I recently bought a used Sony Vaio, which had a broken latch. I called tech support, they transfered me to parts. Parts told me I needed a new bezel. So I ordered factory restore CD's ($20), a new Bezel ($50), and a service manual ($20). No problem. I found other place online that sold parts for Vaio's, but Sony's parts department was surprisingly the same price as everywhere else.
...being bought out by some company that just wants to shut them up. Too bad companies aren't allow to slap each other around with wet trout for being stupid.
Here's the bottom line: CMU and UNSW are the top of the line for the Robocup AIBO league. IE, The Sony Dog league. CMU won 2002, UNSW won 2000 and 2001.
Cornell Won the Robocup F180 (small sized) league in 99, 2000, and '02. They came in 3rd in '01. CMU hasn't won the small sized league since '97 and '98, when Robocup began. In fact, for many years they didn't have a small sized league.
Also, Unlike CMU, Cornell applies a systems-wide approach to developing the robots. It not just AI, its the hardware, and Cornell relies on MechE's and EE's as much or more than the CS's guys.
How do I know this? I was on the '00 Cornell Robocup team and wrote the vision system for that team.
First of all, I said the 1999 team, not the current team. Second, I wrote that before the competition today. I wouldn't say CMU swept the competition, notice that they only played 3 games compared to Cornell's 5. Clearly Field B wasn't much of a challenge.
My point was that the Cornell '99 team radically changed the approach teams needed to take to be competitive; not that they would or have always won.
We'll see what happens in Italy this year, CMU hasn't won the small-size world championship since '98.
The Cornell '99 Robocup raised the bar for Robocup by proving a system-wide approach, rather than a purely AI approach was the best way to approach the competition. In addition, the team introduced several innovations that are now common and regularly used in Robocup: Omnidirectional robots (It was previously thought that omni could not be made that small cheaply) and dribbling. Perhaps this is why CMU has dropped out of the Small sized league to focus on the Aibo league: Their team does not have the capability to produce competitive robots.
Oh god... someone shut the flashing red lights and the sirens off...
For a lot of benchmarks, more independant organizations should be created and funded by all the companies who wish to have their products benchmarked, with permission given to publish their findings however they see fit.
Funded by the companies that create the software? And what is Linux supposed to do? Besides that, benchmarking organizations are to busy and dumb to learn how to tweek a database system or an OS or anything else for performance. Better to have a public run off where trusted representives of the development communities involved arrive and tailor their own software to identical hardware platforms. And then document and publish every tweek and customization so that the results can be reproduced independently, just like in the scientific method.
I'm sorry, but BIll is _NOT_ a nerd, and he damn well knows how to fight back... the same way as always, just throw M$ weight around...... What I can't believe is even with the anti-trust case, M$ thinks it owns the industry and can dictate user opinion.
Thats true, computer controlled battle bots would not be very exciting yet, or rather, most wouldn't be. Hell, quite a few of the F180 robocup teams could barely move their own bots, let alone shoot the ball. (This is not intended as an insult, their research was usually very interesting) However, at least for Robocup, a good computer controlled robotic team could run circles around a team of humans controlling the robots with joysticks or gamepads or whatever.
In the small sized league, about 1/2 the teams used Linux. We couldn't because our vision hardware doesn't support it, otherwise we would have.
I think the midsized league had a higher percentage of Linux, and the SGI's that were provided for the simulation league were all running Linux... Those Sony dogs, I dunno what _they_ run!
As a member of Cornell's Robocup F180 team (1999 and 2000 champions) I can say that Robocup and Battle Bots are completely different. As I understand it, Battle Bots are human controlled. I know the robots in RobotWars are. Robocup's robots are COMPLETELY autonomous. Once a game starts, team members have no control over the robots.
In my team, we've talked/joked about entering Battle Bots, and I'm sure it would be exciting, but there is no way we would be willing to risk our robots to those saws, etc. Our robots are custom machined and incredibly expensive. (We estimate $5k a piece) There is no way we can throw that at a guy with a joystick controlled buzz-saw...
That being said, Robocup is only getting more exciting, though I agree, we could usually do without the commentary.
Slashdot Mirror
I recently bought a used Sony Vaio, which had a broken latch. I called tech support, they transfered me to parts. Parts told me I needed a new bezel. So I ordered factory restore CD's ($20), a new Bezel ($50), and a service manual ($20). No problem. I found other place online that sold parts for Vaio's, but Sony's parts department was surprisingly the same price as everywhere else.
...being bought out by some company that just wants to shut them up. Too bad companies aren't allow to slap each other around with wet trout for being stupid.
I'm sick of this confusion.
Here's the bottom line: CMU and UNSW are the top of the line for the Robocup AIBO league. IE, The Sony Dog league. CMU won 2002, UNSW won 2000 and 2001.
Cornell Won the Robocup F180 (small sized) league in 99, 2000, and '02. They came in 3rd in '01. CMU hasn't won the small sized league since '97 and '98, when Robocup began. In fact, for many years they didn't have a small sized league.
Also, Unlike CMU, Cornell applies a systems-wide approach to developing the robots. It not just AI, its the hardware, and Cornell relies on MechE's and EE's as much or more than the CS's guys.
How do I know this? I was on the '00 Cornell Robocup team and wrote the vision system for that team.
My point was that the Cornell '99 team radically changed the approach teams needed to take to be competitive; not that they would or have always won.
We'll see what happens in Italy this year, CMU hasn't won the small-size world championship since '98.
The Cornell '99 Robocup raised the bar for Robocup by proving a system-wide approach, rather than a purely AI approach was the best way to approach the competition. In addition, the team introduced several innovations that are now common and regularly used in Robocup: Omnidirectional robots (It was previously thought that omni could not be made that small cheaply) and dribbling. Perhaps this is why CMU has dropped out of the Small sized league to focus on the Aibo league: Their team does not have the capability to produce competitive robots.
Oh god... someone shut the flashing red lights and the sirens off... For a lot of benchmarks, more independant organizations should be created and funded by all the companies who wish to have their products benchmarked, with permission given to publish their findings however they see fit. Funded by the companies that create the software? And what is Linux supposed to do? Besides that, benchmarking organizations are to busy and dumb to learn how to tweek a database system or an OS or anything else for performance. Better to have a public run off where trusted representives of the development communities involved arrive and tailor their own software to identical hardware platforms. And then document and publish every tweek and customization so that the results can be reproduced independently, just like in the scientific method.
I'm sorry, but BIll is _NOT_ a nerd, and he damn well knows how to fight back... the same way as always, just throw M$ weight around.... .. What I can't believe is even with the anti-trust case, M$ thinks it owns the industry and can dictate user opinion.
Thats true, computer controlled battle bots would not be very exciting yet, or rather, most wouldn't be. Hell, quite a few of the F180 robocup teams could barely move their own bots, let alone shoot the ball. (This is not intended as an insult, their research was usually very interesting) However, at least for Robocup, a good computer controlled robotic team could run circles around a team of humans controlling the robots with joysticks or gamepads or whatever.
One more thing I forgot to mention:
In the small sized league, about 1/2 the teams used Linux. We couldn't because our vision hardware doesn't support it, otherwise we would have.
I think the midsized league had a higher percentage of Linux, and the SGI's that were provided for the simulation league were all running Linux... Those Sony dogs, I dunno what _they_ run!
As a member of Cornell's Robocup F180 team (1999 and 2000 champions) I can say that Robocup and Battle Bots are completely different. As I understand it, Battle Bots are human controlled. I know the robots in RobotWars are. Robocup's robots are COMPLETELY autonomous. Once a game starts, team members have no control over the robots.
In my team, we've talked/joked about entering Battle Bots, and I'm sure it would be exciting, but there is no way we would be willing to risk our robots to those saws, etc. Our robots are custom machined and incredibly expensive. (We estimate $5k a piece) There is no way we can throw that at a guy with a joystick controlled buzz-saw...
That being said, Robocup is only getting more exciting, though I agree, we could usually do without the commentary.