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!

High-Speed Robot Hand Shows Dexterity and Speed

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the think-fast dept.

Robotics 133

An anonymous reader tips a blog posting that begins "A few blogs are passing around videos of the Ishikawa Komuro Lab's high-speed robot hand performing impressive acts of dexterity and skillful manipulation. However, the video being passed around is slight on details. Meanwhile, their video presentation at ICRA 2009 (which took place in May in Kobe, Japan) has an informative narration and demonstrates additional capabilities. ... [It] shows the manipulator dribbling a ping-pong ball, spinning a pen, throwing a ball, tying knots, grasping a grain of rice with tweezers, and tossing / re-grasping a cellphone!"

cancel ×

133 comments

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

And I, for one (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29169825)

Welcome our new robot overlords.

Re:And I, for one (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170019)

but can it stroke me off? i like a good handjob

Re:And I, for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170071)

that high speed robotic hand is going to either burn the skin off your penis or make you into a one second man

Re:And I, for one (5, Funny)

BattleApple (956701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170633)

...or make you into a one second man

so it can basically double the staying power of the average /.er? I'm sold!

Finally! (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169845)

I can high five a robot and get it to do it PROPERLY.

Re:Finally! (3, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169875)

... and with the pressure sensors, it probably won't break your hand.

-jcr

Re:Finally! (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169955)

... and with the pressure sensors, it probably won't break your hand.

yah, especially our pe.. err.. you know the reason this was invented in the first place...

Re:Finally! (3, Funny)

rastos1 (601318) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171343)

... and with the pressure sensors, it probably won't break your hand.

Testers wanted.

Re:Finally! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29169919)

This robot only achieves a "high three", but I am sure that with some competition, we will be seeing 100-fingered robots really soon!

Re:Finally! (3, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169965)

Unfortunetly this robot hand only has three fingers so a "high five" might be a bit difficult ;)

Re:Finally! (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170443)

It's hard to do a back hand five finger grips too! Although I think the 10x frequency will compensate that and brings a similar climax.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172139)

Not if you count in binary. Horny hands: the new 5.

Re:Finally! (4, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172567)

If it wants two more fingers it will just tear off two of yours.

Re:Finally! (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170067)

Every time I try a High-Five, I miss, or hit the other person with a force that cripples both of us for 10 minutes.

Stupid robots.

Re:Finally! (2, Informative)

scire9 (1029348) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170299)

The trick is to watch the other person's elbow, you can't miss.

holy crap! (1, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169847)

Watching that, I can't help but think that the math/programmer behind it is fairly simple with a basic knowledge of physics and the only reason this wasn't around 10 years ago was chips not being fast enough. Now that the technology exists, all the theoretical robot motor function logic can actually be put into practise. If you think about it, the dribbling code must be really simple. Run the numbers while the ball is in the air about precisely where and at what angle the ball impacted the first finger at and position the third finger accordingly and make it swing with the proper force and angle to bounce it back to the first finger. It's like programming pong with a few extra lines of code and raw date from sensors lol. Okay that was a bit too simple as a comparison.
By the way, is it just me or does anyone else think that it failed some of those test on the first fifty takes lol. I think it's not quite as accurate and perfect as the video makes it out to be.

Re:holy crap! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170149)

The programming is (kinda) simple but the math is not. Solving the equations of motion that quickly does require good computers, but also good (aka fast) solvers(algorithms). While these algorithms have been known for about 30-40 years, they haven't been used to their full potential. Of course the robot must have failed the tests initially, but the great thing about science is that once you get it right it stays right (within certain limits).

Re:holy crap! (3, Insightful)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170199)

I wouldn't think so - the amount of adaptability required for the actions would preclude a straight calculation (tiny variations would blow out) - it would more likely be some kind of neural network based approach.

Re:holy crap! (4, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170313)

I wouldn't think so - the amount of adaptability required for the actions would preclude a straight calculation (tiny variations would blow out) - it would more likely be some kind of neural network based approach.

Feedback. As long as the error for each iteration (bounce) isn't too great, the long-term error can be kept within this by adjusting the next response based on feedback from the previous. Anything that's open-loop (lacking feedback) will fall apart, neural-net-based or not.

Re:holy crap! (4, Insightful)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170415)

Actually, based on the narration, I believe that the computation involved requires three basic processing steps: (1) detection systems to measure physical properties of the system at any given point in time, such as position, velocity, acceleration, and force; (2) real-time algorithms based on rapid numerical solution of equations to predict future states of the system, with continual updating by comparing predicted state with actual state inferred from step 1; and (3) determination of the appropriate movement in the robotic arm for the necessary outcome.

I think that this is a very difficult thing to program in general because the examples shown are very specific tasks which serve to demonstrate the speed of this type of processing, but we do not see how well arbitrary tasks can be similarly implemented or how accurately.

Make no mistake: this is very impressive performance, because it is basically a huge step forward in machine vision and real-time robotic control. On some level, the mathematics has always been there, but only in as much as the basic mathematics of binary arithmetic has been used to develop programming languages. There's a lot more going on behind the scenes that extends beyond a mere physical description of the system in question, because for such an approach to be possible in the general sense, the robot doesn't know things like the precise distribution of the mass in the object being manipulated, or all the frictional forces involved. It's not operating under a sort of Laplacian notion wherein if one knew the precise state of all parameters of the system, one can simply solve the required physical equations and predict the future state at any arbitrary point in time, because (a) chaos guarantees the instability of such nonlinear systems, and (b) it wouldn't be possible to measure all such parameters with sufficient precision.

What is really going on is perhaps best explained in human terms: the programming is doing a lot of what humans do--we observe the state with our visual and tactile senses, and our brains receive these continual updates and decide what to do next. This processing is already extremely fast in a biological context, but with these machines, it is made at least an order of magnitude faster. The next step is to simulate a sort of adaptive intelligence to allow the handling of a wider class of scenarios than the ones shown in the video.

Re:holy crap! (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170591)

The difficult part is probably the parallel processing needed to achieve these speeds.

Skynet (5, Funny)

vonFinkelstien (687265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169871)

Seeing just how blazingly fast that thing was makes me know that we have absolutely no chance against Skynet.

Re:Skynet (2, Funny)

jarocho (1617799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169947)

A robot hand being able to bounce a ping pong ball doesn't make me worry.

However, if and when a robot learns to play Eddie Van Halen's "Eruption" [youtube.com] , then I'll worry.

Re:Skynet (3, Funny)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170123)

Bah, my computer can play that song easily, and it doesn't even need a guitar.

Re:Skynet (2, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170305)

However, if and when a robot learns to play Eddie Van Halen's "Eruption" [youtube.com] , then I'll worry.

What if the robot can do something that Eddie can't, such as keeping Valerie Bertinelli happy? Would that make you worry?

Re:Skynet (2, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170429)

What if the robot can do something that Eddie can't, such as keeping Valerie Bertinelli happy? Would that make you worry?

They already have many robots for that. I'd provide a link but most of them are NSFW.

Re:Skynet (2, Funny)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170447)

Oh lord. the pink overalls!
Now I need to wash my eyes.

Re:Skynet (2, Funny)

Mike73 (979311) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171785)

Today, ping pong balls - tomorrow, human meatsacks.

Re:Skynet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170145)

I was so supposed to see that this wasn't developed by AFRICANS.

What with them being just as intelligent as the other races.

Good luck when your country is 90% black.

I'm sure your children will be overjoyed to be benefitting from all that 'diversity'...

Re:Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170329)

We need an army of elite samurai who are fast and accurate! ;-D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj1Jytiw8e0

Re:Skynet (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170477)

Yeah, well... they didn't tell us how many times it *dropped* the cellphone. I bet one good catch out of 1000 wouldn't have impressed you quite so much.

Re:Skynet (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171611)

I bet one good catch out of 1000 wouldn't have impressed you quite so much.

Oh, I don't know - it's still pretty freakin' impressive. One in a thousand ain't bad for something as difficult and improbable as that. Kinda like when I manage to knock a 3-point shot in basketball.

Re:Skynet (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172207)

One in a thousand ain't bad for something as difficult and improbable as that. Kinda like when I manage to knock a 3-point shot in basketball.

Shaq? Is that you?

Re:Skynet (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171349)

its like fast zombies.

Re:Skynet (0, Redundant)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171507)

I propose an addendum to Godwin's Law in which it is stated that as any online discussion about robots grows longer, the probability of comparisons involving Skynet approaches 1.

Re:Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172383)

I propose an addendum to Godwin's Law in which it is stated that as any online discussion about robots grows longer, the probability of comparisons involving Skynet approaches 1.

Ja wohl, discusion-fuehrer!

Re:Skynet (3, Funny)

necro81 (917438) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171675)

Yeah, the neatest trick I've seen a robot pull off since Bishop's knife trick in Aliens.

Re:Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172137)

Nah. Look at the description of the image handler (the 128 by 128 with pixel array device)... it struck me awfully like when you hold a ball in front of a dog that wants to play fetch, and you wave the ball around, the dog anticipates and follows.

We just have to anticipate what Skynet wants (fetch) and distract it (tasty fried human critter for the ball).

Re:Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172251)

On the other hand, fembots will be AWESOME.

Re:Skynet (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172421)

Seeing just how blazingly fast that thing was makes me know that we have absolutely no chance against Skynet.

Well, look at the up side. We only have to hide in fear from the machines for one year, and then the series will get canceled by Fox at season two and humanity will be safe once again!

Title... (4, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169891)

That's just so WRONG.

Re:Title... (4, Funny)

acehole (174372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170079)

Futurama got it partly right... there's gonna be booths on each corner, just not the suicide booth variety.

Re:Title... (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170343)

That's just so WRONG.

Agreed. Headline should read:

Robotics Engineers' Girlfriends at End, Starting to Cry
remind me to fire the copy editor -Ed.

Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. (2, Funny)

dmomo (256005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169893)

For the last decade, I've been eking by on the "well, can a robot tie it's own tie?" Hey, at least there's still "sleeping one's way to the top". And once robots learn to do that... is anyone REALLY going to want to leave their house for a stupid JOB anyway?

Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170175)

Eventually, we might just become interesting pets for the robots. When that happens I have one question at this point (this point being after about a 1/3 of a bottle of Captin' Morgan's finest) ... Will they fuck their pets too?

Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170311)

Will they fuck their pets too?

Too?

That's it. You've been reported to PETA.

And let go of that cat already.

Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170627)

Huh? What's People Eating Tasty Animals got to do with it?

Re:Great. Now robots can do ALL aspects of my job. (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170741)

Huh? What's People Eating Tasty Animals got to do with it?

I think they'd rather not eat that kind of tasty.

one grain of rice? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29169899)

I want to see how fast it can move a whole bag of rice. Very impressive, hadn't seen the last few examples before.

Re:one grain of rice? (3, Funny)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172647)

They should teach that thing KungFu and have Jackie Chan fight it. I just want to see how fast it can rip out a human heart.

The real question... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29169903)

Being that it's a Japanese robot hand, the next question is: how good is it at feeling up schoolgirls? Or, for that matter, kancho?

Re:The real question... (0, Offtopic)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170361)

Robotic tentical porn?

Erm... (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169911)

My good robotic overlord, why are you tossing that paltry cell phone for three hours in a row already? *Sigh* I guess my inquiries aren't welcome here, sir...

The claw (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29169913)

"And inthis sequence this video you can see the robot hand strangling dr. Kamakuro.

Notice how the pressure sensonrs allows it to know when to release to leave the doctor unconscious but alive.

Observe the marvelous precision displayed as it cuts the doctor's hand and peels its skin to make itself a costume.

Ohh, it's trying to sew itself to the doctor's stump; ain't it the cutest thing?"

Re:The claw (2, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170189)

I sincerely apologize for the eye-bleeding spelling horror I managed to reach with the previous post*.

Once again, I promise not posting on slashdot before the first dose of caffeine.

*: My first spelling of that as 'precious post' probably means I need even more caffeine.

Re:The claw (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172769)

Observe the marvelous precision displayed as it cuts the doctor's hand and peels its skin to make itself a costume."

*: My first spelling of that as 'precious post' probably means I need even more caffeine.

Wasn't "Precious" the name of Buffallo Bill's dog in Silence of the Lambs? Freud would have been elated to have met you...

Re:The claw (1)

j-stroy (640921) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170231)

Hook this arm up to the emotive stuff they are doing with face/intent interpretation and expression and you should be able to "tap out" if it squeezes you too tight, unless its a ruthless torture robot.

I never really connected a purpose with the robot emotional interpretation and expressive stuff before, but I can see a good use for it now. Alternatively, torture robots are self explanatory. Also, I wonder if it can do back massage?

Re:The claw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170609)

Something tells me that is one of the first things we will find out..

Impressive.. (2, Insightful)

Asadullah Ahmad (1608869) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170009)

The accuracy is pretty impressive and will definitely get adopted in future robots, though the speed is a bit scary. At least you shouldn't come within its range in the hope that it will follow the three Laws of Robotics.

Dribbling demo? (2, Interesting)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170023)

Very impressive. I wasn't able to quite tell from the video, though: was the end of the dribbling demo planned, or did the robot lose control of the ball after a few seconds?

Re:Dribbling demo? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170177)

dude the dribbling lasted less than 100ms....the ball is bound to eventually bounce away because of even slight error in the visual recognition, which was quite cool.

Imagine an evil robot that could do something that fast, it would be able to dodge bullets.

Re:Dribbling demo? (4, Funny)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170221)

No, Mr AC, when the robot is ready, it won't need to dodge bullets.

It could just catch them :)

Re:Dribbling demo? (2, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170321)

It won't need to run linux.

It will type it from scratch!

With great speed and dexterity!

Re:Dribbling demo? (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170265)

I was wondering the same thing. I came to the (completely uninformed) conclusion that it was not planned.

Re:Dribbling demo? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170727)

About your signature:

If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011

I guess you didn't know how to enceode 'y', 'o' and '\'', right? :-)

Re:Dribbling demo? (1)

xigxag (167441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170349)

Playing it back frame by frame, it looks like the ball made a weird bounce and then skittered out of range of the robot, which sbusequently threw its hands, er, fingers up in resignation.

Re:Dribbling demo? (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172739)

It didn't say if it lost control or was planned. But the dribbling period was only 100ms. But given how fast it dribbles, it would be like some kid dribbling for like 10 seconds before losing it. well, that's just a guess

have they tried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170055)

any "Date Night at the Theatre" tests been run yet?

Re:have they tried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170097)

Catholic girls are the way to go, and they go all the way.

Very nice. Some things are easier when done fast. (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170153)

This is very nice work. The most interesting result is that some manipulation problems become easier if done fast. In the short term, inertia makes the motions of objects very predictable. With millisecond reaction times, that can be exploited.

Fast machinery isn't unusual, but it's rarely that smart.

Re:Very nice. Some things are easier when done fas (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170411)

This is very nice work. The most interesting result is that some manipulation problems become easier if done fast. In the short term, inertia makes the motions of objects very predictable. With millisecond reaction times, that can be exploited.

Yeah, that long term inertia is a real PITA.

Re:Very nice. Some things are easier when done fas (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170577)

Um, it would be more impressive if the machinery was slow. I mean, it would then require more intelligence to do the same job.

Very impressive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170245)

This is the first "robotic breakthrough" link I've clicked on at /. that I've been actually impressed with. The "regrip" feature especially. If fact all the movement where the robot had to calculate where the object was and where to move were excellent. I'm not sure about the spinning or throwing or tweezers actions- they seemed like a simple programmed action rather than interaction.

Who need walking human robots. Have something like this on wheels or tracks and forget trying to replicate a human, then we mite get useful robots sooner than we think.

Re:Very impressive. (4, Funny)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170657)

By impressive you mean 'terrifying', and by useful you mean 'terrifying'

Lets look at the capabilities demonstrated here:

1. Ability to move faster than a human
2. Ability to throw things accurately at a human
3. Ability to tie up a human
4. Ability to perform delicate procedures on a human

Yet our basic anti-robot technologies appear stagnant. Why is there so much more research on developing robots than there is on smashing those metal mothers into junk?

Re:Very impressive. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170689)

Well, be assured that THEY do develop anti-robotic weapons. THEY just keep them secret so that normal humans like us won't have a chance. It's the preparation for the final ... wait, why are there black helic... No Carrier

Re:Very impressive. (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171557)

By impressive you mean 'terrifying', and by useful you mean 'terrifying'

Lets look at the capabilities demonstrated here:

1. Ability to move faster than a human
2. Ability to throw things accurately at a human
3. Ability to tie up a human
4. Ability to perform delicate procedures on a human

Why be delicate when you can be crude? The robot doesn't need to sit in a tank, it could be the tank. With hydraulics for both small and large arms and IR cameras it could kill you quite easily as long as it doesn't need to care about collateral damage. Tie you up? More liker tazer and bag you, much easier. And you definately don't need much delicacy to make a torturebot, so what here is really terrifying? We already know they can be damn destructive, delicacy is what we need to have a robot whip up an omelet for me without making a mess.

Re:Very impressive. (1)

synackpshfin (1622285) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172135)

And you definately don't need much delicacy to make a torturebot, so what here is really terrifying?

Actually I think it requires quite a bit more of delicacy to make a torturebot than a killbot...

Re:Very impressive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172921)

Omelet schmomlet, cooking isn't that bad a chore and usually doesn't take too long. (And anticipating tasty food may be part of the fun of cooking it.) Instead, put this thing on laundry duty. That's a boring job which just requires enough skill to take too much of my time. If a robot actually has enough dexterity, it should be able to load and unload the washer and dryer and then do the tedious part of smoothing out and folding the dry clothes. First person to make and sell a robot that does that with proficiency will have some money in the bank.

Re:Very impressive. (2, Funny)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171867)

Capabilities not demonstrated here:

n. Ability to not have your coordinate system remain stationary.

"Dave, would you please step approximately three feet to the left, so that I may dissect you?"
"No thanks, Hal."

So, yes, this is a great robot for strangling those pesky paraplegics.

Re:Very impressive. (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172181)

Yet our basic anti-robot technologies appear stagnant.

That's not true. We are continually creating new code to crash modern electronics ever more quickly. In just a few months Windows 7 will be out -- I guarantee the robot couldn't survive that.

Re:Very impressive. (1)

autora (1085805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170791)

Walking robots is not just a gimmick - wheels and tracks can't go up stairs. The Dalek problem...

Re:Very impressive. (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170999)

Tracks can, and wheels can too if they're in the right configuration. The Daleks just had ground clearance issues ;)

Re:Very impressive. (1)

Sebilrazen (870600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171411)

Dalek problem?

What problem? They can fly, I'd take flying over not being able to perambulate up stairs any day.

Re:Very impressive. (1)

autora (1085805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172393)

Only in the "new" Dr. Who can they fly - it was an old joke with the previous Dr. Who incarnations that the best way to beat Daleks was to walk upstairs.

Re:Very impressive. (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172521)

Real Daleks do not climb stairs, they level the building.

Jack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170341)

I'm thinking it might make a good robotic masturbater. Set it up, queue the porno, sit back and enjoy. Make the hand dishwasher safe, sell millions!

Re:Jack? Gender First! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172377)

Though some might not be so particular, they would first need to make a much more "feminine" robotic hand!

Joe Rogan had this already... (0, Flamebait)

BigScoob (138622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170543)

worst part of all, I saw this after Joe Rogan sent a tweet on it today... That was before slashdot got it... shit the world is ending...

Dexterity (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170581)

So they built a right-handed robot? I hope they'll follow-up with a left-handed one soon, in order to not be discriminating!

SCNR

Re:Dexterity (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170847)

A right-handed robot is Dexterous. A left handed robot is Sinister. I really hope they don't go making any left-handed robots or we're doomed.

new experiment (2, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170583)

i have an idea for a new experiment: fire a bullet at it, and see if it can catch it :-)
it would be the ultimate body guard :-)

Implications for machine walking? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170669)

Thus far, robots have tended to shuffle along in an awkward, spastic manner - and at low speed. Could this kind of development help them out? If the reason for the difficulties with bipedal motion in robots is that the actuators cannot respond quickly/accurately enough to maintain balance well, then it will be able to. I'd like to know how fast such a robot can move, as it can already tie me up and perform surgery on me if it catches me...

combine these with self evolving robots (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 4 years ago | (#29170761)

anyone know what will happen if this technology is combined with http://spectrum.ieee.org/blog/robotics/robotics-software/automaton/robots-evolve-to-exploit-inadvertent-cues [ieee.org] and used for tasks such as food harvesting also, robo wars of the 2 technologies combined would be fun -- superfast and evolving bots...

wmo3 up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29170957)

things th3 right = 36400 FreeBSD BEST. INDIVIDUALS intentions and

Guitar playing robots (2, Funny)

Tono_Fyr (1280182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29171605)

I don't know why this is news, they've had extremely fast, highly dexterous guitar playing robots since the 1980s in the form of Yngwie Malmsteen and Micheal Angelo Batio.

Robotic magicians (1)

pwilli (1102893) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172395)

Finally robots will be able to do the high speed, high precision moves magicians need to "create" coins out of thin air or do card tricks.

!pr0n tag (1)

synackpshfin (1622285) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172775)

!pr0n? Obligatory tag on 90% of slashdot posts.

Its there newest model... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172919)

T-1000

I for one welcome the new self aware machine overlords!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>