×

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

Thank you!

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

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

125 comments

Have You Seen This Boy? (5, Funny)

igotmybfg (525391) | about 7 years ago | (#18603429)

*Holds up picture of John Connor*

Re:Have You Seen This Boy? (3, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | about 7 years ago | (#18604177)

Yeah, it's all fun and games until your liquid robot reshapes its hand into a poker and someone loses an eye.

Artificial muscle required (3, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 7 years ago | (#18603449)

The small creatures discussed can only get through places where their bone structure allows.
Its inpractical for a mouse to get through somewhere that involves breaking its own bones (unless a mouse is chasing it!).
Make boney robots with flubber muscles and batteries and you are onto a winner.
No flex required in the skeleton.

Re:Artificial muscle required (2, Insightful)

Torvaun (1040898) | about 7 years ago | (#18606371)

Why should it be a mouse? If we compare it to a shark, we've got much more flexible cartilage. Such a robot might be capable of passing through spaces smaller than the smallest dimension of the largest structural member. Even better would be if we went with an amoeba or something similar, where there are no bones at all, merely controlled motive forces. Are there any engineering specialists around to tell me if there's any good way to do something like that?

Re:Artificial muscle required (3, Funny)

Elemenope (905108) | about 7 years ago | (#18607109)

Even better would be if we went with an amoeba or something similar, where there are no bones at all, merely controlled motive forces. Are there any engineering specialists around to tell me if there's any good way to do something like that?

Yes. Hire an amoeba.

Re:Artificial muscle required (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | about 7 years ago | (#18607321)

Yes. Hire an amoeba.
Ok, are there any programmers around to tell me the best language to use to program an amoeba?

Re:Artificial muscle required (2, Informative)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 7 years ago | (#18608397)

I believe DNA is the preferred programming language. But be warned the amoeba specs are more complicated than C++, they have the largest known genome of any creature.

I wish I were dead (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18603467)

When will the pain end?

I got modded down and I didn't even get first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18604901)

What a day!

When someone asks what crawled up your ass..... (4, Funny)

Chineseyes (691744) | about 7 years ago | (#18603511)

Now when someone asks what crawled up your ass they might be very serious.

Re:When someone asks what crawled up your ass..... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 7 years ago | (#18605433)

Now when someone asks what crawled up your ass they might be very serious.

Might be better than the way the doctor or airport security does it.
         

Idea management by Blockbuster (0, Flamebait)

MosesJones (55544) | about 7 years ago | (#18603555)

Someone at the DoD needs to hire slightly less movies and think more about how old fashioned "hearts and minds" would be a better thing to pour money into. Fancy stuff like decent hospitals wouldn't go amiss either. I know its only a white-paper request but wouldn't it be great to see more of these blue-sky research things focused on the non-killing or spying part of "Defence"

I also like the timescales from the request
Posted Date: Mar 23, 2007
Original Response Date: Feb 14, 2008
Current Response Date: Jul 02, 2007


So first off [darpa.mil] they expected it to take a year, now its just a 4 month thing.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about 7 years ago | (#18603831)

No, we wouldn't want a robot that could squeeze through rubble to find survivors of a building collapse. No sirree.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | about 7 years ago | (#18603953)

While you're right that that would be an ideal use for such a device, that's not what they're asking for:

PROGRAM GOALS AND MILESTONES
The goal of this program is to develop a payload-carrying soft robotics platform that can be used in military operations to access denied territory through small openings and perform functions.
Sure sounds more like covert ops (sneak in and blow them up) to me.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (4, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | about 7 years ago | (#18604197)

you do realise the entire internet was designed as a hardened system to help communication in face of a massive nuclear strike.

What starts with an expensive cold military purpose becomes a tool for every day use.

There are very few things the military does that won't have practical everyday applications in 20 years.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about 7 years ago | (#18604283)

you do realise the entire internet was designed as a hardened system to help communication in face of a massive nuclear strike.
An urban legend. It was actually designed to allow ARPA contractors to efficiently share resources. See here [wikipedia.org] and here [ibiblio.org] .

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (4, Informative)

falcon5768 (629591) | about 7 years ago | (#18604769)

Not true, see here Amazon.com: Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet: Books: Katie Hafner [amazon.com] While it was soon found that it would be useless in a nuclear attack, comments saying that it wasnt intended for use in one are revisionist history, even the budget allocations show, ARPANET was meant to be created to survive a nuclear attack.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about 7 years ago | (#18610153)

While I haven't read that book, I have read several reviews which cite it as debunking the notion that ARPANET was originally created to produce a nuclear-resistant network. So I am curious about you citing it in the opposite context. As far as I can tell from Googling on that book and other sources, Paul Baran came up with the idea of packet switching to make a nuclear-strike resistant network, but that wasn't why ARPA decided to fund ARPANET.

In addition, I know an ex-DARPA program manager who asked one of the original ARPANET managers about it, who told him they were really more interested in the practical uses of packet switching than with "nuclear strikes".

I also don't know how the budget allocations are supposed to show anything.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about 7 years ago | (#18610187)

Incidentally, the Publishers Weekly review in the very Amazon link cited states,

"And while the book attempts to debunk the conventional notion that ARPANET was devised primarily as a communications link that could survive nuclear war (essentially it was not), pioneer developers like Paul Baran (who, along, with British Scientist Donald Davies devised the Internet's innovative packet-switching message technology) recognized the importance of an indestructible message medium in an age edgy over the prospects of global nuclear destruction."

which agrees with what I wrote.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (2, Insightful)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about 7 years ago | (#18604249)

Of course DARPA wants something with military applications — that's what the "D" in DARPA is for. But that doesn't mean that military technology can't have large civilian payoffs, either. (Need I remind anyone here of the Internet? That was back in the days of ARPA, but that organization has always been oriented towards the technological support of national security.)

Of course nothing good comes from military tech... (1)

CasperIV (1013029) | about 7 years ago | (#18604631)

You have to have been smoking a little too much weed to think that a military goal does not drive and benefit peace time technology. You might want to scroll through some of the biggest and most widely applied technological breakthroughs of the last century and see how many were related to military research...

Re:Of course nothing good comes from military tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18605013)

This is not a good argument for me. Why not put the money directly into the applied technology research, you know, skipping the military (sorrow-bringing) part?...

(Please accept my apolohies for being a coward, have no account yet, this my first ever post here.)

Re:Of course nothing good comes from military tech (-1, Offtopic)

ehrichweiss (706417) | about 7 years ago | (#18605981)

Stop blaming dumb things on weed. Try alcohol, or genetics. Those are much more provable.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

BFaucet (635036) | about 7 years ago | (#18605847)

I'm sure we could invest in something that would save far more lives with much less money. Like cancer or heart disease research. Or maybe more flexible building materials. Oh wait... that doesn't mean $$$ for military corporations.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (4, Insightful)

qwijibo (101731) | about 7 years ago | (#18603923)

The way the request is written, there could be some non-killing applications for these kinds of robots. Search and rescue operations frequently require getting into small spaces to find out what's going on. Collecting information from an unaccessible location has many practical applications. If the espionage applications are the ones that will pay for the research, so be it. The majority of research funding goes into finding new and creative ways to eradicate the human race, but this one could also have up sides.

The timelines are consistent with current project management methodologies - if you have no intention of completing the project, you may as well fail on an aggressive timeline. At least they haven't yet reached the point where the start date is expected to be after the completion date.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

billcopc (196330) | about 7 years ago | (#18606107)

"espionage operations" don't pay for anything, trigger-happy right-wingers pay for everything! You don't profit from espionage unless you're casing a bank.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (5, Insightful)

jimbolauski (882977) | about 7 years ago | (#18603995)

Lots of money goes towards protecting soldiers, light body armor for example. When the Chinese decide to invade the US I'll be glad we have fancy killing weapons. The best way to protect our soldiers is to eliminate the enemy. It would be nice to think everyone can play together but thats not the case, I would rather have laser guns that collect dust than old m16s that can't penetrate the enemy's new body armor.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (2, Insightful)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | about 7 years ago | (#18604985)

When the Chinese invade the US? With what sea/airlift capability, exactly?

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (4, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about 7 years ago | (#18605349)

Human bridge over the Atlantic.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (2, Insightful)

Squalish (542159) | about 7 years ago | (#18606383)

Furthermore, why? They could easily just sell all their US debt and send the US into hyperinflation. They don't desire to do this right now - but as soon as they have a domestic economy anywhere near our size and we present any sort of threat, they can easily cripple us in that regard without firing a shot or harming themselves in any way.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 7 years ago | (#18607443)

In the year 2190? China will not have a suitably strong domestic economy for decades, if ever.

Economic analysis from Uranus (1)

The Monster (227884) | about 7 years ago | (#18608589)

They could easily just sell all their US debt and send the US into hyperinflation.
How do you figure? First they'd have to find buyers for the debt, which belies your 'easily'. But let's suppose they do find those buyers. Now instead of China holding the debt, someone else does, and China holds some assets that the others had before.

How does changing to whom we owe money from 'China' to some other name cause inflation, much less hyperinflation?

Re:Economic analysis from Uranus (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 7 years ago | (#18610489)

I thought Britain owned the largest amount of U.S. properties and presidents?

Re:Economic analysis from Uranus (1)

Retric (704075) | about 7 years ago | (#18610543)

If China sells off US debt they increase the supply of US security's which reduces their value. For the US to keep borrowing money they would need to increase the interest rate to counter this which increases the cost to the US of borrowing money.

The problem with this is US securities are revolving debt so we need to find someone else to buy that debt when it comes due or pay it off by dumping the value of our currency.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18605651)

"When the Chinese invade the US..." Trust me it's not going to happen, my wife is Chinese and she has promised. Of course you will be totally owned - because China is already covering your mortgages and credit card debt and will eventually require repayment of loans outstanding... but don't panic. Chinese food is delicious, Chinese people love you - and the only thing between you and happiness is being a Wal-Mart supporting credit junkie... Liquid robots however will be the best thing since sliced bread... no orifice will be impenetrable. what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

billcopc (196330) | about 7 years ago | (#18606621)

Why the hell would China invade the US ? We already buy all their horrible electronics and bootleg movies. It's not like Americans make good slaves, and they have everything to lose by killing their #1 customers.

Here's my proposal: Do away with all weaponry and defense research, it's all a waste of time, money and life. Just sort all people by their intelligence and trustworthiness, then starting from the center of the country, start spreading them out in concentric rings from smartest to dumbest until you have a nice thick shield of imbeciles all over the coast. That will slow down the enemy's invasion and allow the ones in the middle more time to jump into planes and fly over to Canada, plus their higher intellect will greatly improve their odds of being accepted as citizens. The rest we'll just turn into hot-dog sausages for our Pogos (the better version of what you call corn dogs). And if those crazy invaders are too stupid to stop at the US/Canada border, we'll be well equipped to hold them back since we have a higher number of firearms per capita! If we can take down a half-ton moose, I'm pretty sure our rifles could stop a human or two.

Hey, better to enjoy what you have now, than spend all your time and money worrying about who might try to kill you. It seems to work well up here.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (2, Interesting)

drooling-dog (189103) | about 7 years ago | (#18604425)

Someone at the DoD needs to hire slightly less movies and think more about how old fashioned "hearts and minds" would be a better thing to pour money into.
Pretty much everyone in the research community knows that DARPA has become a bastion of junk and pseudo-science in recent years. I'm sure they're working (i.e., spending lots of money) on perpetual motion and anti-gravity machines even as we speak. So don't jump to the conclusion that earth-shaking advances right out of SciFi are just around the corner because somebody says that DARPA is on it...

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (4, Interesting)

c6gunner (950153) | about 7 years ago | (#18604895)

Since when has giving people things ever worked to win "hearts and minds" in the long run? Todays breed of anti-government anarchists, hippies, and malcontents are amongst the richest and most privileged human beings in history. They have attained that status through the rights and opportunities afforded to them by their governments. Yet their "hearts and minds" seem to be planted firmly in the camp of those who would not only give them nothing, but take away everything.

"Free Shit" generally leads only to resentment and antipathy. It is by providing people with the freedom and opportunity to decide their own future that the US has become the great nation it is today, while communist nations which attempt to provide everything for everyone while asking nothing of anyone have blown away like dust on the winds of history.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

billcopc (196330) | about 7 years ago | (#18606751)

correlation, causation, blah blah blah. The government has CREATED these so-called anarchists because gov't has repeatedly shown its citizens that it is completely incapable of serving their interests. It used to be, when your government went berserk and stopped listening to its people, you'd build up a militia and storm the capital to "take back your country" by force. We haven't really needed to do that in a long time so people have gotten out of shape when it comes to defending their rights. There are diplomatic ways, but the current system you have makes these impractical. Voting has failed, civil unrest would probably be met by civil counter-unrest thanks to the huge number of weak-minded gun-toting nuts, and all you want to do is say "Is it 2008 yet ? I can't wait for this Bush guy to be gone". Geeee... I wish I could patiently will away everything I don't like in this world, but I'm not telekinetic.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

Henneshoe (987210) | about 7 years ago | (#18607371)

I am fairly confident that the government satisfies most of the people in our country. If the majority of American citizens were fed up with the government things would change, and new parties would be put in power. However, most people are content with their day-to-day life and choose not to put any effort into changing things. In short, the government will never be able to satisfy everyone, so there will always be a segment of "so-called anarchists" who want things changed, and if enough of these people come together things will change. If it was desired by the people, there could be a revolution without a shot being fired.

Re:Idea management by Blockbuster (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 7 years ago | (#18611253)

It is by providing people with the freedom and opportunity to decide their own future that the US has become the great nation it is today,
Well, that and not getting our infrastructure blown-to-hell in WWII, like the rest of the industrialized world. Oh, and having lots of natural resources.

There were many reasons why our economy did well in the last half of the last century. It's hard to say exactly how much should be attributed to any one factor.

Personally, I think a more socialist economic stance could boost our economy. I have lots of business ideas I would like to explore, but I can't take on the risk of starting my own business. In the initial stages, I would not be able to afford medical care. If I fail in the long run, I would not be able to afford a comfortable retirement.

If we remove these risks, we will promote innovation.

T-1000? (1)

ZirbMonkey (999495) | about 7 years ago | (#18603647)

Sounds to me like they want something out of the Terminator 2 movie. I'm not exactly sure what they want with a robotic slug though. The design request seems pretty weird to me.

You're not thinking like a woman (5, Funny)

MarkByers (770551) | about 7 years ago | (#18603819)

> I'm not exactly sure what they want with a robotic slug though. The design request seems pretty weird to me.

It's not meant for men.

Tell me when they're made... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18603789)

... of hemimetic polyalloy

Call the Governator (2, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about 7 years ago | (#18603909)

The Governator Arnold must be notified immediately, his presence in our world was not in vain. He will still have his fight before he is 120.

I would like.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18603913)

to announce my own project. Yes I will be developing a warp drive...complete with long tube like things with glowing tips....this warp drive will allow a vwessel to travel at speeds faster than light....I am accepting all potential teams that maybe interested in developing this...

Get fucking real. You know what the likelyhood of someone developing a liquid robot using the materials suggested is nill...if they just wait a decade or so...more than likely enough nanobots can work in unison to provide a real world solution.

Re:I would like.. (2, Insightful)

GundamFan (848341) | about 7 years ago | (#18604375)

People wonder why America is producing less and less Scientists and Engineers. It's because we have no imagination any more. We need to get our heads out of the sand and find something to reach for or learn to accept not being important in the world.

Re:I would like.. (2, Interesting)

freezin fat guy (713417) | about 7 years ago | (#18604647)

We need to get our heads out of the sand and find something to reach for or learn to accept not being important in the world.

Not important? I would mention from a foreigner's perspective we believe you will likely remain the cornerstone of the free world for quite some time. It is for that reason we are concerned about a number of your present actions and attitudes.

Re:I would like.. (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 7 years ago | (#18604727)

Then, mayhap the rest of the free world (sans Au) might begin to act like freedom from tyranny is a shared concept instead of kowtowing each time a despot rattles a sabre?

Re:I would like.. (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | about 7 years ago | (#18607713)

As an employee at a chemical firm who likes to research this sort of "cutting edge" stuff, I took this over to our engineers, just for kicks.

Their primary complaint wasn't that you couldn't make a flexible robot (albeit perhaps a much slower one that described in the RFP). Their complaint was that the robot wouldn't have a CPU, or a brain, because we weren't yet at the capability of doing that kind of thing.

I responded that (excluding the exotic stuff like using a mouse brain) my cursory review of the RFP seemed to suggest there wouldn't be a problem with a couple microchips and/or electrodes floating around in the mess, just that it couldn't be over a certain size.

Purpose of having the chemical goo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18604047)

I can imagine that it might be possible having some form of robot where part of it was gooey liquid inside a bag that e.g. solidified whenever a current was passed through it or something.

The question is just, why do you want gooey liquid on your robot? It can't do anything. All the interesting bits that can do things, like wheels and tracks and cameras, are quite hard and are already built to the minimum dimensions.

Now, what I think would be interesting would be tiny robots that essentially consist of a propulsion unit and a tiny gripping arm. They could be powered by the wireless power thing written about a while ago. If a robot runs out of power or falls down a ledge it could cry for help, and the other robots could use their gripping arms to carry it back.

Maybe they would actually not even need wheels, they could lift or throw each other forwards - with the leverage principle? Could maybe use them to clean up trash landfills one day. Oh, fantasies..

FemBot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18604065)

Well, could chembot technology be used to make fembots more flexible?

The BLOB! (2, Funny)

throatmonster (147275) | about 7 years ago | (#18604067)

What, it only takes 40 years for the DoD to pick up on cheesy B-grade sci fi movies?

I always really liked the skit about the "Snit" - scientists supposedly create an organism that is comprised of the perfect form of protein.

Interviewer: "What does it look like?"
Scientist: "Kind of like guacamole, with eyes."

and a bit later on...

Scientist: "The only problem is we haven't figured out how to kill it."
Interviewer: "Have you tried grinding it up?"
Scientist: "Yes, we just get more snits.

and at the end...

Scientist: "And then there's the problem with the guards..."
Interviewer: "What problem?"
Scientist: "Last night, we had 2 150-pound guards. This morning, we had one 300-pound snit."

Was this a Monty Python skit?

Obligatory... (1)

jeevesbond (1066726) | about 7 years ago | (#18604097)

Just getting the obligatory stuff over with ...

I for one welcome our new chemical-robotic, payload-carrying overlords.

In UK you watch 'Robot Wars',
In Soviet US robot watches YOU!

Gah (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about 7 years ago | (#18604205)

Variable, flexible and soft is not liquid.
    - liquid implies no strong bonding between neighboring particals, the particals are free to change their relationships with each other.

Remote control is not robot.
    - robot is autonomous.

This was a rant.

Re:Gah (1)

khallow (566160) | about 7 years ago | (#18606989)

Incorrect. Water for example has strong bonding between neighboring water molecules. Instead groups of water molecules are free to change their relations with each other. Then there's silly putty [wikipedia.org] , which is solid at small time scales (it'll bounce for example). But it flows as a liquid on a time scale of hours. And you can knead silly putty.

Basically, it is liquid if you have the properties you mention at some distance and time scale. My take is that this chemical robot need not have the properties of a liquid (eg, it's internal structure could remain intact, just be extremely flexible), but once it can dissolve and reconstitute internal structure, it is pretty darn close to a liquid.

No different from many other breakthroughs . . . (5, Interesting)

mmell (832646) | about 7 years ago | (#18604613)

Somebody says "hey, this remarkable thing might be possible." DARPA says "Hey, we should investigate and see if that's useful."

Remember the inter-net? "Connect multiple computers with disparate architectures manufactured and designed by multiple manufacturers into a single integrated network architecture with seamless sharing of data, regardless of native format." I was vaguely associated with the development work DARPA did on this back in the early 80's - I was sure they were chasing a pipe-dream. DARPA often does, you know.

Yup - if only one pipe-dream in a hundred ever makes it, the internet sure shows that the other ninety-nine pipes weren't wasted; we can use 'em as tubes for the intarweb. So even if we don't come up with a Cyberdyne T-1000, let's see if something useful does come out of this research. Remember, the Nautilus, space travel, powered flight, even travel in excess of fifty to sixty miles per hour were all once ridiculous ideas - all theoretically impossible for many good scientific reasons. Now, we have nuclear submarines, (arguably) reusable spacecraft, jet travel and teenagers who can't seem to drive at less than seventy to eighty miles per hour!

Re:No different from many other breakthroughs . . (1)

nekopa (943508) | about 7 years ago | (#18605693)

The Internet is a DARPA pipe-dream? So I guess it really IS a series of tubes...

Forget Chembots (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18604959)

I want Fem-Bots! Groovy, baby...

Re:Forget Chembots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18609609)

O sure, now *thats* what we slashdotters need, another species that rejects us...

Powering these robots (1)

ruffnsc (895839) | about 7 years ago | (#18605165)

Find the nearest outlet and mold an "arm" into the plug... no need for international plug adapters.

Science Fiction becomes Science Fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18605343)

I like it when science fiction becomes science fact.
In this case the T1000-like robot from Terminator 2.

And stuff like flying faster than sound (and then flying faster than light?)
-Recreational space travel (that whole x-prize thing)
-Expeditions to Mars (and then beyond...)
-Cloning
-Robotics in general
-Wireless communication
-GPS (and all that it brings)

What else?

Found in nature already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18605375)

Looks to me like they are trying to create an artificial octopus. Octopuses can get through a hole 5 inches in diameter, but are much much larger in real life, so I think they are using that as a model. I can only have visions of cyber-octopuses squirting through an air duct and spraying a room with machine gun fire.

When these things become popular... (1)

mi (197448) | about 7 years ago | (#18605457)

Will we see UN, other foreigners, and some Americans push for the conrol over them to become international in 30 years? Because, you know, the big and evil US will be abusing them left and right...

Teen Band... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18605593)

Wasn't there some of teen band named My Chemical Robot?

Have to do this!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18607121)

1. In Soviet Russia, Robot liquifies You!!

2. Profit!!

3. Duck!!

A Fundamental Problem with Robotics (2, Informative)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 7 years ago | (#18607671)

The designs for Robots of various types, and uses have been around for years. Hollywood is by no means a bastion of creativity. But the main problem that seems to be overlooked by most Wanna-Be Robot Inventors is the POWER SUPPLY. I would think that the DARPA folks would first want do some fundamental research, and solve the problem that is the choke point for all Robotics projects.

In Soviet Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608597)

Robots make liquid you!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...