What is Digg?70 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33Can it also carry you home from the bars when you're drunk?
- elstevo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33Yeah, it's cute now, but what happens when skynet becomes self aware? How pathetic is it going to be when human civilization is overthrown by teddy-bear robots...
PS: this better make Colbert's threat down. bears are getting out of hand - feb420, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Put guns on that thing.
- Grova, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Pretty cool...the title reminded me of "teddy" in A.I.
- phantom_mullet, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13FTA: "Teddy bear face designed to be reassuring."
heh, I don't know 'bout you guys, but that face wouldn't really reassure me... - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10How do you prolong the silent 'E' in spite?
- DogHumpsMonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8"3. First rule when attending a wounded soldier: don't move him."
O rly? And where did you learn this all important first rule? See, what I was taught was that if you got a man down, you grab straps, boots, or whatever is handy and start dragging to cover. See, the thing is, if you don't move them, they tend to die. Tough to provide any care under direct fire. And you can't see the advantage of a robot transporting a wounded soldier to a medevac chopper or ambulance track or whatever instead of two guys humping a litter through fire? - catfarmer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Don't David, you'll break!
- rabidg00se, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11I, for one, welcome our new robotic...savior...teddy bear...overlords. Errrr.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9@Achalemoipas
Achalemoipas the 14 year old took a break from playing pokemon and has spoke. Scrap the project. - JMIJohnny, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I think that they really need to make it look like the terminator. For added effect, tell the wounded soldier that in the future, it kills him.
- nathanwalker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Dude, i bet in it's lower 'rough terrain' stance, it almost looks like Johnny 5!
- lavoie0ca, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Good idea, until his dangling intestine gets caught in those rubber tank treads.
I've always wondered why medics don't get shot more... makes good tactical sense at least in starcraft. - YouAreNumber6, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5These are the robots that will come for the old people that don't have robot insurance.
Old Glory Robot Insurance
Because robots are strong. And they are made of metal. - inhaler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Sounds like yet another Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Give it three more years of RND and some out of touch officer is going to tack on ablative armor and rpgs to ol Mr. Ruxspin. It'll be completely ineffective to what it was originally designed to do.
- Astaro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I believe the 'first rule' being referred to is from first aid lessons.
which says "never move an injured person UNLESS THEY ARE IN IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL DANGER"
I think being shot at counts as immediate physical danger, don't you? - zebbie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4What they mean is "will be developed under the guise of recovering wounded soldiers then fitted with weapons and modified for use in house to house fighting". We cant get round our addiction to oil but when it comes to new means of making each others lives a misery the sky is the limit.
- korvan504521, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4i imagine its a better option than leaving them under fire.
- RoboRevolutions, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@Achalemoipas
"This can't possibly work because:
1. We've never been able to replicate independent human-like walking for a robot. The best we can do is make it somewhat move like a human, only very slowly and the slight interference makes it lose balance.
2. Why the hell would you build a robot and have it carried in combat when it's only purpose is to take a wounded soldier from point A to point B, in a TERRIBLE and dangerous position when the distance from point A to point B is ridiculously small (from the soldier to the medic)?
3. First rule when attending a wounded soldier: don't move him.
4. It's stands up to lift soldiers, placing them under ennemy fire.
5. It's just plain dumb.
6. Each unit would be way too expensive to be viable.
7. If you're going to make a robot with that kind of mobility, why not just replace soldiers with them?"
Actually,
1. The robot uses a tread system in order to move. It's similar to the iRobot Packbot in that way, which is already an established technology.
2. The reason for building this robot to carry a wounded soldier from point A to point B is so that you don't have to put a military medic in the path of an enemy sniper.
3. I wasn't familiar with that first rule, when did you draft it?
4. There is a pretty good chance the wounded soldier is already under enemy fire.
5. I agree that it might not be as smart as you, but that hardly makes it dumb.
6. Initially the cost is $100,000. However, if you build enough of them the cost goes down. Then you will start seeing them used in civilian applications, like assisting a nursing home.
7. The army is working on killer robots too. Although some would question if that's really a wise choice.
Here is some more information about some of these subjects:
Video simulation of the BEAR in action: http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-S_nDeK8UY
Additional information about the BEAR: http://www.roboticrevolutions.com/?p=33
Additional information about killer robots: http://www.roboticrevolutions.com/?p=41 - chrisp909, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@Achalemoipas
your point about approximating walking is valid that is why the research needs to be done. The design is unlike anything I've seen. I would love to see this thing actually move.
Because it hasn't been done is exactly why we should be attempting it. Japanese companies, most notably Honda and Sony have made great improvements on walking robots this is tech we need to perfect and get patents on.
I am really intrigued by the tread like feet and legs. From that appearance can we assume this thing can move like a track vehicle in more accommodating terrain.
I really have to disagree with you Achalemoipas, if this isn't a complete hoax or disinformation from the us military, this is very very cool and needs to be pursued. - Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4What about people with spinal injuries? Picking them up like that isn't a great thing to do.
- Lisztman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't know about you, but with the way that thing looks, I would be even more freaked out if I saw that thing carrying me.
What they SHOULD do is give it a Jessica Alba face. =] - KiloCharley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I had just finished reading about this when I saw this headline...
Bear Tries To Pull Girl Scout From Tent
http://www.nbc11.com/news/13460582/detail.html - QueenMary, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Who ever said that medics don't get shot?
And yes, it is a rule of the Geneva convention, but it's not like we (or any of our enemies) pay attention to that sort of thing. - sk8ordiemofo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"A really important thing when you're dealing with casualties is trying to maintain that human touch."
But wait, isn't it a robot? - QueenMary, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Heaven forbid our tax dollars go to saving lives. More atom bombs!!
- ecorona, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Can we invent a robot that will scoop up idiot presidents that start unnecessary wars in the first place and take them away to their playground in Texas?
- Bega, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Geneva convention rules? Something similar to how buildings marked with a red cross are not to be targeted. Also the fact that it's ***** despicable helps.
- tumbleweed89, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It looks pretty funny now. Put some crazy masks or a moustache on the thing and I'm sure it can make some soldiers laugh while they're getting transported out of the battlefield.
- redrighthand, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2This must bee a farse? This is so futuristic it makes me think i've been living under a rock for 10 years. Where the heck this this tech come from all of the sudden, wasn't ASIMO just falling down stairs a few months ago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJ37yf9sjI - BlackCow, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4*In arabic*
"Oh my allah!, its so cute!
Lets give it a hug!"
BOOM! - Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You are teh suck. Just to address point 6: where is the money for body armor and vehicle armor to save our boys from injury in the first place? You lose.
- JayD16, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6I'm going to have to agree with Achalemoipas.
It just seems like a waste of money. We'll build this but we wont make a soldier more bullet proof? - nosecohn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ troyturner
Thanks for the thorough explanation. Since it seems that you envision these things being used in fast-moving, hostile situations, where a medic has an unacceptably high risk of getting injured himself attempting a rescue, I'm left with two questions:
1. How vulnerable is the BEAR to enemy fire, IEDs, and the other kinds of hostile action that injured the soldier in the first place?
2. Does the military believe it's possible/practical to deploy BEARs with the same ubiquity as unit medics so that they're always available in these fast-developing situations? - chrisp909, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sony 'Mastered' it! Yeah, completely conquered.
- chrism1128, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't it just be easier to make robots that would kill our enemies? Then, the soldiers could stay safely back at the robot temple where they could serve them when they return.
- nosecohn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Again, I thank you for your response. However, based on your answers, I still have my doubts about how BEAR can be practically deployed.
For civilian purposes, where the rescuer is not under enemy fire, it seems a lot more realistic to just have five guys walk up to the thing that needs lifting and get it done. Plus, there are already so many tools that are dedicated to rescue work, like winches or the "jaws of life", that it's hard to imagine many situations where a machine that "walks" would be required. There's bomb removal, but even that is already done by robots.
And I still don't see how it's going to replace medics in combat. You're talking about a large, heavy piece of equipment that needs to be operated by a trained professional on very short notice. As you implied, it's unlikely that each combat unit would have one. And if BEAR is not widely available, it cannot be used in the urgent situations for which it is designed. I just can't see how it's practical to develop something like this with such limited potential.
On the other hand, I do understand that the concept for this kind of device comes out of a genuine need. Too many soldiers have helplessly watched their buddies die in the field. But the military would be far better off developing devices that can "look ahead" for IEDs, or instantly identify and return fire to the source of an RPG, or render everyone in 100 meter radius unconscious for 60 seconds. Threat neutralization is the way to address the cause, not the effect. That, and of course, not letting our politicians get us into these silly, nation-building adventures half way around the world on trumped up evidence in the first place. - JohnReb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1More Medal of Honors have been awarded to medics and corpsmen than any other type of soldier. Most post-humous.
I doubt it's very different in other nations militaries. - chrisp909, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@roborevolutions
Thanks for the links. The article is misleading, this isn't a bipedal robot at all. Interesting but not groundbreaking. We are years and years away from a software that can balance and walk without and ankle.
Would be cool though. - mlindemu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I understand everyone's enthusiasm for this technology, but right now it only exists in simulation. It is also "5 years" away from testing, not deployment, but testing. This is a great direction for robotics, but I really think it is something that is far off in the future. Unfortunately, medics will be in the line of fire for years to come.
- loganhid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thank God i've got Old glory Insurance
http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory_hi.html - DocMidd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm a combat medic in Iraq right now, I roll out with a 100+ lbs load on my back right now. I really don't want to carry this thing as well, because someone will have to carry it because, knowing the Army, it will have a battery life of about 20 min. If this ever gets deployed it's going to be left in the truck or left back at the FOB. Also just to clear things up, 1st rule of combat medicine, stop hemorrhage, then find secure location.
- xdefiancex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0lol asimo's big brother
- Biophilicity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I went ahead and put the last issue of InStyle, with Jessica Alba, in the office to look at, but Daniel doesnt seem to be taking to her. Its a great idea though, thanks! She does generate the will to live, doesnt she?
- lavoie0ca, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2re: wheeled vehicle.
The problem is that a wheeled rover is not going to be able to get to alot of soldiers, because they will have taken cover somewhere that it can't get to.
Getting robots to be bipedal isn't really an issue anymore, sony mastered it like 5 years ago. -
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is