Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the building-a-more-robotic-tomorrow dept.

Hadrian is not the first large-scale industrial robot that can complete a whole build from start to finish. It's not even the first outdoor construction robot.

What's remarkable is it's both. As Mike told me, "Anything you can build inside a factory ... we're getting really, really good at. Trouble is, nothing's happening outdoors."

That's because environmental factors like wind and temperature variations can make life difficult for robots outdoors.

Most robots can't adjust to small, quick changes in wind or temperature fast enough to keep up.

That's fine if little wobbles won't make a big difference. But when you're working on something as large-scale as building a house and a light breeze could lead to bricks being laid way out of position, it can get very dangerous.

So up till now, any robot building on such large scales had to be indoors in minutely controlled environments.

Hadrian has overcome this problem using the precision technology Dynamic Stabilisation Technology (DST). DST was developed in Perth by Mike's cousin, Mark Pivac, back in the early 2000s. The computer program measures environmental factors an astounding 2000 times per second, then accounts for them in real time.

If robots replace the construction workers, who then will wolf whistle?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:18PM (20 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:18PM (#627421)

    a single problem that is associated with deep pockets

    How about their small numbers and hyper-focus on making their own pockets deeper, hm?

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @12:09AM (19 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @12:09AM (#627472) Journal
    As I already noted, they're far more numerous than the next choice, government agencies.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:12AM (18 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:12AM (#627493)

      Well, the smallest, most focused medical device I ever developed was in-fact funded by government grants. They're not the best source of funding available, but they can work in places where venture capital fails. Also: refocusing money in the hands of more humanitarian-merit minded committees and less in the number crunching profit maximizers does yield different decisions and outcomes.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:16AM (17 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:16AM (#627524) Journal

        They're not the best source of funding available

        I guess you're not getting it. How many of these small government organizations willing to fund your projects are there again?

        Also: refocusing money in the hands of more humanitarian-merit minded committees and less in the number crunching profit maximizers does yield different decisions and outcomes.

        But not necessarily better decisions and outcomes. What is missed is that the profit maximizers are very good at what they do. And a project often needs that sort of expertise.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:45AM (16 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:45AM (#627533)

          But not necessarily better decisions and outcomes. What is missed is that the profit maximizers are very good at what they do.

          Which is: maximizing profits. Not every valuable aspect of human endeavor yields maximal profits.

          I'm not saying "nuke Wall Street and give all the money to the hippies," but I am saying that Wall Street controls more money than they do good with.

          Also: just because a project doesn't provide maximal ROI doesn't mean it should always be passed over in favor of one that does.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:39AM (15 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:39AM (#627563) Journal

            Not every valuable aspect of human endeavor yields maximal profits.

            But it does yield more than one puts into the endeavor. One of the things forgotten about profit is that it is a clear signal of positive return on investment.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:10PM (14 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @01:10PM (#627665)

              But it does yield more than one puts into the endeavor.

              More what? Again, not everything of value is measured with money.

              When I see the market truly driven by reduction of human suffering, breathable air, maintenance of streams such that the fish therein are edible, etc. then we can talk about letting the market decide everything. Until then, the imperfect system we have is a mix of market and regulatory / government forces, and the market has been on a tear lately (35+ years) left unchecked it will not end well for the next generation.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @02:46PM (13 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @02:46PM (#627692) Journal

                and the market has been on a tear lately (35+ years) left unchecked it will not end well for the next generation.

                So has US regulation [gwu.edu]. In fact, the past 35 years is most of US regulation in history (the number of pages of the Code of Federal Regulations goes down a lot once one looks at before the Second World War). And unlike the market which has plenty of recent constraints on it (such as Sarbanes-Oxley [wikipedia.org], PATRIOT Act [wikipedia.org], and financial industry changes [npr.org] since 2008), no one has been similarly constraining regulation.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:56PM (12 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @03:56PM (#627723)

                  O.K. - hit a nerve there, Sarbanes-Oxley, the regulatory knee jerk reaction to the options backdating "scandal", is a f-ing farce in terms of what it really accomplished, and IMO another example of wealth controlling government regulation such that it doesn't impact the wealthy. The options-backdaters (C-levels) continued to get their options (just without the illegal backdating perks), while the rank and file employee IOPs (or whatever-the-f TLA) incentive options plans were suspended or canceled because the accountants couldn't figure out how to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley at that level, but they damn sure didn't miss a beat for the CEO, or his buddies.

                  And, of course, the PATRIOT act is just a fear based power grab, while 2008 would seem to be self-explanatory as to why the financial industry needed not only a spanking, but to be sat facing the corner until they can start acting more mature.

                  Yes, government regulation has been on a tear too, playing catchup IMO - when rivers are catching fire, previously prime game fish are poisonous to eat, cities are issuing summer smog alerts that you can literally feel your chest tightening from (the air, not the alert), mortgages are being granted without credit checks and sold into the most trusted of low-risk securities bundles, yeah, the "free" market clearly needed a shorter leash.

                  Circle this back around to the unprecedented population explosion of the last 50 years, combined with the technological plummet toward the singularity, and it's not surprising that business as usual isn't working for today's society.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @04:40PM (11 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @04:40PM (#627739) Journal

                    O.K. - hit a nerve there, Sarbanes-Oxley, the regulatory knee jerk reaction to the options backdating "scandal", is a f-ing farce in terms of what it really accomplished, and IMO another example of wealth controlling government regulation such that it doesn't impact the wealthy.

                    Too bad. It's still heavy regulation no matter what you think of it.

                    And, of course, the PATRIOT act is just a fear based power grab, while 2008 would seem to be self-explanatory as to why the financial industry needed not only a spanking, but to be sat facing the corner until they can start acting more mature.

                    No, they just needed to go bankrupt.

                    Yes, government regulation has been on a tear too, playing catchup IMO - when rivers are catching fire, previously prime game fish are poisonous to eat, cities are issuing summer smog alerts that you can literally feel your chest tightening from (the air, not the alert), mortgages are being granted without credit checks and sold into the most trusted of low-risk securities bundles, yeah, the "free" market clearly needed a shorter leash.

                    You're speaking of 1970s issues that were fixed back in the 1980s. Funny how that still gets used as an excuse three decades later. And yes, I'm aware of the Houston story [soylentnews.org].

                    Circle this back around to the unprecedented population explosion of the last 50 years, combined with the technological plummet toward the singularity, and it's not surprising that business as usual isn't working for today's society.

                    It's working well actually. We have a global move towards developed world status for everyone. That's what business as usual means. Funny how you keep claiming things like unprecedented population explosions. I've already shown the population rate has been declining for the past 50 years. Sure, it's an unprecedented number of people, but at birth rates that are much lower than historical levels.

                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:00PM (10 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:00PM (#627752)

                      I've already shown the population rate has been declining for the past 50 years

                      You keep showing projections, extrapolations, as if crystal balls accurately predict the future. If I had to bet, I'd go with the predictions you're stating. If I had to guarantee a range - there's a WIDE margin of uncertainty.

                      World population tripled in the last 50 years and reached record high levels, that's unprecedented and fact. Any statements about the future decrease in reliability the farther in the future they project, to the point of meaninglessness at +50 years from today.

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:46PM (9 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @05:46PM (#627769) Journal

                        You keep showing projections, extrapolations, as if crystal balls accurately predict the future.

                        So what? You do too. Mine just are based on what's really going on.

                        Any statements about the future decrease in reliability the farther in the future they project, to the point of meaninglessness at +50 years from today.

                        Demographics is more reliable than the usual technology stuff that's traditionally predicted. After all, Malthus didn't really get proven wrong until the global emancipation of women and post-Second World War economy. That's over a century after his death.

                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:00PM (8 children)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:00PM (#627776)

                          Mine just are based on what's really going on.

                          Your attitude is that they are accurate and reliable, which is an impossible assumption.

                          --
                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:30PM (7 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 25 2018, @06:30PM (#627790) Journal

                            Your attitude is that they are accurate and reliable

                            That is not my attitude. That's merely your straw man characterization. And what is the point of your lecture? You ignored the past 50 years except for the pieces that have confirmed your biases. For example, noting that population has tripled in the past 50 years while ignoring that the rate of population growth has greatly shrunk and that the vast majority of population growth (as well as other social ills like pollution) occurs in the poorest parts of the world. The places that have relatively free markets also have made significant progress on the very things you claim to care about.

                            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 25 2018, @07:45PM (6 children)

                              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 25 2018, @07:45PM (#627824)

                              All I stated about the past 50 years is fact, what happened.

                              All anybody can state about the future is projection, assumption, prediction. Here's some Pulitzer prize winning projection for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History [wikipedia.org]

                              --
                              🌻🌻 [google.com]
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @02:12AM (5 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @02:12AM (#628034) Journal

                                All I stated about the past 50 years is fact, what happened.

                                And I didn't disagree, except where noted otherwise (such as your erroneous characterizations of current pollution in the US and regulatory environment of markets in the US). But it's a very incomplete picture even in the areas you got right.

                                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 26 2018, @02:51AM (4 children)

                                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 26 2018, @02:51AM (#628051)

                                  If you want to deconstruct the dialogue, you mentioned something about regulations increasing during the past several decades faster than ever before, which is what got me rolling back to a few obvious reasons why regulations started increasing so much, starting at the beginning of the period.

                                  --
                                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @04:22AM (3 children)

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @04:22AM (#628085) Journal
                                    They got rolling because of computers. It's vastly easier to generate pages of law and regulation than it was decades ago.
                                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 26 2018, @01:08PM (2 children)

                                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 26 2018, @01:08PM (#628245)

                                      While I agree that the volume of text in legislation, documentation requirements for regulatory compliance, and high school term papers have all ballooned in response to the ease of production starting roughly in 1985 with the rise of the word processor (and really getting rolling by ~1995)... I still say that regulations against things like burning rivers would have happened even if we had to chisel the commandment on a stone tablet.

                                      --
                                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 26 2018, @03:20PM (1 child)

                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26 2018, @03:20PM (#628278) Journal

                                        I still say that regulations against things like burning rivers would have happened even if we had to chisel the commandment on a stone tablet.

                                        And did by oh, 1980 or so. But the regulation tarbaby doesn't go away just because the problems it solved did.

                                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 26 2018, @03:39PM

                                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 26 2018, @03:39PM (#628289)

                                          Tangential note: I work with an electronic documentation system that traces its roots back to military projects like nuclear submarine development. In the 1970s, the paperwork required to specify and build a nuclear submarine outweighed the submarine itself. I suspect that now, thanks to the ease of creation, storage and retrieval, and the general decline of editorial review to reduce volume (and even ensure correctness or self-consistency) there's well over 10x as much "documentation" for similar products when it's all printed out on paper, meaning that the relative value of each page of text you obtain and read about such a product is declining - taking more human effort to comprehend the material presented, even if it is orders of magnitude easier to obtain - much like this rambling post.

                                          In the multiverse where I was promoted to king of the Earth after roughly age 25 or so when I developed a fuller appreciation for such things, my first and really only agenda for change was the simplification of laws, rules, procedures, etc. Putting the bulk of accountants, lawyers, and other interpreters of the great tomes of rules out of work by reducing their complexity to a level that any reasonably educated person could come up to speed on in a reasonable period of time. Not only is it more efficient, it also appeals to that infantile concept of "fair" that is so abused in this world. Alas, this version of me does not live in that reality.

                                          --
                                          🌻🌻 [google.com]