According to this article, manned ornithopter flight had been achieved in 1942 by Adalbert Schmid. Like the ornithopter in the article, it was a manned, engine-powered ornithopter that could take off under its own power. The difference, it seems, is that Schmid's orni' had fixed wings in addition to the flappers whereas the one that flew today had only the flapping wings. Not to discredit or lessen their excellent achievement today, just think the history is interesting.
Incidentally, you can buy some pretty neat ornithopter kits from www.ornithopter.org. I'm not affiliated or anything, just interested in flapping-wing flight and experimenting on a small scale.
The development of flapping wing flight is interesting because it can also have other applications. I am especially interested in the use of 'flapper' designs in water craft (specifically for use in robotics). An interesting use of similar tech can be seen in these kayaks. Intersting stuff.
Using the Debian logo for this story makes sense, but it has also been used on Slashdot for stories about Ubuntu exclusively. I think it's about time that Ubuntu have it's own logo for Slashdot stories in a similar manner to other distros. I know Ubuntu comes from Debian, but it has reached a unique prominence on it's own. Some of the content of the article would seem to support the idea of having an Ubuntu logo to differentiate Ubuntu stories from those about Debian.
I really hope this is the *AA's last stand as you say. I also hope this treaty doesn't go anywhere. However, if it does, this is how I could imagine it going:
Treaty is passed --> US begins to enforce the treaty as US law --> To "protect the rights of content creators," compulsory registration of US web sites, blogs, etc. is passed
I realise that this is a slippery slope argument, but I also believe that this could actualy happen in the next decade or so. I think that the internet is more free (as in speech) today then it will be in the near future.
According to the Blazing Angels web site, it will be available for PC as well. As the article mentioned, I'd highly recommend Crimson Skies for the PC if you like simple (as in not entirely realistic and easy/intuitive to learn) flight sims.
If I remember correctly, the object sensors on these 'bots can not distinguish between a solid, impassable obstacle and a harmless bunch of scrub that could be driven through. Assuming this is true, couldn't you create a 'wall' out of bedsheets or some other cheap material and box one of these vehicles in very quickly. Once disabled (confused), you could unload the supplies or damage the vehicle.
This is just conjecture based on a half-recollection but I don't thik it would be too difficult to attack a relativly slow moving, unarmed autonomous vehicle such as demonstarated by the Grand Challenge vehicles which are at the state of the art.
I appreciate your posting here, since you are someone who is in the field of robotics and willing to discuss the definition of robots. I build robots as a hobby myself and I do presentations about robots to college students. One of the hardest parts of these presentations is defining what is a robot or what it means to be robotic. I like Joseph Engelberger's definition, "I can't define a robot, but I know one when I see one." It makes sense, but it's not academic enough to discuss.
It seems like there are two definitions of a robot: 1)something that people identify as a robot, or 2)Something that is capable of autonomous control of a physical body that can interact with its environment. My guess is that the TALON robots meet the first definition, but I am unsure of the second. I am not sure if you can discuss this but if the TALON robot is, for example, given a command to move from point X to point Y, can it navigate that path without further human input or does it require constant human control to make all of the decisions neccesary to travel that path? Your post seems to indicate that the TALON robot needs constant human input although it could be modified to be autonomous. I'm guessing that the other actions this robot makes are similar in that sense. That being said, I'm glad that the military does not build fully autnomous robots for the reasons you mentioned.
I think that the common, popular definition of what a robot is will change in the next decade or so and I think that we'll be using other, more exact terms to describe the many machines that fall under the definition of robot today. As you and many others have posted, the current definitions of "robot" encompass many machines that may meet the criteria of the definition but that we do not consider robots.
I recently got a CD from H&R block to use when doing my taxes. Turns out that H&R accidentaly printed my social security number on the mailing label along with a string of other 'tracking numbers'. They sent a letter appologizing about it and saying that it had happened to a number of their customers. I still wonder why the shipping/printing department at H&R Block would have access to social security numbers at all.
I like the new design. I often feel like I am missing stories even when I go through the "# more.." sections; I'm just never sure if I've seen all those stories before or not.
My one fear is that there will be more (off topic) comments in the stories that were previously only posted in by people who were really interested in that section. In the past, there were several stories in the science section that didn't make it to the main page but were really interesting to me. The only people who posted to those stories tended to be people who were really interested in the article rather then making yet another tired slashjoke.
Overall, I'm glad of the change. In fact, I really like it. I just hope the posts stay interesting in some of the more obscure topics.
This reminds me of getting music on tape. After you got tired of the band, you could just 'remove the protection' (using sticky tape!) and record whatever you wanted over it.
Re:The problem with corporate naming of stadiums
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
The article is frustratingly vague. It sounds to me like the robot doesn't replicate itself but rather that Dr. Adrian Bowyer has created some type of system for replicating robot chasis. The picture clearly shows a plastic 'bot with attached motors, wiring, batteries, etc. From the information that the article gives, it seems like a human is still needed for the final construction. I wouldn't consider this self replicating because it is not autonomous.
Unfortunately, I don't often have an extra $12 to spend on getting rid of something. What I have been trying to do is put together computers out of old parts that I can give to local kids whose families can not afford a computer.
However, I still feel like it is unfair to be charged both when buying a monitor and when disposing of it. Your comment made me wonder though, perhaps the fact that there is a charge to dispose of monitors is what prompts some people (like myself) to find other uses for them and extend their life instead of creating more technotrash.
I live in Northern California and here, I get charged twice for monitors and TVs - once as a fee when I buy it and again when I try to dispose of it. The local recycling places all charge $12 to accept a monitor, working or not. Right now, I've got 4 monitors and a TV to get rid of but I don't have the $60 to throw them away.
I'm all for paying the actual cost of recycling items that I feel I am responcible for but I don't want to be charged twice.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, you can buy some pretty neat ornithopter kits from www.ornithopter.org. I'm not affiliated or anything, just interested in flapping-wing flight and experimenting on a small scale.
The development of flapping wing flight is interesting because it can also have other applications. I am especially interested in the use of 'flapper' designs in water craft (specifically for use in robotics). An interesting use of similar tech can be seen in these kayaks. Intersting stuff.
Using the Debian logo for this story makes sense, but it has also been used on Slashdot for stories about Ubuntu exclusively. I think it's about time that Ubuntu have it's own logo for Slashdot stories in a similar manner to other distros. I know Ubuntu comes from Debian, but it has reached a unique prominence on it's own. Some of the content of the article would seem to support the idea of having an Ubuntu logo to differentiate Ubuntu stories from those about Debian.
Treaty is passed --> US begins to enforce the treaty as US law --> To "protect the rights of content creators," compulsory registration of US web sites, blogs, etc. is passed
I realise that this is a slippery slope argument, but I also believe that this could actualy happen in the next decade or so. I think that the internet is more free (as in speech) today then it will be in the near future.
According to the Blazing Angels web site, it will be available for PC as well. As the article mentioned, I'd highly recommend Crimson Skies for the PC if you like simple (as in not entirely realistic and easy/intuitive to learn) flight sims.
I never thought about it before, but it sucks to get mod points on March 31st....
This is just conjecture based on a half-recollection but I don't thik it would be too difficult to attack a relativly slow moving, unarmed autonomous vehicle such as demonstarated by the Grand Challenge vehicles which are at the state of the art.
It seems like there are two definitions of a robot: 1)something that people identify as a robot, or 2)Something that is capable of autonomous control of a physical body that can interact with its environment. My guess is that the TALON robots meet the first definition, but I am unsure of the second. I am not sure if you can discuss this but if the TALON robot is, for example, given a command to move from point X to point Y, can it navigate that path without further human input or does it require constant human control to make all of the decisions neccesary to travel that path? Your post seems to indicate that the TALON robot needs constant human input although it could be modified to be autonomous. I'm guessing that the other actions this robot makes are similar in that sense. That being said, I'm glad that the military does not build fully autnomous robots for the reasons you mentioned.
I think that the common, popular definition of what a robot is will change in the next decade or so and I think that we'll be using other, more exact terms to describe the many machines that fall under the definition of robot today. As you and many others have posted, the current definitions of "robot" encompass many machines that may meet the criteria of the definition but that we do not consider robots.
I recently got a CD from H&R block to use when doing my taxes. Turns out that H&R accidentaly printed my social security number on the mailing label along with a string of other 'tracking numbers'. They sent a letter appologizing about it and saying that it had happened to a number of their customers. I still wonder why the shipping/printing department at H&R Block would have access to social security numbers at all.
My one fear is that there will be more (off topic) comments in the stories that were previously only posted in by people who were really interested in that section. In the past, there were several stories in the science section that didn't make it to the main page but were really interesting to me. The only people who posted to those stories tended to be people who were really interested in the article rather then making yet another tired slashjoke.
Overall, I'm glad of the change. In fact, I really like it. I just hope the posts stay interesting in some of the more obscure topics.
This reminds me of getting music on tape. After you got tired of the band, you could just 'remove the protection' (using sticky tape!) and record whatever you wanted over it.
It was on the bay area news this morning. They are changing the name to AT&T Park I believe. http://www.ktvu.com/sports/5189456/detail.html
The article is frustratingly vague. It sounds to me like the robot doesn't replicate itself but rather that Dr. Adrian Bowyer has created some type of system for replicating robot chasis. The picture clearly shows a plastic 'bot with attached motors, wiring, batteries, etc. From the information that the article gives, it seems like a human is still needed for the final construction. I wouldn't consider this self replicating because it is not autonomous.
However, I still feel like it is unfair to be charged both when buying a monitor and when disposing of it. Your comment made me wonder though, perhaps the fact that there is a charge to dispose of monitors is what prompts some people (like myself) to find other uses for them and extend their life instead of creating more technotrash.
I live in Northern California and here, I get charged twice for monitors and TVs - once as a fee when I buy it and again when I try to dispose of it. The local recycling places all charge $12 to accept a monitor, working or not. Right now, I've got 4 monitors and a TV to get rid of but I don't have the $60 to throw them away. I'm all for paying the actual cost of recycling items that I feel I am responcible for but I don't want to be charged twice.