIW, this bot is MUCH cooler than the one from 9 years ago. Faster, at the very least.

    6. Re:Stickers by JosKarith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I got stuck on the Rubiks cube, I worked out how to disassemble and reassemble the whole cube in the correct order. Peeling off the stickers never even occured to me.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    7. Re:Stickers by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      When I got stuck on the Rubik's Cube, I just tossed it in the drawer with the rest of the forgotten toys. Cheating at it never even occurred to me.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  2. Cool by Chris+Lawrence · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cool, just make sure it doesn't mistake your head for a Rubik's Cube. :)

  3. That's fast by TheVoxyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Think 99% of the world population can't do that :P

    1. Re:That's fast by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      Sure, and since you know ALL the asians in the world, including those working hard 24/7 in factories just to get something to eat, you can officially say that about 30% of the world's population can solve rubik's cube that fast.

      I love how there aren't any fallacies there. ;)

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    2. Re:That's fast by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I can't do that. and I'm Asian.

    3. Re:That's fast by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you sure? Just about every Asian I know can do it that quickly, and they make up about 30% of the world's population.

      That's because in China they use The People's Cube

    4. Re:That's fast by turing_m · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you sure? Just about every Asian I know can do it that quickly, and they make up about 30% of the world's population.

      Interesting comment. East Asians have a higher visuospatial IQ. It would make sense that solving a Rubik's cube would play to their strengths - it's pure visuospatial ability. Your anecdote rings true with me - I remember being amazed at how quickly a group of average Japanese students could play Tetris on the Gameboy. They were able to play it indefinitely at the fastest level. The ability of their brains to rapidly process that sort of information - this block rotated this way, will fit there - was much more efficient than my own, even with practice. And it's not that I'm uncoordinated or bad at video games in general - far from it. In FPS or RTS games I'd easily be well within the top 10%. But with a game like tetris, I was not able to use reflexes, hand-eye coordination or intelligence in a strategic sense to make up for my slower visuospatial processing.

      This sort of experience makes me suspect that there is a difference in mental "modules" between Europeans and East Asians, and if you don't have the right "module", it's like trying to play a modern FPS without a 3d graphics card. You might be able to do the same task in a "software emulation" type mode, but it will be at reduced speed. Or maybe if it is too hard, your brain just can't do it.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    5. Re:That's fast by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Think 99.9999% of the world population don’t give a flying fuck about it too. :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:That's fast by Mushdot · · Score: 1

      Yep, It was only 12% of the world population until he lost weight - proof thin people have more friends.

  4. +1 by Mashdar · · Score: 1

    For Singularity reference.

  5. I for one will be slack jawed at the awesomeness by myocardialinfarction · · Score: 4, Funny

    of our new Lego robot masters.

  6. Re:Obligatory by Anita+Coney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can use trademarks as adjectives. The rest of the world uses them as nouns and verbs. Get over it.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  7. Cheating! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    That thing got four arms. Come on, that is cheating.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Cheating! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Poor little tink-tink.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

    All I needed was 6 different paint brushes dipped in 6 different colours.

    1. Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      All I needed was a flat-head screw driver.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      I just threw the thing into a can of paint, but I still lost because it took too much time to forcibly submerge the thing...

    3. Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once by Jorl17 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just threw mine out the window! There, problem solved!

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    4. Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I did it in 2 seconds. Had 6 surfaces with color pre-applied, and just touched each of them with a side of the cube. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  9. How they are doing it? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately, the linked to post and video doesn't give much details. Naively, I expect that the computer program is first figuring out very quickly what the series of movements to solve the cube and then implementing those. There are around 4 * 10^19 possible configurations for a Rubik's cube, but the group theory allows one to work out what steps to take without having to do very exhaustive searches since the Rubik's group is very well-behaved. However, this assumes one is in an actually solvable configuration. I'd be curious to find out if they've debugged the device well enough to make sure it doesn't hang or get in some infinite loop if one gives it an unsolvable cube (not all possible permutations of squares are solvable. Most trivially, edges need to stay on edges, corners on corners and centers on centers. But some configurations are still not solvable. For example, if one swaps two center stickers it isn't hard to see that that lays outside the Rubik's group of reachable permutations).

    1. Re:How they are doing it? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They probably didn't debug it much, but in actuality - most of it is pattern recognition. If you look straight down the corner of one Rubiks cube, you will see 3 faces of it, and that is all you actually need to solve the Rubiks cube. All the pros merely remember the patterns and the steps required to solve each pattern. Rotate the cube 90 degrees and the pattern still exists, even though things are in a different shape.

      Really, the programming side of this isn't that impressive once you know how Rubiks cube solving is done. I'm more impressed at the speed, which I've normally found Lego technic and Mindstorm products to be a little laggy in commands and slow to operate, keep in mind though, that was the stuff I used like 7 years ago.

    2. Re:How they are doing it? by MBCook · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It looks pretty simple to me. You put it in and it snaps shots of the 6 sides of the cube. Those are interpreted by the computer which probably uses a standard solving algorithm. The solution is translated into movements for the robot, and off it goes.

      My guess would be if it was impossible to solve, it wouldn't start doing anything, the software would complain. No Rubik's cube is impossible to solve without physically messing with the cube (as you pointed out, swapping stickers for example). If you start with a solved cube, no amount of twisting can make an impossible cube.

      The video is quite impressive, far better than most lego solving robots. I'd love to see this thing solve a bigger cube.

      Or how about a feeding device? You put 10 cubes in, each is automatically placed in, solved, and popped out.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:How they are doing it? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      You put it in and it snaps shots of the 6 sides of the cube. Those are interpreted by the computer which probably uses a standard solving algorithm. The solution is translated into movements for the robot, and off it goes.

            I'm stunned. And here I was thinking it worked by magic. Is that REALLY how it's done?

            Sorry, I'm just feeling rather cynical today. Pffft.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:How they are doing it? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Although I assume you're being sarcastic, as Rubik's cube tournaments used to be somewhat widespread, but yes, there are professional SCRABBLE players for chrissake. I even saw a documentary about them once. They really are as pathetic as they sound.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    5. Re:How they are doing it? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Supposedly there is a set series of moves that will solve and brand new (ie just opened Rubik's cube). I have seen videos of people solving one behind their backs, blind folded. The set series of moves has some reasoning.

      I usually took it apart and put it together with the sides matching. There were a few times I used a baseball bat to 'solve' the cube. Good stress relief that way.

    6. Re:How they are doing it? by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      You put it in and it snaps shots of the 6 sides of the cube. Those are interpreted by the computer which probably uses a standard solving algorithm. The solution is translated into movements for the robot, and off it goes.

      I'm stunned. And here I was thinking it worked by magic. Is that REALLY how it's done?

      To be fair, I had initially assumed it was scanning the cube and solving it on-the-fly like a human would, as opposed to scanning first, solving and then executing.

    7. Re:How they are doing it? by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am one of those people who can solve a brand-new, just-opened Rubik's cube blindfolded. Let me tell you, it's not all that difficult.

    8. Re:How they are doing it? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Supposedly there is a set series of moves that will solve and brand new (ie just opened Rubik's cube).

      They are sold in the solved position.

    9. Re:How they are doing it? by eulernet · · Score: 1

      They probably used Herbert Kociemba's program:
      http://kociemba.org/cube.htm
      check the webcam section.

      Kociemba is the creator of a very fast algorithm that solves most of the cubes in less than 25 moves in one second, using a two-phase technique (by using large precomputed tables).

      Even with a slow robot only able to execute 2 moves every second, it's easy to reach 12 seconds that way.

      BTW, the human records are below the 10 seconds limit:
      http://www.speedcubing.com/records/recs_cube_333av.html
      Average means that the human solves several cubes and computes the average time to solve them all.
      Of course, humans can rotate the faces a lot faster than a robot.

    10. Re:How they are doing it? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      I've got one that just does random actions. Statistically, it has to get solved at some point.

    11. Re:How they are doing it? by Paiev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a competitive cuber/scrabble player, you insensitive clod!

      (No, seriously, I am. Scrabble has a lot of depth to it when played on a higher level that you are completely ignoring. Don't be so quick to dismiss something just because you don't know much about it.)

    12. Re:How they are doing it? by Paiev · · Score: 1

      Assuming that "and" was supposed to be "any" (this is why proper spelling is important, folks), this is entirely false. Any sequence of turns solves one and only one position of the cube. If you don't believe it, work on your spatial reasoning imagine taking a solved cube and performing the inverse of the sequence (the sequence in reverse order, with all clockwise turns becoming counterclockwise and vise versa). You will get one position (obviously a starting position plus a sequence of turns uniquely determines an ending position). This is the position that that sequence will solve. No other.

      Blindfold solving is done by memorizing the starting configuration of the cube and then performing algorithms that only affect a small number of pieces in a specific way (e.g. rotating three corners clockwise, flipping the orientation of two edges). These algorithms can be combined to, for example, cycle edge A -> edge B -> edge C -> edge D -> edge E -> edge A. Because this is inefficient from a number of turns standpoint, it wouldn't be suitable for a robot.

    13. Re:How they are doing it? by Paiev · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just as a quick note, the page you linked is unofficial world records and hasn't been updated in a while. The official fastest times are here

      Before someone claims dishonesty, all these solves were performed in competition with judges observing,

    14. Re:How they are doing it? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I don't know anything, I just watched the private lives of national competitors. I judge them lacking. That is my prerogative.

      Also, Scrabble lacks depth at higher levels. National competitors learn spellings but not necessarily meanings, which completely bastardizes the entire point of language. National Scrabble competitors essentially live or die by the number of combinations of seven letters they know are valid. To me that is a disgusting travesty, and quite frankly after watching Word Wars I discovered I had a lower opinion of tournament Scrabble players than I did before I knew anything about them. Once again, my prerogative. I don't know you, and if you're different, great, but you're not the only Scrabble player, and I'm more keen to trust what I've seen than you, quite frankly.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    15. Re:How they are doing it? by Paiev · · Score: 2, Informative

      It depends on your perspective. You're right in that competitive Scrabble isn't about knowing meanings of words, and this does bother some people. You can view Scrabble as not being about words so much as about combinations of letters. The game is then about a mix of anagramming and strategy (it was this strategy that I was talking about when I referred to depth; while living room Scrabble games usually feature little strategy, competitive players take into account many factors when choosing a play).

      Scrabble isn't a game about words, it's just a game that uses them. It's about anagramming and about strategic decisions. It's no coincidence that Scrabble players tend to be on the more math-y side. If you shift your view of the point of the game, you might lose some of your disgust.

    16. Re:How they are doing it? by torchlight · · Score: 1

      It's not completely accurate to say that looking at just three faces is enough to solve the cube. A permutation of three edges serves as a simple counterexample. In fact, all six sides have to be scanned, although (if I'm not wrong) five is enough most of the time.

      Unless you're referring to the last layer part, where one look is enough, but the standard computer algorithms (Kociemba's for example) don't use a layer-by-layer approach at all.

    17. Re:How they are doing it? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      My perspective is directly reactionary to my experience in childhood. I enjoyed 'living room' games of Scrabble, and in fact I admired those who performed ably, because in 'living room' games, those people are almost invariably the most literate, the most educated and well-read. Finding out that the professional competitors were the opposite, knowing nothing but the manipulation of the lifeless husks of words they didn't even know, was crushingly disillusioning. (Especially given that Scrabble's roots are in crosswords, where the meaning of words is inextricable from the process of successful completion. In that context, this 'strategy over knowledge' approach to Scrabble is not just an affront to the abstract of knowledge, but also a betrayal of the spirit of the predecessor from which it is derived.)

      In the end, it's just a game. I don't really care that much, and I still play it now and then, but I don't respect professional players. That's just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    18. Re:How they are doing it? by TheMadTopher · · Score: 2, Funny

      When asked what happened after I lost my last game of Scrabble, I could only say that, "I was at a loss of words."

  10. But can it... by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

    I want to know what happens if you break the cube up and reassemble it so it can't be solved. I'm pretty sure that was possible. If it's not I'm sure it could be accomplished by breaking two cubes and creatively swapping the parts over.

    1. Re:But can it... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And people wonder why the robots are going to revolt and dominate us.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:But can it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      To make it unsolveable all you need to do is rotate one corner or one edge.

    3. Re:But can it... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I want to know what happens if you break the cube up and reassemble it so it can't be solved. I'm pretty sure that was possible.

      Well, all you have to do is swap one colour for another so that you have (say) 10 blue and 8 yellow squares, then obviously it won't be solvable.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:But can it... by Tapewolf · · Score: 1
      Since it seems to work by pre-solving the cube and then compiling the solution into instructions for the robot to carry out, it probably wouldn't do anything at all aside from scanning the cube at the start, unfortunately.

      This robot does seems to be solving it step-by-step on the fly, though:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htnL1KTpaY8

    5. Re:But can it... by ebuck · · Score: 1

      That's why projects like this one are so important, to keep the robots occupied in trivial pursuits.

  11. Re:Obligatory by natehoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    "loosers"? What are "loosers"? The opposite of "tighters"?

    Only losers use the word "loosers". :)

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  12. Re:Obligatory by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 3, Funny

    Legos my egos. Leggo my eggo. Let go of my eggo waffle. Biznatch.

  13. LHC? by Daas · · Score: 2, Funny

    Am I the only one who thinks it looks a bit like ATLAS from the LHC??

    Which makes it even more AWESOME.

  14. Re:Not impressive by SoVeryTired · · Score: 2, Informative

    3X3 refers to the configuration of squares on each face of the cube. The 3x3 is the standard one that made us all so angry in the 80's.

    --
    Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
  15. Direct link to video by Chad+Birch · · Score: 1

    Here's a direct link to the video, since the blog embedding it seems to be on the way to going down: CubeStormer

    --
    Sturgeon was an optimist.
  16. Re:Obligatory by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only people who care about that pointless distinction are trademark lawyers.

    For the rest of us, they're simply called LEGOS.

  17. Re:Not impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your "joke" is about as impressive.

  18. Re:Not impressive by PitaBred · · Score: 1

    I think I still have one or two embedded in the walls of my bedroom...

    --
    My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  19. What about the other robot... by vekrander · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what's more impressive, the one that solves the cube or the one that does sudoku. While solving the sudoku is trivial, the OCR it performs appears interesting, and to say the least, programming it to write with a pencil must have been incredibly tough.

    1. Re:What about the other robot... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I have a Mindstorm, and I'm fairly certain it cannot be programmed to do OCR... I'm pretty sure the Sudoku picture is a joke. The Mindstorm can recognize colors by shining 3 different color LEDs on a spot and measuring the light with a photocell; it is just hard to believe even a network of Mindstorms could solve a Rubick's cube that quickly, even if they are fast enough to emulate a Segway. I'm pretty sure they have a much faster computer driving the Mindstorms.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:What about the other robot... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      programming it to write with a pencil must have been incredibly tough.

      Pen-plotter control algorithms were ancient and well-documented 30 years ago when I saw the source code for a hobbiest homebrew version (about 1k lines of assembler) in Byte Magazine (I think... 30 years and all).

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:What about the other robot... by takev · · Score: 1

      We actually build that model at work, it certainly does OCR autonomic. It scans each character it finds by moving the sensor over the character. Our version needed quite a few tries before it was able to read all the numbers correctly though.

  20. cool but.... by jisou · · Score: 1

    the thing is that its just using an simple algorithm that's very easy to get a hold of(via google). in fact the only reason why i see that this beat the human world record is because it has hands on every side(except the front) of the cube. cool yes, but a massive breakthrough in robotics, not so much.

  21. Heh that's nothing by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have one I HAVEN'T solved in 30 years. Young kids, always wanting to do everything in a rush...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Heh that's nothing by Spatial · · Score: 1

      I've solved one. But then my girlfriend gave me one with numbers instead of colours... Still haven't managed that one.

    2. Re:Heh that's nothing by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      I've solved one. But then my girlfriend gave me one with numbers instead of colours... Still haven't managed that one.

      it's called sudoku.

  22. Jeffrey Lebowski by quotes · · Score: 1

    "...what's the point, man?" The Dude

  23. and here I was thinking..... by pieisgood · · Score: 1

    http://legorobotcomics.com/

    --
    Eat sleep die
  24. And how! by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once, I peeled off the three decals on the corner of a cube and stuck them in different places to try to stump it. It just peeled them back off and stuck them on in the right places.

    ~Loyal

    --
    I aim to misbehave.
    1. Re:And how! by djrobxx · · Score: 1

      I just dismantled the cube and reassembled it in the correct order. Once you get one brick off the rest are easy. :)

  25. Re:Obligatory by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

    More like buuurrrrrrrnnnnn.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  26. Re:specialized pieces by WarlockD · · Score: 1

    Yea, but look at the video right below it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp8Y2yjV4fU All that uses is just a NXT kit.

    His website is http://tiltedtwister.com/sudokusolver.html If you want to make your own solver go http://tiltedtwister.com/index.html

    Pissees me off, I bought the 2.0 kit and need exra parts. But its amazing what you can do with it. Now to build a LTO tape autoloader!

  27. Re:Obligatory by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

    Allow me to bring you some Kleenexes; your weeping protestation is piteous.

    Maybe a couple of aspirins for your headache?

    Reality must really piss off language prescriptionists.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  28. Re:Obligatory by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the rest of us, they're simply called LEGOS.

    The world is divided into two groups, those that call them Legos and those that make fun of the first group.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  29. Re:Not impressive by dangitman · · Score: 1

    But it would have to be 3x3x3 if it were a cube.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  30. Wow. That site has more third party Javascript scr by caluml · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wow. That site has more third party Javascript scripts included than I've ever seen. It scrolls off my screen when listed in NoScript. *That's* why NoScript is good. :)

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker
  31. Re:Obligatory by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    They? There are multiple different objects each of which is a lego? I can think of lots of objects, each called a lego brick, but none that are individually called a lego.

  32. Will that ship by abbynormal+brain · · Score: 1

    with my next Rubics cube order? I hope so, I don't think I've ever solved a Rubics cube without pliers and a screwdriver (flathead).

    --
    L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
  33. Re:specialized pieces by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't go so far as to call it lame but it pisses me of when people say such and such is made of legos with the implication that somehow that makes it more difficult. I'd be more impressed if he had fabricated the parts himself than if he used premade parts that snap together. now if had used regular bricks for the whole thing that would be a different story.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  34. Re:Obligatory by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, non-pedants call each little piece of plastic a *LEGO*. How hard is that for you to understand?

  35. Re:Obligatory by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    Really?

    o.O

    I've seriously never heard anyone call a lego brick a lego before. Must be some weird ism. I'd interpret "a lego" to be an entire company producing a brand of lego.

  36. Re:Obligatory by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Yes, just as you wouldn't say that you own a "Honda® automobile". Normal people just say "I have a Honda".

    Normal people would also say "There are three Hondas in the garage." instead of the stilted sounding "There are three Honda® automobiles in the garage."

  37. Re:Not impressive by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    You live in the same place! wow.

  38. Simplified hardware by LoudMusic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This guy did it a while back with considerably less hardware, though it takes his rig a bit more time to get the puzzle done ;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htnL1KTpaY8

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  39. Re:Obligatory by dougisfunny · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    And the parking lot isn't full of Toyotas,Fords, Hondas? Its full of Toyota cars, Toyota trucks, Ford cars Ford trucks and Honda Cars?

    --
    This is not the funny you're looking for.
  40. Re:specialized pieces by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

    I would call it lame. The robot isn't "solving" anything. The real impressive work is what happens before the robot does anything: the algorithm that determines a good solution for the given cube.

  41. Re:Obligatory by pknoll · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Except there's no such thing as a singular Ford. There's a Ford Mustang, there isn't a Ford.

    Lego is a brand, just like Ford is. People refer to many Mustangs or F150's or whatever as "Fords" all the time, so the same would be true of Lego.

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. You had me at "Lego Robot"... by mulgar · · Score: 1

    I didn't need to see the rest ;-)

  44. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Those that make fun of the first group and those who are utterly baffled at using a singular noun to describe something that is only interesting in the plural.

  45. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "loosers"? What are "loosers"? The opposite of "tighters"?

    There's a website for that....

  46. Like watching football by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    5 seconds of action in a minute and a half show.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  47. Re:Obligatory by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    I've always used lego as a plural, as in "I have a bucket of lego."

    --
    Is 1563649 a prime number?
  48. I don't get it by computerchimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't understand why this is a "Lego" robot.
    The pads are Lego the rest of the Lego is total cheap fluff. If I stick a few pieces of Lego on my car does that mean I drive a Lego car?
    Maybe it is some cheap promo.

    What am I missing here?

    CC

  49. Re:Obligatory by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Informative

    Those that make fun of the first group and those who are utterly baffled at using a singular noun to describe something that is only interesting in the plural.

    Like fish, and sheep...

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  50. The computer driving it... by swb · · Score: 1

    ...should have been implemented as a difference engine constructed out of Legos. THEN I'm impressed.

  51. Re:specialized pieces by kav2k · · Score: 1

    I would call it lame. The robot isn't "solving" anything. The real impressive work is what happens before the robot does anything: the algorithm that determines a good solution for the given cube.

    I guess that one wasn't an open problem. But building it in Lego hardware was a first (or was it?).

  52. Re:Obligatory by mirix · · Score: 2, Informative

    When you go hunting and fishing, do you bring back deers, elks, geeses, fishes? and drink some beers?

    Cause I bring back deer, elk, geese and fish, and have a few beer. Well I would if I were a hunter.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
  53. Re:Not impressive by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 1

    3X3 refers to the configuration of squares on each face of the cube.

    But it would have to be 3x3x3 if it were a cube.

    So you're saying each face has 3x3x3 squares on it?

  54. Isn't it time... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

    Isn't it time to get out of your parent's basement...

    --
    Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  55. This Video is FAKE by tonycheese · · Score: 4, Informative

    Okay, it's not FAKE but it's completely and entirely dishonest. I can solve the rubik's cube in about 20 seconds over an average of 12 solves, so I have a thorough understanding of human speed-solving. Computers, on the other hand, would go for some idea solution that a human brain is not capable of producing. This is especially true since the robot in this video moves EXTREMELY slowly, about 1-2 turns per second on average. Human hands can EASILY sustain 3-5 moves per second. This computer, to solve the Rubik's cube in 2 seconds as in the first part of the video, or 4 seconds as in the second part of the video, would have to be able to solve the cube in 4-10 moves. The optimal solution for solving a rubik's cube has already been bounded at about 18 moves (look it up).

    Still don't believe me? Start watching and replay the video from 30s onwards. Freeze the video when the timer starts at 0:00 and look at the cube, it is actually a single 90 degree rotation away from a fully solved state.

    The 4s video beginning at 1:07 shows several rotations of the WHOLE CUBE without making any actual moves, then does 4 turns and solve it, which means that it wasn't anywhere near a scrambled state to begin with.

    More evidence that it's fake? Is there any information on this other than a 2 minute video on youtube?

    1. Re:This Video is FAKE by newcastlejon · · Score: 2, Informative

      The optimal solution for solving a rubik's cube has already been bounded at about 18 moves (look it up).

      Only in the worst possible configuration of the cube. 18 moves can't be the lower bound for every cube, because there exist many configurations that can be solved in less than 18. (Like the one you mentioned at 30s) If you'd read the rest of the wiki article you probably just consulted you would have seen that there even configurations that need over 20 moves too.

      As for turning the cube then solving it in 4 moves, look at the computer and note a single view of the cube. The machine has to determine the starting point before solving and perhaps one needs to see more than a single face to know enough to solve the cube.

      I don't see how this is dishonest and you didn't say why you think it is. Is it because it uses a different algorithm than a human? Newsflash: Man invented the Machine to do things Man couldn't.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:This Video is FAKE by tonycheese · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's dishonest because for both the "2s" and "4s" solve of the cube, the cube was not fully scrambled. In fact, for the 2 second solve, the cube only had one single turn on it when the timer started. It is dishonest because he CLEARLY and obviously did not scramble the cube for both the 2 second and 4 second time. Look at the video at 30s and freeze it at the start of the timer and you'll see exactly what I mean. I can't honestly believe that you don't know what I mean by "dishonest" if you haven't done this simple task for me.

      And yeah, you were right about the 18 moves thing, I was quickly looking for a number to back up my argument. The fact that 18 is actually lower than the optimal lower bound strengthens my argument instead of weakening it, though.

      For the four moves, you need to see much more than a "single face" to solve a rubik's cube. When solving a cube, you do not look at faces, but rather look at the pieces that make up the cube: the "corners" which have 3 stickers on them, and the "edges" which have 2 stickers on them.

    3. Re:This Video is FAKE by tonycheese · · Score: 1

      Okay well apparently my original comment is too long for people to read through, so:

      tl;dr: freeze the video at 30s and look at the cube in its "scrambled state". You'll see that 2/3 of the cube is lined up, and anybody could make that last turn in 1 second to "solve" it.

    4. Re:This Video is FAKE by imerso · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I were you, I would delete all the "it's dishonest!" comments from youtube and slashdot. I saw the Rubik's Cube Robot and Schwarzenegger heading over to your house...

    5. Re:This Video is FAKE by ChinggisK · · Score: 2, Informative

      He isn't claiming that it is fully scrambled in the 2s one - for the one immediately after he specifically says to get ready for a "full solve" and has big letters come up saying the NEXT CUBE is a "totally scrambled cube". The 2s was just a demonstration of the machine moving and is implied as such. You could maybe make a case about the 4 second one, but I'm not sure he's claiming that one to be a full scramble either.

    6. Re:This Video is FAKE by somenickname · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think your definition of "fake" and mine differ. The video is certainly not fake. It's a Lego machine that can solve a Rubics Cube that is being blogged about by some random overzealous blogger. The 2 and 4 second solves were probably the engineer running test cases where he took a solved cube and rotated it a certain number of times to see if the machine would then solve it in the same number of rotations. It's fairly obvious that the machine isn't capable of solving a random cube in 2-4 seconds because it doesn't move fast enough.

      Oh, for fucks sake, IT'S A LEGO ROBOT SOLVING A RUBICS CUBE!

    7. Re:This Video is FAKE by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The next to last solve (at 41s) takes 21 moves*, and is the only cube claimed to be random... thus, I don't see any dishonesty. It takes around 1.9 seconds to analyze, about 0.4 seconds to reset/process, and the remaining 8+ seconds to solve. Therefore, it makes on average between 2 and 3 turns per second.

      Humans do not include inspection time in the speed calculation (at least, that's the case in the accompanying video of the world record). An apples-to-apples comparison, therefore, would be the human time at 7 seconds and the robot at a little over 8. I couldn't follow the world-record video, but I think I saw at least one mistake (a move followed by the opposite move) and a little hesitation. So, you're probably correct in the 3-5 moves per second for humans.

      *21 includes twice that the computer simultaneously moves two faces, each counted as two separate moves. 180 degree moves are counted once.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    8. Re:This Video is FAKE by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you watch carefully, the "Full Solve", which states such and claims to be a "totally random cube (Honest)", takes 10.75 seconds, including inspection. The 2.01 second solve is a demonstration of the MINIMUM time required for "inspecting and making one twist" on an unsolved cube. It is the blogger, and not the video, who makes the claims of solving in 2.01 seconds, and while it technically is a solve, the inventor rightfully does not claim such. The world record human solve of 7.08 seconds is not including the untimed inspection period. I would not consider this a dishonest video, since the video does not claim anything but the 10.75s solve to be a real solve, which by the rules of the second video's competition, would actually be an 8.74s solve....

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    9. Re:This Video is FAKE by newcastlejon · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's dishonest because for both the "2s" and "4s" solve of the cube, the cube was not fully scrambled. In fact, for the 2 second solve, the cube only had one single turn on it when the timer started. It is dishonest because he CLEARLY and obviously did not scramble the cube for both the 2 second and 4 second time.

      This isn't dishonest. I watched the video and saw that the machine can solve a trivial problem in one move. The video didn't disguise this in the slightest. You can see a more complex configuration being solved elsewhere in the video and this obviously takes more time.

      Look at the video at 30s and freeze it at the start of the timer and you'll see exactly what I mean. I can't honestly believe that you don't know what I mean by "dishonest" if you haven't done this simple task for me.

      At 0:30 I see a cut from one sequence to another. I didn't think I was watching a real demonstration until I saw a start-to-finish run without any cuts.

      And yeah, you were right about the 18 moves thing, I was quickly looking for a number to back up my argument. The fact that 18 is actually lower than the optimal lower bound strengthens my argument instead of weakening it, though.

      No, it doesn't. Your original argument seemed to be that 18 moves is the lower bound for solving any particular configuration of a Rubik's Cube; this is just wrong.

      I can show you at least a dozen possible configurations that need only one move to solve. If you include an already solved cube then the lower bound becomes zero. The upper bound is the significant one because for any starting position you can solve the cube in x moves or fewer. However, the upper bound means there is/are configurations that cannot be solved in less than x moves. If this was your point, then so what? No cube can be solved in fewer moves than it took to set it up, and the fewer moves that took, the lower the upper bound for solving it.

      For the four moves, you need to see much more than a "single face" to solve a rubik's cube.

      I didn't suggest that the machine looked at only one face, I said it could only look at one at a time. The 3-4 moves are so the machine can look at more than one face to fully determine the state the cube was in.

      However, When solving a cube, you do not look at faces, but rather look at the pieces that make up the cube: the "corners" which have 3 stickers on them, and the "edges" which have 2 stickers on them.

      What particular parts of each face are important is - from a practical standpoint - irrelevant. The machine still needs to look at more than one face irrespective of what bits the algorithm works with.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    10. Re:This Video is FAKE by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I would suggest to stop feeding the troll...

      That said, "No cube can be solved in fewer moves than it took to set it up" is just plain wrong when you think about it for more than a second.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    11. Re:This Video is FAKE by Kong+the+Medium · · Score: 1

      It's not plain wrong, it's not specific enough.

      He should have said something like "No cube can be solved in fewer moves, than it took to set it up. By this, I mean, that for solving the 'shortest path problem' in the graph for moves to set up the cube in its current state, there should be no recursions and after optimizing the graphs visualization for the series of moves, maybe morphing it into a tree, there can be no shorter path found."

      You can reach different states of cube in more than one way. Always remember TIMTOWTDI.

      The way you have set up the cube may be not "optimal" way to have set it up.

      --
      ... whenever a text is transmitted, variation occurs. This is because human beings are careless, fallible, and occasiona
    12. Re:This Video is FAKE by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Is there any information on this other than a 2 minute video on youtube?

      In our current culture, if it can't be summed up in a 2 minute video on youtube, you've probably lost the audience.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:This Video is FAKE by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Legos are fake because they're made of plastic. Duh.

  56. Re:Obligatory by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

    Is the plural of Lego Lego?

    --
    This is not the funny you're looking for.
  57. Re:Not impressive by dangitman · · Score: 1

    So you're saying each face has 3x3x3 squares on it?

    No, I'm not saying that. The slashdot article never mentioned anything about "per face" either. It simply says "3x3 Rubik's Cube," with no qualifier.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  58. Bad news for the Chinese kids at the factory... by straponego · · Score: 1

    Now they'll have robots put the cubes in order for shipping. That's a lot of jobs...

  59. Re:I for one will be slack jawed at the awesomenes by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    As will I, when I see one that can build other Lego robot masters.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  60. Re:Obligatory by timothy · · Score: 1

    - Have you ever heard of "the miracle of the loaves and fish"?

    - If you drink a Belgian ale, a Doppelbok, and an IPA, haven't you had enough beer, and a few beers?

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  61. What? by Jiro · · Score: 1

    It's made entirely of Legos. Except for the computer.

    You know, I have a great Lego pizza oven. It's made entirely of Legos. Well, except for the metal box, heating element, wires, plug, and a few other things, of course. This is obviously some new use of the word "entirely".

  62. Re:Obligatory by mgblst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The main problem is that the US calls it one way, the rest of the world another way.

    Just as with metric, math (vs maths), the US has to do it differently.

  63. Re:Not impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are you also confused when people say a piece of a lumber is a 2x4?

    You're retarded.

  64. Re:Obligatory by DudemanX · · Score: 2, Funny

    To make it easier on all of you pedantic types how about if instead of pluralizing Lego to Legos. We'll just abbreviate "Lego Bricks" to something that rolls off the tongue a little easier. How about "Legos"?

  65. Re:Not impressive by Gunstick · · Score: 2, Funny

    in fact the Rubics Cube being a *cube* one could simply say "a 3".

    --
    Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
  66. Re:Obligatory by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone of that second group found a sex partner yet. Woman, man, penguin, sea urchin, alien, Lovecraftian trans-dimensional being... anything? ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  67. Re:Obligatory by treeves · · Score: 1

    In a few minutes I'm going to go drive home in a Ford. Just one Ford. Mine. Then there will be a Ford in my driveway at home. If my son still played with Legos - he doesn't much nowadays - I might play Legos with him. But I won't today.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  68. The Lego-Coolness equation by brendan.hill · · Score: 4, Funny

    Um

    It's made of LEGO dude.

    Being made of Lego raises the coolness of an object to it's own power. So if a machine solving a Rubik's Cube had a coolness factor of say, 100, then a machine solving a Rubik's Cube MADE OF LEGO would be 100 ^ 100, or:

    100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

    I mean I don't even care if it's fake... it's still epickly cool.

    1. Re:The Lego-Coolness equation by brendan.hill · · Score: 1

      (oh yeah...)

      Yes but because I made the number with LEGO, this minor detail is overwhelmed by it's awesome coolness.

  69. Re:DO NOT SAY LEGOS! by PPH · · Score: 1

    If I see one more person saying "legos" instead of "lego" I will gouge their eyes out.

    You could build a robot to do the eye-gouging for you. You could even make it out of Legos....

    Augggh!!! I'm blind!!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  70. Re:Obligatory by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

    It's "Lego"

    No, it's "LEGO"

  71. Re:Obligatory by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    People I know *don't* consider it as a mass noun. Ice makes sense as a mass noun since the same term applies to quantities ranging between ~10 molecules to an entire moon of an outer planet. For Legos, OTOH, it makes zero sense to use a mass noun because you're almost always concerned with a number of pieces from 1 up to a couple of hundred. In fact, you're often occupied handling just a single Lego piece, so not having a singular version available would be highly irritating.

    Ice was a bad example. A better comparison would be a mass noun like gravel. In that case, however, you're almost never concerned with an individual piece of rock, and you usually deal with millions of pieces at a time. Legos are still not used in that fashion, and using a mass noun makes no sense even in comparison to gravel.

  72. Re:Obligatory by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

    Have you driven a Ford lately?

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
  73. Re:Obligatory by PPH · · Score: 1

    people do not refer to a brick made by lego as "a lego", they refer to one as "a lego brick".

    If they step on one barefooted, they refer to it by wholy inappropriate language.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  74. It looks like the COMPUTER solves the puzzle... by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    ...and the robot ACTUATES the solution. You enter the starting state of the cube and the program figures out the solution. Different than the robot solving the puzzle.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  75. Re:Obligatory by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always called them "Lego brand building blocks". As in, "Hey Timmy, want to come to my house after kindy to play with my Lego brand building blocks?". Timmy never came to my house though.
     
    On an unrelated note, my father was a trademark lawyer.

    --
    I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  76. Re:I for one will be slack jawed at the awesomenes by myocardialinfarction · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pervert.

  77. Re:Obligatory by porges · · Score: 1

    "Geese" is already plural, the singular being "goose", so it doesn't match your other examples. Actually, then maybe you bring back "goose"? It seems like in the hunting context, the rule might be "use the singular as a mass noun". Same with serving it as dinner -- we eat "chicken", not "chickens".

    And I'll believe that you drink "some beer" rather than "some beers" -- although "some beers" doesn't sound totally wrong to me either -- but I don't believe you "have a few beer". (Unless you're speaking in some non-USAan dialect, I suppose.)

  78. What? I don't think so. by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    If that machine is made entirely of legos, then I can build a car entirely out of sticks found in my yard. If you don't count the bits in the cube-solver that actually do the work, the computer, then I won't count the engine, drivetrain, and tube frame of my car. Terribly, utterly, and entirely unremarkable. But good job to the builders anyway, I guess.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  79. Slower manipulation, faster thinking by The_Duck271 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mostly this is just a demonstration of how a computer can, from the initial scrambled state, immediately see clear through to a solution in a relatively short path, whereas humans can't visualize a whole solve instantly, and so they take it in steps, at a significant cost to solution length. Comparing the two videos you can see that the human is much faster than the robot at making sequences of turns, but must make many more moves than the robot.

    1. Re:Slower manipulation, faster thinking by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      This very reason is why robots will all end up depressed and paranoid like marvin.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  80. Re:Obligatory by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the ones who call them Lego's.

    (I know, you did forget and you hate me for reminding you!)

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  81. Been there, done that by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    Let me know when someone programs a Rubik's cube to build something out of legos.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  82. Re:Obligatory by Gabrill · · Score: 1

    Whens the last time you tried to create anything interesting by stacking fish? Didn't think so!

    Jokes aside, they are officially called Lego bricks. Lego itself is not plural, like fish or sheep or even caribou.

    The main problem is that they have been so widely accepted into pop culture that their trademark is now genericized.

    See for explanation this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  83. Re:Obligatory by node+3 · · Score: 1

    Actually, that would be a contraction, so it's "lego's".

  84. Re:Obligatory by Gabrill · · Score: 1

    Seen Night of the Living Dead? I think Rozy Palm counts as a seperate persona there!

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  85. Re:Obligatory by Gabrill · · Score: 1

    Please don't speak for me. You are obviously misinformed as to my (and a great many other's) speech patterns.

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  86. Solution! by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    That thing got four arms. Come on, that is cheating.

    Have it compete twice against a wookie...

  87. Re:This isn't a robot. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    You'd be wrong; you are thinking of an android.

    --
    It's official. Most of you are morons.
  88. The sudoko is seems more impressive by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    mind you, the cubic solver is nice looking and has a lot of attention paid to making it look good, but it seems to be using a netbook. The sudoko seems to be using ONLY its onboard lego controller, and it has that human touch of writing with a real pen that makes it spooky. The math may be simpler, the robotics seems far more complex. I can almost imagine that robot driving around looking for dropped newspapers to solve the puzzles :P

    The sudoko also wins for me because while all the principles involved are simple enough, getting it all to work together so smoothly is anything but.

    Cubestorm for looks and sheer speed, sudoko robot for neatness and purity.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The sudoko is seems more impressive by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I can almost imagine that robot driving around looking for dropped newspapers to solve the puzzles :P

      Or worse...sitting outside a newspaper outlet and looking really really sad at people till it gets a fresh puzzle.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:The sudoko is seems more impressive by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> Cubestorm for looks and sheer speed, sudoko robot for neatness and purity.

      DEATHMATCH!!!!!!!!

      Sure, the Sudoku robot can move around, but if it happens to wander too close, CubeStorm will twist its delicate figure into a wreck and solve it into a heap of yellow Duplo studs; and do it fast!

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  89. Re:Obligatory by delinear · · Score: 1

    Exactly right, I'm sure if we could see a breakdown of the Lego vs. Legos posts by country it would be overwhelmingly US posters that use the latter, and there it's such a generic usage (like "math" instead of "maths") that it is an accepted part of the language. Maybe that grates on some people's nerves (on both sides of the debate), but it doesn't mean it's an improper usage. I'd find it odd if I was on an exclusively UK-based forum and people were using the term "Legos", but when I'm using an international forum, my tendency is to be more lenient towards cultural language variations. Otherwise... well... see this thread... what were we originally talking about?

  90. Re:not my rubix cube by delinear · · Score: 1

    WOPR/Joshua: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

  91. Re:Obligatory [OT] by MattBecker82 · · Score: 1

    I'll get you started. Yes, whoosh, I know. There's really nothing wrong with the phrase "could care less". Yes, if you deconstruct it, it describes an unremarkable situation, but the same can be said of many English expressions, e.g. "head over heels" or "cheap at half the price". Nonetheless these are all established phrases in the language with commonly understood meanings, without requiring deconstruction. Language usage is based on "common understanding", not prescriptionism or a logical gold-standard.

  92. Re:Obligatory by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    Almost every normal human being I know (that's those with sub-genius IQs) calls them "Legos" (note the plural) and each individual brick a "Lego". The people I know in the "I can quote Starwars" camp call them "Lego bricks."

    Obviously this is undesirable for the brand as this would lower the Trademark to simply being the name of a type of object.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  93. Re:Obligatory by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    If you honestly believe that, as I'm sure you do, that's great. But you're wrong.

    Plenty of people refer to a singular Lego brick as a Lego just as they refer to a Ford vehicle as a Ford and I refer to each of my tires as a Pirelli.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  94. Re:Obligatory by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    There's a huge difference between claiming that a brick SHOULD be called a Lego Brick and claiming that people DON'T call it a Lego.

    People DO walk out from in between parked cars, people DO eat soup while driving, people DO talk on their cell phones in a movie theatre, etc.

    What people ought to do is a totally different argument than the GP was making and the parent was correct to be annoyed by it.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  95. Re:Obligatory by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    Awesome, lol.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  96. Re:Obligatory by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    Whens the last time you tried to create anything interesting by stacking fish? Didn't think so!

    My mother was a fishmonger you heartless bastard!

    Oh wait...

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  97. Re:Obligatory by ajrs · · Score: 1

    why are you hanging out with the normals?

  98. Re:specialized pieces by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

    The lego robot isn't impressive news is all I'm saying. The algorithm already existed.

  99. Re:Obligatory by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

    and have a few beer

    I've never heard a native born American use the word "beer" as the plural form. When your average American is asked "How many beers did you drink?" they reply with the number of cans/bottle/glasses/etc not the number of distinct beer recipes they sampled that night. If buddy has consumed six bottles of Miller High Life and nothing else he will answer the question "How many beers did you drink?" with the reply "Six!" No normal American answers "One."

    --
    "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
  100. Re:specialized pieces by camperdave · · Score: 1

    The robot consists of both the manipulators AND the computer that controls them.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  101. Re:specialized pieces by dzfoo · · Score: 1

    Actually, they say "such and such is made of legos" with the implication that it increases its cool factor by about eleventy orders of awesomnitude.

              -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  102. Re:specialized pieces by dzfoo · · Score: 1


    Employing a computer to solve a puzzle......-10 awesome points
    Using an already existing algorithm.........-10 awesome points

    Building it with Legos and making it
    look like a menacing sci-fi movie prop......10^eleventy-billion points

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  103. Re:Obligatory by dzfoo · · Score: 1

    Or Legicks.

            -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  104. Re:Obligatory by timothy · · Score: 1

    "She says my grammar's good enough / but I'm almost sure it ain't."

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  105. solving cubes? by pdwalker · · Score: 1

    There's an iphone app for that!

    (for solving the cubes, that is)