Slashdot Mirror


Stanford Students Build "JediBot"

An anonymous reader writes "By combining a dexterous robotic arm, a foam-padded lightsaber, the movement tracking capabilities of Microsoft's Kinect sensor, and some clever software, students at Stanford University have created what can only be called a JediBot. Using a series of pre-programmed 'attack moves', and Kinect to detect the location of the enemy's light saber, JediBot can attack and defend with surprising grace. For now its attack moves are fairly slow — it can only attack once every 2 or 3 seconds — but presumably you could tweak a knob (and remove the foam padding) to turn JediBot into a real killing machine." I look forward to model that can also "force choke" an opponent.

157 comments

  1. Force Lightning by theillien · · Score: 1

    Just add a massive capacitor or tesla coil, maybe?

    1. Re:Force Lightning by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      combine this sweety with a Kinect interface and I want one...

      TFS is kind of stupid, so a group of students used a Kinect to control an industry robot. Cool idea, even without the Star-Wars-rhubarb.

    2. Re:Force Lightning by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      This reminds me more of the robotic training devices used in one of the Dune books ("Children of Dune", maybe). Alia trains with one on the highest setting, which was supposed to have been pretty impressive, if I remember right (read it 30 years ago, or so).

    3. Re:Force Lightning by vlm · · Score: 1

      This reminds me more of the robotic training devices used in one of the Dune books ("Children of Dune", maybe). Alia trains with one on the highest setting, which was supposed to have been pretty impressive, if I remember right (read it 30 years ago, or so).

      And much later on, the Idaho gholas maxed it out on a regular basis too, etc etc

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Force Lightning by halivar · · Score: 1

      Those training devices appear in almost all the books; but the scene you're thinking of is from Dune Messiah.

    5. Re:Force Lightning by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Force lightning can be directed. You'd need something that would ionise a path through the air to act as a conduit. This has been done before with lasers. It was originally intended as a stun weapon - like a taser but without the need for wires - but the laser burns tended to do more damage than the electrical arc.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Force Lightning by Scottingham · · Score: 2

      ABOMINATION

  2. its all fun and games by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Funny

    till the bot spazzes out and whops some one ... then its just fun

    1. Re:its all fun and games by heathen_01 · · Score: 2

      Being whopped is the fun, at least trying to avoid being whopped would be. How can you have fun with something that has no chance of hitting you?

  3. Force by jmd_akbar · · Score: 1

    May the FORCE be with you!! :D

    --
    Nothing here... So... SHOOO!!!
    1. Re:Force by obergfellja · · Score: 1

      May the FORCE be with you!! :D

      These aren't the droids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Force by jmd_akbar · · Score: 1

      OH CRAP!!!!

      WHY NOT!!!!!

      --
      Nothing here... So... SHOOO!!!
  4. Problem by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    But with the blast shield down, I can't even see! How am I supposed to fight?

    1. Re:Problem by Cable · · Score: 1

      Use the XBox Konnect Lukebot!

    2. Re:Problem by WeeLad · · Score: 1

      Look, good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living? That's something else.

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
  5. Grievous Mistake by Greg+Merchan · · Score: 5, Funny

    This seems to me to be a grievous mistake.

    1. Re:Grievous Mistake by Chemisor · · Score: 2

      Mistakes, in general, grievous are.

    2. Re:Grievous Mistake by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Yes, General Grievous did make a mistake.

  6. I welcome by angelofdarkness · · Score: 1

    I welcome our new jedi-bot overlords!

    1. Re:I welcome by obergfellja · · Score: 1

      I welcome our new jedi-bot overlords!

      *waves Jedi hand*
      These aren't the droids you're looking for.

  7. And then... by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    Indiana Jones shoots it with a gun that the stupid Jedi can only block if it doesn't slow down the 'story' progression.

    1. Re:And then... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I can see for the story plot having the Force can make you good enough to stop a bullet or a light pulse. However If I was a general in the empire I would just use explosives, like a grenades. So they can block it but it still explodes in their face. The light saber is a very inefficiency weapon for the modern barbaric times.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:And then... by uncanny · · Score: 1

      This was a "long time ago" they didn't have technology like grenades back then, duh!

    3. Re:And then... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      (Jedi peers around corner at dying and maimed imperial minions littering the floor in pools of blood and entrails, then stares at grenade pin still on his index finger ). "how....uncivilized". (throws pin away in disgust)

    4. Re:And then... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      However If I was a general in the empire I would just use explosives, like a grenades.

      Considering how often the troops shoot half a mile in the wrong direction you should also have them have some shooting lessons. I mean, a grenade is powerful, but the troops would be most likely to drop them behind their backs when trying to throw.

    5. Re:And then... by jizziknight · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the scene in X-Men 2 where Magneto pulls all the pins out of the soldiers' grenades while they are are still attached to their vests. I imagine a Jedi would do something similar. Or just use the Force to stop the blast entirely. I would think a Jedi could just stop a grenade from exploding.

      --
      Everything I say is a lie. Except that... and that... and that, and that, and that, and that... and that.
    6. Re:And then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or just throw it back.

    7. Re:And then... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You don't need a grenade, you just need three barrels spaced more than the width of a lightsabre blade apart. A jedi with a single blade can block, at most, two of the shots. One is enough to kill.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:And then... by gknoy · · Score: 1

      I think the troops were only inaccurate in Scriptwriter Approved situations -- when it would ensure they don't hit the good guys. Obi-wan's comments indicated that he felt they were supposed to be accurate shots. Maybe they only staffed the Death Star with the marksmanship rejects?

    9. Re:And then... by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      Except that anyone who knows about grenades knows the paddle (spoon) is what starts the fuse. The pin just unlocks the paddle, allowing it to release (it's spring-loaded). As long as you hold the paddle against the grenade the fuse will not start and you can put the pin back in. A properly stored grenade will prevent the paddle from releasing automatically when the pin is pulled. That is grenade 101. Doesn't make for an interesting movie scene, though.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    10. Re:And then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explosives wouldn't work. As soon as you threw the bomb, they'd just force push it right back at you.

  8. NASA Spacecraft Enters Orbit Around Asteroid Vesta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An unmanned NASA probe made history 117 million miles from Earth on Saturday (July 16) when it arrived at the huge asteroid Vesta, making it the first spacecraft ever to orbit an object in the solar system's asteroid belt.

    The Dawn spacecraft entered orbit around Vesta after a four-year chase and will spend about a year studying the huge space rock before moving on to visit another asteroid called Ceres.

    Vesta is a huge asteroid about the size of the U.S. state of Arizona, and is also the brightest asteroid in the solar system. It is located in the asteroid belt, a band of rocky objects that encircles the sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

  9. Forget the Wooden Dummy by jamiesan · · Score: 1

    I want a Robotic Not-So-Dummy! Give it another arm, and teach it kung fu!

    1. Re:Forget the Wooden Dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battle Bots 2.0. I'd actually watch that, especially if at least one of them could execute Aikido.

  10. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    the video was much less cool than the summary made it sounds

    1. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. That robot was really slow, I wasn't too impressed.

    2. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not build a better one yourself then?

    3. Re:meh by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why not build a better one yourself then?

      Someone beat me to it.. in 2009:

      http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/08/03/high-speed-robot-hand-demonstrates-dexterity-and-skillful-manipulation

  11. Really? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    I mean, as a race of bags of mostly water, we're just asking for it.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once watched a video of Kuka arms being used to "debung" pigs. When the robots rise up, pray they just use lightsabers.

  12. What language is that? by rafe.kettler · · Score: 1

    I'm incline to say it's some kind of assembly because of the ALL CAPS and line comments starting with a ;. OTOH, it looks a bit like Perl, but not quite. Anybody know? (freeze frame at 1:51 to see what I'm talking about)

    1. Re:What language is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think it's this: www.reflexxes.net

    2. Re:What language is that? by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      I was thinking Fortran but really am just guessing. The IDE looks unfamiliar to me as well.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3. Re:What language is that? by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      KUKA Robot Language.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    4. Re:What language is that? by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      It's KRC.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    5. Re:What language is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KUKA Robot Language.

      Interesting name: KUKA UR is most closely translated from Swedish as "Cock Up".

      I guess the designer of the language must have been a fan of Swedish girls.

  13. Re:Neat but I'm torn. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Being drunken students they'd go sleep it off and forget about it the next day but the injuries and micro-misalignments in the spine would have festered.

    Bah, when I was a student that was just the sign of a good night out.

  14. Legal Notice To Stanford University, Inc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prior Art?

    Prior Patents?

    Infringement?

    Yours In Moscow,
    Kilgore Trout

  15. Laws of Robotics by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    Could this robot potentially violate the first and second laws of Robotics?

    1 A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    2 A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:Laws of Robotics by NervousWreck · · Score: 2

      If a robot is not sophisticated enough to obey orders that aren't hardcoded, is it in violation of the second law?

      --
      I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
    2. Re:Laws of Robotics by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's tough to encode high level laws in robots without brains.

      Those robots that weld cars together don't exactly worry too much about hurting any humans who are dumb enough to get their smelly contaminated hydrocarbon bits in the way.

    3. Re:Laws of Robotics by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Robots that weld cars together protect humans by being in cages or being surrounded by laser sensor grids that kill the motion if the beam is interrupted.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Laws of Robotics by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not? Pretty much every robot produced can violate the first law, because no one has created a control system capable of defining what 'harm' means. Even toy robots can move just outside of a baby's reach and make them cry. Most factory robots could probably disassemble a human if one got in the way.

      Most of Asimov's robot stories dealt with the fact that 'harm' is difficult to quantify even for highly intelligent beings. For something with a simple control program, it's basically impossible.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Laws of Robotics by gknoy · · Score: 1

      The robot did not appear to be making any attacks, but rather was attempting to match the incoming sword strike at a 90 degree angle. Of course, it would likely not be a far stretch to make it execute counters, too, but at least this robot did not appear to be doing so.

    6. Re:Laws of Robotics by Ruke · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Most robots can. Many robots are designed to. The amount of funding for "pure science" robotics pales in comparison to DOD research grants. Your project will never go unfunded, as long as you can figure out how to use it to kill people.

    7. Re:Laws of Robotics by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      The first half of the movie showed it making attacks.... it was very clearly swinging the blade back to strike.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  16. This is only a toy by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a long time swordfight student and instructor, I have to say that putting a stick in the grip of an industrial robot does not make it a sword fighter.

    For example, the obvious mistake seen in the video is that the robot strikes at the *weapon*, not the *person*. As any 1st year fencing student knows, you can't win the fight that way. I love fighting nubies who make that mistake.

    We have a term for this - it's called "Erroll Flynn" fighting, and it refers to those cheap movie swordfight scenes where the actors aren't skilled enough to actually fight without putting out their opponent's eye. Stay far enough away so that you can't hit the opponent, and cross swords in mid air. Clack... Clack... Clack... now low: Clack... Clack... Clack... now high...

    Let's have a robot that holds a broom and say it's a sweeping robot! Or a robot that holds a hose and say it's a car washing robot! Or a robot that holds a trimmer and say it's a hedge-trimming robot.

    Wake me when it can detect an opening in the opponent's defense and strike at it.

    1. Re:This is only a toy by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In its defence, this is exactly what the movie jedi did also, so calling it a "jedi bot" is an accurate description.

    2. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree. The swordfight was modelled by someone that saw too many star wars movies and didn't bother do study the basics of kendo or kenjutsu.

    3. Re:This is only a toy by diewlasing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure if you're joking or you really did miss the point of the experiment. Yes, obviously a more realistic robot would try to actually attack the sword. But this isn't the main point. The point is to see if you can actually engineer a robot to respond to different situation appropriately. And they did. I have a have a ladder that goes great with that high horse of yours.

    4. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heh. Those "cheap movie sword fight scenes" were choreographed by Ralph "The Boss" Faulkner. Surprising that you don't know that being a long time swordfight student and instructor.

      http://www.sword-play.net/faulkner.htm

    5. Re:This is only a toy by diewlasing · · Score: 1

      *attack the body I mean

    6. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "someone that saw too many star wars"

      i'm guessing the value of "too many" is defined as anything more than 3.

    7. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? All of them?

    8. Re:This is only a toy by kikito · · Score: 2

      "For example, the obvious mistake seen in the video is that the robot strikes at the *weapon*, not the *person*. As any 1st year fencing student knows, you can't win the fight that way. I love fighting nubies who make that mistake."

      Certainly direction and target is the primary parameter to take into account ... for humans. I think that you are missing the very obvious but very important fact that we are talking about machines here. Their raison d'être is to excel precisely where we don't (at least for now). Their constraints and objectives are also different.

      Should a match ever happen, on an equal ground, I would be betting on the machine.

      Consider what would happen if a robot directed a hit to a stick handed by you ... but without safety measures on. This is, with full machine strength and speed.

      Machines can *literally* have the strength of ten men, and far beyond. And they can move faster than our eyes can see.

      The swing would not have to be directed to your body. Nor be particularly elegant, or have a great follow-up. With enough speed and force, your stick would be gone from your hand after the first move, and you would probably be suffering severe incapacitating injuries in your arm (or more, if you happened to be behind the stick).

      It would not be "human fencing", just like the raw calculative power in a CPU isn't "human intelligence". Each one has its uses.

    9. Re:This is only a toy by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Of course it's a toy. Meant for amusement. For entertainment.

      This and this are the non-toy versions.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    10. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must have missed the part in the article where it says its a sword fighter.

    11. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's have a robot that holds a broom and say it's a sweeping robot! Or a robot that holds a hose and say it's a car washing robot! Or a robot that holds a trimmer and say it's a hedge-trimming robot.

      Or a swordfighter that reads (?) a tech article and say he's an idiot!

      Uh, sorry for that. But why the hell would a robot arm have to wait for an opening in it's opponents defense? It could cut you in half by sher force, and putting your sword in between would make no difference. And BTW, all those dancing is no match for a good blaster.

    12. Re:This is only a toy by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      1960: As a long time welder, I don't see machines ever being able to weld a car frame together

      1990: As a long time doctor I don't see machines ever doing remote surgeries.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    13. Re:This is only a toy by CYDVicious · · Score: 1

      It appears you seem to be missing the possibilities of this bot, because they have not revealed the coding for finding an opening.


      There are pre-programmed "attacks" that attack a color, in this case it detects the green sword and attacks.
      Add enough "attacks" to its library, and code to detect the body(or vital hit points) instead of the sword.
      Then carefully add a calculation to determine the speed of the robot attack to make contact with the body/vitals and comparatively calculate the speed of the incoming attack, and select the "attack" from the pre-defined attack array that is fast enough to land before the oncoming attack lands and you have your opening.
      A smart bot would be defensive first, blocking all attacks and using that as data to find the average and quickest attacks of the opponent, then refining a usable attack list based on which attacks in memory are faster than those attacks and based on which vitals are targeted.

      I can see where this can lead to. Granted at the pace the "arm" was moving at, not a real threat unless its an endurance contest, but assuming the hardware arm is upgraded or can sustain highspeed maneuvers on par with being able to detect the exit point from a gun barrel and deflect bullets and we're getting somewhere ;)

      ~CYD

      --
      //Nothing to see here, please move along.
    14. Re:This is only a toy by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      So...Don't bring a knife to a gunfight?

    15. Re:This is only a toy by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Maybe in the first movies, you know the original Trilogy.

      In Phantom Menace Ray Park (Darth Maul) actually wanted all of the moves in the fight scenes to have legitimate targets. As in: I am swinging for his head, he is trying to stop me from hitting his head, etc.

      Speaking as a fencer, I had a buddy that tied a string to the floor and ceiling of his garage, he put a tennis ball on the string at chest height and would practice stabbing it for a little while each day. His point control improved, and that was just going for a target.

      It wouldn't be that hard to attach a torso to this thing giving it a target to protect and ask it to knock away the opponents blade. It obviously doesn't advance and retreat like a real opponent, but you have to start somewhere.

    16. Re:This is only a toy by BlackHawk · · Score: 1

      "Wake me when it can detect an opening in the opponent's defense and strike at it." Do you say this to your beginning students? The fact that this robot has the ability to track its opponent's sword, and using its programming, place its own sword in the "best" (in the minds of the programmers, who are clearly not swordsmen, as you and I are) position for anticipatory defense is a milestone. Give it time; it will be a relatively short step to add heuristic algorithms to this, and then the machine will simply learn what works and what doesn't. After, of course, a decent programmer works with a decent swordsman to give the robot access to the techniques of I.33, Talhoffer, Durer, Agrippa, and personally, I'd hope Donald McBane.

      --

      Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha

    17. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love fighting nubies who make that mistake.

      Instructors are supposed to be there to help "nubies" learn, not to pwn them and lol.

      Wake me when it can detect an opening in the opponent's defense and strike at it.

      Do you go to car shows and bitch at the Ford booth that you don't have a hover-car yet? The average person could be forgiven for being ignorant of how long innovation actually takes, but if you're going to show up on /. to bitch about it, you might want to keep your mouth shut about your status as a swordsmanship instructor; a weapon that was made obsolete by technology over 6 centuries ago; or did you not get the memo about firearms?

    18. Re:This is only a toy by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wake me when it can detect an opening in the opponent's defense and strike at it.

      I suggest you don't bother reading slashdot. If a technology has to be at that level beefore you want to even hear about it then maybe you should get your tech news from the History Chanel?

    19. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was one scene in the original trilogy where the fencing coreographer (I think it was Bob Anderson) actually got the actors to fight like a real fight. It's in ESB, it's the scene where Vader's holding the lightsaber one-handed, you'll know it when you see it.

      Apparently, Anderson had that scene filmed when Lucas was out for coffee or something. Lucas ends up not seeing the scene until editing and he's furious, but there's no time to re-shoot it so it stays in.

    20. Re:This is only a toy by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      But in a "sword" fight in which you and your opponent both have some ability to see into the future surely swordplay might be a little different - you aren't trying to hit him you are simply getting him to do an action other than than the one that will lead to an inevitable chain of actions and him hitting you 2 minutes later?

    21. Re:This is only a toy by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      the fact that the used toy lightsabers didn't give that away?

    22. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computing the nominal center of the human would not be a big stretch. The problem is you don't really want too many foot-pounds of industrial strength robot force aimed at a real human, at least not a human you care about.

    23. Re:This is only a toy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In Phantom Menace Ray Park (Darth Maul) actually wanted all of the moves in the fight scenes to have legitimate targets. As in: I am swinging for his head, he is trying to stop me from hitting his head, etc.

      In that case, they should shoot the fight choreographer. Watch the film again. There are a huge number of times when someone with a few days of experience behind them would stab the person who just turned their back in a flashy move that exposed most of their body without a guard. It made me cringe watching them. Someone with jedi reflexes should have ended any one of the fight scenes in the first 10 seconds.

      In the first films the fights were a lot more realistic, largely because they weren't the central plot element in the relevant scenes. The characters were just waving lightsabres while having an argument. Except in the first fight with Darth Vader, neither party in any of the fights wanted to kill the other, and in that one Obi-wan chose not to defend himself when the fight became serious.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:This is only a toy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between those two and fencing: these days, no one actually needs to fight with a sword. People do it for fun, for show, and for exercise. A robot doesn't have to be able to beat a human to be 'better', it has to be a more (or equally) fun opponent. Think about chess computers. No one really cares about things like Deeper Blue, which can beat any human opponent. People care about things like GNU Chess, which can play at a skill level that's fun for someone who enjoys chess to play against.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a long time swordfight student and instructor, I have to say...

      Hey Erroll Flynn; the point wasn't to make an effective killing machine, they're already working on those in other parts of the complex, much more effective ones than this. Go back to your dojo, castle, whatever.

    26. Re:This is only a toy by PPH · · Score: 1

      Speed this up and give it a repertoire of offensive moves and it could be a hell of a good training aide for fencing.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    27. Re:This is only a toy by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Nobody is looking for an actual sword-fighting robot, other than (perhaps) people looking for something to practice against. Not a huge market there, and some might not even want one that fights properly (I can imagine usage in some Disney park attraction where that would be undesirable).

      The military (historically the main user of sword-related technology) already has robots for combat that are literally centuries ahead of this sword-bot - they've got UAVs with guided missiles, tank-bots with .30-caliber machine guns, even sentry robots that can independently authorize themselves to open fire with a 40mm grenade launcher. They don't need something that can hit someone with a sword - they have things that can hit someone with high explosives from half a kilometer away.

      The point to this was two-fold. One, give a bunch of students something to do. Two, do something "cool". Real swordfights are sometimes quite boring (lot of time just circling and maneuvering), and might also be too fast for it to track (seriously - I can swing a zweihander faster than that robot was swinging a stick, and skilled fencers move at "blink and you'll miss it" speeds). Most importantly, there's no point in making it fight properly - it doesn't help achieve either purpose.

    28. Re:This is only a toy by Epeeist · · Score: 1

      Wake me when it can detect an opening in the opponent's defense and strike at it.

      Or even better, when it can cope with an attack from Pozdniakov - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1478623914238877457

    29. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But:
      a. we're talking high end research (it's Stanford!). there's a higher standard we're talking about here (or are we just playing around?).
      b. I agree with the OP, a lot of industrial robots can do the same... out of the box... when he's talking about "Flynn style". sure the Stanford arm looks more "realistic", but that's packaging and actually the easy part for many arms nowadays.

      My take is that they proved we can use an existing robotic arm (a Kuka) with existing software (likely ROS), and [an existing] cheap kinect (industry quality API) to make a robotic arm follow/respond much like the original makers of those 3 systems intended. I would not be surprised if a hobbyist recreates this in short time. Having a robot respond to different situations appropriately has been done for awhile, and in practice (re: the Military, Google street view cars). Doing it with "fairly" cheap components is the main point--that they were able to integrate the 3 vendor systems.

    30. Re:This is only a toy by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      Long long ago:

      Long time Jedi I am. See machines wielding a lightsaber I do not. Hmph.

    31. Re:This is only a toy by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's not whether the bear dances well but the fact that the bear is dancing at all.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    32. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're only a joyless asshole. Get over yourself.

    33. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

    34. Re:This is only a toy by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You'll likely have more luck with the History Channel, unless perfumes are what you are interested in.

    35. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I quit fencing after the 8 week beginner class because I discovered what fencing is... each point is a couple of seconds of fast motion, "whap!" and it's over. Whipping the foil around past your opponent's guard to score the touch is pretty boring.
       
      But for alpha types of both sexes who enjoy dominance games, it seems like a fine sport.
       
      Yes, I know; "yadda yadda yadda, you don't know anything about fencing, blah blah blah", but I did watch advanced students, including people who compete in matches, and it's just not that interesting.
       
      I try lots of things; flying, fencing, flyball (look it up), skydiving, paramotoring (look it up), whitewater kayaking, long distance cycling, painting, target shooting, cooking, ballroom dancing, and keep up with about half of those. What's interesting is the identical attitudes of the people who get serious about *any* of those hobbies, especially the snobby disdain toward anyone who doesn't know as much as they.

    36. Re:This is only a toy by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      There are a huge number of times when someone with a few days of experience behind them would stab the person who just turned their back in a flashy move that exposed most of their body without a guard. It made me cringe watching them. Someone with jedi reflexes should have ended any one of the fight scenes in the first 10 seconds.

      Obi-Wan Kenobi, in every movie in which he fights does a spin exposing his back to an opponent who, paradoxically, will also spin at the exact same time instead of just taking the opportunity to hit him.

      At least they're consistent about it. It happens in ANH as well as the prequels.

    37. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what the point of this "experiment" is either. I see no evidence from the video that the robot is doing anything other than going through a series of preprogrammed moves. The person the robot is engaged in battle with moves his lightsaber to meet the robot's every single time the robot swings. I don't see him moving it to different locations and holding it still to show how the robot can recognize the location and strike at it. In fact at one point you can see the robot begin a vertical attack while the student is holding his sword vertically. He moves the stick horizontally to meet the robots attack. I have seen better object recognition and response from robots 5+ years older than this.

    38. Re:This is only a toy by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Wake me when a computer can do something way more complicated, like beat a chessmaster. Hey, is it time to get up already?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    39. Re:This is only a toy by surferx0 · · Score: 1

      Maybe in the first movies, you know the original Trilogy.

      In Phantom Menace Ray Park (Darth Maul) actually wanted all of the moves in the fight scenes to have legitimate targets. As in: I am swinging for his head, he is trying to stop me from hitting his head, etc.

      Are you kidding me? Watch those fights again, what you speak of clearly did not happen. Most of the strikes were aimed directly at the light sabers and not intended to ever hit the body.

      Yes, Ray Park is an experienced and talented martial artist, but he also clearly recongized that he is performing fight choreography for a mass-market movie made purely for entertainment. He was never aiming to simulate a real fight, rather he simply needed to add speed and vitality to the fight scenes as compared to the original movies since that is what Lucas asked him to do.

      When you perform martial arts for an audience like that, you must be aware that your audience needs to see and understand what is happening. A simulation of a real fight would never work in a movie or on stage, because the fighters would otherwise be seeking to conserve energy and remove unnecessary movement. This would not look very good to an audience as the audience be unable to comprehend what is happening since everything would be too fast and too short for entertainment value.

    40. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He missed the point, and will some day miss a sword coming at him too, all because he's blinded by his massive ego.

    41. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is looking for an actual sword-fighting robot

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc

    42. Re:This is only a toy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "heuristic" I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  17. Jedi Church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But can the JediBot join the jedi church? Or is its flashy orange garment considered too sinful?

  18. Re:Neat but I'm torn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how many layers there are in this post. It's like one big extended metaphor of crazy.

  19. Re:NASA Spacecraft Enters Orbit Around Asteroid Ve by RMingin · · Score: 1

    That's the most informative and non-controversial troll post I've ever seen. Next you'll pretend to be on-topic or something.

    --
    The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
  20. Re:Neat but I'm torn. by Matheus · · Score: 1

    Ya... it's inspiring.

    After reading this I'm thrown into the moral dilemma between: "Forming a parents group to fight the injustice in the world that would even allow such a creation to exist let alone be exposed to 'The Children'" OR "Breaking into the lab myself to steal the Jedi-Bot and arm it properly." /. poll?

  21. Fake by arthurpaliden · · Score: 2

    Obviously fake there were women in the class.

    1. Re:Fake by hellkyng · · Score: 1

      This is not the troll you are looking for *waves hand*

    2. Re:Fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      booooo

  22. What's this dog collar in the box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the retail version will include a WiFi dog collar to "force choke" the player. Friends of David Carradine will find an alternate use.

  23. Basic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Towards the end of the video you can see that they programmed in Basic. "No. No. That's not true. That's impossible! Noooooooo!"

    1. Re:Basic by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      At first I thought it looked like BASIC too but after some Google-Fu I'm pretty sure it's KUKA Robot Language.

  24. Force choke? by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

    Is that what we're calling it these days?

    Yeah, to be honest, I look forward to a robot that can "force choke" it's "opponent" too.

    --
    Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    1. Re:Force choke? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      Is that what we're calling it these days?

      Yeah, to be honest, I look forward to a robot that can "force choke" it's "opponent" too.

      Actually, they have those already:

      "Wolowitz Penis problems with robotic hand Big Bang Theory" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWwikNgKvQE

    2. Re:Force choke? by socz · · Score: 1

      Oh, I thought THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqV1EaM8TE was the way to go... it even comes with "life like sounds!"

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
  25. awww by Cockatrice_hunter · · Score: 1

    I thought this would be something like that floating ball thingy that you're supposed to hit. Something based on the recent japanese flying orb thingy.

  26. Easier to fight by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    They will really have something when they can program a robot to be your dance partner.

  27. Really, /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all the Adobe Flash bashing on /., you'd think they wouldn't publish an article on the frontpage with a flash object in it.

    Sheesh.

    1. Re:Really, /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What flash object?

      *checks my ABP list of blocked items*

      Oh, that flash object.

  28. General Grievous by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    When will he appear?

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  29. Half impressed by Tomahawk · · Score: 2

    In 'attack mode', it's following a set of pre-determined attack moved. Not even randomly determined. Boring.

    But in 'defence mode', it's impressive, tracking the opponents sword and moving to block it. Very nice. Would be cool if it could move faster... but that's just a factor of time - next year's version will be twice as fast, and the year after twice as fast again...

    1. Re:Half impressed by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Much to learn YounglingBot has, much to learn.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:Half impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the code shown has Sleep(0.5) shown, I would guess that you could get a great increase in speed just removing those.

  30. Re:Neat but I'm torn. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    That one? no.

    a real industrial one? yes.

    I have seen an industrial robot glitch and throw a whole car engine 90 feet and through a wall so fast that I am sure if it was outside the car would have easily went a football field.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  31. Re:Neat but I'm torn. by Moryath · · Score: 1

    I loved this one: "And I won't bother going into the issue of all that infrared radiation spewing from the Kinect sensor."

    OMG. RADIATION! Oh wait. Infrared radiation is... heat. Plain, simple, heat.

    Hey Dr. Bob. You know your lightbulbs? They're putting out RADIATION OMG!

  32. Re:Neat but I'm torn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    Chiropractic is a scam
    Chiropractic is quackery

    But most of all, Bob you trolling quack, the main reason everybody mods you into oblivion is that no matter what the damn slashdot topic actually is, you always twist it into an excuse for shilling chiropracty. The topic could be 64-bit firefox, ethernet, Bill Gates and Toilets, it doesn't matter, you twist into another advert for your own snakeoil. You obviously don't care about the actual topic or slashdot; you just want to advertise your ailing business and that's the only reason you're here.

    You're a just a spammer, and a spammer of quackery which is the lowest form of spammery.

    This is not the place to shill your business, be it car repair, carpentry, origami, or quackery (as in your case). This is not an ad forum. Stick to the damn article topic or GTFO.

  33. Don't be too proud of this technological terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've constructed. The ability to wiffle-bat an opponent is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

  34. Bob Anderson by Epeeist · · Score: 1

    Bob Anderson wasn't a fencing choreographer. He was actually the British and Canadian national fencing coach.

    1. Re:Bob Anderson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was also the guy behind the Vader mask during the fight scenes. David Prowse only did the non-fight stuff.

  35. Jedi? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since we're in an academic frame of mind: JediBot should be called, JediArm. It's just a robotic arm, which moves 100x slower than a ABB flexpicker, which can easily do the same thing. Likely using a kinect too given the chance.

  36. Moore law goes only that far... by abies · · Score: 1

    There is a limit of doubling the jedi-robot speed each year - at some point, they will start adding more swords.

  37. Awesome. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    I really wish they had shown a bit more of the defense bit, instead of shoving that at the end of the video.
    I found that far more interesting than a sequence of pre-programmed attacks.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  38. who's the girl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's hot!

  39. This robot must be in an early stage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In attack mode it's using a series of pre defined motions. Nothing exciting here.

    In defense mode it senses the users location of their 'sword' then adjusts to meet it. Aside from interfacing with kinect and the robot, nothing exciting going on.

    Seems to me like this robot is being created for more complex tasks and this video is a foundation. Kind of neet to see the current stage. Big waste of time for students if something more doesn't come out of it.

  40. SWK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the video of the still-to-be-debugged prototype that grabs a golf ball retriever and randomly shakes it around?

  41. No, really - this is a toy by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0

    We see numerous announcements on Slashdot where some researchers or company has made a "breakthrough in X", and experts on this very forum roundly lambast them for being nothing new, nothing important, nothing innovative, or "10 years to market".

    This is one of those announcements.

    Attaching a stick to a robot is *not new*. It's obvious and even trivial when you think about it. Similar for using a kinect to sense a stick and react to it...

    I'll repeat this once more: it's NOTHING NEW. It's not innovative or a breakthrough, it's nothing important.

    Car analogy: We've mounted a camera and servos on a car, soon we'll have autodriving vehicles!

    It's not a technology in it's infancy that only needs a few years to mature. The bulk of the technology, the important bits that need to be addressed, lie in the software.

    It's slow - so what, that's not the issue. It responds to a green stick - so what, that's not the issue. It's a prototype and a little rough - so what, that's not the issue. It's done by students and cut them a little slack - that's not the issue.

    Like autodriving vehicles: I/O is not the issue.

    1. Re:No, really - this is a toy by Needlzor · · Score: 1

      Care to point out where it is said that it is a "breakthrough" in anything ?

  42. Wouldn't stand a chance by drb226 · · Score: 1

    it can only attack once every 2 or 3 seconds

    So it needs to get about 10-15x faster to hold up against a "real" jedi.

  43. Technological Terror! by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.

    1. Re:Technological Terror! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet your sad devotion to that ancient religion of biological "minds" has not helped conjure up the stolen data tapes...

  44. Re:Neat but I'm torn. by Moryath · · Score: 1

    Dr. Bob obviously had one too many binge-drunks during his time at Quack Factory Diploma Mill and killed most of his brain cells.

  45. The students also built a second, humaniod robot.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...which is used for demonstration of the first robot. (See 1:36 in the video)

  46. Ridiculous waste of students time and university $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they made a robotic arm move in a bunch of predetermined ways, then attached a stick at the end, and pretend to fight it with another stick...

    Uh... Am I missing something?

    This is not a good PR video for Stanford and I'd be embarrassed to put my name on it.

    Maybe if they had a video camera watching the student's stick and striking motion and then moved the robot to counter attack in real time - then you've got something worth sharing.

    This is nothing more than an example of why paying for College doesn't guarantee any sort of success in life. All they've accomplished here is playing with someone else's expensive stuff.

  47. Fail by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

    What a waste of time and resources. It's shit. That guys parents must be really disappointed.
    Personally I'd beat him around the head with the remains of his shitbot.

  48. Hmm... by spartacus_prime · · Score: 1

    I've got a bad feeling about this.

    --
    If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
  49. Disapointment ensues... by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    This was not the girl-on-droid (specifically, phallic-tool-wielding droid) video I had anxiously anticipated. sigh

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  50. Robot too slow to be a Jedi ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the control response I would expect from a fighting robot . The response of the robot is incredibly slow.
    I expected something like this.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qEotHQgUsg

  51. Jedi robot isn't the real story by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    I want to hear more about this robot that makes grilled hamburgers!

  52. This is preposterous by partyguerrilla · · Score: 1

    A Jedibot is an oxymoron, everyone knows droids aren't force sensitive.

  53. This is what Stanford grad students are proud of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be embarrassed, what a waste....

  54. Re:Ridiculous waste of students time and universit by Ruke · · Score: 2

    Maybe if they had a video camera watching the student's stick and striking motion and then moved the robot to counter attack in real time - then you've got something worth sharing.

    They did do this.

  55. Slow? by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that thinks it's really slow? It seems to me that both the robot, and the computing resources available at Stanford ought to not be the limiting factors here, so why is it moving so slowly?

  56. What's the programming language? by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

    Skip ahead to about 1:52 in the video. What's the programming language? Tell me that's not BASIC...

    1. Re:What's the programming language? by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      KUKA robot language.

  57. Welcome by RabidStoat · · Score: 1

    I, for one, would like to welcome our new JediBot overlord

  58. How long until? by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 1

    How long until the code is ported over to Android?

    --
    $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
  59. Re:Neat but I'm torn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not exactly uncommon knowledge that students like to binge drink and play in the labs after hours. Imagine if, in a moment of drunken stupidity, they were to

    take on chiropractic as a career? shit, dawg, that would be devastating. Is that what happened to you?