Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Robots Make the Coins Go 'Round, Down Under

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the can-haz-coin-collections dept.

Robotics 126

inkslinger77 writes "Computerworld has a cool slideshow of a Kuka Titan robot and a bunch of AGVs managing the circulation of coins at the Australian Mint. There's also a lengthier article where the head of the project talks about the main reason robots were employed. One of the reasons being that they radically reduce OH&S risk: 'We are finding that the AGVs are much safer and more reliable. Robots are never affected by having a bad night with the baby and falling asleep at the wheel. They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.'"

cancel ×

126 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hrmm (4, Funny)

acehole (174372) | about 5 years ago | (#29143551)

The Australian mint... where you can buy a $1 coin for $2 from a vending machine.

 

Re:Hrmm (3, Funny)

fractoid (1076465) | about 5 years ago | (#29143643)

Sounds like a good business to me. Better than the thing in Portland where you put a nickel in the top and crank the handle and you get a squished flat nickel out the bottom.

...I wonder what I did with that nickel, anyway? That was like 7 years ago...

Re:Hrmm (4, Informative)

BobisOnlyBob (1438553) | about 5 years ago | (#29144141)

They're still surprisingly popular [wikipedia.org] , although they're usually in tourist spots and require two coins to be placed in: the penny/nickel to squish, and a token fee for operation. Utter ripoff, but nice memorabilia.

Re:Hrmm (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#29146183)

Actually, those things are about the most harmless tourist sucker-inner around. Think about it; most video games cost fifty cents or more, you play the game, and most of the time you forget the experience more or less entirely (save for a little sharpening of some probably-useless button smashing reflexes.) Most of those penny smashers seem to cost fifty cents to run (pennies are free, at least in small quantity) and produce one of the few pieces of tourist kitsch you won't break within the first two weeks.

Re:Hrmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144413)

mod up but wow stop making me feel old. i was cranking those handles before my parents would let me go to the tracks to make a real squished quarter. and that was far to many ears ago to recall

Re:Hrmm (1)

sadness203 (1539377) | about 5 years ago | (#29144703)

Another one old geezer who count in ears length instead of years. Yet it is true it's one of the organ that still grow when you get old, that and the nose.

Re:Hrmm (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 5 years ago | (#29143661)

To be fair, it is a great way to make money!

Ok ok, I'll shutup now :)

Re:Hrmm (4, Interesting)

twostix (1277166) | about 5 years ago | (#29143819)

Worse is buying a $5 dollar silver coin for 35 reserve bank $1 coins where 5 years ago it cost 8 reserve bank $1 coins...

Our money is becoming worthless.

Re:Hrmm (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | about 5 years ago | (#29143907)

BUT inflation aka printing money is a way for the Printer to tax the users of that currency.

It's all part of the plan.

You see the great thing for the USA is the rest of the world uses US dollars to buy and sell stuff like oil, and zillions of other commodities and products. Even amongst themselves. Because of that very many countries end up holding billions or even trillions of US dollars.

So when the US Federal Reserve lends[1] its friends X trillion US dollars ( and they only need to pay back 'later' when convenient), it's actually a way of taxing everyone else.

Now the US citizens should be happy if they get their share of the printed money as well, but if they don't they really should do something about it.

In contrast when Mugabe in Zimbabwe prints money, only the people using Zimbabwe currency are hurt. Which means the rest of the world is mostly unaffected.

[1] Or allegedly "lose track" of it :).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8 [youtube.com]

http://www.graysonforcongress.com/newsitem.asp?NewsId=90 [graysonforcongress.com]

http://www.graysonforcongress.com/newsitem.asp?NewsId=91 [graysonforcongress.com]

Re:Hrmm (1)

JordanL (886154) | about 5 years ago | (#29144139)

The difference being that the rest of the world is not REQUIRED to use dollars. The citizens of the US are.

In other words, the rest of the world has an exist strategy, and the people who you claim should be exstatic don't.

Re:Hrmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144373)

That is not correct. In fact the rest of the world is very dependend on the dollar. Not one on one for consuming matters, but almost all commodities are traded worldwide in dollars - and that's where the real money goes. I understand that you americans are somewhat afraid of loosing your "wealth".
But you can do a whole bunch of things against it - buy metal, buy commodities, buy shares of corporations, buy housings, i.e buy real value and don't sit on paper!

I think america will do in the not so far future (maybe 10 yrs) a currency change - like the euro in the european union.
If you sit in such a change on paper (dollars) you will be fully hit by the inflation - but if you sit on real value you don't have to matter, chances are you will get out of it richer!

my 2 eurocents :)

Re:Hrmm (1)

JordanL (886154) | about 5 years ago | (#29144465)

If they have to, commodities will be traded in another currency. There is not reason that commodities are traded in dollars other than the dollar is stable. If the dollar weren't stable, the situation proposed, then there'd be no reason for commodities to trade in it.

Re:Hrmm (1)

benjamindees (441808) | about 5 years ago | (#29144475)

Nothing requires US citizens to use federal reserve notes.

Re:Hrmm (2, Insightful)

JordanL (886154) | about 5 years ago | (#29144529)

Federal reserve notes are the only acceptable and legal way to pay taxes.

Re:Hrmm (1)

Tim4444 (1122173) | about 5 years ago | (#29146131)

if you don't make money in dollars or spend money in dollars you don't pay income tax or sales tax in dollars

-from the Wampum is Totally Awesome handbook

Petrodollars (0, Troll)

TheLink (130905) | about 5 years ago | (#29144663)

> The difference being that the rest of the world is not REQUIRED to use dollars.

It's actually rather hard for Japan, China and other countries to not use dollars.

Think about it: Saudi Arabia only sells oil in US dollars. Most of the OPEC sell oil in US dollars.

A while ago, Saddam "broke up" with the USA (they were such good friends before) and had Iraq sell oil in Euros. Then Iraq got "regime changed" and promptly went back to selling oil in US dollars.

The rulers of Saudi Arabia are still considered staunch allies of the USA. The US will support them and forgive them much, even if their country is a hotbed of terrorism and Islamic extremism.

FWIW, Iran started selling oil in Euros and Yen not that long ago, and has recently started a oil bourse to trade oil in other currencies. Maybe the US might help them change their minds.

Yes the rest of the world has an exist strategy. Most of them want to exist :).

Re:Petrodollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29145475)

Why is this rated funny ? Do US citizens not know about this 'coincidences' ? I would say its not said, it more like catastrophic for the world economy. :(

Re:Hrmm (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29144603)

BUT inflation aka printing money is a way for the Printer to tax the users of that currency. It's all part of the plan.

Frankly, I don't understand macroeconomics well enough to comment intelligently on the likelihood of the conspiracy theory you're proposing. But the economy seems bloody complicated to me, and I can't rule out the possibility that the Federal Reserve is just trying to avoid a deflationary spiral [wikipedia.org] . Deflation seems more dangerous than inflation as far as I can tell.

Inflation doesn't really seem dangerous unless it's so fast wages can't keep up with it, or if rate fluctuations undermine investor confidence. Inflation's bad for someone who keeps money in a mattress, but all rational investors simply subtract the average inflation rate from the expected return of any potential investment.

Re:Hrmm (1)

fulldecent (598482) | about 5 years ago | (#29145561)

>> So when the US Federal Reserve lends[1] its friends X trillion US dollars ( and they only need to pay back 'later' when convenient), it's actually a way of taxing everyone else.

This is 180 degrees away from the correct situation. With benefit of doubt, a presume a typo.

The US benefits when it borrows money, and then returns diminished-value money.

Our solution is to hold precious metals rather than just a FPOP.

Re:Hrmm (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about 5 years ago | (#29144263)

No, precious metals are simply becoming more valuable. There's a big difference.

Re:Hrmm (2, Informative)

lammy (1557325) | about 5 years ago | (#29144815)

On a point of order, it is actually $3 in to get a freshly minted $1 back. (I went there today).

First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29143555)

I for one welcome our new money making robotic overlords

Consistency (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 years ago | (#29143559)

They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.'"

"...just like computer programs."

*grin*

Why yes! I will indeed be here all week.

Re:Consistency (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#29143741)

They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.'"

"...just like computer programs."

No, computer programs always don't do the same task in the same way.

Re:Consistency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29143771)

whoosh

Re:Consistency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144055)

whoosh

Re:Consistency (1)

lastgoodnickname (1438821) | about 5 years ago | (#29144367)

especially idempotent functions

Why don't they hire men? (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 5 years ago | (#29143561)

Robots are never affected by having a bad night with the baby and falling asleep at the wheel.

I'm not trying to be misogynist here, but should women with very small kids be working? Isn't this exactly the type of thing we should expect the government to try to protect through programs designed to give women time off that they need after having a baby?

Replacing women with robots isn't helping women. It's reducing the number of jobs that are available to them. We should be striving to have a market of productive jobs for every person who wants and is qualified for one.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 5 years ago | (#29143593)

Robots are never affected by having a bad night with the baby and falling asleep at the wheel.

I'm not trying to be misogynist here, but should women with very small kids be working? Isn't this exactly the type of thing we should expect the government to try to protect through programs designed to give women time off that they need after having a baby?

Its not just women who look after the baby you know.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (2, Interesting)

twostix (1277166) | about 5 years ago | (#29143775)

Across most of the people that I know that have had babies the woman still does 90% of the heavy lifting once the baby is born.

Despite what the cool inner city chattering classes like to believe traditional roles are still absolutely dominant in western society and really have hardly budged in the last 50 years except where financial necessity requires it. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of people (generally from the same cool inner city chattering class) that have bought into the strange ideology of suppressing and heaping scorn on a womans natural motherly instinct.

So yes while it's accurate to say that "Its not just women who look after the baby you know." for the most part for 90% of couples, it actually is the women who look after the baby and for most they wouldn't have it any other way.

I'll await the tidal wave of "but they don't know what they want because it's not what I say they should want you patronsing misogynist!!11" (without seeing the hypocrisy of course).

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 5 years ago | (#29143841)

It's a tiny, tiny fraction of people (generally from the same cool inner city chattering class) that have bought into the strange ideology of suppressing and heaping scorn on a womans natural motherly instinct.

What the fuck? Who, exactly, is "heaping scorn on a woman's natural motherly instincts"?

Re:Why don't they hire men? (0, Offtopic)

twostix (1277166) | about 5 years ago | (#29143953)

Is that a genuine question??

Because if you've spent anytime on the Internet and haven't come across someone ranting against women who want to stay at home to raise their kids as being "pathetic" you're either living in a dreamworld or are one of those people.

I even dated a cool inner city girl who "couldn't stand mums and thier worthless contribution to society".

For women it's mostly borne out of a deep seated jealousy and inferiority, for men I don't know, trying to get into those womens pants by making the oldest play in the book?

Re:Why don't they hire men? (2, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | about 5 years ago | (#29143971)

I'm one of those people who hates seeing mums with their strollers everywhere as well. But for a different reason, they remind me how I still haven't gone odne a vassectomy and am sexually active ... it's very frustrating this prospect of losing one's whole future to something as silly as two halves of a genome accidentally making a new infinitely replicating (cancerous?) cell.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144565)

they remind me how I still haven't gone odne a vassectomy and am sexually active ...

You're on slashdot. You do know RealDolls doesn't get pregnant, don't you?

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 5 years ago | (#29144219)

Because if you've spent anytime on the Internet and haven't come across someone ranting against women who want to stay at home to raise their kids as being "pathetic" you're either living in a dreamworld or are one of those people.

I've been on the internet since around 1990, and I've never heard such things. Perhaps you travel in bad circles? In any case, basing your general assessment of humans on random internet posters is a bad idea.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | about 5 years ago | (#29144427)

Like another poster, I've been a very active internet user for more than ten years and I've never seen that rant. And yes, a substantial amount of that internet use was usenet so I've seen a lot of rants...

I guess that means I'm "living in a dreamworld" or "one of those people" then. Shrug.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144873)

I'll be that guy. There's no reason for a woman to be a housewife in the western world.

Growing up we had a part-time housekeeper who worked 15 hours a week. I spent 12 hours a week at my grandparent's house before and after school. Cooking was less than 3 hours per week.

There's no way I can say it's reasonable to consider the sum of these tasks a full-time job with the conveniences we have now. I never found kids with stay-at-home mothers to be better behaved or better in school or anything like that.

If that's all a woman does, then I'll never be able to respect her.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (2, Insightful)

socrplayr813 (1372733) | about 5 years ago | (#29145669)

Wow. I work with kids on a regular basis and either you're a troll or you've never had experience with kids.

A good parent interacts with his or her young child ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. It's more than a full time job if you're doing it right. Childrens' minds need constant interaction for their minds to develop properly. It's how they learn to interact with other human beings and otherwise function in society. As children get older, their friends and classmates start to take some of the load off the parents, but that takes years. The first several years of a child's life are critical and the parents are the major influence.

When I eventually have kids, I will do everything possible to make sure either I or the mother is home for at least the first several years of their lives. Not that it's impossible for a child to be well-adjusted without a full-time parent, but it's certainly harder. I see it all the time; the ones with active parents are, almost across the board, more attentive and better behaved. They tend to get along with other children better, too.

To summarize: It's not necessarily the physical work (though there's more to that than you're acknowledging). It's the interaction with the child that's important.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (5, Informative)

xquark (649804) | about 5 years ago | (#29143599)

Because some men tend to take "a lot" of coffee breaks in their cars, each time taking a shoe full of $1 and $2 coins with them....

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=107801 [ninemsn.com.au]

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | about 5 years ago | (#29144599)

2$ coin? You mean one of those brass, two faced chunk of pocket destruction?

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

jacksdl (552055) | about 5 years ago | (#29145829)

You're probably right. I think there will be at least as many opportunities to replace humans with robots based on ethical weakness as there are for our physical weakness.

A robot solder won't be prone to anger, fear and revenge when his robot buddy is killed.

And a robot postal worker won't be likely to go "postal" because he has a soul-numbing job.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (3, Insightful)

superdana (1211758) | about 5 years ago | (#29143615)

I'm not trying to be misogynist here

Well, you failed, but not because of your comments about work. You seem to be suggesting that when a baby wakes up in the middle of the night, it is beyond comprehension for the baby's father to get up and take care of it.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (-1, Flamebait)

twostix (1277166) | about 5 years ago | (#29143729)

Well if the baby's breastfed then it's a little hard for a man. I know I know I'm a "sexist pig" for suggesting that there's things woman can do (and want to do) regarding child rearing that men can't physically do. But I forget myself - there's no difference between a man and a woman, none at all, we're all carbon copies of one another, cogs that can be replaced with another.

Not to mention if mum is staying at home nurturing bub she'll get to have a sleep at some stage during the day (usually after lunch). Dad has to get up early and go into work and I haven't seen many "dad" friendly workplaces that'll let him have a one or two hour nap in the afternoon because he was awake at 3am feeding.

Women who want to nurture children as their instincts drive them to are not welcome in the western middle class and strangely as I've seen it's "career oriented" *women* who have the largest and most open scorn for other women who "just" want to be mums (fuck that for a job - far to difficult!).

- Has two children under the age of 2 and am unthinkably lucky to have woman who bravely embraces her motherly instinct in the face of the never ending assault on it by (mostly) other females who seem to wish that they were men.

Then again a racist who writes "The reason it's OK to make an all-black group but not an all-white group is that white people..." as you did probably should be a little reserved when it comes to labeling others.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144183)

It's called a breast pump.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

sgtrock (191182) | about 5 years ago | (#29145369)

Well if the baby's breastfed then it's a little hard for a man. I know I know I'm a "sexist pig" for suggesting that there's things woman can do (and want to do) regarding child rearing that men can't physically do. ...

- Has two children under the age of 2 and am unthinkably lucky to have woman who bravely embraces her motherly instinct in the face of the never ending assault on it by (mostly) other females who seem to wish that they were men.

Wait... what? Do you mean to say that you never got up at 3 AM to feed your children so your wife could get a good night's sleep? Never took the time to rock your kids to sleep after they woke up crying after a nightmare?

Do you really think you're doing his wife a favor by letting her "bravely embrace her motherly instinct in the face of the never ending assault on it" instead of actually, I don't know, pitching in and helping out with the kids and the housework so SHE can have a career too? What is she going to do if you get hit by a bus? She'll have to rejoin the workforce years behind her peers, you know. Worst case, she'll be stuck with no chance of promotion for most of her professional life.

You're right, you're a great guy for doing all that for her. [/sarcasm]

Re:Why don't they hire men? (2, Funny)

SpinyNorman (33776) | about 5 years ago | (#29144731)

It really doesn't make much difference. If the baby is crying at night (esp. if it sleeps in your room) they your night isn't going to be so great. Trust me! (father of an adorable but sleep-depriving 6 month old baby girl).

Even without the disrupted nights a baby is going to make you tired since there's no downtime. If mom is feeding and looking after the baby, then guess who's shopping, cooking, washing up and then looking after the baby while mom has a shower, does the laundry, etc, etc?!

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

WillDraven (760005) | about 5 years ago | (#29144961)

EXACTLY. My son is only 10 days old and I'm already getting a little loopy from sleep deprivation.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

jackbird (721605) | about 5 years ago | (#29145653)

Get the fuck off /. and get to bed. My little one didn't sleep through the night for TWENTY MONTHS, and I wish I had paced myself better at the start. Granted, that's several standard deviations longer than usual, but you never know...

Re:Why don't they hire men? (4, Informative)

voss (52565) | about 5 years ago | (#29143625)

The quote is out of context, the article was referring to the safety of robots versus human driven forklifts,
  the gender of the forklift driver is not an issue.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29143717)

Ahhh... I thought it was about the gender of the forklift. Now it all makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up!

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | about 5 years ago | (#29143651)

I'm not trying not to be misogynistic here (it just comes naturally) but if you're the father of a young baby... you WILL be sleep deprived. Been there, done that.

Why don't they hire people? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29143753)

I kind of want to live in a world where every person who wants one has a living wage job or better.

Tolerating unemployment or underemployment is beyond my understanding.

  Let Robots do dangerous jobs but use humans for the rest.

Re:Why don't they hire people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29145245)

So you actually want inefficiency? You think it is a good idea to let people do work that could also be done by machines? Let the machines do what they can do and let people do what they can't. Then society can accomplish a lot more.

Re:Why don't they hire men? (3, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 5 years ago | (#29143797)

I'm not trying to be misogynist here

That doesn't mean you aren't succeeding.

Do you really think that women are the only people kept up at night by babies?

Re:Why don't they hire men? (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 5 years ago | (#29145177)

For what it's worth, in the United States there's the Family and Medical Leave Act [wikipedia.org] , which permits a parent (woman or man) to take up to three months off for the birth (or adoption) of a child.

Unfortunately, it's not paid leave, unless your company is uncommonly generous. And because it is unpaid leave, most families cannot afford to take full advantage of it. All it really does is guarantee that you can take the time off and still have a job when you return.

Believe it or not, even this pittance concession to families was incredibly difficult to get passed back in the 90s. I desperately hope for the sort of family benefits common in many European countries. They are expensive, yes, but I feel that the improvement in family unity and child well-being, and the resulting benefit to society, are well worth the investment.

As to your initial point: should women with very small kids be working. Someone else already pointed out that it is not just women that take care of children. I myself took two months off after my wife went back to work. There were times, even after I went back to work, when I questioned whether I should be there. I wasn't bearing the brunt of day-to-day care for my child by that point, but I still had nights of interrupted sleep, unexpected emergencies, and other things that diminished my mental capacity and productivity.

Much more efficient than the old way (3, Funny)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 5 years ago | (#29143585)

Kangaroo pouches are only so big.

Re:Much more efficient than the old way (1)

acehole (174372) | about 5 years ago | (#29143631)

Big enough for a family of 4 to be raised in. Getting the 50" plasma TV in was a struggle though.

Re:Much more efficient than the old way (1)

Hoarse Whisperer (604444) | about 5 years ago | (#29144387)

Kangaroo pouches are only so big.

Kangaroo purses, on the other hand, are huge.

Smaller coins (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 5 years ago | (#29143605)

Would be easier for the mint and the rest of us to handle.

I don't believe a word of it... (2, Interesting)

benjamindees (441808) | about 5 years ago | (#29143613)

Robots also can't tell their neighbors about how much more money the government is printing.

Re:I don't believe a word of it... (3, Interesting)

twostix (1277166) | about 5 years ago | (#29143791)

Given that (according to Bernanke) "printing" new money now consists of literally adding zeros to a banks balance digitally workers at the mint aren't going to notice anything until months or years later anyway.

Re:I don't believe a word of it... (2, Interesting)

benjamindees (441808) | about 5 years ago | (#29144043)

Oh you're absolutely right. I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But obviously there is some ulterior motive for automating this workforce to such an extent. Hauling around money isn't particularly difficult, dangerous or precision work.

But it is frightening to think about how much financial engineering has gone on in recent years. Printing money is literally no longer necessary in order to inflate the currency. Credit limits can be increased electronically. Paychecks are direct-deposited. It's just bank balances, like you say.

Re:I don't believe a word of it... (2, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | about 5 years ago | (#29144321)

Oh you're absolutely right. I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But obviously there is some ulterior motive for automating this workforce to such an extent.

No, they're simply trying to be more efficient. You know, like all the other tens of thousands of companies that have automated themselves.

Hauling around money isn't particularly difficult, dangerous or precision work.

They're hauling coins around. Drums of them. You know coins, those thing made out of metal. That heavy dense stuff that does bad things if it accidentally falls on your foot, right? Like the summary says it's boring repetitive work and humans aren't really made for that. Machines are.

I wonder if you're the same type of person who complains about government inefficiency and waste of money. Or do you maybe believe in some sort of quasi-communist system where everyone works and ten people do the job of one guy just to make sure of that?

But it is frightening to think about how much financial engineering has gone on in recent years. Printing money is literally no longer necessary in order to inflate the currency. Credit limits can be increased electronically. Paychecks are direct-deposited. It's just bank balances, like you say.

So moving from paper bank balances to electronic balances, with twenty backups including paper, somehow makes things infinitely worse? I mean, you do know that it's all been little figures stored somewhere for well over a century if not longer, right? Go look up the great depression on wikipedia if your history classes were that deficient.

Re:I don't believe a word of it... (1)

benjamindees (441808) | about 5 years ago | (#29144415)

I mean, you do know that it's all been little figures stored somewhere for well over a century if not longer, right?

Clearly my history classes were deficient. They didn't teach me about the use of credit cards during the great depression. Thanks for bringing me up to speed, smart-ass.

I wonder if you're the same type of person who complains about government inefficiency and waste of money.

You're right, I'm sure there's no chance of any kind of mis-allocation of capital when the government agency that prints money is completely fucking automated in the middle of a recession.

Re:I don't believe a word of it... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 5 years ago | (#29144901)

Completely automated? You think those robots repair themselves?

Re:I don't believe a word of it... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 years ago | (#29146621)

What difference does the automation make? It's not like a mint employee on the assembly line is going to be able to say, "Hey, Government! You've printed enough money today." Deciding how much money to print has always been the government's decision, automated or not. And it's not like a mint employee can hide in the washroom until everyone is gone, and run off a couple of million for himself. There would be security lockouts on everything.

Re:I don't believe a word of it... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144455)

Hauling around money isn't particularly difficult, dangerous or precision work.

Whoa. Handling money is seriously expensive for exactly those reasons. If we could get rid of physical money (without the side-effects) that would be a huge boost to the economy. The mint is of course only a tiny part of that but still big money...

The problem isn't government money printing (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 5 years ago | (#29143885)

The problem is the subsequent bank money multiplication.

Re:The problem isn't government money printing (1)

darthdavid (835069) | about 5 years ago | (#29144069)

You mean the fractional reserve system?

Mis-read (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29143637)

Yeah, wake me when robots can "Go Down".

Good morning (2, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 5 years ago | (#29143689)

Robots are never affected by having a bad night with the baby and falling asleep at the wheel. They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.

Oh really? So, so...if the rest of the world could only take this brand new revolutionary idea from the Australian mint and apply these "robots" to all kinds of industrial tasks.... oh, wait they already do since about 50 years ago [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good morning (4, Insightful)

pete-wilko (628329) | about 5 years ago | (#29143875)

So what's your point? The banner says 'news for nerds' - this is interesting stuff.

You know the modern web browser was invented 16 years ago - should we link to mosaic every time a story on FF/IE/Chrome/Safari/Opera comes up?

Re:Good morning (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | about 5 years ago | (#29144157)

I laughed at those words for a different reason: it's the kind of nonsense you get from people who have never dealt with robotics before.

Although accurate, the indicated behaviour of robots is hardly a virtue. If a human kept doing the same task in the same way, regardless of the consequences, we'd call them stupid, and that's exactly what robots are.

I think von Braun said it best: Using robots is a lot like having a wife. She helps you solve the problems you wouldn't have had if you hadn't gotten married.

 

Re:Good morning (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 5 years ago | (#29145569)

There are MANY human workers whose job it is to do the same task in the same way for years. They're paid to do it the exact same way, and they'll get in trouble if they do it differently. I do not think these people are stupid, nor would I call them stupid. Perhaps they have that particular job because they don't know how to do something else, but that doesn't make them stupid. We want the same consistently made burger every time we order it at the drive-through. If half the time you got a hot dog instead THEN I think you'd be calling someone stupid. But someone calling a person stupid because they do their job tasks the same way every time really makes that someone stupid.

Port of Hamburg (3, Interesting)

seifried (12921) | about 5 years ago | (#29143701)

You think that's interesting check out the port of Hamburg, shipping containers being zipped around on robotic trucks/lifts/etc.

Terminal Automation [hamburgportconsulting.de]

Re:Port of Hamburg (1)

mach1980 (1114097) | about 5 years ago | (#29143711)

"Terminal Automation" sounds more like you put robots in a retirement home...

Re:Port of Hamburg (1)

WeblionX (675030) | about 5 years ago | (#29143891)

Sounds more like you're giving robots guns.

Re:Port of Hamburg (1)

lxs (131946) | about 5 years ago | (#29143957)

"Terminal Automation" sounds more like you put robots in a retirement home...

I smell a sitcom idea in there. We already have a title.

Re:Port of Hamburg (1)

kthejoker (931838) | about 5 years ago | (#29146373)

I remember on The Wire when they're showing Frank Sobotka and some shipping execs how Amsterdam runs their dock with robots, and Sobotka's just looking at it in abject horror, at the thought of not having all of his buddies in the union to work the docks any more.

Such a weird feeling, to see yourself being replaced. It will constantly move up the employment chain, too.

MySQL password? (5, Funny)

commlinx (1068272) | about 5 years ago | (#29143737)

I wonder if the Australian Federal Police (AFP) setup security for the mint?

Might try a blank root password and see about getting that robot to do a home delivery.

Robots! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29143811)

They're taking our jobs!

Is it just me... (2, Funny)

oljanx (1318801) | about 5 years ago | (#29143813)

Or does anyone else think the Australian mint was modeled after a level in Doom? I'll bet if I shot one of those barrels it would take out any nearby imps.

Down under (1)

Santzes (756183) | about 5 years ago | (#29143845)

But which way will the coins circulate down under?

Re:Down under (1)

dataminetk (1439991) | about 5 years ago | (#29143919)

The correct way.

Re:Down under (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about 5 years ago | (#29144647)

I realize you're joking, but it's important to note that the Coriolis force doesn't affect [dumbscientist.com] small objects in any significant sense. Sinks and toilets don't drain the other way in the southern hemisphere, nor would coins circulate differently.

More or less error coins? (1)

Mad-Bassist (944409) | about 5 years ago | (#29143945)

It would be interesting to find out.

That slide show reminds me of the Newegg tour posted here some time ago.

Joomla Programmer (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144057)

Your post is interesting. Robort is doing very nice work. Joomla Programmed [cnpintegrations.com]

the 80's called. they want their articles back. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144167)

'We are finding that the AGVs are much safer and more reliable. Robots are never affected by having a bad night with the baby and falling asleep at the wheel. They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.'"

aha

Personal Cash (1)

jovius (974690) | about 5 years ago | (#29144291)

Why don't we all have a factory that produces money? I'm thinking of times when we can print and produce personal cash, or have an ATM do that for you. The basis would be our real savings or other assets, which would be transformed into legal tenders of our choice.

In a future world where everything is electronic it's a nice touch to have something tangible once in a while.

Stupid RAM (1)

jman11 (248563) | about 5 years ago | (#29144309)

If they'd make the coins a reasonable size there wouldn't be all these OH&S problems.

OH&S risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144895)

What's an "OH&S risk"?

When will writers learn to spell out acronyms the first time they are used?

From TFA: (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 5 years ago | (#29145011)

Occupational health and safety.

Overall, the project has been very successful in meeting the objectives: reducing occupational health and safety (OH&S) issues, increasing security and increasing productivity.

Apparently, writers do know they should do that. It is once again the Slashdot editors who are illiterate. Or just plain lazy.
Hey... maybe we should have them replaced with robots?

Re:OH&S risk (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | about 5 years ago | (#29145079)

Occupational Health and Safety.

I think its safe to assume if you've had a job at some point in your life you have run acronym.

Fp fuckEer (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29144941)

though, I have to Love of two is codWebase became Disgust, or been Comprehensive much as Windows FreeBSD at about 80

Advanced Design! (1)

Gulthek (12570) | about 5 years ago | (#29145005)

That robot in picture 8 is seriously advanced. It seems to be a generic task model too.

Australia and technology (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 5 years ago | (#29145047)

Guess that somebody actually considering an off-the-shelf industrial robot newsworthy speaks volumes about the state of Australian society.

Australia suffers from a severe problem, where anything perceived as too 'clever' is distrusted and sneered at. Governments don't support industrial development (and indeed, the neoliberals and environmentalists try to actively sabotage it). If it isn't sport, and if it doesn't involve farming it or digging it out of the ground, it doesn't rate.

Much of the problem is knee-jerk anti-intellectualism, and another part of it is the credulity of the political class; they actually believe in neoliberalism, and think that Australia can only do farming and extractive industry.

This is the reason why Australians are so well-known as travellers; of a population of 21 million, about a million are abroad at any one time. Much of it is because neoliberals have turned Australia into a classic branch-office economy, and there are more opportunities overseas.

This sounds vaugely familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29146323)

Robots are never affected by having a bad night with the baby and falling asleep at the wheel. They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.

They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Okay.. now follow that thought (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 5 years ago | (#29146561)

When most of the jobs are held by robots because they are cheaper....

...but which direction? (1)

DrNASA (849379) | about 5 years ago | (#29147253)

the real question is do they send them around clockwise or counter-clockwise?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>