5 Lessons from the DARPA Robotics Challenge

5 Lessons from the DARPA Robotics Challenge 5 Lessons from the DARPA Robotics Challenge 5 Lessons from the DARPA Robotics ChallengeThe Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, which created a toxic environment too dangerous for human responders to enter, inspired the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to create the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC), with the goal of developing semi-autonomous ground robots for complex tasks in dangerous conditions. According to DARPA, useable technologies that result from the DRC will hopefully lead to the development of robots featuring task-level autonomy that can operate in the hazardous, degraded conditions common in disaster zones.The 2015 DRC finals, held in Pomona, CA, involved 24 teams from around the globe. The objective welches to maneuver their own highly specialized robots through eight autonomous and semi-autonomous mobility and manipulation tasks to demonstrate their ability to operate in uncontrolled and unpredictable situations. A joi nt team from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Carnegie Mellon University (WPI-CMU) made up of faculty, engineers, and students, placed seventh. Its six-foot-tall humanoid Atlas robot named WARNER was made by Boston Dynamics.Mike Gennert, director of WPIs Robotics program, and WARNER (WPIs Atlas Robot for Nonconventional Emergency Response). Image WPIWARNER successfully completed seven of eight tasks on each day of the competition, which included driving a vehicle, opening a door, using power tools, and turning a valve. The team scored 14 out of 16 possible points over the two-day event. It suffered a program design error and an arm hardware failure that caused two attempts at the drill/cutting task to fail. However, WPI-CMU was the only team that attempted all tasks, did not require physical human intervention (a reset), and did not fall during any of the missions.What They LearnedThe Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a paper written by WPI-CMU team memb ers called No Falls, No Resets Reliable Humanoid Behavior in the DARPA Robotics Challenge. They describe their approach to the DRC and their strategy for avoiding failures that required physical human intervention, and lessons learned. Five major takeaways includeWalk with yur entire body. All teams in the challenge failed to use aspects of the physical space to help their robots move, such as stair railings, or putting a hand on the wall to help cross rough terrain. Even drunk people are smart enough to use nearby supports, they write. Why didnt our robots do this? We avoided contacts and the resultant structural changes. More contacts make tasks mechanically easier, but algorithmically more complicated.Design robots to survive failure and recover. The authors advise that robustness to falls (avoiding damage) and fall recovery (getting back up) need to be designed in from the start, not retro-fitted to a completed humanoid design. The Atlas robot was too top heavy and its arms too weak to reliably get up from a fall. The team has since been exploring inflatable robot designs as one approach to fall-tolerant robots.The fruchtwein cost-effective research area to improve robot performance is human-robot interaction.Developing ways to avoid and survive operator errors is crucial for real-world robotics. Interfaces must be designed to help eliminate errors, reduce the effect of errors, and speed the recovery or implement undo operations when errors happen. Interfaces need to be idiot-proof and require no typing, have no check boxes, and minimize the number of options for the operator, writes the team.Be ready for the worst case. In the second day of competition, the team lost the DARPA-provided communications between the operators and the robot in a full communication zone for at least six minutes, which counted against the teams time. Our lesson here, they state, is that for real robustness, we should have planned for conditions worse than expected. We could have easily programmed behaviors to be initiated autonomously if communications unexpectedly failed.The field of humanoid robots is flawed.In situations where the researchers did not control the test, most humanoid robots, even older and well-tested designs, performed poorly and often fell. It is clear that our field needs to put much more emphasis on building reliable systems, relative to simulations and theoretical results, writes the team. We need to understand why our current hardware and software approaches are so unreliable.High-Value ExperienceAccording to Mike Gennert, director of WPIs Robotics Program, the greatest experience for the team was learning how hard it is to design and operate humanoid robots. WPI team members had no previous experience with humanoid robots and, although most of the techniques were not quite cutting edge, they were advanced. That meant extensive testing to ensure that the overall system would perform, says Gennert. We also learned a lot about the cha llenging problems that remain, such as balance and stability, robust and adaptive control, integrating perception and manipulation, and the need for better sensors, especially haptics.The team is still working with its Atlas robot.About 30 students are involved in 12 different projects, including learning for walking, footstep placement, two-handed coordination, and getting up from falls.This project gave us experience with very advanced robotic hardware and software, adds Gennert. We continue to use them in our teaching and research.Our students who have graduated have gone on to great jobs and graduate schools, in no small part due to what they learned in the competition. I could not be more proud of this team and what it has accomplished.Mark Crawford is an independent writer.Our students who have graduated have gone on to great jobs and graduate schools, in no small part due to what they learned in the competition.Mike Gennert, WPIs Robotics Program

10 signs that youre a toxic boss

10 signs that youre a toxic boss10 signs that youre a toxic bossYou might be committed to your company and you might think youre an ethical employer, but just because you genuinely care about your work and your staff doesnt mean that you always lead that staff in the best possible way.According to asurveycommissioned by Lynn Taylor Consulting, employees waste 19.2 hours a weekworrying about what their bosses say or do- 13 of which occur during workweek and 6.2 of which consume theirweekends.If you want your employees focusing on their work instead of worrying about you, its important to recognize when youre being atoxic boss. Here are 10 signs.You dont engage with your employeesA toxic boss doesnt spend time establishing rapport with those they manage. Gaining trust is crucial for your employees to feel comfortable voicing bothcareer goalsand concerns with you.You dont giveconstructive criticismStudies show that women are less likely to receivevaluable feedbackon annual wertzuwachs reviews than men. Be aya that youre giving all of your employees clear, constructive feedback likewise, set expectations and measurable goals.You micro manageIf youre too overbearing, your staff wont be able to accomplish anything efficiently. Remember that its not always necessary to know the play-by-play of every meeting, email exchange and phone call, so long as your employees are getting their work done on time and theyre doing well.You dont respect privacyIf theres an issue you need to discuss with an employee, its best to secure a private conference room or closed office space to have the conversation. Its demoralizing, humiliating and unfair to have these talks in front of colleagues or via email chains with multiple staff members CCed. Moreover, its unprofessional on your behalf.You rank your staffOffering performance incentives is a smart way to keep employees motivated and boost workplace morale. But ranking team members based on their performances in comparison to one ano therturns colleagues into competitors, and itll turn your office into a breading ground for systemic gender biases.You dont give credit where credit is dueAcknowledging work well done is oftentimes just as important as acknowledging room for improvement. By touting an employees efforts, youre encouraging them to continue theirhard workin that way.You dont welcomefeedbackShakespeare once said something along the lines of, A good boss thinks her or himself to be wise, but a wise boss knows her or himself to be a fool.Well, notquitelike that. Your employees are working at the forefront of your company - theyre on the ground, handling your clients, engaging with one another they may have insight into areas from which youre a little mora detached. It could be wise to hear them out.You dont lead by exampleA leader is someone who influences the behaviors, attitudes and thoughts of others - a leaderleads. And the best way to cultivate a company culture thats trusting, progressive and prod uctive is by leading by example.You dont value employees time offVacation time is a benefit and one that is it critical to the health, morale and productivity of your staff. Despite any inclinations toemail or phone employees while theyre off the clock, their time off is to be respected. Moreover, it should be encouraged.You dont offer support or warranted sponsorshipsWomen, in particular,struggle to gain the support of authority figures- especially if they work under male bosses, who are evermore weary of engaging one-on-one with them assexual harassmentclaims sweep the nation. Theyve fewer sponsors in their careers for that reason. That said, at some point,allemployees will need support. A good boss will manage their teams a great boss will not only manage, but theyll also challenge, support and sponsor (when warranted).This article originally appeared on Fairygodboss.

Online Reputation Management Helps Protect a Companys Internet Reputation

zugreifbar Reputation Management Helps Protect a Companys Internet Reputation Online Reputation Management Helps Protect a Companys Internet Reputation Next, the company places emphasis on creating several marketing and technical techniques to showcase the company in a positive and productive light when it shows up in search engine listings, such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing.Ed Eshel, founder of Online Reputation Management, made this statement about the new service We have seen a significant increase in cases where companies have contacted us because an ex-employee, usually someone who has been fired or left under stressful circumstances, has posted disparaging comments onlineRecently, Online Reputation Management assisted a reputable media company in Texas to remove slanderous comments and articles that were posted online by a disgruntled ex-employee. The attack on the company was having a negative effect, as fewer applications for graduate positions were coming in. Once the compan y found out why there had been a decrease, they quickly hired Online Reputation Management to take control of the situation. Removing most of the negative articles and posts, Online Reputation Management made sure that the companys profile was seen positive once again online.Not only does Online Reputation Management repair online reputations, they also maintain them with various tools and strategies. For more information, please visit their website at online-reputation-management.us/