ROBODOG
Adam Pierce
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.
Art G. Granzeier III
Adam Pierce wrote:
>
> 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.
http://www.devrycols.edu/ieee/jeffpage.htm, while not exactly what you were
talking about, these are similar.
I like the idea of robots being man's servant, not the other way around.
Art (gr...@geocities.com)
Mark Ian Barlow
> 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.
DaJoinator
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...
Mark Ian Barlow
In article <19970810020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
dajoi...@aol.com "DaJoinator" writes:
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ma...@nlcc.demon.co.uk Voice / Fax: +44 (0)1207 562 154
Adam Pierce
DaJoinator wrote:
>
> 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,
zozzles
In article <871180...@nlcc.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Ian Barlow <Ma...@delete.this.nlcc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19970810020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> dajoi...@aol.com "DaJoinator" writes:
>> combining biological with (electro)mechanicals is a CYBORG. You would
>> have produced a cyborg dog.
>
>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噐gola, 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.
Zoz
Richard Steven Walz
In article <871180...@nlcc.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Ian Barlow <Ma...@delete.this.nlcc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19970810020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> dajoi...@aol.com "DaJoinator" writes:
>
>> combining biological with (electro)mechanicals is a CYBORG. You would
>> 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...
>
>correct name for the sort of people you refer to is GARGOYLS.
>-- Mark Ian Barlow Non-Linear Control Consultants Ltd.
> Ma...@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 rst...@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
Mark Ian Barlow
In article <5snmk9$u...@reddragon.empire.net> zoz...@Empire.Net "zozzles" writes:
> In article <871180...@nlcc.demon.co.uk>,
> Mark Ian Barlow <Ma...@delete.this.nlcc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <19970810020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> > dajoi...@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.
Mark Ian Barlow
In article <5sph4k$1...@news.scruz.net>
rst...@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.
Pierce Nichols
On 12 Aug 1997, Richard Steven Walz wrote:
> 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.
Pierce Nichols
DaJoinator
jeez, looks like I started something with my semantics...
Darrell Johnson
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).
Richard Steven Walz
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95L.97081...@labdien.cc.columbia.edu>,
I will have to take your word for now. But it sounds like a poorly picked
bit of PSEUDO-"early adaptor" nomenclature that turned me off to yet one
more all too likely sounding baste and broil of a computerific horror movie
on punk skids!! Sort of like the Borg do NY. Or more stuff to make people
more xenophobic than they already are about implants! I WANNA be a 'bot
when *I* grow up!! I don't know about you all!