Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

224 comments

Stickers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191606)

And heres me expecting to see a robot that can quickly rearrange the stickers.

Cool (3, Funny)

Chris Lawrence (1733598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191608)

Cool, just make sure it doesn't mistake your head for a Rubik's Cube. :)

This Video is FAKE (4, Informative)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193182)

Okay, it's not FAKE but it's completely and entirely dishonest. I can solve the rubik's cube in about 20 seconds over an average of 12 solves, so I have a thorough understanding of human speed-solving. Computers, on the other hand, would go for some idea solution that a human brain is not capable of producing. This is especially true since the robot in this video moves EXTREMELY slowly, about 1-2 turns per second on average. Human hands can EASILY sustain 3-5 moves per second. This computer, to solve the Rubik's cube in 2 seconds as in the first part of the video, or 4 seconds as in the second part of the video, would have to be able to solve the cube in 4-10 moves. The optimal solution for solving a rubik's cube has already been bounded at about 18 moves (look it up).

Still don't believe me? Start watching and replay the video from 30s onwards. Freeze the video when the timer starts at 0:00 and look at the cube, it is actually a single 90 degree rotation away from a fully solved state.

The 4s video beginning at 1:07 shows several rotations of the WHOLE CUBE without making any actual moves, then does 4 turns and solve it, which means that it wasn't anywhere near a scrambled state to begin with.

More evidence that it's fake? Is there any information on this other than a 2 minute video on youtube?

That's fast (3, Interesting)

TheVoxyn (1716686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191622)

Think 99% of the world population can't do that :P

Re:That's fast (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191662)

Are you sure? Just about every Asian I know can do it that quickly, and they make up about 30% of the world's population.

Re:That's fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191852)

whereas no black I know can do it...

Suddenly sounds awfully racist, doesn't it?

Re:That's fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191880)

So you personally know 30% of the world's population? Or because you know some Asians who can solve Rubik's Cubes quickly, you assume all Asians can?

Re:That's fast (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191882)

Sure, and since you know ALL the asians in the world, including those working hard 24/7 in factories just to get something to eat, you can officially say that about 30% of the world's population can solve rubik's cube that fast.

I love how there aren't any fallacies there. ;)

Re:That's fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191956)

Just about every Asian I know can do it that quickly, and they make up about 30% of the world's population.

Far more than 30%. China's almost 20% by itself. Add in India and you're closer to 40 than 30. Throw in Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, a large chunk of the Russian population, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran, almost all of Turkey... it's probably more like 50%.

Re:That's fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192062)

you're friends with 30% of the worlds population?! what are you some kind of diety?

Re:That's fast (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192096)

I can't do that. and I'm Asian.

Re:That's fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192162)

You Disgrace me.

Im asian and i can solve it.

Re:That's fast (5, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192616)

Are you sure? Just about every Asian I know can do it that quickly, and they make up about 30% of the world's population.

That's because in China they use The People's Cube [thepeoplescube.com]

Obligatory (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191632)

and not only is it made entirely out of Legos

It's "Lego". Lego bricks. Lego blocks. Lego. Not Legos. Lego.

Thanks

Re:Obligatory (3, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191658)

You can use trademarks as adjectives. The rest of the world uses them as nouns and verbs. Get over it.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191696)

Thank you. Only loosers use the word "legos". And don't get me started on "could care less".

Re:Obligatory (2, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191766)

"loosers"? What are "loosers"? The opposite of "tighters"?

Only losers use the word "loosers". :)

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191910)

Whoooooooooosh.

Re:Obligatory (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192056)

More like buuurrrrrrrnnnnn.

Re:Obligatory (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192686)

"loosers"? What are "loosers"? The opposite of "tighters"?

There's a website for that....

Re:Obligatory (3, Funny)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191774)

Legos my egos. Leggo my eggo. Let go of my eggo waffle. Biznatch.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191834)

No, it's Lego (TM) brand modular toy building-blocks, and you better the hell say the whole thing every time.

Re:Obligatory (5, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191884)

The only people who care about that pointless distinction are trademark lawyers.

For the rest of us, they're simply called LEGOS.

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192148)

For the rest of us, they're simply called LEGOS.

The world is divided into two groups, those that call them Legos and those that make fun of the first group.

Re:Obligatory (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192672)

Those that make fun of the first group and those who are utterly baffled at using a singular noun to describe something that is only interesting in the plural.

Re:Obligatory (2, Informative)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192894)

Those that make fun of the first group and those who are utterly baffled at using a singular noun to describe something that is only interesting in the plural.

Like fish, and sheep...

Re:Obligatory (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192218)

They? There are multiple different objects each of which is a lego? I can think of lots of objects, each called a lego brick, but none that are individually called a lego.

Re:Obligatory (2, Informative)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192296)

Yes, non-pedants call each little piece of plastic a *LEGO*. How hard is that for you to understand?

Re:Obligatory (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192330)

Really?

o.O

I've seriously never heard anyone call a lego brick a lego before. Must be some weird ism. I'd interpret "a lego" to be an entire company producing a brand of lego.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192442)

Yes, just as you wouldn't say that you own a "Honda® automobile". Normal people just say "I have a Honda".

Normal people would also say "There are three Hondas in the garage." instead of the stilted sounding "There are three Honda® automobiles in the garage."

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192770)

It has nothing to do with brands and everything to do with the fact that normal people know that "lego" is a mass noun like "ice." "The eskimo built an igloo out of ices." See how dumb that sounds? That's what you sound like to a normal person.

Re:Obligatory (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192810)

I've always used lego as a plural, as in "I have a bucket of lego."

Re:Obligatory (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192100)

Allow me to bring you some Kleenexes; your weeping protestation is piteous.

Maybe a couple of aspirins for your headache?

Reality must really piss off language prescriptionists.

Re:Obligatory (0, Redundant)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192224)

Except that there's no such thing as a singular lego. There's a lego brick, there's not a lego.

Re:Obligatory (1, Offtopic)

pknoll (215959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192526)

Except there's no such thing as a singular Ford. There's a Ford Mustang, there isn't a Ford.

Lego is a brand, just like Ford is. People refer to many Mustangs or F150's or whatever as "Fords" all the time, so the same would be true of Lego.

Re:Obligatory (1, Offtopic)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192496)

And the parking lot isn't full of Toyotas,Fords, Hondas? Its full of Toyota cars, Toyota trucks, Ford cars Ford trucks and Honda Cars?

Re:Obligatory (2, Informative)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193052)

When you go hunting and fishing, do you bring back deers, elks, geeses, fishes? and drink some beers?

Cause I bring back deer, elk, geese and fish, and have a few beer. Well I would if I were a hunter.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31193190)

Legos! Legos! Legos! Look at me over here playing with my legos! My little brother made a really cool spaceship looking thing with his Legos. I didn't clean up my room and my dad got really pissed at me because he stepped on some Legos.

Legos! Legos!

Sorry, I am never that guy, but they are Legos! Let it go....

specialized pieces (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191634)

Most if it is just giant specialized pieces from Lego that are only usable in this one kit.

Lame.

Re:specialized pieces (1)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192072)

Yea, but look at the video right below it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp8Y2yjV4fU [youtube.com] All that uses is just a NXT kit.

His website is http://tiltedtwister.com/sudokusolver.html [tiltedtwister.com] If you want to make your own solver go http://tiltedtwister.com/index.html [tiltedtwister.com]

Pissees me off, I bought the 2.0 kit and need exra parts. But its amazing what you can do with it. Now to build a LTO tape autoloader!

Re:specialized pieces (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192286)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it lame but it pisses me of when people say such and such is made of legos with the implication that somehow that makes it more difficult. I'd be more impressed if he had fabricated the parts himself than if he used premade parts that snap together. now if had used regular bricks for the whole thing that would be a different story.

Re:specialized pieces (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192522)

I would call it lame. The robot isn't "solving" anything. The real impressive work is what happens before the robot does anything: the algorithm that determines a good solution for the given cube.

Re:specialized pieces (1)

kav2k (1545689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193048)

I would call it lame. The robot isn't "solving" anything. The real impressive work is what happens before the robot does anything: the algorithm that determines a good solution for the given cube.

I guess that one wasn't an open problem. But building it in Lego hardware was a first (or was it?).

+1 (1)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191646)

For Singularity reference.

I for one will be slack jawed at the awesomeness (4, Funny)

myocardialinfarction (1606123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191648)

of our new Lego robot masters.

Cheating! (4, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191690)

That thing got four arms. Come on, that is cheating.

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191760)

It has 8 "fingers", but 0 arms.

Re:Cheating! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192198)

Is my trained octopus acceptable? I don't want it to be disqualified for any cheating and feel that I might be wasting my time with the training.

Re:Cheating! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192664)

Poor little tink-tink.

I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191724)

All I needed was 6 different paint brushes dipped in 6 different colours.

Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191772)

All I needed was a flat-head screw driver.

Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191838)

I just threw the thing into a can of paint, but I still lost because it took too much time to forcibly submerge the thing...

Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once (2, Funny)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191898)

I just threw mine out the window! There, problem solved!

Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192132)

I threw one into a black hole. The Hawking radiation described the solution.

Re:I solved a Rubiks cube in 12 seconds once (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192260)

Feh, most cubes I run into are already solved...

--Anonymous Colorblind Coward

"Often it can finish in less than five!" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191730)

I bet the female lego robot takes muuuuuch longer to finish.

How they are doing it? (4, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191744)

Unfortunately, the linked to post and video doesn't give much details. Naively, I expect that the computer program is first figuring out very quickly what the series of movements to solve the cube and then implementing those. There are around 4 * 10^19 possible configurations for a Rubik's cube, but the group theory allows one to work out what steps to take without having to do very exhaustive searches since the Rubik's group is very well-behaved. However, this assumes one is in an actually solvable configuration. I'd be curious to find out if they've debugged the device well enough to make sure it doesn't hang or get in some infinite loop if one gives it an unsolvable cube (not all possible permutations of squares are solvable. Most trivially, edges need to stay on edges, corners on corners and centers on centers. But some configurations are still not solvable. For example, if one swaps two center stickers it isn't hard to see that that lays outside the Rubik's group of reachable permutations).

Re:How they are doing it? (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191836)

They probably didn't debug it much, but in actuality - most of it is pattern recognition. If you look straight down the corner of one Rubiks cube, you will see 3 faces of it, and that is all you actually need to solve the Rubiks cube. All the pros merely remember the patterns and the steps required to solve each pattern. Rotate the cube 90 degrees and the pattern still exists, even though things are in a different shape.

Really, the programming side of this isn't that impressive once you know how Rubiks cube solving is done. I'm more impressed at the speed, which I've normally found Lego technic and Mindstorm products to be a little laggy in commands and slow to operate, keep in mind though, that was the stuff I used like 7 years ago.

Re:How they are doing it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191926)

All the pros merely remember the patterns and the steps required to solve each pattern.

There are professional Rubik's cube solvers?!?

Re:How they are doing it? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192146)

Although I assume you're being sarcastic, as Rubik's cube tournaments used to be somewhat widespread, but yes, there are professional SCRABBLE players for chrissake. I even saw a documentary about them once. They really are as pathetic as they sound.

Re:How they are doing it? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192416)

Supposedly there is a set series of moves that will solve and brand new (ie just opened Rubik's cube). I have seen videos of people solving one behind their backs, blind folded. The set series of moves has some reasoning.

I usually took it apart and put it together with the sides matching. There were a few times I used a baseball bat to 'solve' the cube. Good stress relief that way.

Re:How they are doing it? (4, Funny)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193060)

I am one of those people who can solve a brand-new, just-opened Rubik's cube blindfolded. Let me tell you, it's not all that difficult.

Re:How they are doing it? (1, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191972)

It looks pretty simple to me. You put it in and it snaps shots of the 6 sides of the cube. Those are interpreted by the computer which probably uses a standard solving algorithm. The solution is translated into movements for the robot, and off it goes.

My guess would be if it was impossible to solve, it wouldn't start doing anything, the software would complain. No Rubik's cube is impossible to solve without physically messing with the cube (as you pointed out, swapping stickers for example). If you start with a solved cube, no amount of twisting can make an impossible cube.

The video is quite impressive, far better than most lego solving robots. I'd love to see this thing solve a bigger cube.

Or how about a feeding device? You put 10 cubes in, each is automatically placed in, solved, and popped out.

Re:How they are doing it? (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192006)

You put it in and it snaps shots of the 6 sides of the cube. Those are interpreted by the computer which probably uses a standard solving algorithm. The solution is translated into movements for the robot, and off it goes.

      I'm stunned. And here I was thinking it worked by magic. Is that REALLY how it's done?

      Sorry, I'm just feeling rather cynical today. Pffft.

Re:How they are doing it? (1)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192986)

You put it in and it snaps shots of the 6 sides of the cube. Those are interpreted by the computer which probably uses a standard solving algorithm. The solution is translated into movements for the robot, and off it goes.

I'm stunned. And here I was thinking it worked by magic. Is that REALLY how it's done?

To be fair, I had initially assumed it was scanning the cube and solving it on-the-fly like a human would, as opposed to scanning first, solving and then executing.

But can it... (1)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191764)

I want to know what happens if you break the cube up and reassemble it so it can't be solved. I'm pretty sure that was possible. If it's not I'm sure it could be accomplished by breaking two cubes and creatively swapping the parts over.

Re:But can it... (2, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191906)

And people wonder why the robots are going to revolt and dominate us.

Re:But can it... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191914)

To make it unsolveable all you need to do is rotate one corner or one edge.

Not impressive (0)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191788)

it can solve any 3x3 Rubik's cube in less than twelve seconds.

Firstly, I've never seen a 3x3 Rubik's cube. If such a thing existed, wouldn't that be dramatically simpler than a normal Cube? Finally, if it's only 3x3, wouldn't that make it a two-dimensional square, rather than a cube?

Re:Not impressive (2, Informative)

SoVeryTired (967875) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191854)

3X3 refers to the configuration of squares on each face of the cube. The 3x3 is the standard one that made us all so angry in the 80's.

Re:Not impressive (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191928)

I think I still have one or two embedded in the walls of my bedroom...

Re:Not impressive (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192446)

You live in the same place! wow.

Isn't it time... (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193104)

Isn't it time to get out of your parent's basement...

Re:Not impressive (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192166)

But it would have to be 3x3x3 if it were a cube.

Re:Not impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192360)

In all fairness, if its a Cube, you could just say 3 (as each side would be the same length). As opposed to the 4 and 5 block cubes.

Re:Not impressive (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193094)

3X3 refers to the configuration of squares on each face of the cube.

But it would have to be 3x3x3 if it were a cube.

So you're saying each face has 3x3x3 squares on it?

Re:Not impressive (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31191900)

Your "joke" is about as impressive.

LHC? (2, Funny)

Daas (620469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191850)

Am I the only one who thinks it looks a bit like ATLAS from the LHC??

Which makes it even more AWESOME.

Direct link to video (1)

Chad Birch (1222564) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191876)

Here's a direct link to the video, since the blog embedding it seems to be on the way to going down: CubeStormer [youtube.com]

What about the other robot... (1)

vekrander (1400525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191964)

I'm not sure what's more impressive, the one that solves the cube or the one that does sudoku. While solving the sudoku is trivial, the OCR it performs appears interesting, and to say the least, programming it to write with a pencil must have been incredibly tough.

Re:What about the other robot... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192140)

I have a Mindstorm, and I'm fairly certain it cannot be programmed to do OCR... I'm pretty sure the Sudoku picture is a joke. The Mindstorm can recognize colors by shining 3 different color LEDs on a spot and measuring the light with a photocell; it is just hard to believe even a network of Mindstorms could solve a Rubick's cube that quickly, even if they are fast enough to emulate a Segway. I'm pretty sure they have a much faster computer driving the Mindstorms.

Re:What about the other robot... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192156)

programming it to write with a pencil must have been incredibly tough.

Pen-plotter control algorithms were ancient and well-documented 30 years ago when I saw the source code for a hobbiest homebrew version (about 1k lines of assembler) in Byte Magazine (I think... 30 years and all).

Re:What about the other robot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192998)

It's not hard [tiltedtwister.com] , if this is the real source code. (scroll to WriteDigit)

cool but.... (1)

jisou (1483699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191978)

the thing is that its just using an simple algorithm that's very easy to get a hold of(via google). in fact the only reason why i see that this beat the human world record is because it has hands on every side(except the front) of the cube. cool yes, but a massive breakthrough in robotics, not so much.

Heh that's nothing (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191982)

I have one I HAVEN'T solved in 30 years. Young kids, always wanting to do everything in a rush...

Re:Heh that's nothing (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192816)

I've solved one. But then my girlfriend gave me one with numbers instead of colours... Still haven't managed that one.

Jeffrey Lebowski (1)

quotes (1738456) | more than 4 years ago | (#31191984)

"...what's the point, man?" The Dude

And how! (2, Funny)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192046)

Once, I peeled off the three decals on the corner of a cube and stuck them in different places to try to stump it. It just peeled them back off and stuck them on in the right places.

~Loyal

Wow. That site has more third party Javascript scr (2, Informative)

caluml (551744) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192180)

Wow. That site has more third party Javascript scripts included than I've ever seen. It scrolls off my screen when listed in NoScript. *That's* why NoScript is good. :)

Will that ship (1)

abbynormal brain (1637419) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192244)

with my next Rubics cube order? I hope so, I don't think I've ever solved a Rubics cube without pliers and a screwdriver (flathead).

Nice video, but not really impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192476)

The video is really nice to watch, and when I show it to (non-technical) friends I can hear their jaws hitting the floor...

But the solution to a Rubik's cube has been known for many years. There's even a screen saver, for pity's sake! Attaching a robot to perform the manipulation of a real cube is pretty much an obvious step. Making it from Lego is probably simpler than machining custom parts from an aluminium block.

When they use Lego to re-create the logic elements, however, I will be very impressed. I've been thinking about the concept of mechanical computers since reading Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age.

Simplified hardware (2, Interesting)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192482)

This guy did it a while back with considerably less hardware, though it takes his rig a bit more time to get the puzzle done ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htnL1KTpaY8 [youtube.com]

Humans have a chance... (1)

phormalitize (1748504) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192598)

I'm pretty sure there are websites out there that will teach people how to solve the rubiks cube extremely quickly - it pretty much just involves memorizing the correct sequences and being able to recognize them on the cube itself.

not my rubix cube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31192606)

I would peel off one of the yellow stickers and replace it with a red one from another rubix cube rendering it impossible to solve.
I wonder what it would do then?
Would it keep trying to solve it or say it is solved when it wasn't?

You had me at "Lego Robot"... (1)

mulgar (1432387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192644)

I didn't need to see the rest ;-)

Like watching football (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192758)

5 seconds of action in a minute and a half show.

I don't get it (2, Interesting)

computerchimp (994187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31192890)

I can't understand why this is a "Lego" robot.
The pads are Lego the rest of the Lego is total cheap fluff. If I stick a few pieces of Lego on my car does that mean I drive a Lego car?
Maybe it is some cheap promo.

What am I missing here?

CC

The computer driving it... (1)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#31193012)

...should have been implemented as a difference engine constructed out of Legos. THEN I'm impressed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...