Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!nic.scruz.net!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: consumer robotics
Cc: cmcmanis@sun.com
Organization: The Armory
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 12:19:40 GMT
Message-ID: <D0JM8v.7x5@armory.com>
References: <3bvfq4$ecm@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <D0FBI4.7vG@armory.com> <3c4ai9$cd5@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <3c5ghl$50k@handler.eng.sun.com>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 72

In article <3c5ghl$50k@handler.eng.sun.com>,
Chuck McManis <cmcmanis@Sun.COM> wrote:
>[the previous response contains text from me, Kent Gibbs, and apparently
> Steve Walz (my news reader filters out Steve's messages so I can't be
> sure who wrote what.)]
>
--------------
Your loss! See what happens when you pull out your eyes!
-Steve

>I believe Kent Gibbs (kmgibbs@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: 	I'm well aware of the limitations that reprogrammable devices 
>: (robots) have. I guess my definition of a 'robot' is a little stricter 
>: than yours.
>
>Not sure who the 'yours' is here, could be me, could be Steve :-)
>
>: If I understand what you are saying, then a potted plant 
>: could be loosely termed a robot.  It has sensors to detect the position 
>: of light and is capable of moving itself into a position where it 
>: recieves the maximum amount of light available, and it performs useful 
>: work (converting CO2 into O2).
>
>Which misses out on my definition at least which is that a robot is
>also programmable. My plants at least are not programmable beyond
>agressive trimming..
--------------------------------
I suppose then that you haven't heard of selection and hybridization and
now gene-engineering! Some build from scratch, some use what's crawling
around already! The Hopi had programmed maize to grow kernels of specific
colors in patterns, for sending messages and for ceremonial purposes! And
without gene-manipulation directly!
-Steve

>: 	In the orginal post, I was referring to 'higher' level robots 
>: capable of performing more than one task. Your dishwashing 'robot' may 
>: wash the dishes in a variety of different ways, but it still just washes 
>: dishes.
>
>This begs the question, is a welding robot on the production line a robot
>by the Kent Gibbs definition? It only does one thing, weld. Would a 
>dishwasher meet your definition if you placed dishes in random orientations
>in front of it and it used an end effector to pick them up, place them
>in a washing unit, and then remove them and stack them in a 'finish' zone?
>It still only washes dishes, only now it has an appendage which makes it
>so expensive that no consumer would ever buy it.
>
>In case you missed it the first time, that last bit is the point. Robots
>are mechanisms, they are built to accomplish some set of tasks without
>human intervention. That set can be apparently large (assemble 10 
>different models of Macintosh) or small (wash dishes). It costs a
>certain amount of money to produce a robot, it costs a certain amount
>of money* to have a human accomplish a task. All things being equal,
>when the cost of the robot is less than the cost of the human, the robot 
>appears.  As long as domestic help is less expensive than robots, robots
>won't appear in the home. QED.
----------------
Agreed.
-Steve

>* in this case we assume that there exists two functions f() and g() such
>  that money = f(time), time = g(money), and money/f(g(money)) == 1. All 
>  calculations are in terms of money for this discussion. 
>
>--
>--Chuck McManis		     All opinions in this message/article are
>Sun Microsystems Inc.                those of the author, who may or may not
>Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.sun.COM       be who you think it is.
>Crypto-puzzle: *0U0JPFPrWRN9PkWRKeP5WRmIR9wP5QAWuIQP9Pu9tnIZ7AD1SIS
-------------------
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

