71–80 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So where is this different? And how? Who is funding this outside of the US and for what?
Robotics research in Japan is primarily aimed at defending against giant space monster invasion. Oh wait, I guess that falls under defense.
Nice! This is more of what I'd like to see on HN.
Might be asking too much, but I'd also like to see a thread discussing the possible parts, schematics, and source code I could use to hack one of these together myself :) To start: what kind of rotors are those? Are they expensive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So where is this different? And how? Who is funding this outside of the US and for what?
Apparently a lot of robotics work in Japan is aimed at assisting the elderly and making up for labor shortages.
There were a couple of interesting discussions at the prefectural technology incubator about possible applications for research which was in the news at the time. It was a (very early prototype of a) man-portable cloaking device. Clearly, we decided, it was destined for the Tokyo fashion scene.
But can they interface with Skynet?
awesome. the first out-of-control robot swarm is gonna be so freakin scary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this doesn't answer your question at all, but it's just food for thought: imagine we traveled back in time to the 1960's ... i suppose that people would ask "Serious question, is there anything driving reliable robust nationwide packet-switched data network research besides the defense dept? it always bummed me out that anytime you see something amazing it's inevitably funded by military which can't wait to use it to…
Fair enough, but there's nothing overtly weaponizable about communication technology. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled the money is there to advance the field, I just wish it wasn't coming from a bunch of dickheads trying to strap guns to it. I guess since the conventional wisdoms says pornography is the biggest catalyst for new media adoption, it shouldn't be a surprise that killing people drives the other engineeri…
Reliable and secure communication technology is what enables the military to function. Without it, all the weapons technology in the world wont do you any good. So on a moral level, if you are against war you should actually find working as a researcher on communication technology more reprehensible than working on weapons. On an intuitive level I would guess that the breakdown or compromise of military communication has resulted in a greater loss of life than advances in robotics.
The reason why I'm pointing this out is that the real world isn't as simple as "a bunch of dickheads trying to strap guns to [robots]". You're making a simplification because it's convenient, but that simplification is morally inconsistent with approving of DARPA's work on the Internet. The fact that technology has a dual use is something we all have to deal with as researchers. But I don't think it helps matters by treating the issue as a binary.
Serious question, is there anything driving mobile robotics research besides the defense dept? I spent my grad school time in a robotics lab and it always bummed me out that anytime you see something amazing like this it's invariable funded by a military research agency which can't wait to strap a gun to the damned thing. Same thing for computer vision, except it was all about surveillance.
A lot of cognitive science (especially AI related) and cog psychology is DoD related as well. For FY2010 60% of the US governments total R&D spending is military 40% non-military.
Serious question, is there anything driving mobile robotics research besides the defense dept? I spent my grad school time in a robotics lab and it always bummed me out that anytime you see something amazing like this it's invariable funded by a military research agency which can't wait to strap a gun to the damned thing. Same thing for computer vision, except it was all about surveillance.
A lot of cognitive science (especially AI related) and cog psychology is DoD related as well. For FY2010 60% of the US governments total R&D spending is military 40% non-military.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough, but there's nothing overtly weaponizable about communication technology. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled the money is there to advance the field, I just wish it wasn't coming from a bunch of dickheads trying to strap guns to it. I guess since the conventional wisdoms says pornography is the biggest catalyst for new media adoption, it shouldn't be a surprise that killing people drives the other engineeri…
Fair enough, but there's nothing overtly weaponizable about communication technology. Reliable and secure communication technology is what enables the military to function. Without it, all the weapons technology in the world wont do you any good. So on a moral level, if you are against war you should actually find working as a researcher on communication technology more reprehensible than working on weapons. On an in…
Up to this point, yes. Not many robots. I suspect the next 300 years will change that ratio hugely. Networks won't kill people...bots with guns will kill people.
It's part of the researcher mindset to rationalise their (enjoyable, paid, 'important') work, otherwise it wouldn't get done. What is the likely result over the long term? Probably not something most researchers are too worried about.