Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Legs not wheels

Expand Messages
  • Randy M. Dumse
    David Wyland mused: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:13 PM ... That s almost exactly what I was saying, however, just because the facts are not in evidence does
    Message 1 of 533 , Sep 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      David Wyland mused: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:13 PM
      > Interesting, but it assumes facts not in evidence.

      That's almost exactly what I was saying, however, just because
      the facts are not in evidence does not mean there are not
      additional facts which should, or to be accurate, must be
      considered.

      > The DARPA contest, ... got a lot of R&D work
      > done for the money spent, even though it took two tries.

      Again, this is the part seen, and no one disputes it.

      > Once the R&D work is done and a prototype results, it is
      > typically much less expensive in time and money to develop
      > further prototypes and the products that the person or agency
      > ultimately wants to purchase. Seems like a good investment
      > strategy to me.

      Again, this is the part seen, and no one disputes it.

      > The alternative is well known, where government agencies
      > issue grants and contracts to established R&D entities.

      Yes, and we begin to uncover the forgotten man.

      > An interesting discussion is whether the same results in the
      > same time period could be obtained by contributing the same
      > amount of money to a single establishment R&D entity.

      Of course not.

      The government got more than it paid for.

      > And who is the "hidden man" being harmed in this situation?
      > The one paying the taxes for the contest in the government
      > case is the only candidate I can find. ...
      > It seems to me that the hidden men harmed by this approach
      > are those that rely on government grants and contracts to
      > perform R&D.

      And there is the forgotten man. He is:

      You. Me. The robotics community in general. The 2,000 engineers
      who should have been paid good salaries for the $200,000,000+
      the contest bypassed.

      Instead, many people put in vast amounts of time and effort in
      hope of winning a prize, and none of them, not even the winners,
      got paid a fair value for their efforts.

      We, as a robotics community are poorer. Instead of growing an
      industry and a cadre of robotics workers, with all the
      infrastructure and progress the government spending of a value
      commensurate with what it received. Instead, our robotics
      community is impoverished. The spending that would have grown
      it, wasn't there.

      The wages we didn't get for developing cross country vehicles,
      the product we didn't sell, the research we weren't paid to do,
      all that, leaves we the robotics community "the forgotten man"
      in this economic swindle.

      > Regardless of pious comments to the contrary, getting a
      > working prototype solution to a 20+ year old hard problem for
      > a few $M must be frightening to established government R&D
      > firms. Perhaps that is the idea. Shake up the establishment a
      > little, then go back to business as usual. Sigh.

      Yes, some DARPA officals were overheard making exactly that
      clear as the inspiration for bypassing the usual cost of
      progress.

      Randy
      www.newmicros.com
    • Robert F. Scheer
      ... Good reading! Thanks. I m glad I abandoned earlier thoughts of writing about the post-biological future. He s 20 years ahead of me and so much better a
      Message 533 of 533 , Oct 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        dan michaels wrote:
        > --- In SeattleRobotics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert F. Scheer"
        > <rfscheer@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        >> What are some of the desired outcomes in robotics?
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        > For my part, I had always liked some of Hans Moravec's ideas for
        > future robots, eg, as expressed in some of the books/papers lower-
        > right on this page ...
        >
        > http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/
        >
        > http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/robot.papers/2000/puddl
        > e.html
        >
        > http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1993/R
        > obot93.html
        >
        >
        Good reading! Thanks. I'm glad I abandoned earlier thoughts of writing
        about the post-biological future. He's 20 years ahead of me and so much
        better a thinker. The only complaints I see in Moravec's vision are:
        1. it isn't integrated into a viable energy supply vision; robots must
        either result in less net energy used or more energy "produced" such as
        by solar collection;
        2. it doesn't manage the growth of human population on earth and in
        fact could produce unprecedented compounding; I have no answer to this;
        3. the impact of vastly greater numbers of people and robots with
        vastly greater economies on the natural ecology is almost certainly
        totally destructive or transformational in the extreme; will Greenpeace
        be content with a virtual version of the natural history of Earth and
        does it matter?

        So, we should be actively working to make Moravec's First-Generation
        Universal Robots a reality. We only have 3 more years to go.

        This should be a good discussion.

        - Robert
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.