backtop

Science China Plans Olympics For Humanoids
Michael Barkoviak - November 9, 2009 8:27 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 20 comment(s) - last by Griswold.. on Nov 10 at 3:25 AM
China is the latest country interested in hosting a competition for robots

Humanoid robots and their designers will have a chance to show what they're made of, with an organized Olympics in 2010 that will involve 16 events.

Any team looking to compete in the competition must have a robot that simulates human movement, with two arms and legs required.  The competitors are prohibited from using wheels.

The Chinese robotics competition will take place in Harbin, which is home to the Harbin Institute of Technology, and has a robotic soccer event.

Chinese event organizers believe at least 100 research teams from around the world will compete in 2010.  Chinese researchers first thought of organizing a competition to help generate more interest and possible innovation so the next generation of robots proves to be better developed.  Observers expect humanoids to be able to tackle a list of different purposes one day, but it’s unknown how many years it will take before they are found in public.

In April 2010, the RoboGames will take place in San Mateo, California, a similar event that features robots made by researchers from across the world.

As the real-world possibilities related to humanoids and other robots increases, additional competitions and organized events are now taking place.  Honda, Toyota and other major companies are involved in robotic development, though very little technology has made it to common use -- but that is a trend slowly changing to reflect on the need for robotics.

Comments     Threshold


What?
By amanojaku on 11/9/2009 9:45:27 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
China is the latest country interested in hosting a competition for robots
Over 1 billion robots isn't enough? China needs MORE? Maybe they're becoming self-aware, and China is afraid it can't control them any more.




RE: What?
By Hakuryu on 11/9/2009 10:01:49 AM , Rating: 4
I get the joke, but I think it more likely a case of 'let us see first hand your research because we do not honor other countries patents'.


RE: What?
By superPC on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Zstream on 11/9/2009 10:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
So looking at patents and then using them to make sh1t products is a good thing?


RE: What?
By superPC on 11/9/2009 10:57:53 AM , Rating: 3
improvement can be in the form of price (cheaper price with lower cost material makes bad product but it still is cheaper). most of the time, improvement comes in better quality with similar price.


RE: What?
By HotFoot on 11/9/2009 10:29:24 AM , Rating: 5
I, for one, think the western countries would have been better off keeping manufacturing at home or amongst countries with similar standards of living and labour laws.

There's just no point having labour laws protecting workers in your own country and then forcing your companies to compete against places that have no such laws. It's a race to the bottom as far as wages, safety equipment, and generally any kind of advancement for the workers that have been fought for since the industrial revolution. We impose standards on ourselves but not on those selling competing products within our own markets.

Really, if folks were serious about adopting globalisation, they'd have automatically wiped out labour laws and things like minimum wages. If that's too much to stomach why is it so easy for people to buy all the cheap crap coming out of China's sweatshops?


RE: What?
By Motoman on 11/9/2009 11:21:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I, for one, think the western countries would have been better off keeping manufacturing at home or amongst countries with similar standards of living and labour laws.


Good luck reconciling that with the desire to pay as little as possible for your consumer goods. No amount of good moral intentions is going to keep people from shopping at Wal-Mart...


RE: What?
By RocketChild on 11/9/2009 10:31:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
but without china, we would've paid 2x more for everyday stuff like scissors, pen and such.


Actually, that is not quite correct. The price of items would likely have stayed about the same. What is going on is that the profit margin for companies have increased because manufacturing and labor costs have been slashed.

Once shipping containers and tariffs are paid, companies still come out ahead way ahead with China. If they had to pay costs in North America, it would still be the same price on the shelf, just less profit for share-holders and executive staff.

This is kinda why you see such big bonuses and salaries(and I'm not talking about the financial sector). They find ways to make more profit at less cost or by selling divisions of the company.

When you hear companies say 'it is cheaper to have it made in China', that is spin-talk for 'we make more money at the top and sell it for the same price!'

What is occurring is that companies who stay local and sell at the same price end up not having the buying power and are undercut by those that have sent everything overseas. Over the last decade, it has forced groups that wanted to keep operations in North America, to go overseas just to keep afloat. Now most everything is gone because a handful early on started the tread and others needed to compete.

A race to the bottom is not always the best.


RE: What?
By amanojaku on 11/9/2009 10:37:45 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A race to the bottom is not always the best.
My girlfriend disagrees. ;-)


RE: What?
By Motoman on 11/9/2009 11:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're quite mistaken.

We can't make those scissors in America for the retail price of the ones shipped from China.

This isn't a matter of margins. It's a matter of US companies having gone bankrupt and/or moved to foreign countries because the cost of US labor, and other US costs like insurance, land/rent, utilities, raw materials, etc. are all vastly more expensive than in China (or other countries).

Margins are big on Chinese-made products because they can be sold at what Americans consider to be a "reasonable" price with a good margin. But don't conflate that good margin with the reason we're not making those scissors in the USA - we couldn't do it with any margin at all at "reasonable" prices.


RE: What?
By Nfarce on 11/9/2009 9:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
US companies having gone bankrupt and/or moved to foreign countries because the cost of US labor, and other US costs like insurance, land/rent, utilities, raw materials, etc. are all vastly more expensive than in China (or other countries).


Exactly. But don't forget the corporate tax rate, which is the second highest in the developed/industrialized world:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4eab53ef01...

You never hear many refer to that when whining about "big" corporate profits and salaries. Have you ever noticed when someone does bring up "big salaries" or "big profits" or generally "big" anything in a negative connotation when referring to corporate America that they can never bring up actual tangible data and statistics to back up their point?

Let's just point one company up on a pedestal and analyze "big" corporate salaries vs. the cost of non-"big" executive pay at Ford: 42,000 UAW workers not retired (whether actually working or not they still get paid).

For those 42,000 active workers, they average $30/hr in straight wages. Tack on another $30/hr for benefits cost to Ford. Total: $2.5 million/hr, or $105,000,000,000 (yeah, that's BILLION) for 52 weeks of 40 hour weeks.

This does not include those 187,000 retired UAW workers Ford has to support, which is easily double the above figure. So, let's use the evil Ford CEO pay example from 2007: $22 million (he made $40 million in 2006 when lured from Boeing - yeah just like sports stars, CEOs have to be "motivated" to move to another team). That $22 million is a whopping .01% of said UAW worker pay, or one-one hundredth of one percent.

The other five senior execs include the VEEP and CFO and other usual suspects, and in 2007 their compensation with bonuses combined cost around $60 million. So now, we're up to $82 million in annual "big" executive pay, which bumps up that percentage compared to UAW worker cost to a stunning .04% of said UAW pay.

But yet, again, you never hear anyone bring up the above facts when whining about "big" executive pay and "big" profits.


RE: What?
By armulyman on 11/9/2009 11:59:47 AM , Rating: 2
you know, as much as the international trade zealot in me wants to say you're right, I don't think that paying twice as much for scissors and pens would be such a bad thing.
...
if you paid twice as much for your scissors you would probably take much better care of them.
...
if you paid twice as much for pens you would probably be very careful not to loose them.
...
to me, it seems that what makes us seem so wasteful to the rest of the world is the way that Americans treat everyday small items like this without value.
...
are we gaining from international trade if our people decide the items are so worthless that they can be treated like garbage?


RE: What?
By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 1:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
You really don't have any idea what you are talking about. China will be partially responsible for you to pay 5X what you are paying now for every thing and that is if you can even buy it. Once the USD collapses products from china will be very expensive after all China has kept their currency pegged against the dollar around 6 yuan for every dollar when it should be more like 2 yuan for every dollar.

The real game China has been playing is scr*** everyone as long as we can put more bodies in factories and they call that progress.

I give China 5 more years before they will go through a major revolution that will split that country up.


RE: What?
By IcePickFreak on 11/9/2009 2:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
say what you want about china and how they treat workforce or patent law. but without china, we would've paid 2x more for everyday stuff like scissors, pen and such.


I heard while the unemployment rate is at record levels, so is the amount of published books being released due to all the unemployed taking advantage of those cheap pens.


RE: What?
By itbj2 on 11/9/2009 2:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget about all the confetti.


RE: What?
By Griswold on 11/10/2009 3:25:41 AM , Rating: 1
Just to pick up on your pen example. The worlds largest (cheap) ballpoint maker, Bic, produces mostly outside china - in france, for example.


I am hosting my own Humanoid Olympics...
By Motoman on 11/9/2009 11:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
...and I hearby invite Rommie, Doyle, Seven of Nine, the Summer Glau Terminator, and Priss to come and compete.

Time trials will be held in my bedroom. Points will be awarded for originality and style. Individual and group events will be held. Bring plenty of butter and goblin jumper cables.




By Camikazi on 11/9/2009 3:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not all robots but I see where you are going with it :)


Makes sense....
By The0ne on 11/9/2009 10:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
Kinda makes sense actually. If the environment is unfit for humans to go out and compete have robots do! :)




Reinventing the wheel
By DotNetGuru on 11/9/2009 1:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
So it just seems a bit odd to me that in some competition showcasing our cutting-edge technology, they aren't allowed to use one of the most fundamental and important pieces of technology in human history: the wheel. Is this an experiment in inefficiency?




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki