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!

Road to the Robocup 2004

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the football-without-feet dept.

Robotics 87

RuiFerreira writes "Artificial Intelligence and Robotics researchers meet in Portugal from 27th June to 5th July in the 8th Robocup Football World Championships. RoboCup is an international research and education initiative. Its goal is to foster artificial intelligence and robotics research by providing a standard problem where a wide range of technologies can be examined and integrated. The RoboCup Federation proposed the ultimate goal of the RoboCup Initiative to be stated as follows: 'By 2050, a team of fully autonomous humanoid robot soccer players shall win a soccer game, complying with the official FIFA rules, against the winner of the most recent World Cup of Human Soccer.' Robocup has an exciting programme including RoboCup Symposium, the RoboCup Soccer (humanoid, middle-size, small-size, 4-legged, simulation), the RoboCup Rescue (real and simulated robots) and the RoboCup Junior (dance, soccer and rescue) competitions. The robotic competitions will take place at Pavilion 4 of Lisbon Industry Fair located at the Parque das Nações, the site of the 1998 World Exposition (EXPO'98)."

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

pics & videos (5, Informative)

rd4tech (711615) | more than 9 years ago | (#9538989) all.jpg htm

Re:pics & videos (1)

News for nerds (448130) | more than 10 years ago | (#9539970) has phots from RoboCup Japan Open 2004 Osaka, not the RoboCup itself.

Frosty Piss? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9538990)

Those filthy subscribers better not have stolen my FROSTY PISS!

First post???? (0, Offtopic)

russler (749464) | more than 9 years ago | (#9538991)

Could this be the breaking of my cherry?

Re:First post???? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539037)

You fail it!!!!

Congratulations! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539317)

You got your cherry broke by 15 gay niggers informing you of your incredible failure to obtain first post! They will proceed by endlessly raping you until your asshole is so loose that your shit just falls out!

The end is near. (5, Funny)

Chucklz (695313) | more than 9 years ago | (#9538995)


The soccer team became self-aware at 6:21 pm. Slashdotters everywhere scared shitless. Knew the end was coming, but were more concerned about their kernels.

robo rules 2004 (4, Informative)

rd4tech (711615) | more than 9 years ago | (#9538999)

ruls []

Re:robo rules 2004 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539443)

speling []

Failenheit 7-11 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539008)

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something--I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now--has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all--the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002--or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar--an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building--is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left--like the parties of the Iraqi secular left--are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that--as you might expect--Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say--that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then--wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this--his pro-American moment--was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled--Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more--the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported--and the David Kay report had established--that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings--not exactly an original point--the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So--he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again--simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft--the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think--as he seems to suggest--that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

Still from Fahrenheit 9/11

Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war
Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes--we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers--get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (...), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ...

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Two words... (5, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539017)

Robo Hooligans

Re:Two words... (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539490)

What kind of idiot would design a robot's AI-brain [] to emulate the more disgusting, primal aspects of human mob psychology? </humor-impaired>


Not fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539043)

In normal soccer you can push they other team around a bit, slidetackle etc. How many broken bones do you think there will be from the reining champions if they play against robots? Course, I would love to see a humiod robot slide tackle...

film at 11:00... (2, Funny)

netwiz (33291) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539048)

I, for one, welcome our new soccer robot masters...

Re:film at 11:00... (2, Informative)

obey13 (731453) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539100)

If your going to do the joke, you might as well do it right I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

Re:film at 11:00... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9540348)

Thanks obey13. Do you obey your wife of 13 years?

Regards, /. team.

Beating human players... (5, Funny)

DavidNWelton (142216) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539054)

Will they be allowed to use lasers? Is that against FIFA rules?

I think the human players will win by rolling around the ground clutching their knees to draw penalty shots. A robot will never be able to do that convincingly.

Re:Beating human players... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539096)

In 2050's soccer who knows?

Re:Beating human players... (4, Funny)

hkfczrqj (671146) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539121)

I think the human players will win by rolling around the ground clutching their knees to draw penalty shots.

You're right, but robots can have ultra-sentitive detectors so when a player comes near, the robot mysteriously falls, rolls on the floor and some fake blood comes out of its structure.

Also, robots can have more "eyes" than humans, so they can foul/spit/punch humans and be sure that no referee was watching.

Re:Beating human players... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539157)

Will they also be able to calculate whether or not the three dozen or so cameras placed around the stadium will catch it on film or not?

Re:Beating human players... (1)

hkfczrqj (671146) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539192)

No, they won't (well, who knows? :)). But in soccer there is no "*instant* tv replay" for referees, as in the NFL or in rugby. Robots might win, but they will be disqualified after the game.

Re:Beating human players... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551251)

Will they be allowed to use lasers? Is that against FIFA rules?

humans already 'ware' lasers []

a GOAL! (5, Funny)

jokach (462761) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539079)

I wonder if the robots will run around taking off their shirts when they score a goal ...

Re:a GOAL! (2, Informative)

betelgeuse-4 (745816) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539150)

That would be a breach of FIFA rules. Really, it would.

Re:a GOAL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539595)

Not anymore, taking off the shirt is considered acceptable behaviour again. They only forbid you from having any kind of message in the undershirt other than the logo or name of the maker. I think this sprout from a brazillian player called Jardel who was paid big bucks by a brazillian soda company to advertise their Guarana beverage. His undershirt would read "Porque sera?" (Why is it?) for the first half of the campaign, and "Sera do Guarana?" (Maybe it's the Guarana) in the other half.

Also religious messages are strictly forbidden, I think.

Do keep up. (2, Informative)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540125)

taking off the shirt is considered acceptable behaviour again.
From July 1st it must be punished [] . FIFA evidently have a lot of time on their hands. The PDF [] is a bit of a laugh too.

"Removing one's shirt after scoring is unnecessary and players should avoid such excessive displays of joy."

Boring fuckers.

Re:Do keep up. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9540196)

WTF?! Covering one's head with the shirt is considered removing the shirt? Are these people quite mad?

Seriously, lately FIFA has done a spectacular job in trying to murder football. The only other sport so successful in shooting itself on the foot with idiotic rules and regulations is F1.

When will they learn?

Re:Do keep up. (2, Interesting)

br0ck (237309) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540575)

It is a silly rule.. it reminds me of American Football's new rules prohibiting celebrating of touchdowns. Why are they demonizing the very moments that make sports worth watching? Is it not PC to like to score?

Actually, I did hear some weak rationale regarding the no-shirt-removal rule was due to many players wearing controversial messages on their t-shirts underneath and worries that something really bad might be displayed on worldwide broadcast. Whatever. This is from the same FIFA president that's made tons of weird suggestions [] including one--quite the opposite the no-shirt removal rule--that women should wear sexier outfits.

Re:Do keep up. (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540650)

I did hear some weak rationale regarding the no-shirt-removal rule was due to many players wearing controversial messages on their t-shirts underneath and worries that something really bad might be displayed on worldwide broadcast
That doesn't really hold given that you can lift your shirt up as far of your chin, thus showing your chest or t-shirt, as shown on the last page of that PDF file.
It only becomes an offense if the shirt covers your head or is removed completely.

They should start looking hard at things that do spoil the game for those watching. A tribunual handing out match bans and fines for "simulation" based on video evidence would be a nice start. Preferably one which convenes within a couple of days of the event and gets it over and done with rather than a lengthy drawn out process.

Re:Do keep up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9550047)

the problem with taking off shirts isnt the sentimental messages of luve or joy to be alive thanking the girlfriend, the born child, God, Jesus and the Holly Spirit, but the fact that some players, usually strikers that score 1 or 2 goals per game, take the oppurtunity to make free-publicity on the underware shirts.

Some even go with enigmatic sentences that persists for the days ahead on everybodys head, until you see some ad on TV deciphering the whole scam.

I go with UEFA/FIFA rules about this, the same way im against players celebrating goals with the audience, since more and more theres no fence between both.

Re:Do keep up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551079)

i hadnt read the previous,previous post but he explains well

was mario jardel that played for Sporting of Lisbon [] one of the players that used to publicize on his shirt, since he was the top score and many times Europes Gold Boot you can imagine the countless time he made publicity and the money he earned with that :)

the funny thing is that nowadays Mario Jardel is passing bad moments because of his love for night life, drinking, womens and spending money on casinos.. . right after he left Sporting(Por) on a deal to sign for Barcelona(Spa) that was never achieved he went to Bolton(eng), Italy and now he left palmeiras(bra) were he stayed only 50 days..

Having money isnt all, if you dont have a health head to manage it

Re:a GOAL! (2, Funny)

saigon_from_europe (741782) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540071)

Actually, I never undrestood why players strip their shirts.

Let us presume that this behavior is really meaningless (as I believe it is). So programmers could intentionaly code this practice in robots' AI. The coach of human team will think that robots are stupid since they are doing this. He will underestimate robot team, which will be the way robots get some minor tactical advantage.

Hopefuly, Goran Ericsson and Rudi Voeler are too old to be capable of leading human team in 2050, so that gives good chances for humans to win.

Re:a GOAL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9549957)

Actually, I never undrestood why players strip their shirts.

watch the fifa women's world football championship and you will understand why, at least for viewers, the importance of that act

Re:a GOAL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9540383)

Only my robots. My girl robots.


robotic rescue contest... (1)

Whelzorn (761799) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539102)

those robotic rescue contests... I entered a local one with my friend not too long ago and our robots failed miserably after we fixed the 5 problems on each of ours that caused them to be disqualified. I guess the heated metal cheese grater wasnt such a great idea...

mmm riotbots (1)

spacerodent (790183) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539105)

robots playing soccer? me if they include a riot function

Need a better rule for fouls. (1)

zhangyong (791280) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539124)

Ever think of a game of 4-legs Vs. 2-legs? Got to be fun!

Re:Need a better rule for fouls. (1)

kryptKnight (698857) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540452)

If the robot had half a brain it would keep the ball under it by dribbling with its' back legs. The bot would just stroll up and score. If I were to coach the human team, I'd send out the crappy players to destroy the bots and when they get ejected from the game, I'd replace them with beter players repeating untill all the bots are dead and are forced to resign...

Re:Need a better rule for fouls. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9550060)

you are right, train some dogs to play football, and you see who are going to win.

I would consider a fair match putting humanoids robots agains dogs.

humanoid (4, Funny)

InternationalCow (681980) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539152)

We'll know that they're really close to being like humans when they start asking ridiculous salaries, wear interesting hairdo's and date has-been pop stars :)

Re:humanoid (1)

spacerodent (790183) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539188)

and have pictures of them trying to "stealth pee" on the internet

Re:humanoid (5, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539197)

All they need is a Brazilian robot Robaldo

First reply (0, Offtopic)

francisco.azevedo (791857) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539169)

this is very cool.. first reply about my country.. hehe

Go Cornell! (0, Troll)

monsieurcoffee (668108) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539225)

GO CORNELL ROBOCUP!! ... Where is my jersey, Patrick?

Re:Go Cornell! (1)

Kaliken (671206) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539861)

Yeah!! lets go RED!!! See you guys on Monday! and Patrick and Oliver I better have a jersey! =P Ken CU robocup 2001-2003

Re:Go Cornell! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9540368)

I see you like playing with Patrick's Dongle too... hahahaha!

Don't forget the simulation league. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539295)

Here [] is the server for the simulation league. I helped code a team for one of my college classes; it was pathetic :). The University of Amsterdam Trilean [] team has won three years straight. You should check it out; their team kicks some serious ass. If you're interested in the simulation league, be sure to check out the publications [] by the Trilearn team. The Master's thesis [] especially is a must read for anyone attempting to write a client. Tons of information on everything from self-localization to optimal-pass-determination.

Sounds easy. (-1, Flamebait)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539298)

By 2050, a team of fully autonomous humanoid robot soccer players shall win a soccer game, complying with the official FIFA rules, against the winner of the most recent World Cup of Human Soccer.

I could achieve that next time Euro comes around; just do what Portugal and Greece did this time.

Bribing the referee is no longer against FIFA rules. :-)

Re:Sounds easy. (2, Insightful)

m1kesm1th (305697) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539593)

I wouldn't say Greece bribed anyone, but the Swiss referee in the Portugal match was overtly biased on more than one occasion. Though I doubt this was bribery.

Although the Swiss are renowned for their impartiality this [] kind of makes me wonder if sour grapes didn't have something to do with it.

Although I am from England i'm not always patriotic and although we lost to France and later to Portugal, I think the better playing by the other team (France) meant they deserved it.

However, although I think they deserved to win. I also believe the disallowed goal, was the wrong decision, which would have meant the England win. I would have also doubted any further progression after that match.

Maybe referees shouldn't be from qualifying nations.

Of course none of this would happen I suppose if there were robot referees (or if they actually asked to see action replays, or listened to the linesmen).

Re:Sounds easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541646)

I wouldn't say Greece bribed anyone, but the Swiss referee in the Portugal match was overtly biased on more than one occasion. Though I doubt this was bribery

Biased not for the Portugal side, for sure. At the end of the game there were about 25 fouls for England and 14 for Portugal, but incredibly three yellow cards for both teams. Mr Cole for example, should have been double booked and kicked-off the game: it could only stop Ronald with faults.

Maybe referees shouldn't be from qualifying nations.

Usually the best referees do came from the qualifying nations.

Re:Sounds easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9544456)

The trouble is with that figure, its based on the number of awarded fouls. Considering both teams seemed to be consistantly fouling or making bad tackles, your statistics could be evidence to the contrary. Fouls may be awarded when not warranted and also not awarded when they should be.

Ronaldo also himself, made many bad tackles and fouls which were not awarded, one kick to the back of the head which could have warranted a red card on its own. A kick to the back of the head against Campbell, he patted the guy on the head, then walked away laughing.

The ref also since admitted his mistake to Sven and FIFA have said he will not be shortlisted for the remaining matches.

Re:Sounds easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9550990)

Dont say bullsh_t, england fouls and corners allowed just show how offensive the portugal team was. =1 582/Match=1059188/Report=TS.html

Total shots 35 16
Possession 61% 39%
Corners won 13 9
Fouls committed 14 25
Offsides 5 2

Pinching the referee for a fault commited on the Goalkeeper area is covering out the sun with a net

You know, everyones know, fifa rules say so, that if the Goalkeeper is touched on his own small area, its fault against the team that made it. Even before the head shot from Campbell the referee had already whistled. So there wasnt a Goal Robbed since it wasnt Goal on the first place. Whatch the replay and you will notice that Ricardo was obstructed to jump with a hand on his face and shoulder from Terry.

I leave you all with the game statistics and international press, not english, nor portuguese since those could be biased. And that corroborate the previous post, almost twice as faults from the england side and the same number of yellow cards.

Cole made a pretty good job stoping Cristiano Ronaldo, that on my opinion showed some reluctance and didnt express his game the way he had showed before. But Cole should had been booked out with a yellow/red card atleast for 2 ocassions.

On the end was the indivuals game that arose, i take note of 3 for each side, Beckham for missing soundly all freekicks & penalti. James for taking out the ball from the net for atleast 2 ocassions from Figo & Rui Costa and Cole, as already noted before for stoping C.Ronaldo.

For portugal side, i take note of RuiCosta position on the middlefield, Postiga Head goal and the superb penalty with a low slow ball that just show that he has lot to give to the english permiership and the fantistic performance of RICARDO. Stoping a penalty with his own barehands, and scoring a goal deciding the fate of the match.

Just as side note, Ricardo before he went to the goalkeeper position he played as striker long time before he even joined the Sporting Lisbon, on his youth team on the lovelly city of Montijo (20km ahead of lisbon). So english fans dont take to hard the postiga penalty and the Ricardo shot. There was a reason for Portugal win.

Now you went home, as you chanted countless times before that you wouldnt until the final. Thank you for visiting us and for beeing respectfull and supporting your side without noticeable problems.

But now, dont be childish and acknowledge the defeat, we will do the same if we lose against holland.
Thank you england! ht ml?p=0130_03_01_0365_0333 port1/hi/football/euro_2004 /3830451.stm /0,2458,502037 ,00.html o/2004/pp_ 1.0.421284148.shtml icle.asp?article=3801 1

Re:Sounds easy. (1)

m1kesm1th (305697) | more than 10 years ago | (#9553661)

In my opinion I really believe Portugal deserved to win.

However, I don't think they did, because I believe that the goal was genuine. Maybe there would have been a goal spurred on by that by Portugal, but otherwise you would have lost. I don't feel any need to swear in my comments either or calling anyone a liar, these are differences of opinions and mistakes. I don't mind if you disagree with me, many Scots disagree, but then they also laugh at any failures on Englands part. I also hope Portugal wins, it would be great for the hosts to win the tournament.

Also in the references you cited, most of the links do not work and do not back up your claims, they are merely unbiased match results, stating what happened, no opinions either way, referees results. Like I said, the statistics only reflect awarded fouls. If they are not awarded or not awarded are dependent on the same referee. I saw a lot of this during the match.

This can be as much a sign of a biased ref as not. Certainly FIFA will not overturn a referee's decision, yet as the other poster mentioned Urs will not be shortlisted for the finals now unless the other referees show a conflict of interest. I am unsure whether it is likely the referee apologised for his mistake to the England Manager as the other poster mentions, since he publicly stated that he would do it again.

I don't think referees from qualifying nations are a bad idea, sure they might be more likely to be biased, but surely they'd have more experience.

Acknowledging the defeat is easy, like I said Portugal played better. I believe the England team was lucky you didn't score more in the 90 minutes. However, I just don't accept a lot of the referees decisions. Accepting a decision is easy when you believe it fair. Its nothing against Portugal and I do not call you childish for what you say.

Re:Sounds easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539819)

What the english fail to see: rtugal/p1_campbell_getty.jpg As far as I can recall, no contact can occur with the goalkeeper in his goal area. Sorry

Re:Sounds easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9554372)

The camera angle on this [] suggests contact, but looking closely from the lack of shadow I would say that the goalkeeper had no contact with the player.

What is clear (despite the angle) that there is no way the goalkeeper could have saved the goal from his position had no players been there. Contact with the goalkeeper is only a foul if a player obstructs the goalkeeper.

Otherwise any goalkeeper would just have to make contact with any player to null goals.

Re:Sounds easy. (3, Insightful)

Khazunga (176423) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539837)

I could achieve that next time Euro comes around; just do what Portugal and Greece did this time. Bribing the referee is no longer against FIFA rules. :-)
I can only answer with a "Daily Show" Whaaaa?

Let's just say the backbone of the Portuguese national team are FC Porto players: Nuno Valente, Ricardo Carvalho, Jorge Andrade (former player), Paulo Ferreira, Costinha, Maniche and Deco. Finish up the Champions' League winner team with players the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Figo, and only ignorance could claim Portugal needs referee work to win against any Euro'2004 team. We did stumble the first time, because a naive Scolari thought he could rely on former glory players like Couto. No longer. He's on the right track, and now we're poised to be European Champions.

Re:Sounds easy. (3, Insightful)

Khazunga (176423) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539845)

I also believe the disallowed goal, was the wrong decision,
The keeper gets run over in his area, and it isn't foul? What kind of football do you play in England?

Re:Sounds easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541637)

Bribing the referee is no longer against FIFA rules. :-)

Englanders just proved what they are: bad sports without any kind of fair play.

Re:Sounds easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9597594)

I think thats incorrect, there are plenty of times Englanders have not won or goals have been possibly wrong but they do not comment on it. In fact this is the first time i have heard one do.

Re:Sounds easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9597630)

Englanders just proved what they are: bad sports without any kind of fair play.

Wrong to stereotype an entire country because of something you read on a technical forum, but a further look into the story sees nothing other than a disagreement with the referee, which could hardly be counted as a 'bad sport without any kind of fair play'. I can only guess that you dislike the fact that if the referee was wrong as suggested, any victory would mean nothing. So I can undertand your vitriol.

Re:Sounds easy. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9542297)

It's funny how every englishman on the streets of Lisbon that night were all about fair play and congratulating us.

But then there are always those few that rather overlook what is obvious and claim that they were robbed. Hurray for the pitiful The Sun mentality.

if it's down to penalties it will be sooner ;-) (5, Funny)

fantomas (94850) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539315)

By 2050, a team of fully autonomous humanoid robot soccer players shall win a soccer game..

Well I think if it comes down to penalties against England, they might not have to wait until 2050... has Beckham's shot come out of orbit yet?

Re:if it's down to penalties it will be sooner ;-) (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539439)

No, but it's about to get competition from Zlatan.

Re:if it's down to penalties it will be sooner ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9550127)

I wonder if robots will blame the grass around the penalty spot for missing penalty shots

Re:if it's down to penalties it will be sooner ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9551268)

Well I think if it comes down to penalties against England, they might not have to wait until 2050... has Beckham's shot come out of orbit yet?

Beckham thought "did the earth move for you too?"

Yeah.. (-1, Troll)

manavendra (688020) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539331)

humanoid soccer plays might play and win against human soccer teams, but will they have the same histrionics and drama and tantrums like us? or the fine art of wailing and thrashing on the ground even when nothing has happened? :-)

Ah, drama and emotion shall always be human forte!

2050 way too soon (1)

giampy (592646) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539398)

I think that robots winning against a human team will happen much much later than 2050.

It's more a gut feeling than a "sicentific based" prediction, but i think that perception and interaction with the real world is definitely the reign of animals, (and therefore humans).

It took evolution 1 billion years to create animals that run around and "act smart".

I think that the classical AI that models the world with language and rules, is a much simpler problem in comparison,
in other words, i think that a moderately intelligent computer that can understand humans and interact with them via language (see for example will see the light way before a robotic team could compete with a c-league soccer team ...

Re:2050 way too soon (3, Insightful)

rebelcool (247749) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539441)

robotics and classical AI, while related, have diverged alot in the past 20 years. The future of practical AI will probably be found in robotics.

Classical AI has made little progress at all. Cyc is really a formal machine that is the epitome of classical AI, and all its bizarre limitations - and it doesn't do hardly anything. Autonomous robotics on the other has made leaps and bounds. If you think things like the QRIO and Asimo are impressive, wait till you see their platforms are merged with the latest navigation and communication abilities currently found in labs. Part of the point of the robocup is to show off the latest in teamwork abilities.

2050 is a reasonable estimate and a decent goal. You don't need a robot that will debate the meaning of life and philosophy with you to play good soccer. I somehow doubt many of those soccer players could do that very well, either :)

Consider how it wasn't all that long ago that assertions were being continously made that machines could never beat a human at chess...

Re:2050 way too soon (2, Insightful)

giampy (592646) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540439)

I agree on practically all the points.
I think robotics is the way to go, and it is also much more challenging...

I guess that what i was trying to say is that, if you look carefully, create a small robot that acts smart and actively interacts with the environment, MAY very well be more difficult than create a robot that can discuss the meaning of life.

QRIO and Asimo are impressive but they are way below the "smartness" of cats and mouses,
which simply means there is a long way to go in autonomous robotics.

Classical AI will reach its limitations very soon,
Will that will bring a machine that can discuss the meaning of life ?
I don't know but i think we will find out in the next 20 years.

Is smart necessary? (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540727)

The robots are only performing one task, albeit a pretty complex one.

The goalkeeper I think would be the first thing to be "got right". It's not hard to imagine a robot goalkeeper in 2050 being very good indeed at stopping shots.

Open play is a more complex problem but to have a team that beat a human team you wouldn't have to play like a human team nor necessarily be better than them at all aspects of the game. A goal keeper that is very good at saving and making pinpoint "route one" passes and some mobile and non-tiring strikers would get you a hell of a long way towards a win even if it wasn't a pretty one.

46 years is a long long time in technology in any case.

Re:2050 way too soon (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9540443)

Actually, Cyc [] is just a database.

The Cyc knowledge base (KB) is a formalized representation of a vast quantity of fundamental human knowledge: facts, rules of thumb, and heuristics for reasoning about the objects and events of everyday life.

You wouldn't expect it to do much, any more than you would expect your Encyclopedia Brittanica to become self-aware and launch a campaign to eradicate the ugly bags of mostly water.

The "classical AI" guys have have little recent progress essentially because they succeeded too well. Most of the major areas (natural language processing, planning, etc.) all created projects that solved the problems put to them as successfully and "intelligently" as any human.

In doing so, they discovered that the real problem turned out to be not the "intelligent" bits, but the limitations of the knowledge on which that intelligence was operating. Limited knowledge, rather than limited ability of the algorithms resulted in limited functionality. And coding up the knowledge by hand turned out to be a long and intricate process.

As a result, most of the "classical AI" researcher shifted their focus a bit. You'll see their papers with results in machine learning, knowledge representation, and other topics about building and accessing a large database of information. Cyc is a poster child for "we need a bigger database". Lenat decided that if that was the problem, best roll up the sleeves and get to work, and just started piling up knowledge for a decade. (We put humans to school for a decade or two; why should the AI work right out of the box?) But Cyc itself wasn't designed to solve any particular problem, but rather just to store and inference about a lot of basic facts.

Other of the classical AI guys simply moved into subfields not quite related to "intelligence" in the classic sense, like low-level perception or motor feedback, problems that "classic AI" was never aimed at in the first place. These aren't new paradigms to supplant the earlier work with the "proper" approach. They are new areas to be explored so that the classic AI isn't just a isolated brain in a jar.

The other remaining research area is integrating all this stuff into a generalized intelligence. There's probably not one single paradigm to rule all there, any more than humans operate in only one manner.

Re:2050 way too soon (1)

david_costanzo (607004) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541162)

I think robots could win in the World Cup finals by playing very boring soccer. For example, the robots could (try to) force a 90 minute stale-mate if they always took the ball into the corner and then the other robots formed a wall around the first robot. The robots could then win the game in PKs.

I imagine that robots would be much better at PKs than at regulation time soccer because taking PKs rewards precision, not intelligence. Defending against PKs may be harder for robots than humans, but that doesn't matter if the robot kickers never miss. Humanity has plenty of Roberto Baggios just waiting for their chance to blow it.

Re:2050 way too soon (4, Insightful)

Saeger (456549) | more than 9 years ago | (#9539584)

I think that robots winning against a human team will happen much much later than 2050.

It's more a gut feeling than a "sicentific based" prediction

Your "gut feeling" is more accurately described as the "common-sense intuitive linear" view of the rate of change, and it would be wrong.

It took evolution 1 billion years to create animals that run around and "act smart".

If you'd look a little closer, you'd notice that each evolutionary advancement took exponentially less time. Exponential progress is a feature of ANY evolutionary system, including technology.

From the Law of Accelerating Returns [] :

If we examine the timing of these steps, we see that the process has continuously accelerated. The evolution of life forms required billions of years for the first steps (e.g., primitive cells); later on progress accelerated. During the Cambrian explosion, major paradigm shifts took only tens of millions of years. Later on, Humanoids developed over a period of millions of years, and Homo sapiens over a period of only hundreds of thousands of years.

With the advent of a technology-creating species, the exponential pace became too fast for evolution through DNA-guided protein synthesis and moved on to human-created technology. Technology goes beyond mere tool making; it is a process of creating ever more powerful technology using the tools from the previous round of innovation. In this way, human technology is distinguished from the tool making of other species. There is a record of each stage of technology, and each new stage of technology builds on the order of the previous stage.

The first technological steps-sharp edges, fire, the wheel--took tens of thousands of years. For people living in this era, there was little noticeable technological change in even a thousand years. By 1000 A.D., progress was much faster and a paradigm shift required only a century or two. In the nineteenth century, we saw more technological change than in the nine centuries preceding it. Then in the first twenty years of the twentieth century, we saw more advancement than in all of the nineteenth century. Now, paradigm shifts occur in only a few years time. The World Wide Web did not exist in anything like its present form just a few years ago; it didn't exist at all a decade ago.

Robotics is just one advancing tech we'll see on the shortening road to the Singularity.


Re:2050 way too soon (1)

demsthenes (736957) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540724)

It is quite possible that humanity will have the technology and resources to create a robot team that can defeat a team of humans by 2050, but you have to ask yourselve, would humanity be motivated to do such a thing. Sure soccer is the most popular sport in the world but most people would agree, brainpower could be put to much better tasks. Such an event has already happened, the space race. Once the United States reached the moon and after the Soviet Union collapsed, most people forgot about the space race. Only if China becomes a real threat to the USA and there is another race to Mars or something, or a major shift to the privitization of space occures, advances in space slow down since humanity needs little use of it. Now, if a prize was alloted for the first robot team to win, then it is more likely, but you never know what bored scientist and engineers cn do in their freetime.

mod DOwn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9539542)

[], itself. Y0u can't

Anybody else read that as "RoboCOP"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9540114)

I was thinking, "Christ, *now* what has Ashcroft dreamt up?", but then I RTFA...

GOOOOOAAAAALLL el triunfo de las robustezas!!!!! (1)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540257)

Now that would be a RIOT.

Riots (1)

svenvder (778211) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540317)

Every true soccer fan knows the best part of a soccer game is the victory soccer riot. I personally think it would be funny to watch the robots riot.

Re:Riots (2, Insightful)

Nexus Seven (112882) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540714)

Every true soccer fan calls it football.
Besides which, the riotting usually comes when a team loses.

Re:Riots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9550162)

Say that to english fans(only the hooligans)
they behave badly only when they win.

Its the sense of superiority mixed with xenophobic and lack of respect for the law and other's country traditions.

RoboCup Junior (1)

mcbridematt (544099) | more than 10 years ago | (#9540909)

Two teams from my school down here in Australia are competing in the Junior soccer competition [] .

The two teams in question are from Kardinia International College in Australia. Mr Ernie Follet is a stupid humorous house leader who is always wrong (NOT!) and Mr Dale Clohesy is a sport teacher at my school. (don't be suprised if anyone hears excess swearing or blowing of whistles, it's common).

I can't let out any design secrets, not that I know any :) Well, I did chip in a $4 AUD donation in a raffle they were holding to raise air fares and the bastards stole all the soldering irons from my last electronics class to do last minute touch ups :( .Oh, they aren't using the gray color coding on the field to help navigate, so it's up to their radio control skills.

All the testing was done on a big green table set up to look like a soccer field
(AFAIK, I can't guarantee the accuracy of this information).

It will be interesting to see how well they perform, after all, I myself might be on the school/Australian team in a few years :)

Keep on failling to understand... (1)

Lucifugue (748361) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541633)

How the most stupidifying sport in the whole world, can have any impact in robotics... The more fans it gets, less kids will be scientists.. They will be collecting cards and ball signatures from their robotic champions... - "Will you sign my football" - Bzzzzztt - printed with laser - yayyy!! this is better than mathematics and engineering, i want to be a roboballer.. I can imagine the portuguese robot football chmapionship... The country were engineering has been misunderstood for management, for more than 80 years... The robots will have a special box for corrupting the referees... Each time, a referee passes it just issues 20 euros... You know how enginners in Portugal start work in Portugal? The will all start putting their ties and look around for someone to do their work.... Pityless... You know why there are no foreign engineers in Portugal? The first month they sart working, they will hang themselves on their ties... Courtesy of the late-fascist engineering guild...

Re:Keep on failling to understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9542215)

You fail to understand because you're just a troll.

Re:Keep on failling to understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9542842)

You know how enginners in Portugal start work in Portugal? The will all start putting their ties and look around for someone to do their work.... Pityless... You know why there are no foreign engineers in Portugal? The first month they sart working, they will hang themselves on their ties

But still, you write from Portugal! [] Haven't you hang up yourself yet? Please do!

Re:Keep on failling to understand... (1)

Lucifugue (748361) | more than 10 years ago | (#9582966)

I have tried on several ocasions... But it seems we portuguese can't design from sound engineering principles.. Hence everytime i have tried to do it the lasso keeps opening up.. And i fall to the floor instead of killing myself up... ;)

Yes. I am a troll today... :)
And you? Where will you be a troll tomorrow?

Robo buddies (1)

RdHrd138 (789164) | more than 10 years ago | (#9544392)

I like this idea, of 'smart' robots knowing rules and regulations and stuff. Just don't know why they decided to let them play soccer. Why not drive around in a car. I think that would be a better way of expressing true robotic potential.

Hopefully, if we can actually accomplish this robotic feat, that we could have little robotic buddies that would follow us around and do our biddings. And we could have intellectual conversations with them, and not have them repeat the same line twice.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?