DARPA Semifinalists Selected 89
An anonymous reader writes "DARPA has selected thirty-six teams as Urban Challenge semifinalists to participate in the National Qualification Event. Both the webcast and press release can be found on the official site. Dr. Tony Tether reports that only 1 of the top 5 previous teams was rated in the top 5 of teams this year and 3 of the top 5 were not in the challenge finals last year. 'The semifinalists will compete in a final qualifying round at the site on October 26th and be whittled down to 20 teams. Those teams' vehicles will have to perform like cars with drivers to safely conduct a simulated battlefield supply mission on a 60-mile urban course, obeying California traffic laws while merging into traffic, navigating traffic circles and avoiding obstacles -- all in fewer than six hours. The team to successfully complete the mission with the fastest time wins.'"
To use a farkism (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re:To use a farkism (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of Carmageddon, and the blood was only green in the versions released in some parts of Europe.
-:sigma.SB
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What could probably go wrong?
How about if one of the automated vehicles crashes into a truck carrying nuclear weapons that was traveling through downtown LA. The engineers who designed the weapons had foreseen every possible accident scenario except this particular automated vehicle crashing into the back of the truck which causes the nuclear weapons to explode. Sleeper cell terrorists throughout the US see this as their signal so they detonate their hidden nuclear weapons in New York City, Washington, D.C., Houston, Chicago, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Customer: Well, what's the worst case scenario?
Dilbert: Our product could transform into a giant robot that annhiliates the universe.
PHB: (freaking out the background)
Dilbert: (Later, to Dogbert) Apparently, I don't know what "worst case" means.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they interpret the highway code as a couple of celebrities do so...
Re: (Score:1)
---
It's not me, Officer, my car drove under D.U.I and it's also his coke.
Re: (Score:1)
GO STANFORD!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
GO GATORS!!!
I'm not working on the team anymore (graduated), but my name's still on CIMAR's website!
Life imiitates Hollywood? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great. Let's go protest. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I do agree with your sentiment, I'm afraid that science and war have been hand in hand for the vast majority of history.
"Archimedes has also been credited with improving the power and accuracy of the catapult, and with inventing the odometer during the First Punic War."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Disc
"In 1595-1598, Galileo devised and improved a Geometric and Military Compass suitable for use by gunners and surveyors. This expanded on earlier instruments designed by Niccolò Tartaglia and Guidobaldo del Monte. For gunners, it offered, in addition to a new and safer way of elevating cannons accurately, a way of quickly computing the charge of gunpowder for cannonballs of different sizes and materials.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Ga
And of course we know well what happened to the inventions and insights of Noble and Einstein. Science and the waging of war feed each other back and forth. Militaries are always eager to use new technologies and scientists are usually eager to for the kind of resources and funding that militaries have access to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My only worry with new military technology is that it will progress to the point where troops (Ameri
Re: (Score:1)
Protest the missions, not tech re: ... protest (Score:1)
20 years ago, I worked in support of robotics projects, at Carnegie-Mellon - part of the DARPA Strategic Computing initiative (a response to the Japanese Fifth-Generation Computing Project)
Some of my co-workers at MIT were concerned about military plans to use these vehicles, although the missions most often talked about were scout missions and smoke-laying (preparing the battlefield for attack by the humans, generally these scenarios were
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In response to lessthan -
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science only exists because the militaries of the world exist to do violence against the savages who would destroy it. Like it or not, things like science, technology, civilization, and society only exist because people are willing to protect their existence by means of physical force. Science owes its existence to the military, not the other way around. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but with 6 billion humans on the planet, even if all but one were committed pacifists, the only effect would be to ma
Don't disturb my circles. (Score:3, Interesting)
The death of Archimedes, among many other scientists during warfare, gives the lie to your words :
Re: (Score:2)
It's the very existence of aggressive militaries that requires a peaceful society to be able to protect itself against them. Stable, wealthy societies do not last long without some sort of military protection, because an unprotected, wealthy society is only all the more appealing to those who would loot it. Of course it would be better if no one had a military, but that is not and never has been the case. And if it were the case, the first people to build a military and use it for aggressive purposes would
This will drive the Taliban crazy (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This will drive the Taliban crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine they'd perform pretty well along supply routes, which is the application they're currently targeted towards.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet these autonomous vehicles perform really well in the mountains, yes...
The 2005 Grand Challenge course had narrow roads cut out of the side of mountains, with no guard rails. The vehicles that finished all made it through there, even the huge military truck from Oskosh.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, I was actually at the 2005 challenge, and remember that little mountain pass. I remember talking with people about how it was a really good thing that the mountain pass was near the end of the course, because otherwise some of the vehicles which had gotten knocked out earlier in the race probably would've e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Obeying California Laws? (Score:5, Funny)
How do they put a seatbelt on the computer?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
People wear seatbelts in California? Is that so they can talk on their phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Scoring? (Score:5, Funny)
Now, exactly how many points per pedestrian?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Some examples of one point violations:
* A traffic conviction.
* An at-fault accident.
Examples of two point violations:
* Reckless driving or hit-and-run driving
* Driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs
* Hit-and-run driving
* Driving while suspended or revo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Course Prep? (Score:2, Interesting)
If the competitors aren't careful, there might be some new wrecks to add to scenario training...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"obeying California traffic laws"? (Score:1, Funny)
Oh, that's not the law? It sure seems like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Tether? (Score:5, Funny)
You can't make this stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
He is known to be overly involved (everything that is funded through DARPA gets the direct blessing of him... i.e. he does not trust any of the program managers to fund without his involvement).
Re: (Score:1)
"Oh, yeah, except for that..." (Score:2, Funny)
I'm working from memory here, so I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection, Calif. Motor Vehicle Code stipulates that a motor vehicle is required to be under the control of an approved driver at all times.
Hell - break one, break 'em all
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
California Warzone (Score:2, Funny)
I don't get it... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That was Grand Challenge I. The reheald it a year or two later and had several teams finish. Urban Challenge was only started after they had a successful Grand Challenge.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
In the 2005 Darpa Grand Challenge [wikipedia.org] "Stanley [wikipedia.org]", Stanford University's entry, a Volkswagen Touareg wagon, won, beating several other entrants that completed the course. The team was led by Sebastian Thune; Stanley was remarkable for having a relatively simple LIDAR/GPS sensor array, unlike many of the other entries, but had extremely sophisticated software and machine learning and high autonomy, whereas it's main competition, CMUs "H1ander", had extremely involved sensing and was programmed with an extremely detailed course route, but its complex directional LIDAR array failed early in the race, and though it could compensate, it completed the course slow.
Find the NOVA episode if you can, truly fascinating. I hate how NOVA ScienceNow is so attention-span limited.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
For use in Iraq? (Score:1)
Thank god my right-hand driving country does not have vast oil reserves; driving on the wrong side of the road would be too freaky.
Re: (Score:1)
Stop signs (Score:1)
And what if... (Score:1, Insightful)
60 miles in less than 6 hours (Score:1)
So, what if they all come into the finish line with traffic violation tickets under their windshields for moving too slow? Would they then award it to the one with the fewest tickets?
Corse Im assuming that by 'following California traffic laws' that they would be required to have licence plates, not tailgate, travel the speed limit, etc. Wouldnt that also meen the robots would need valid drivers lice