Comments on: Airline antics with Lara the robot

By: paul

paul — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:24:06 +0000

@ 3nigmat1c

true,nationals at Robofest is certainly an accomplishment.

I just wish those little squash courts weren’t so small and hot, it made finding all the crazy entries alot harder. they ahd robots in the hallways =/

By: 3nigmat1c

3nigmat1c — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:25:33 +0000

I’ve met the kids in person and they’re knowledgeable. True the “aim” of the project was wayy off, but for what they did, it was an accomplishment, bash the competition but don’t downplay the fact that they went that far and placed.

By: paul

paul — Tue, 19 May 2009 02:59:03 +0000

My “Jak the blackjack playing robot” was in this same competition (featured here on Hackaday awhile back).

The people who won first prize built lego instruments powered by NXT’s, I am still unsure of the validity of the instruments in an autonomous robotics competition.

Much like this robot, it didn’t appear autonomous. I think that robofest needs to tighten their guidelines regarding entries to the competition.

By: Wwhat

Wwhat — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:41:05 +0000

Helps the airline industry if people buy tickets for mannequins, although it might not help in meeting CO2 emission goals perhaps, on the other hand planes actually have less pollution than cars/trucks per mile (a truth that’s well documented but so counter-intuitive that newsreporters, even in the science field, are unable to get it in their skulls), but anyway – it’s better than shipping via landtransport.

By: trilliumslide

trilliumslide — Sat, 16 May 2009 04:55:30 +0000

LoL @ Jim

I have a toaster, It’s more automated that the lego mindstorm.. It has two slots, does that make it female?

By: billhates

billhates — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:52:38 +0000

What makes it Female? Is it the fake pussy you strap on it ?

By: Drew Harwell

Drew Harwell — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:26:06 +0000

A furby is more autonomous than this.

By: snide

snide — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:23:03 +0000

Autonomy is more of a scale than an absolute: considering absolute autonomy is not something we allow humans to be (self governing).

However, I think to call an agent autonomous requires more than an ability to navigate. It has to have the ability to decide what to do when, possibly within a set of deontic constraints (like the law).

By: PocketBrain

PocketBrain — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:11:51 +0000

So, does that ‘bot look more “Terminator” to you,or more “Lego?”

It looks miserable in that wheelchair, looking up as if to say, “Please unplug me. I’ll never be top of the line again.”

By: MRE

MRE — Fri, 15 May 2009 11:22:15 +0000

To be fair, they are high-school students not tech school dropouts.. but yeah, they still don’t get it. I’m guessing their lead teacher doesn’t get it either.
Justification for calling it anatomically correct includes having skeletal, muscular, and nervous systems.
You mean.. a mechanical ridged moving structure, electro-mechanical actuators, and a sensor system… so, again, my car is anatomically correct. So is the internet.
A system that responds to verbal commands and gestures (I am assuming nothing more than waving your hand over an IR detector.. If I throw up a gang sign, and it pulls out a gun and gun and shoots me, then I would count that complex gesture recognition) does not make it autonomous.. Auto*MATIC*.. yes.. auto*NOMOUS*.. no

I had noticed a while back that not only were hackers getting their terminology *way* wrong, but so were popular electronics and robotics magazines. In fact, I pointed it out on hackaday a couple of times on projects, and got bashed for it.
HAD should do a short on properly defining the terms… and refused to link any projects that get there terminology way out of left field just to for bragging/publicity sake, unless the site makes the appropriate corrections.

By: Taylor Alexander

Taylor Alexander — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:01:16 +0000

@xoring “since the actual signal to move the arms is coming from an on-board computer (in response to an external stimulus) i would argue that it is acting autonomously.”

What? No. Low level control signals sent from a controller have nothing do to with autonomy, especially if the controller is just doing what it’s told.

If your reasoning were even close to sensible, we would consider our cars autonomous because the engine computer is what is really telling the throttle to respond, our foot simply moves the throttle sensor (well, on drive-by-wire cars like VW’s) and the computer “decides” to give the car gas. that’s absurd reasoning.

pauldy said it (harshly) best. knowing nothing else about these kids, insisting on calling it autonomous because it is wireless is basically them wanting to sound smarter by saying they made an autonomous robot. instead they sound like dropouts that don’t get it.

-Taylor

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:55:55 +0000

@ sceptic – I’d rather be looking at the robot than the plumber’s ass any day… even if the robot isn’t smart enough to be autonomous.

*tries in vain to erase that image*

By: Sceptic

Sceptic — Fri, 15 May 2009 01:25:10 +0000

It is not any more functional or autonomous than anatomically correct replica of plumber’s butt-crack.

By: Pm

Pm — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:30:31 +0000

This article is from the same Robofest competition I was at. I saw that thing. After asking him what its purpose was he said it was a “girl robot” that was “anatomically correct” …. wow… great answer =/, go have a seat in the corner please.

its a pathetic robot, it sits in a wheel chair, and they bought it a seat!?!? wtf

By: ashton

ashton — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:07:19 +0000

Reminds me of upright bass players who purchase a second seat for their large instrument.