If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Meet DARPA'S newest robot "Cheetah" with a top speed of 28 mph. Be afraid. Be very afraid. (w/video)   (gizmodo.com) divider line 103
    More: Cool, DARPA, cheetahs, robots, Boston Dynamics  
•       •       •

5040 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Oct 2013 at 12:06 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-04 03:35:48 PM

Memoryalpha: The joints are vulnerable in the prototype.  They probably still will be in the production model.  Unless it's got a quick method of righting itself after it's been knocked over or tripped it should still be fairly simple to take one of these things out even with melee weapons.  Still I would prefer to keep some distance.  Trip it up, entangle it's legs and then set the farker on fire and hope any ammo or fuel it carries cooks off and does the rest of the job for you.  Remember this thing is not going to be a pet.  It's meant to be a weapons platform.  If you see one of these things on American soil and you can't run, do anything you can to destroy it.   The early models will be remotely controlled, so if possible booby trap the remains so that when the recovery team comes to get it, they are at the very least hurt but preferably killed.


I think your tinfoil helmet is a little tight.
 
kab
2013-10-04 03:36:23 PM

ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?


Said the guy when the first steam engine was announced.
 
2013-10-04 03:37:40 PM

indarwinsshadow: Reminds me of a talk I was having with my 11 year old son the other day. We got into a discussion on computing power. I was explaining to him that 25 years ago, my top end system was an 80286 with a 10 meg hdd, 4 megs ram, 3 1/2 fdd and a vga display...dial up 14.4


Did you also explain to your son that the Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and still looks the same today and has improved by just percentage points instead of orders of magnitude? And that therefore it's quite silly to think that people are going to colonize Mars?
 
2013-10-04 03:38:33 PM

ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?


Horses tend to panic at gun fire. Or getting shot. Or having its legs blown off. Besides, this thing is awesome!
 
2013-10-04 03:41:51 PM

Memoryalpha: Krumet: Memoryalpha: The joints are vulnerable in the prototype.  They probably still will be in the production model.  Unless it's got a quick method of righting itself after it's been knocked over or tripped it should still be fairly simple to take one of these things out even with melee weapons.  Still I would prefer to keep some distance.  Trip it up, entangle it's legs and then set the farker on fire and hope any ammo or fuel it carries cooks off and does the rest of the job for you.  Remember this thing is not going to be a pet.  It's meant to be a weapons platform.  If you see one of these things on American soil and you can't run, do anything you can to destroy it.   The early models will be remotely controlled, so if possible booby trap the remains so that when the recovery team comes to get it, they are at the very least hurt but preferably killed.

Intrigued, newsletter, subscribe.

Amused, there isn't one, perhaps write your own?

Seriously though, yes it's pretty cool tech, however the kind of people who will be deploying and using this tech are just the types who shouldn't ever be allowed near it.  Think of the domestic applications not over seas.  Picture a pack of these things used to herd protesters into "free speech" zones or more likely out of them so they can be brutalized and arrested.  Instead of a pig who has a face and can be potentially identified on camera it's just an anonymous drone among a group of them, controlled by people who will have little to no conscience about anything that happens as a result of their actions.  The more layers between an action and a responsibility the more likely bad and worse things will happen.  This is a big part of the reason pigs hate to be recorded on camera when they abuse people.  It's just one step between them and what they've done being known and proven.  With remotely controlled drones there's another step.  Once they're autonomous there is an almost impenetrable layer between act and responsibility because they can just say it was a software glitch.  Yet the damage is done and no one will be held accountable for it.


Dude, no one has called cops "pigs" since the 70s.
 
2013-10-04 03:48:46 PM
I thought it was kinda cute. Like a big clumsy robot puppy.
 
2013-10-04 04:01:57 PM
AMEE, what you gonna do.. (Pardon my French)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZKITq_2ORw">http://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=8ZKITq_2ORw
 
2013-10-04 04:02:06 PM

mrlewish: Not to concerned yet.


You will be.
 
2013-10-04 04:05:05 PM

Richard C Stanford: Memoryalpha: Krumet: Memoryalpha: The joints are vulnerable in the prototype.  They probably still will be in the production model.  Unless it's got a quick method of righting itself after it's been knocked over or tripped it should still be fairly simple to take one of these things out even with melee weapons.  Still I would prefer to keep some distance.  Trip it up, entangle it's legs and then set the farker on fire and hope any ammo or fuel it carries cooks off and does the rest of the job for you.  Remember this thing is not going to be a pet.  It's meant to be a weapons platform.  If you see one of these things on American soil and you can't run, do anything you can to destroy it.   The early models will be remotely controlled, so if possible booby trap the remains so that when the recovery team comes to get it, they are at the very least hurt but preferably killed.

Intrigued, newsletter, subscribe.

Amused, there isn't one, perhaps write your own?

Seriously though, yes it's pretty cool tech, however the kind of people who will be deploying and using this tech are just the types who shouldn't ever be allowed near it.  Think of the domestic applications not over seas.  Picture a pack of these things used to herd protesters into "free speech" zones or more likely out of them so they can be brutalized and arrested.  Instead of a pig who has a face and can be potentially identified on camera it's just an anonymous drone among a group of them, controlled by people who will have little to no conscience about anything that happens as a result of their actions.  The more layers between an action and a responsibility the more likely bad and worse things will happen.  This is a big part of the reason pigs hate to be recorded on camera when they abuse people.  It's just one step between them and what they've done being known and proven.  With remotely controlled drones there's another step.  Once they're autonomous there is an almost impenetrable layer between act and r ...


1. Maybe it's time for it to make a comeback.
2. On the other hand, it is an insult to swine.
 
2013-10-04 04:15:47 PM

ThisIsntMe: The Madd Mann: ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?

The point is improvement. When they were first invented, the automobile was crap. It was slow, it was weak, it took a mechanical genius to operate, they were terrible. But while machines can be improved far beyond their original capabilities, a horse will always be limited by its inherent... horsiness.

This is what we have now. What do you think we'll have in 15 years?

A mechanical horse that needs fuel a mechanic and spare parts and can't breed.


It can sit on a shelf for a couple of years, be partially disassembled, stuck in a box, and air-dropped.

You want to try that with a horse?
 
2013-10-04 04:23:24 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: indarwinsshadow: Reminds me of a talk I was having with my 11 year old son the other day. We got into a discussion on computing power. I was explaining to him that 25 years ago, my top end system was an 80286 with a 10 meg hdd, 4 megs ram, 3 1/2 fdd and a vga display...dial up 14.4

Did you also explain to your son that the Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and still looks the same today and has improved by just percentage points instead of orders of magnitude? And that therefore it's quite silly to think that people are going to colonize Mars?


So, just because it still looks like an airplane.... You know they can take off, fly and land all by themselves now, don't you?
 
2013-10-04 04:46:26 PM

give me doughnuts: ThisIsntMe: The Madd Mann: ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?

The point is improvement. When they were first invented, the automobile was crap. It was slow, it was weak, it took a mechanical genius to operate, they were terrible. But while machines can be improved far beyond their original capabilities, a horse will always be limited by its inherent... horsiness.

This is what we have now. What do you think we'll have in 15 years?

A mechanical horse that needs fuel a mechanic and spare parts and can't breed.

It can sit on a shelf for a couple of years, be partially disassembled, stuck in a box, and air-dropped.

You want to try that with a horse?


I'll give it a shot, if you give me a horse.
 
2013-10-04 04:49:04 PM

Krumet: Richard C Stanford: Memoryalpha: Krumet: Memoryalpha: The joints are vulnerable in the prototype.  They probably still will be in the production model.  Unless it's got a quick method of righting itself after it's been knocked over or tripped it should still be fairly simple to take one of these things out even with melee weapons.  Still I would prefer to keep some distance.  Trip it up, entangle it's legs and then set the farker on fire and hope any ammo or fuel it carries cooks off and does the rest of the job for you.  Remember this thing is not going to be a pet.  It's meant to be a weapons platform.  If you see one of these things on American soil and you can't run, do anything you can to destroy it.   The early models will be remotely controlled, so if possible booby trap the remains so that when the recovery team comes to get it, they are at the very least hurt but preferably killed.

Intrigued, newsletter, subscribe.

Amused, there isn't one, perhaps write your own?

Seriously though, yes it's pretty cool tech, however the kind of people who will be deploying and using this tech are just the types who shouldn't ever be allowed near it.  Think of the domestic applications not over seas.  Picture a pack of these things used to herd protesters into "free speech" zones or more likely out of them so they can be brutalized and arrested.  Instead of a pig who has a face and can be potentially identified on camera it's just an anonymous drone among a group of them, controlled by people who will have little to no conscience about anything that happens as a result of their actions.  The more layers between an action and a responsibility the more likely bad and worse things will happen.  This is a big part of the reason pigs hate to be recorded on camera when they abuse people.  It's just one step between them and what they've done being known and proven.  With remotely controlled drones there's another step.  Once they're autonomous there is an almost impenetrable layer between act and responsibility because they can just say it was a software glitch.  Yet the damage is done and no one will be held accountable for it.

Dude, no one has called cops "pigs" since the 70s.

1. Maybe it's time for it to make a comeback.
2. On the other hand, it is an insult to swine.


Admittedly, it is an insult to a tasty animal, but an appropriate appellation is necessary when referring to a thug who can beat you or kill you at will and with perfect impunity.  Thus, pig still fits even in this day.  Regardless of this minor distraction, the tech is certainly interesting but it bares watching closely because it can and most certainly will be abused.  If you believe that pigs won't have these, ask yourself how long ago was it that the idea of metropolitan law enforcement having tanks and armored cars was unthinkable.  Currently even small to medium sized cities have them with heavily armed and trained shock troops to man them.
 
2013-10-04 04:51:19 PM
i42.tinypic.com

in case you need to feel better...
 
2013-10-04 04:54:00 PM

give me doughnuts: ThisIsntMe: The Madd Mann: ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?

The point is improvement. When they were first invented, the automobile was crap. It was slow, it was weak, it took a mechanical genius to operate, they were terrible. But while machines can be improved far beyond their original capabilities, a horse will always be limited by its inherent... horsiness.

This is what we have now. What do you think we'll have in 15 years?

A mechanical horse that needs fuel a mechanic and spare parts and can't breed.

It can sit on a shelf for a couple of years, be partially disassembled, stuck in a box, and air-dropped.

You want to try that with a horse?


With the right armor plating, it can also take a few more bullets than a real horse and won't get spooked. Once initial programming of the original is done, there's no training required; They'll all work with the same efficiency.

Horses DO need fuel, but horses can't turn sunlight into fuel. Eventually, a quadruped robot will be self-sustaining. No fuel stops. It just soaks up sunlight and converts it to power.

Horses also take time to raise and breed. These robots will some day be mass-produced. They'll be able to drop hundreds of them in the field at a moment's notice.

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
 
2013-10-04 05:11:01 PM
Good lord, I would not have guessed the guys at DARPA were FFXIII fans. That's pretty much what all these mech guys are going to end up looking like.
 
2013-10-04 05:30:27 PM

give me doughnuts: ThisIsntMe: The Madd Mann: ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?

The point is improvement. When they were first invented, the automobile was crap. It was slow, it was weak, it took a mechanical genius to operate, they were terrible. But while machines can be improved far beyond their original capabilities, a horse will always be limited by its inherent... horsiness.

This is what we have now. What do you think we'll have in 15 years?

A mechanical horse that needs fuel a mechanic and spare parts and can't breed.

It can sit on a shelf for a couple of years, be partially disassembled, stuck in a box, and air-dropped.

You want to try that with a horse?


Nope. In a couple of years I'd have three horses. What would I do with the other two?
So now I have to have feet on the ground to reassemble these robot mules?
Logistics better get some more food and supplies dropped along with them robot mules.
 
2013-10-04 05:38:24 PM
The troops won't be able to ride that thing to town for sexual relief.
 
2013-10-04 05:48:31 PM

Dragonflew: ThisIsntMe: They probably won't. But then again how are you gonna feed your human troops? Food drops? Sounds good. Just throw some grain in there. Or you could toss in a petro distilate for the robots.

As technology advances, batteries and solar might be sufficient. You have to start somewhere.


Yeah, scoff now but this had to have some kind of prototype:

s3.roosterteeth.com
 
2013-10-04 06:06:48 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

What a self-powered robotic weapons platform might look like.
 
2013-10-04 06:17:55 PM
How are legs preferable to wheels?
 
2013-10-04 06:26:58 PM

sendtodave: How are legs preferable to wheels?


I'd give you twenty bucks to pose that question to someone in a wheelchair.

Seriously, though, legs grant more accessibility to uneven terrain, like going up and down stairs/hills/cliffsides/what have you. The same reason we don't have soldiers riding Segways into battle (funny though that would be).

The reason we use wheels is because they're easier to build and operate reliably. We're only now getting sufficient tech to build legged robots that can correct themselves when they're pushed or lose footing.
 
2013-10-04 06:38:00 PM
The first part of the video, with the robot backing up, looks like it should be one of those "nope nope nope nope" gifs.
 
2013-10-04 06:39:21 PM

Son of Thunder: The first part of the video, with the robot backing up, looks like it should be one of those "nope nope nope nope" gifs.


I'm sorta wrong.  It's not backing up.  But it still looks like "nope nope nope nope".
 
2013-10-04 06:52:32 PM
Awesome.  Can't wait until these start getting deployed in combat.  Nothing like a robot cheetah with a machine gun to strike terror into haji's hearts.
 
2013-10-04 07:33:36 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: indarwinsshadow: Reminds me of a talk I was having with my 11 year old son the other day. We got into a discussion on computing power. I was explaining to him that 25 years ago, my top end system was an 80286 with a 10 meg hdd, 4 megs ram, 3 1/2 fdd and a vga display...dial up 14.4

Did you also explain to your son that the Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and still looks the same today and has improved by just percentage points instead of orders of magnitude? And that therefore it's quite silly to think that people are going to colonize Mars?


I don't think the Mars portion is relevant to the thread unless BD is 3d-printing interplanetary habitats, but 747s have eliminated the flight engineer seat due to advancements in software.  Other than that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  We won't see any eye-widening major development in aircraft design until the boom-less supersonic designs go beyond matlab and wind tunnel testing... funding pending.

Don't ignore the fact that the Navy has been doing alpha testing on drones that can land on carriers autonomously.  That's like a fly trying to land on Michael J. Fox.
 
2013-10-04 07:58:44 PM

FlashHarry: [i42.tinypic.com image 297x198]

in case you need to feel better...


I remember when it seemed like Japan was leaving us in the dust with technology. Boston Dynamics makes me feel better.
 
2013-10-04 08:01:02 PM

ThisIsntMe: give me doughnuts: ThisIsntMe: The Madd Mann: ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?

The point is improvement. When they were first invented, the automobile was crap. It was slow, it was weak, it took a mechanical genius to operate, they were terrible. But while machines can be improved far beyond their original capabilities, a horse will always be limited by its inherent... horsiness.

This is what we have now. What do you think we'll have in 15 years?

A mechanical horse that needs fuel a mechanic and spare parts and can't breed.

It can sit on a shelf for a couple of years, be partially disassembled, stuck in a box, and air-dropped.

You want to try that with a horse?

Nope. In a couple of years I'd have three horses. What would I do with the other two?
So now I have to have feet on the ground to reassemble these robot mules?
Logistics better get some more food and supplies dropped along with them robot mules.


You're being pointlessly obtuse or are trolling.
 
2013-10-04 08:03:17 PM
Next: The Mechanical Hound
 
2013-10-04 08:25:09 PM

RoomFullOfMonkeys: ThisIsntMe: give me doughnuts: ThisIsntMe: The Madd Mann: ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?

The point is improvement. When they were first invented, the automobile was crap. It was slow, it was weak, it took a mechanical genius to operate, they were terrible. But while machines can be improved far beyond their original capabilities, a horse will always be limited by its inherent... horsiness.

This is what we have now. What do you think we'll have in 15 years?

A mechanical horse that needs fuel a mechanic and spare parts and can't breed.

It can sit on a shelf for a couple of years, be partially disassembled, stuck in a box, and air-dropped.

You want to try that with a horse?

Nope. In a couple of years I'd have three horses. What would I do with the other two?
So now I have to have feet on the ground to reassemble these robot mules?
Logistics better get some more food and supplies dropped along with them robot mules.

You're being pointlessly obtuse or are trolling.


Unfortunately neither is the case (though I will admit that Friday night rum has begun to settle.) My entire point has been that with a decade and a half of funding and research we have a noisy slow mule and a fast dog that can't turn left or right. Logistics feeds and supplies troops on the ground, livestock wouldn't be a big deal. A horse could extract wounded. These robots can't.
 
2013-10-04 08:25:38 PM

Nattering Nabob: So, just because it still looks like an airplane.... You know they can take off, fly and land all by themselves now, don't you?


Do they go further, faster, higher? Same basic materials, same basic technology, same energy source, same theoretical basis. Once again, you conflate information processing with materials.

So, does that get you closer to flying to Mars?

What is so damn difficult to grasp here?

The plane doesn't suddenly fly beyond what theory says just because some breakthrough in some other unrelated field occured.

Brayton cycle, chemical energy source, metallurgy. None of these are affected by how many bits you can process with a joule of energy.

Seriously, is this so radical?

No one's flying to Mars because computers got better, because NOTHING ELSE IS GETTING BETTER AT THE SAME RATE.

Sinking in yet? Need more examples? How basic and low should I go?
 
2013-10-04 08:43:15 PM

Captain Meatsack: May favorite part of the video was when it face-planted.  My gut reaction was "Oooo!  Expensive fail!"


Was it a fail? I thought it might have been commanded to stop suddenly as a demonstration of its ability to recover. Which it seemed to do.
 
2013-10-04 08:48:33 PM

jjorsett: Captain Meatsack: May favorite part of the video was when it face-planted.  My gut reaction was "Oooo!  Expensive fail!"

Was it a fail? I thought it might have been commanded to stop suddenly as a demonstration of its ability to recover. Which it seemed to do.


While it was recovering somebody tossed a grenade close and several snipers went for the brainpan. Only not in the Demo.
 
2013-10-04 08:50:41 PM

RexTalionis: vudutek: Cheetah was the previous version that is hard-wired to power. This version is named Wildcat, max speed 16 mph.

Not quite the 700 MPH on a straightaway that the Rat Things can do, but it's a step.


fark the sound barrier. Bring the noise.

/the hell's wrong with you people?
 
2013-10-04 08:57:45 PM
No Sarah Connor joke?  At all?  Even in comments?
Is this FARK?
 
2013-10-04 09:02:06 PM

DemonEater: No Sarah Connor joke?  At all?  Even in comments?
Is this FARK?


I think it's because Sarah Connor would have kicked this abomination's backside. While Sarah was wearing a sundress, on a playground with a Sharpie.
 
2013-10-04 10:17:26 PM
I need to get me one of these:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUQsRPJ1dYw
 
2013-10-04 10:52:32 PM

sendtodave: How are legs preferable to wheels?


I'm more curious why they aren't using back-canted legs in the rear. They're much more efficient and allow longer and more powerful strides, etc. You can see in the slow-mo how limited the range of motion is in the ones it has.

And then of course, is that whole thing about not having feet...
 
2013-10-04 11:32:45 PM
meh not impressed...  My Tekno does more.

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-10-05 12:06:08 AM
Quantum Apostrophe:
No one's flying to Mars because computers got better, because NOTHING ELSE IS GETTING BETTER AT THE SAME RATE.

Go do some farking research, you loon.  There are significant advancements in propulsion technology happening right NOW.
 
2013-10-05 02:01:35 AM

Go Fast Turn Left: [kenchilds.com image 217x223]


thank you.
 
2013-10-05 06:39:41 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Nattering Nabob: So, just because it still looks like an airplane.... You know they can take off, fly and land all by themselves now, don't you?

Do they go further, faster, higher? Same basic materials, same basic technology, same energy source, same theoretical basis. Once again, you conflate information processing with materials.

So, does that get you closer to flying to Mars?

What is so damn difficult to grasp here?

The plane doesn't suddenly fly beyond what theory says just because some breakthrough in some other unrelated field occured.

Brayton cycle, chemical energy source, metallurgy. None of these are affected by how many bits you can process with a joule of energy.

Seriously, is this so radical?

No one's flying to Mars because computers got better, because NOTHING ELSE IS GETTING BETTER AT THE SAME RATE.

Sinking in yet? Need more examples? How basic and low should I go?


Has anyone explained to you that apart from the benefits from good nutrition and lack of disease there has been NO life extension at all? Therefore your dream of living forever will be just that, forever a dream. Unless you find a way to turn yourself into a single atom of course...

I`ll paraphrase someone and see if their words change your mind.

"No one's living forever because computers got better, because NOTHING ELSE IS GETTING BETTER AT THE SAME RATE.

Sinking in yet? Need more examples? How basic and low should I go?
"
 
2013-10-05 06:40:40 AM

Zombalupagus: sendtodave: How are legs preferable to wheels?

I'm more curious why they aren't using back-canted legs in the rear. They're much more efficient and allow longer and more powerful strides, etc. You can see in the slow-mo how limited the range of motion is in the ones it has.

And then of course, is that whole thing about not having feet...


It needs ankles. It`s like a sheep running with it`s feet cut off.
 
2013-10-05 08:04:13 AM

ThisIsntMe: indarwinsshadow: The Madd Mann: ThisIsntMe: Explain to me again why we aren't just breeding horses for this shiat?

The point is improvement. When they were first invented, the automobile was crap. It was slow, it was weak, it took a mechanical genius to operate, they were terrible. But while machines can be improved far beyond their original capabilities, a horse will always be limited by its inherent... horsiness.

This is what we have now. What do you think we'll have in 15 years?

Reminds me of a talk I was having with my 11 year old son the other day. We got into a discussion on computing power. I was explaining to him that 25 years ago, my top end system was an 80286 with a 10 meg hdd, 4 megs ram, 3 1/2 fdd and a vga display...dial up 14.4

My kicking around system these days is i7 quad core extreme, 64 gig DDR3, 8 TB, dual SLI 512 gb, system with a 1080p 27" monitor, 45/4 internet.  And it still cost less to put together than my old 286.

In another 25 years, hopefully I'll be using a quantum system.

I'm glad tech ramps up that fast. And if this thing flew I'd agree with you. But even Auto manufacturers agreed you don't just recreate a four legged beast of burden. Only thing that can climb through terrain is something with legs. Unless they get something with legs that can traverse all-terrain at higher speeds than a horse they are wasting time and money.


You really don't get the concept of Research and Development do you?

You don't magically jump to the final product.  A lot of work, including trial and error comes into play, figuring out what we can and cannot do with current technology.

Without R&D, we'd be decades behind where we are now on a technological level.  Tech wouldn't ramp up that fast.

dready zim: Has anyone explained to you


Everything has been explained to QA, he's the resident troll here in technology threads.

Things don't have to evolve at the rate computers have for computers to have a positive effect on other fields. Computing is a tool that we use to create or improve a vast array of things, everyday products to space.

They are all cumulative R&D, which is what is needed for advancement to happen.  3d printing is great because it can eliminate wasted time on prototyping parts, such as molding and sculpting from hand.  It is another tool that can increase productivity.

Principles techno-phobes(one tiny step away from creationists) just don't understand.  Research, development, fabrication, trial, rinse and repeat.  All these things take time.  Digital physics engines and vastly improved fabrication techniques are not a "waste" because they're not immediately useful.

It is all interconnected, one improvement in one area can create an environment where more time can be spent on another area, or even eliminate all but a token physical proof of concept.(alleviate the need of time spend on other things... via simulation[ie we have digital wind tunnels and physics engines that simulate the real world, changes can be made on the fly and tested with quick turnaround instead of starting from scratch with building a whole new unit by hand)

Physics engines themselves are pretty damned nifty, another tool, they are what make things like what Boston Dynamics do possible.  Part and parcel of the software that drives these things.

The more powerful the computer used in development, the less math that needs done by hand or other analog workarounds.
 
2013-10-05 08:19:39 AM
And as to the article. Why does fark insist on calling them DARPA? The team/company behind almost all these cool robotic things is Boston Dynamics, the financing and direction come from DARPA.

It's akin to calling a new state law in California a new federal law that will change everyone's lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Dynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

Doesn't matter much to plebes, but we're in the geek tab(which is why the technophobes presence puzzles me). The only part's that specifically belong to DARPA are things that they provide.(Say, if the robots run on a classified motor system or software). The rest of the thing does still belong to Boston Dynamics.

The rest is non-disclosure/exclusivity agreements and such, but that does not transfer ownership. Typically, an R&D business like BD offers up data, and only on contract provides the end product, and then it's as-is. When DOD buys the rights and/or actually orders X units, then it's theirs.
 
2013-10-05 09:04:16 AM

Sugarbombs: Quantum Apostrophe: indarwinsshadow: Reminds me of a talk I was having with my 11 year old son the other day. We got into a discussion on computing power. I was explaining to him that 25 years ago, my top end system was an 80286 with a 10 meg hdd, 4 megs ram, 3 1/2 fdd and a vga display...dial up 14.4

Did you also explain to your son that the Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and still looks the same today and has improved by just percentage points instead of orders of magnitude? And that therefore it's quite silly to think that people are going to colonize Mars?

I don't think the Mars portion is relevant to the thread unless BD is 3d-printing interplanetary habitats, but 747s have eliminated the flight engineer seat due to advancements in software.  Other than that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  We won't see any eye-widening major development in aircraft design until the boom-less supersonic designs go beyond matlab and wind tunnel testing... funding pending.

Don't ignore the fact that the Navy has been doing alpha testing on drones that can land on carriers autonomously.  That's like a fly trying to land on Michael J. Fox.


I ignore QA. He's on my "don't pay attention to the trolls" list provided by Fark. I'm not interested in anything he has to say.
 
2013-10-05 09:23:42 AM

indarwinsshadow: Sugarbombs: Quantum Apostrophe: indarwinsshadow: Reminds me of a talk I was having with my 11 year old son the other day. We got into a discussion on computing power. I was explaining to him that 25 years ago, my top end system was an 80286 with a 10 meg hdd, 4 megs ram, 3 1/2 fdd and a vga display...dial up 14.4

Did you also explain to your son that the Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and still looks the same today and has improved by just percentage points instead of orders of magnitude? And that therefore it's quite silly to think that people are going to colonize Mars?

I don't think the Mars portion is relevant to the thread unless BD is 3d-printing interplanetary habitats, but 747s have eliminated the flight engineer seat due to advancements in software.  Other than that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  We won't see any eye-widening major development in aircraft design until the boom-less supersonic designs go beyond matlab and wind tunnel testing... funding pending.

Don't ignore the fact that the Navy has been doing alpha testing on drones that can land on carriers autonomously.  That's like a fly trying to land on Michael J. Fox.

I ignore QA. He's on my "don't pay attention to the trolls" list provided by Fark. I'm not interested in anything he has to say.


Meh, he's harmless.  I'll ignore him when he burns out and just copy-pastes stuff like Bevets ended up doing.  Otherwise I can't accuse anyone playing devil's advocate with being the devil, even if he does it with the consistency of a metronome.
 
2013-10-05 11:41:44 AM
I'm of the opinion that QA is the geek equivalent of an old man yelling at clouds...
"Quantum?! In my day we had REAL physics, none of this uncertainty stuff. And what's with these newfangled computing machines? They go twice as fast every 5 years, sure, but can they operate a slide rule? Good luck living forever, flying to the moon and having a neverending supply of food with THOSE, suckers!! And anoth-'zzzzzzzzz'...
 
2013-10-05 12:16:44 PM

indarwinsshadow: Sugarbombs: Quantum Apostrophe: indarwinsshadow: Reminds me of a talk I was having with my 11 year old son the other day. We got into a discussion on computing power. I was explaining to him that 25 years ago, my top end system was an 80286 with a 10 meg hdd, 4 megs ram, 3 1/2 fdd and a vga display...dial up 14.4

Did you also explain to your son that the Boeing 747 first flew in 1969 and still looks the same today and has improved by just percentage points instead of orders of magnitude? And that therefore it's quite silly to think that people are going to colonize Mars?

I don't think the Mars portion is relevant to the thread unless BD is 3d-printing interplanetary habitats, but 747s have eliminated the flight engineer seat due to advancements in software.  Other than that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  We won't see any eye-widening major development in aircraft design until the boom-less supersonic designs go beyond matlab and wind tunnel testing... funding pending.

Don't ignore the fact that the Navy has been doing alpha testing on drones that can land on carriers autonomously.  That's like a fly trying to land on Michael J. Fox.

I ignore QA. He's on my "don't pay attention to the trolls" list provided by Fark. I'm not interested in anything he has to say.


I too have QA on ignore, if I wanted to witness that kind of deranged blathering, I'd give my Labrador some ketamine.

Tech got threads got a LOT nicer with the ignore feature! Hint: mine has one resident.
 
2013-10-05 06:11:25 PM

RexTalionis: vudutek: Cheetah was the previous version that is hard-wired to power. This version is named Wildcat, max speed 16 mph.

Not quite the 700 MPH on a straightaway that the Rat Things can do, but it's a step.


You want to talk contact patches?
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report