If I mount a power pack & computer along with sensor devices onto my dog's back and train him to respond to LEDs which are mounted on either side of his head (turn toward the one that is lit) will this combination be considered a ROBOT? What about if I do this with a rat or better yet a man or woman? Any opinions would be much appreciated.
Sincerely, Adam Pierce
-- O When I die, I'd like to go / | \ ___ ad...@mcs.com peacefully, in my sleep, O- O- O___o http://www.mcs.com/~adamp like my grandfather did. \ | / o Not screaming like the O o passengers in his car.
> If I mount a power pack & computer along with sensor devices onto my dog's back > and train him to respond to LEDs which are mounted on either side of his head > (turn toward the one that is lit) will this combination be considered a ROBOT? > What about if I do this with a rat or better yet a man or woman? Any opinions > would be much appreciated. > Check out Jeff's wearable computers page at
In article <33EBEC15.5...@mcs.net> ad...@mcs.net "Adam Pierce" writes: > If I mount a power pack & computer along with sensor devices onto my dog's back > and train him to respond to LEDs which are mounted on either side of his head > (turn toward the one that is lit) will this combination be considered a ROBOT? > What about if I do this with a rat or better yet a man or woman? Any opinions > would be much appreciated.
The correct term is CYBORG, the phylum, genus, species and sex (if any) of the donor wetware is immaterial. My suggestion would be any reasonably relaxed 5-9 year old Jack Russel for close-in work and a Lurcher bitch, for preference a ((Deerhound x Collie) x (Greyhound x Collie)) for the more distant stuff.
You might like to consider using a digital cell-phone with a modem emulator to wire the pooch; you could either hack the low-level touchtone stuff and go for keypad-based control or, it you're made of money, just buy the mutt an account with your ISP and Telnet into his/her cerebellum.
Do not, however, be tempted to get a RealVideo stream for your webpage and put Fido's POV on-line... The resulting rear-end close-ups of other dogs will almost certainly lead to a bad rep. with the prudes amongst the great un-wired, and their toadying so-called "Software Engineer" minions in the burgeoning censorship industry <Hack, Spit!>.
Ranting aside, I've lived with several dogs that could easily cope with this sort of thing, if it was dressed up as a game for them. Hmmmm...:)
-- Mark Ian Barlow Non-Linear Control Consultants Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark(at)nlcc()demon()co()uk Voice / Fax: +44 (0)1207 562 154
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please use in any direct reply.
No, it would not be a ROBOT, as robots are electromechanical. Anything combining biological with (electro)mechanicals is a CYBORG. You would have produced a cyborg dog. Other examples of cyborgs: pacemaker wearers, those who wear glasses or contacts, artificial limb wearers, or any other health prosthetics users. A few pioneer computer users are now wearing a computer full time with vr displays, cameras etc...
In article <19970810020901.WAA27...@ladder01.news.aol.com> dajoina...@aol.com "DaJoinator" writes:
> No, it would not be a ROBOT, as robots are electromechanical. Anything > combining biological with (electro)mechanicals is a CYBORG. You would > have produced a cyborg dog. Other examples of cyborgs: pacemaker > wearers, those who wear glasses or contacts, artificial limb wearers, or > any other health prosthetics users. A few pioneer computer users are now > wearing a computer full time with vr displays, cameras etc...
According to Mr. Neal Stephenson in his excellent novel "Snow Crash" the correct name for the sort of people you refer to is GARGOYLS.
-- Mark Ian Barlow Non-Linear Control Consultants Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------- M...@nlcc.demon.co.uk Voice / Fax: +44 (0)1207 562 154
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please use in any direct reply.
> No, it would not be a ROBOT, as robots are electromechanical. Anything > combining biological with (electro)mechanicals is a CYBORG. You would > have produced a cyborg dog. Other examples of cyborgs: pacemaker > wearers, those who wear glasses or contacts, artificial limb wearers, or > any other health prosthetics users. A few pioneer computer users are now > wearing a computer full time with vr displays, cameras etc...
So, then the people that are sent up into space by NASA are actually CYBORG's?
Very sincerely, Adam Pierce
-- O When I die, I'd like to go / | \ ___ ad...@mcs.com peacefully, in my sleep, O- O- O___o http://www.mcs.com/~adamp like my grandfather did. \ | / o Not screaming like the O o passengers in his car.
In article <871180530...@nlcc.demon.co.uk>, Mark Ian Barlow <M...@delete.this.nlcc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19970810020901.WAA27...@ladder01.news.aol.com> > dajoina...@aol.com "DaJoinator" writes: >> Anything >> combining biological with (electro)mechanicals is a CYBORG. You would >> have produced a cyborg dog.
>According to Mr. Neal Stephenson in his excellent novel "Snow Crash" the >correct name for the sort of people you refer to is GARGOYLS.
>-- Mark Ian Barlow Non-Linear Control Consultants Ltd.
Mark, although I'm not arguing with your quoting Mr. Stephenson, it just so happens that he is wrong. Martin Caidin wrote the book "Cyborg" in 1972, fully 20 years before Neal's effort in 1992. Moreover, the word "GARGOYLS" is obviously some affectation of "gargoyle" which means:
Gar"goyle (?), n. [OE. garguilie, gargouille, cf. Sp. g‡rgola, prob. fr. the same source as F. gorge throat, influenced by L. gargarizare to gargle. See Gorge and cf. Gargle, Gargarize.] (Arch.) A spout projecting from the roof gutter of a building, often carved grotesquely. [Written also gargle, gargyle, and gurgoyle.]
Thus Mr. Stephenson's creatures are either roof gutter spouts or beings who gargle a lot. On the other hand, Mr. Caidin's term is explained quite early in his book as meaning "cybernetic organism", and given that "cybernetics" has wandered somewhat since it was coined by Dr. Norbert Weiner it is easy enough to understand as "a machine assisted organic being."
In conclusion: just because you follow a vastly popular current _fad_ doesn't mean that its terminology is definitive.
>> No, it would not be a ROBOT, as robots are electromechanical. Anything >> combining biological with (electro)mechanicals is a CYBORG. You would >> have produced a cyborg dog. Other examples of cyborgs: pacemaker >> wearers, those who wear glasses or contacts, artificial limb wearers, or >> any other health prosthetics users. A few pioneer computer users are now >> wearing a computer full time with vr displays, cameras etc...
>According to Mr. Neal Stephenson in his excellent novel "Snow Crash" the >correct name for the sort of people you refer to is GARGOYLS. >-- Mark Ian Barlow Non-Linear Control Consultants Ltd. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > M...@nlcc.demon.co.uk Voice / Fax: +44 (0)1207 562 154
------------------------------------------------- WHY is it that I doubt the authoritativeness of some schlock novelist who makes up a term for what we already know are cyborgs or some other more technical name, rather than something off a cathedral parapet for stupid emotional effect!! Gawd, I can almost see another "Frankenstein"-ish assinine story brewing!! That's the VERY LAST thing robotics needs now are more idiots, who have read a book or seen a TV show and think they know that robots are DANGEROUS, in our fucking voting booths!! Ditch authors who can't write reasonable premises and jargon!! I admit to not having read this novel, but the terminology is a prima facie turn-off!! -Steve -- -Steve Walz rste...@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew -Electronics Site!! 1000 Files/50 Dirs!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew Europe:(Italy) ftp://ftp.cised.unina.it:/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com Oz:.AU ftp://ftp.peninsula.apana.org.au:/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com
In article <5snmk9$...@reddragon.empire.net> zozz...@Empire.Net "zozzles" writes: > In article <871180530...@nlcc.demon.co.uk>, > Mark Ian Barlow <M...@delete.this.nlcc.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >In article <19970810020901.WAA27...@ladder01.news.aol.com> > > dajoina...@aol.com "DaJoinator" writes: > >> Anything > >> combining biological with (electro)mechanicals is a CYBORG. You would > >> have produced a cyborg dog.
> >According to Mr. Neal Stephenson in his excellent novel "Snow Crash" the > >correct name for the sort of people you refer to is GARGOYLS.
> >-- Mark Ian Barlow Non-Linear Control Consultants Ltd.
> Mark, although I'm not arguing with your quoting Mr. Stephenson, it > just so happens that he is wrong. Martin Caidin wrote the book > "Cyborg" in 1972, fully 20 years before Neal's effort in 1992. > Moreover, the word "GARGOYLS" is obviously some affectation of > "gargoyle" which means: <snip> > In conclusion: just because you follow a vastly popular current _fad_ > doesn't mean that its terminology is definitive.
I wasn't proposing GARGOYL (or it might have been "gargoyle", I lent my copy of the book out a couple of years ago and never got it back) as a definitive replacement for CYBORG (which I agree pre-dates it) merely offering it as an amusing bit of future-historical slang:
The book was written before the advent of wearable computers, readily available VR and HTML/VRML &c. Reading between the lines the term implied that cyborgs were difficult to have a conversation with; being inclined to freeze up mid-sentance, then gush a flood of marginally-relevant data you didn't know you needed into your ear.
The waterspout definition was the one being alluded to, I suppose, but this isn't really much to do with robotics so I'll shut up.
-- Mark Ian Barlow Non-Linear Control Consultants Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark(at)nlcc()demon()co()uk Voice / Fax: +44 (0)1207 562 154
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please use in any direct reply.
In article <5sph4k$...@news.scruz.net> rste...@armory.com "Richard Steven Walz" writes:
<snip...>
> emotional effect!! Gawd, I can almost see another "Frankenstein"-ish > assinine story brewing!! That's the VERY LAST thing robotics needs now are > more idiots, who have read a book or seen a TV show and think they know that > robots are DANGEROUS, in our fucking voting booths!! Ditch authors who > can't write reasonable premises and jargon!! I admit to not having read > this novel, but the terminology is a prima facie turn-off!!
a) The book ain't *that* bad; you might like it. Check the "first published" date before judging the technology it predicts. (see also "CyberDog was: ROBODOG" thread below) I don't know about "reasonable premises" though, I occasionally like to read stuff with distinctly un-reasonable ones (just for fun).
b) Robots *are* dangerous, because people are stupid. Why do most PUMAs have a safety exclusion cage / mechanical lockout / light-curtain? Why do people who program safety-critical real-time systems (like me) have this recurring mightmare where they get chased by a posse of US class-action lawyers with their sharp-suit pants legs a'flapping? Azimov's first law? just show me how to implement it *please*...
N.B: if you really *can* show me how to implement it, please sign and date three copies (preferrably in blood) and add an affidavit offering your grandmother as collateral.
-- Mark Ian Barlow Non-Linear Control Consultants Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark(at)nlcc()demon()co()uk Voice / Fax: +44 (0)1207 562 154
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Please use in any direct reply.
> WHY is it that I doubt the authoritativeness of some schlock novelist
Neal Stephenson is hardly a 'schlock' novelist, as you call him -- the novelist (who's name I have spaced) that coined 'cyborg' was quite poor; Neal Stephenson is one of the rare breed of SF authors whose novels have achieved mainstream critical acclaim.
> who makes up a term for what we already know are cyborgs or some other more > technical name, rather than something off a cathedral parapet for stupid > emotional effect!! Gawd, I can almost see another "Frankenstein"-ish
Actually, it's a really good name, IMNSHO, and I don't think you need to choose one or the other. Cyborgs are those who are heavy on mechanical improvements; Gargoyls are those who have a lot of cosmetic implants.
> assinine story brewing!! That's the VERY LAST thing robotics needs now are > more idiots, who have read a book or seen a TV show and think they know that > robots are DANGEROUS, in our fucking voting booths!! Ditch authors who > can't write reasonable premises and jargon!! I admit to not having read > this novel, but the terminology is a prima facie turn-off!!
There weren't any humanoid robots in SNOW CRASH (which I have read, and must recomend on its merits as a story, as well as some really cool technical imaginings). There were officially called cyborgs. According to the story, IIRC, gargoyls was a street term, not a technical one. Learn the difference.
On this line of thought, does anyone know of terms which distinguish between cyborgs that can be seperated from their mechanical components (ex. people wearing glasses or wearable computers), cyborgs whose biological and mechanical components are so interconnected that the destruction of one renders the other inert (ex. people with pacemakers or Star Trek Borg), and cyborgs which specifically involve apparent intelligence amplification through the use of computers (Borg or the wearable computer wearer).
I am really getting sick of trying to talk about the second or third type of cyborg and having some guy with glasses ruin all the debate by calling himself a cyborg (although I acknowledge his right to the claim as a reasonable definition <- FLAME RETARDANT).
Also, does anyone know where a more suitable forum for this discussion is? If there isn't one, it might be time to propose a "comp.cyborg" for this type of talk, after all some Japanese researchers have managed to control cockroaches with implants! The time has come for serious open discussion of the technical issues associated with this type of work.
Of course if (anything other than alt).cyborg already exists, please feel free to refer to me as "JoJo the idiot circus boy" in your reply.
Darrell "Hopefully not JoJo" Johnson (drop *SPAMBEGONE* to reply) This shouldn't reflect in any way on my employer (even their hiring policies, I'm an intern).
>> WHY is it that I doubt the authoritativeness of some schlock novelist
> Neal Stephenson is hardly a 'schlock' novelist, as you call him -- >the novelist (who's name I have spaced) that coined 'cyborg' was quite >poor; Neal Stephenson is one of the rare breed of SF authors whose novels >have achieved mainstream critical acclaim.
>> who makes up a term for what we already know are cyborgs or some other more >> technical name, rather than something off a cathedral parapet for stupid >> emotional effect!! Gawd, I can almost see another "Frankenstein"-ish
> Actually, it's a really good name, IMNSHO, and I don't think you >need to choose one or the other. Cyborgs are those who are heavy on >mechanical improvements; Gargoyls are those who have a lot of cosmetic >implants.
>> assinine story brewing!! That's the VERY LAST thing robotics needs now are >> more idiots, who have read a book or seen a TV show and think they know that >> robots are DANGEROUS, in our fucking voting booths!! Ditch authors who >> can't write reasonable premises and jargon!! I admit to not having read >> this novel, but the terminology is a prima facie turn-off!!
> There weren't any humanoid robots in SNOW CRASH (which I have >read, and must recomend on its merits as a story, as well as some really >cool technical imaginings). There were officially called cyborgs. >According to the story, IIRC, gargoyls was a street term, not a technical >one. Learn the difference.
