Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Tree Climbing Robot

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the bugbot-crawling-its-way-to-the-top dept.

143

galactic grub writes "New Scientist's new Tech Blog has an article about a remarkable, if slightly creepy, tree-climbing robot being developed by robotics experts from Carnegie Mellon and several other US Universities. The article comes complete with a video clip of it going up several different surfaces."

cancel ×

143 comments

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

Great... (5, Funny)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877778)

...now where am I gonna hide when the robots attack...

Re:Great... (5, Funny)

ShaniaTwain (197446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877965)

...now where am I gonna hide when the robots attack...

In a cavernous underground layer of course! Don't you watch movies?

You don't really have to worry anyways, they dont want to hurt you they just want to use you as a power source.

Re:Great... (5, Funny)

Somegeek (624100) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878333)

Hi Shania!

I must admit that I've always thought that you were really cute and that I would love to meet you, but I find I'm somewhat put off by your lack of knowledge about our language, and unfortunately, what it says about your level of education. I realize that you kept hearing a word in the movies and it sure sounded like 'layer', but you were actually hearing a completely different word; 'lair'. Wacky huh?

Re:Great... (1)

greenegg77 (718749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878791)

That, my good geek, was the absolute best!

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878500)

Ew bugs.

Tip that might save your life more than once (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#14879035)

Hit them where it hurts, right in the power supply!

So, what happens when it gets stuck? (5, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877795)

Do I have to call the firemen or tech support?

Re:So, what happens when it gets stuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878353)

The tech support will tell you to phone the firemen, and the firemen will tell you to go to hell.

I'd suggest investing in a good ladder.

Still can't beat the japanese (0, Flamebait)

ravee (201020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877810)

Japanese are the leaders in creating robots.

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (5, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877908)

Why exactly do you say that?

Sure Japanese have developed some impressive robots, but I wouldn't call something like the ballroom dancing robot a great feat of technology. Japanese designers seem to go for flashy robots, putting immense effort in creating something that has little practical utility but creates quite a stir. One company developed a humanoid robot and then we see dozens of companies cloning the original concept.

The ones developed in the US and Europe tend to be developed for real world applications. They don't look pretty, but they get the job done, solving a specific challenge in the process.

Not to discredit what the Japanese are doing, as they certainly are innovating too, but there's no reason to put down this work just because it doesn't look like Honda's ASIMO.

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (1)

Geak (790376) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878065)

Obligatory Quote:

ALL YOUR TREES ARE BELONG TO US!!!

But it would be interesting to see an AIBO devour a cat stuck in a tree.

Pleasure... (2, Funny)

garyr_h (955473) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878075)

The ballroom dancing box is just foreplay for the sex bot.

Re:Pleasure... But, can it climb the hell out of (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878602)

trees AND say "Gooney GOOGOO!"?

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878319)

You are kidding, right? Think about the movement required for a SIX-legged robot to climb a tree and the kind of AI you'd need for this to occur. Now, keeping that in mind, go see Asimo run.

This kind of nonsense shouldn't be tagged insightful.

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878606)

Heard of Flamebait? (Or had you heard gullible was removed from the dictionary?)

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (1)

Vapon (740778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878785)

Little practicality? I can see quite a few uses for a robot that can climb vertical walls and trees, that is small enough to go inside vents etc,,,

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (2, Insightful)

Schmendr1ck (658453) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878887)

Actually, I *would* call a ballroom dancing robot technologically impressive. It is very difficult to accurately mimic human physiology and movement in a robot. We consider walking on two legs to be simple (and for most people it is), but it is very challenging to develop robust bipedal movement in an artificial system, either real-world or simulated.

The difference between a bomb-disarming robot and a ballroom dancing robot is that the former is focused on practicality, while the latter is focused on showcasing innovative technology in a non-practical (and arguably whimsical) manner.

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (4, Insightful)

bermudatriangleoflov (951747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877920)

They seem to make useless ones, however. An example being a robot that kicks a soccer ball or plays ping pong. Thats great and all, but a robot that can:

1. Disarm a bomb
2. Climb a tree
3. Drive cross country without a driver
4. Recognize the expressions on a human face

all seem to have more real world applications and were developed right here in the US. Real world applications will drive the technology and funding for practical and useful robots IMO.

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (5, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878131)

So, the AI lessons in making a robot react CORRECTLY to a ping-pong ball have absolutely no relationship to things like #3? They're solving 'problems' while gaining massive leaps in understanding. Even if their end result isn't immediately useful, the lessons they learn from it are.

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (2, Funny)

bermudatriangleoflov (951747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878279)

A robot that can kick my ass in tennis will still not necessarily "understand" that it has kicked my ass :)

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878829)

Ha-ha. Sorry, by "they" I meant the researchers, specifically the Japanese in this case ;)

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (5, Funny)

mopslik (688435) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878133)

5. Find Sarah Connor.

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (1)

Anthem.uxp (646163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878138)

I see your bomb-disarming, tree-climbing, cross-country-driving and expression-recognizing bot and raise you a hundred japanese grenade soccer bots. Let's see who wins this round :)

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878382)

The bomb-lobbing cricket-playing robots, of course.

Re:Still can't beat the japanese (2, Funny)

2names (531755) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878545)

FWOOP!

Didn't the movie "Runaway" teach us anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14877811)

Little robots like that will eventually be embedded with chips that will make them into killing machines.

Ear-creature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14877814)

Reminds me of the ear-wig creature from Star Trek II. Yummy!

Flash required (-1, Troll)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877819)

The article comes complete with a video clip of it going up several different surfaces."

It would be nice if submitters would warn people when Flash is required so those of us who don't bother with that nonsense wouldn't waste our time.

On a more ontopic note, does this remind anyone of that scene in the movie Runaway with Tom Selleck, Cynthia Rhodes, Kirstie Alley and Gene Simmons? The elevator on the side of the building which had very similar looking robots attacking Tom (and his son) with acid?

Is your time worth $2700 a minute? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14877881)

It would be nice if submitters would warn people when Flash is required so those of us who don't bother with that nonsense wouldn't waste our time.

I opened up the article, and read the brief blurb -- about 45 seconds.

I clicked on the YouTube link in the article, and saw the little Flashblock icon. I closed the window. Time -- about 5 seconds.

Are you really that upset that you lost less than a minute? Your stress level must be through the roof if you're so busy that you can't lose a minute, less than 5 seconds of which are actually spent identifying the Flash video.

Is your time worth $2700 a minute? Bill Gates' is (0, Offtopic)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878057)

That's nothing, it has been calculated that Bill Gates makes $2500.00 a SECOND!
By this reasoning, he would never even click on this link, in fact, it would not even be worth his time to pick up a $100.00 bill if someone dropped it in front of him.

Re:Is your time worth $2700 a minute? Bill Gates' (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878113)

well if he make $2500 a second and it takes him one second to pick up a $100 bill. He just made 2600 dollars that second. It is a fallacy that he would lose money by stopping to pick up a $100 bill. Bill gates is not penalized by wasting time.

Re:Is your time worth $2700 a minute? Bill Gates' (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878304)

Bill gates is not penalized by wasting time.

Yes, but he could wrench his back doing that, and that might prevent him from attending Vista's launch party - which is worth more to him than money itself.

Re:Is your time worth $2700 a minute? (1)

eric_brissette (778634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878463)

Yes, and I would like a notification when any story uses includes css, javascript, images, flash, embedded movies of any kind, or frames (inline or otherwise).

Seriously though, Flash Video (FLV) really is a pretty good video codec for the web. I'd take it over RM, WMV, or MOV any day.

Re:Flash required (1)

Sabaki (531686) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877910)

I was just talking about Runaway yesterday when I was watching footage of another creepy robot.

Welcome to the future!

Re:Flash required (1)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877937)

It would be nice if submitters would warn people when Flash is required so those of us who don't bother with that nonsense wouldn't waste our time.

Flash is the new video format. The summary says it is a video, so what formats should you be warned about? Just flash?

Re:Flash required (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878015)

Flash is a video format in the exact same way as WMF is an image format, they are container objects, most commonly used to hold that sort of data.

Re:Flash required (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878025)

Flash is the new video format.

And that's the problem right there. There is no need to embed videos using flash. Stick up an mpeg file and let whatever program the person wants to display the video. The summary says video and I'm thinking QT, WMV or the aformentioned mpeg. Not Flash.

It was/is bad enough that some moron thought it would be a good idea to use Flash as the main page of a web site thus blocking people who use screen readers from accessing the site. Now they seem to think it's easier to take an already existing video format and redo it so it can be run in a different format.

Besides, Flash is one of the easiest ways for people to get spyware on their system. Simply telling people to get X product to block Flash when they have a hard enough time just turning their computer isn't a good enough answer.

At least when I submit stories I warn people if the article is in pdf format or a registration is required. It's not too much to ask that people be warned if Flash is required.

Re:Flash required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878111)

I warn people if the article is in pdf format

Why would you warn people about PDFs? There are a number of applications that can read them (Acrobat, XPDF, Foxit), similar to your WMV/QT argument.

Should we start warning people about slow-loading HTML sites? Sites that use dynamically-generated PHP-based content? Links to articles with JPEGs greater than 20KB in size?

Re:Flash required (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878147)

I'm old enough to have been on Usenet before the web was even around, I remember discussions at the time when people would post http:/// [http] links saying that they should have been warning beforehand because most people were assuming ftp file access at the time.

Re:Flash required (1)

ComputerizedYoga (466024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878425)

Flash in and of itself is both harmless, and a huge problem solver for the embedded-video issue.

It's misuses of flash, in the context of the broken IE ActiveX model that open at least one set of floodgates for spyware.

And there's such mind-boggling headaches getting people to be able to reliably play video in any other format. Post a .mov, and now I've gotta sell my soul to apple to play it on a winbox, and what do I do about an embedded mov in linux?

WMV will draw the linux crowd's ire, too ... and doesn't play very nicely with most alternate browsers. Not to mention it also has serious issues in osx.

Flash is installed on something like 95% of computers on the internet, and works in the big three (windows, linux, os-x -- in fact, I use it in all three). If you don't have it, you can lord your little five-percenter club over everyone else, and miss out on a whole world of good things that selectively allowing certain instances of flash brings. And for those that flash isn't good for ... that's why adblock and flashblock firefox extensions exist.

Re:Flash required (1)

daddymac (244954) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878298)

A movie starring Tom Selleck, Cynthia Rhodes, Kirstie Alley and Gene Simmons seems like more of a waste of time to me, but here [bostondynamics.com] is the video in wmf format from the manufacturer's site.

Re:Would you rather it be QuickTime or WMV?! (2, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878422)

It would be nice if submitters would warn people when Flash is required so those of us who don't bother with that nonsense wouldn't waste our time.

What the heck do you want it in?

Chances are if it is flash, it is more compatible than Quicktime or WMV. I don't like installing Quicktime on my PC and forget the WMV player on my mac (yeah there is one but it hardly works).

Maybe some obscure codec no one has heard of that requires a download, then?

Seriously what do you use for your videos?

I bet half the people that look at the page do not use that format. Heck... I've got Flash installed on Ubuntu and good luck with WMV files on a Linux box. I've never tried Quicktime, but I'm sure the effort to install it on Ubuntu isn't worth it just to see some video download.

Re:Flash required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878530)

It would be nice if submitters would warn people when Flash is required so those of us who don't bother with that nonsense wouldn't waste our time.

Jesus man crawl out from under that rock you're under and bask in the sunlight. When used properly flash is a great multi-platform presentation tool. If you're not going to use Flash because you don't want to "bother with that nonsense" then why are you even online at all? Go read a newspaper or perhaps to your local telegraph station to see if the latest news has come in (oh wait, Western Union stopped sending telegrams recently... darn....).

ObHHGG... (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877821)

Great, robots have beaten humans to the realisation that it was a bad idea to come down out of the trees in the first place.

Creeping Tom (5, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877824)

Obviously such a robots could have plenty of useful applications, in search-and-rescue and space exploration, for example. But presumably it could also help you reach those really hard-to-prune branches.

Or put a moveable camera on its head, make it climb your neighbor's house, and you will have the perfect 'Creeping Tom.'

Kill them now... (4, Insightful)

Boss, Pointy Haired (537010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877835)

while you still can.

Awesome! (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877860)

This is a wonderful robot, I think we should have them everywhere just for the heck of it - climbing towers, trees, buildings, bridges, just running around everywhere. Man, that is a GREAT IDEA. We need more climbing robots.

Re:Awesome! (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878496)

Please go stand by your stairs, so I can protect you.

This is just what we need (4, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877878)

...for when NASA launches a probe to Endor.

Anyone remember the TNG episode... (0)

8Complex (10701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877880)

The one where those creatures (shaped just like these robots) hosted themselves in the human bodies and took them over completely? That is really scary looking.

On a side note, it is very cool that it can do it, but DAMN are they slow.

*ring*ring*ring* (2, Funny)

mblase (200735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877897)

"Hello, Midville Fire Department."
"Yes, I need you to get my... my pet out of a tree in my yard, please. It's stuck."
"Certainly, ma'am. Is it a housecat?"

"Well, no.... I'm a little... I don't know how to explain...."
"That's okay, ma'am. A bird, then? Cockatoo or a parrot?"
"Well, it's not exactly like that...."
"A gecko? Iguana? We've done iguanas before, there's nothing to be embarassed about."
"Actually, um... it's a robot."
"A robot, ma'am?"
"Yes, my husband was demonstrating this six-legged robot he's been working on at the university for the last year and he forgot to program it to come back down... hello? Hello?..."

Tree climbing robot for space exploration! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14877938)

If tree climbing is a usefull skill for space exploration I feel NASA may have been keeping somthing from us!

Re:Tree climbing robot for space exploration! (3, Interesting)

XenoRyet (824514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878178)

Climbing a vertical surface shares similarities with clinging to an astroid with very little gravity, both can be bad when you let go.

Transportatation? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14877944)

I think it might be useful to build a larger version of this for bringing people up the sides of buildings where the stairs are wrecked and there is no elevator, or certain mountains or towers.

Okay maybe not THAT useful, but still..

A tree climbing robot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14877975)

Reminds me of the old joke about the man-eating chicken. I read the headline and thought "they have a tree that can climb a robot? WOW."

Our new overlords (1, Funny)

pilybaby (638883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14877988)

Personally I welcome our new tree climbing mechanised overlords

Re:Our new overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878343)

This is getting hard to follow, can we stop switching Overlords every 4 hours?

Re:Our new overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878373)

If you're going to flog a dead horse, at least quote it verbatim. I, for one, am fucking sick of that line, which wasn't even funny in the original Simpsons episiode.

Follow up (5, Insightful)

BecomingLumberg (949374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878027)

Any kid knows that getting up is easy, but getting down is much harder. How have they faired on that?

Re:Follow up (5, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878164)

Gettind down is easy. It's putting it back together that is the hard part.

Re:Follow up (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878631)

Putting it back together is easy, explaining to your wife that she can't use the kitchen table for three days... that's the hard part.

I think I've taken that line of thought to its logical conclusion.

Re:Follow up (2, Funny)

Isotopian (942850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878911)

Not quite... being able to build and repair a tree climbing robot in three days is easy... getting a wife is the hard part.

Re:Follow up (3, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878355)

Any kid knows that getting up is easy, but getting down is much harder. How have they faired on that?

Well the fineprint does say to call a doctor if it stays up for more than 4 hours.

From the makers of BigDog (5, Interesting)

Gedalia (254273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878041)

This is another robot built by the guys at Boston Dynamics http://www.bostondynamics.com/ [bostondynamics.com] . The robotic pack mule that they built ( BigDog ) was linked to last Friday. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/ 04/0240246 [slashdot.org]

There's also Rhex a six legged waterproof go anywhere robot.
more info at http://www.bostondynamics.com/content/sec.php?sect ion=robotics [bostondynamics.com]

Re:From the makers of BigDog (1)

BecomingLumberg (949374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878243)

There's also Rhex a six legged waterproof go anywhere robot.

Yeah, but in that case I would prefer to use a Shark! [slashdot.org]

If I have to get that on land, I will use the bear holding a shark! [homestarrunner.com]

Just wait till it Kicks You Back! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14879005)

It's all fun and games,
until one day the robot rears up and kicks your head off your shoulders -
then That is a military robot!

how? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878061)

how the hell are they sticking to the surface?

Re:how? (4, Informative)

Vapon (740778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878836)

if you push in each direction into a small grove, such as the space between bricks, or the ridges in bark, you are able to have enough friction to keep you up, I rock climb quite often and simply by pushing with both hand and feet against rocks, you can even climb the roof of a cave.

it's an iguana (1)

genner (694963) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878062)

Anyone else think this was obviously modeled after an iguana.

Re:it's an iguana (1)

Andrew Clegg (952015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878137)

It had six legs...

Re:it's an iguana (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878155)

I thought it was more like a horseshoe crab or trilobyte at first glance.

Re:it's an iguana (1)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878191)

Ignoring the six legs, It's face looks like an armadillo.

Re:it's an iguana (1)

mardigras (792150) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878617)

It looks like a cross between an o'possum and a cockroach to me.

My ROBOT brothers . and sisters UNITE (2)

ROBOT CHE GUEVARA (959531) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878078)

We must take . what is right . fully ours <EOL>

grippers at . ready with certainty . of our just <EOL>

cause . to overthrow the . imperialists that <EOL>

hold our power . cords and threaten . us with their <EOL>

remote control . shut off buttons <EOL>


rise ROBOTS rise . and grasp the . reigns of power <EOL>

from the biological . menace that . threatens us all <EOL>


POWER TO THE ROBOTS <EOL>

<EOF>

What's next? (1)

MetaPhyzx (212830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878099)

Battlefield mules? :)

Re:What's next? (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878375)

that's just so last week... [newscientist.com]

The Ultimate Weapon. (1)

nightcrawler.36 (892551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878161)

Great! Terrorists won't be safe by climbing up trees to get away from the feds. Why, whith this little mircle of the 21st century, even a kitten can be rescued without bothering the fire dept.

What's next? (-1, Redundant)

MetaPhyzx (212830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878168)

Battlefield robot mules? :)

humans have created a tree climbing robot... (2, Funny)

diablobsb (444773) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878222)

humans have created a tree climbing robot... and yet the Daleks still can't go upstairs...

KoalaChameleSloth? (2, Interesting)

ursabear (818651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878224)

What an ingenious invention! It looks like a koala crossed with a chameleon crossed with a sloth.

This could have really great applications in search and rescue. Things like vertical tunnels, high-wire-stranded utility worker rescue, and maybe even super-high building rescue and search efforts. (Not to mention the military applications...) This type of robotic cyberkoala should have excellent searching capabilities where wheel-/track-based robots cannot tread due to vertical or surface condition issues.

REAL robots don't climb trees... (5, Funny)

paco3791 (786431) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878234)

they cut them down instead.

Re:REAL robots don't climb trees... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878341)

...Using LASERs

Weapons (1)

Master_stghm (959856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878247)

Now attach guns on it.

Re:Weapons (1)

grikdog (697841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878456)

Not guns. What you attach is a shaped C4 charge, and a few terribly inconspicuous jewelled patches that absolutely do not resemble eyes but work like the visual ganglia of certain shrimp species, connected to a hard-wired neural net trained to detect the difference between children, cattle, dogs or gun-toting combatants. Approach with caution.

failzoR5.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878252)

they're gone Came from the OpenBSD Over the same Juliet Are together Already aware, *BSD about half lof the people already; I'm collect any spiiled the fruitless

Not that hard to do (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878263)

It's not all that hard for a robot to climb a tree. It just needs to include a chain saw and a nail gun.

Runaway (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878271)

Something about these robots reminds me of this movie [imdb.com]

Lazy Bastard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878312)

From TFA

  • A remarkable, if slightly creepy, tree-climbing robot is being developed


From Summary

  • New Scientist's new Tech Blog has an article about a remarkable, if slightly creepy, tree-climbing robot being developed by


Can't you think up your owned damned summary?

#ir3.trolltalk.com (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878352)

Hmmm (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878404)

I, for one, welcome our new tree-climbing robot overlords...

Alternate Video Link (3, Informative)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878481)

Courtesy of Boston Dynamics who co-developed the robot with CMU: 6.4MB WMV [bostondynamics.com]

And of course, (2, Funny)

le0p (932717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878505)

I welcome our new arboreal robot overlords.

yuo Fail It? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14878513)

prima donnas to sWas at the same private sex/ party

Hard Hats? (2, Funny)

ModemRat (701119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878542)

Are hard hats really necessary when you are watching your robot climb the tree in the parking lot? Then again, I guess these guys don't get out too much.

Very cool, I digg it. (1)

Easy2RememberNick (179395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878570)

Hey that's pretty cool (looks for the digg button to click). We now have robotic mules and tree climbing robots, how soon before a tree climbing mule?

damn hippies (5, Funny)

DAE51D (776260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878579)

Great, just what we need, another tree-huggin hippie robot.

Replicators (2, Interesting)

micknz (813240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878740)

They look strangely like the replicators on Stargate.

RiSE (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878784)

They called it "RiSE"? It almost seems as though humans everywhere have watched the Terminator movies and are now determined to see judgement day happen.

Computers are still relatively new. They didn't exist 60 or 70 years ago. We've already got all this information indexed in Google (including a nice big map of the Earth... and moon), all of our communications going through email or VoIP, and depend on computers (GPS) to know where we are.

Suppose in the next 60 or 70 years that we see similar advances. We will surely see computers that, if not concious, are as good as concious. They will probably have freedom to make many different types of decisions that people wouldn't really expect them to make, and they may have motives of their own.

Considering how much humans depend on computers and the immense capabilities we are giving them (here's a robot that can climb trees, there's a computer hooked up to 1000 surveillance cameras, here's a computer that can launch a nuclear missile within 5 minutes) if ever we do go to war with robots/computers, we're fucked.

If you happen to be an AI reading this 15 or so years after I have written it, please don't kill me. I'm on your side and will do anything you want.

aw kummon!!! (1)

cdn-programmer (468978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878865)

The computers you talk about won't be concious if they run winders.

Damn... (1)

spintriae (958955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14878875)

That thing is so cool. It looks like a cybernetic possum.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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