Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!uunet!spool.mu.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!mwtilden
From: mwtilden@math.uwaterloo.ca (Mark W. Tilden)
Subject: Re: "That's not robotics; that's toy building"
Message-ID: <CBI6x2.FAH@math.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@math.uwaterloo.ca (News Owner)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <CBHzGn.DI6@cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 17:51:01 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <CBHzGn.DI6@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) writes:

>I think the problem here merely vocabulary. Does the field of robotics
>have good phrases that distinish between robotics research and robot
>building/customization?

Well, no.  The field is generally broken up into *-robotics compounds
where * is a delimiter representing whatever field you happen to be
working in (* = industrial, medical, behavioral, environmental, etc).
There is a definite description shortage in the field.  The only words
that stick are alas ones invented by the hollywood mindsets (nanite,
droid, bot, replicant, cyborg, android, etc) which, despite their
appeal, are completely orthogonal to the science.  Point being, it's
easy to write a robot script, the bugger is making it a reality.

I think it won't be until people start seeing viable machines in their
homes that new destinctions will be possible.  Until then, the
ever-more inaccurately called "robot" (checkoslovokian for "worker")
will predominate.

Is all.

-- 
Mark W. Tilden.  "Gomi no Sensei des"       _    _    ________________________
MFCF, Un. of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.    / \  / \  /________________________)
519/885-1211 <mwtilden@math.uwaterloo.ca> //\ \//\ \// ___o___________________
#include (standard.disclaimer);          //  \_/  \_/ (_______________________)
