Statistics on DARPAGC

Posted by Randy M. Dumse on October 20, 2005, 1:12 pm

If anyone has been reading other threads, they know how I feel about the
GC. I wonder if there is any statistical support we might measure my
contentions with.

I'll just throw out an idea if someone wants to work on it. My
impression was this newsgroup was much more active and vital before we
got sidetracked with the DARPAGC. I hope it will again become more vital
now that it has passed.

So here's the idea. Suppose there's a way to check post per day prior to
the GC and again after it started? Can we again track it afterwards? I'm
pretty sure we could use Google statistics to get this raw information.
Then it would be nice if we could extract the GC related posts, to see
them as their own category. Particularly in the time right around the
races themselves, and the occassional controversies prior to the first
race.

I'm just guessing statistically you'll find there were more posts in the
year before GC, than the year afterward, and even less the year
following that.

--
Randy M. Dumse

Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.

Posted by Randy M. Dumse on October 20, 2005, 3:28 pm

Okay, just a quick taste.

I searched Google for comp.robotics.misc for any post with a " " in it
(should be all) between Jan 1 and Dec 31 for the past 6 years. Here are
the results:

1999 14,900
2000 18,400
2001 11,900
2002 11,700
2003 8,200
2004 7,550

and so far ~10/12th of the way through this year

2005 5,880

Folks, we're dying as a group. Something around 2003 seems to have
injured interest in talking about robotics. Curiously, the original
DARPA press release is dated January 2, 2003.
http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge04/media/announcement.pdf

Doing some more research, http://robots.net/article/587.html ,
battlebots was cancelled in late September 2002.

If you have another theory why robotics interest dried up so sharply,
I'd be curious to hear it.

--
Randy M. Dumse

Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.

Posted by newtype on October 20, 2005, 8:25 pm

@eagle.america.net:

>
> Okay, just a quick taste.
>
> I searched Google for comp.robotics.misc for any post with a " " in it
> (should be all) between Jan 1 and Dec 31 for the past 6 years. Here are
> the results:
>
> 1999 14,900
> 2000 18,400
> 2001 11,900
> 2002 11,700
> 2003 8,200
> 2004 7,550
>
> and so far ~10/12th of the way through this year
>
> 2005 5,880
>
> Folks, we're dying as a group. Something around 2003 seems to have
> injured interest in talking about robotics. Curiously, the original
> DARPA press release is dated January 2, 2003.
> http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge04/media/announcement.pdf
>
> Doing some more research, http://robots.net/article/587.html ,
> battlebots was cancelled in late September 2002.
>
> If you have another theory why robotics interest dried up so sharply,
> I'd be curious to hear it.

A novelty for younger people, well got to go to school now, have to get a
job, pay bills, have to give up expensive hobbies.

Posted by tim@DELETEMErobotcrazy.com on October 20, 2005, 8:29 pm

I used to post quite regularly on this NG a couple of years ago. I pop
in occasionally and lurk around to see what the latest news is. This
used to be a very positive NG.

I'm no longer involved in hobby robotics; I'm personally concentrating
on my career as a software developer. I fully intend to return when I
have more time.... Although I'll always be searching for the "what's
the application/requirements", "where is the need" etc.. Also, I'd
need to convince myself that what I wanted to achieve couldnt be done
with pure simulation at a fraction of the cost.

My theory is that there was an idea that the hobbyist in a workshop
could come up with something revolutionary and worthwhile. The well
publicised 'system' breakthroughs are fantastically complex and beyond
the means of a single hobbyist.

You just need to look at the DARPA competition vehicles, ASIMO, QRIO
and appreciate their complexity to realize that its just hopeless
trying....for now. As the technology develops and becomes more
wide-spread and understood with industrial standards, perhaps there
will be scope for hobbyists to adapt off the shelf hardware.

IMHO of course.

Regards

Tim

Posted by Matthias Melcher on October 21, 2005, 5:29 am

tim@DELETEMErobotcrazy.com wrote:

> You just need to look at the DARPA competition vehicles, ASIMO, QRIO
> and appreciate their complexity to realize that its just hopeless
> trying....for now.

Nonono, the opposite is true. Sure, the Qrio is insanely complex being
created by a bunch of highly paid scientists and engineers, but at the
same time, R/C servos have become dirt cheap, BlueTooth is a reliable
and affordbable wireless solution, and "Sugar Cube" cameras are
available under $30. Put all that together, using your PC as the main
brain, and you get a Qrio style walking talking living robot for under $500.

Four years ago, the servos alone would have cost over a $1000.

This is also the time where robots start to du useful things. You can
analyse the video picture on a PC fast enough now to recognize faces, to
find your old socks on the ground and to finally have robot *do*
something (other than following a line and bumping into chairs).

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > last >>

Subject
Posted In
Date

Watson / Jeopardy 'robot', whats so cool?
General Robotics Forum
2011-02-19

Finally, Death of the 3.5 inch floppy disk
General Robotics Forum
2010-04-26