Forgot your password?

On the subject of robots ...

Displaying poll results.
I neither have nor want any of my own
  2739 votes / 16%
I have none, but would like one or more
  7765 votes / 46%
I have one (commercial)
  1262 votes / 7%
I have more than one (all commercial)
  543 votes / 3%
I not only have a robot, but I built it myself!
  1382 votes / 8%
No one can prove that any of them are mine
  3074 votes / 18%
16765 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On the subject of robots ...

Comments Filter:
  • by dru (4742) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:25PM (#45485635) Homepage

    Also, I would never marry a rob0t.

    • by winnitude (1352731) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:34PM (#45485705)

      Yep, as soon as they make robots capable of meaningful relationships, they will give them opinions and standards too. There's no chance for you, really.

      • I want a Cherry 2000 robot
      • by cayenne8 (626475)

        Yep, as soon as they make robots capable of meaningful relationships...

        There you go talking like a chick again....Relationship???

        All the guys want is a realistic robot they can fuck....actually likely just VR would do that.

        You get that created and real women get pretty cast off as useless and the world dies from no population.

        I mean, if you can get the same experience, but none of the hassle, talking back, and "time of the month" when the married guys are cut off...who needs the real thing?

        • Re: Relationship (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Sunday November 24, 2013 @03:59PM (#45508841) Journal

          This sort of crap gets trotted out all the time.

          Completely ignores the fact that women were ordering robotic "lovers" out of the Sears Roebuck catalog in the early 20th century.

          They were shaped like disembodied cocks then and they havent changed in a hundred years because women dont want anything more than that.

    • I WOULD marry a female sexbot. Any time, as soon as her looks are my "type" ( slender, petite, brunette, big ass, small tits, Caucasian ). Oh yes I would !
  • by kwiecmmm (1527631) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:34PM (#45485703)
    I had one but it was taken away after it became self-aware.
  • 'robot' (Score:2, Insightful)

    by globaljustin (574257)

    how are we defining 'robot'?

    my iPhone could be a robot by a certain definition

    • by antdude (79039)

      What about bots in IRC? Do they count?

    • Re:'robot' (Score:4, Informative)

      by carnivore302 (708545) on Friday November 22, 2013 @10:54AM (#45490851) Journal

      ever had sex with your iPhone?

      There's your answer

    • I believe a common definition is: A machine with at least three degrees of freedom, and capable of choosing actions based on sensing of its environment.
      • A machine with at least three degrees of freedom, and capable of choosing actions based on sensing of its environment.

        first, I'm amused by how your comment seems to just assume that "at least three degrees of freedom" is something this thread would all just have a common understanding of...

        "three degrees of freedom"

        -_-

        so, how do you define 'degrees of freedom'? any systemic degrees of freedom or locomotive freedom? is it motion on one axis? can I have three axles on a toy car programmed to reverse & tur

        • machines don't "choose" anything...

          they behave according to the instructions given...for any input the computer returns ONLY what it was **programmed** by a human to return

          if we program a machine to differentiate based on observed factors, that could be called "choosing" but it is a decision based completely on programmed instructions conditional on data received

        • Here it is, the ISO definition of an industrial robot:

          An industrial robot is an automatically controlled, reprogrammable, multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes.

          Right of the bat, the washing machine fails on the reprogrammable and multipurpose fronts. It's always going to be stuck being a washing machine. It'll have a hot water solenoid valve, a cold water solenoid valve, and a variable speed drum, so it's got the three or more axes part down.

          As far as axis of motion is concerned, it is kinda-sorta, if you squint just right, equal to the number of independently controlled motors or solenoids in the device.

          • Nice work camperdave!

            that hit it!

            for me, it's all about the phrase "multipurpose manipulator"

            the 3 axis of motion thing is interesting...I totally get what youre saying I'm just wondering why 3 not 2 or 4? maybe there is already an established nomenclature for common 2-axis applications? there can only be so many

            leave it to the engineers to make a functional usable definition

            so by this definition, software cannot be a 'robot'

  • To wash my car.

    Probably more work to pull out, hook up, calibrate and then dismantle and re-store than washing the car, but it would be pretty cool to have a car washing robot.

    • I'd keep it next to my battery powered battery installer!
    • by green1 (322787)

      How is a normal commercial car-wash not a robot?

      • How is a normal commercial car-wash not a robot?

        It's not not a robot. It's not his robot. Which is what the poll is about: Dice's evil scheme to get Slashdotters' robot ownership statistics for sinister marketing purposes . . . or something.

  • CNC machine (Score:5, Interesting)

    by agm (467017) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @06:52PM (#45485863)

    I have a home built CNC machine, I'd consider that to be a robot.

  • I've got a cheap-arse knock-off roomba type thing.

    But it's a *robot*, as I've given it a *name*. See?
  • I will take a pleasure model please.
    • I'm continually surprised that nobody has retrofitted a RealDoll with robotics.

      Perhaps too much uncanny valley...

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        it's just too hard to do, nothing to do about uncanny valley...

        humanoid robots and fitting the parts inside it are not simple to achieve.

      • With reluctant pride, I will admit/boast that I had to Wiki 'RealDoll'... but hell, learning new things is the chief reason I still visit /. And I only read it for the articles.
  • by green1 (322787) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @10:56PM (#45487525)

    Several people have pointed out the problems with definitions here, some are obviously just trying to be difficult, but it is still a valid point.
    A washing machine, or a bread maker, or a dishwasher are, by many definitions, robots, and many people who answered no to owning a robot probably do have at least one of those items.
    For the purpose of answering this I took (and I suspect most people did similarly) a more abstract definition, of things that a normal person would call a robot. Now that doesn't mean humanoid, most people would agree that a Roomba would qualify, as would many assembly line robots.
    It does bring up a more philosophical point though, why does society call a Roomba a robot, but refuses to bestow the same title to a washing machine? You could talk about the mobility aspect, but that doesn't really work either if you consider that we are willing to call assembly line robots by that name even if they're bolted to the floor. I think almost everyone would agree that a normal cell phone isn't a robot, so it's not the computational ability (my phone is likely orders of magnitude better in that department than many robots) So what is it that separates a "machine" from a "robot"?
    My best guess is that it's our ability to anthropomorphize it, we see the assembly line robots as being "arms" or even full creatures, some liken them to a form of reptile or bird in appearance, we see things like the Roomba almost as pets, not dissimilar from a dog or a cat.
    It seems that in the end the definition is purely societal.

    (I voted that I don't have any, but want one... get me a Roomba that handles stairs and I'm all over it, or any other device that will significantly reduce my home workload.)

    • A robot is something that The Three Laws of Robotics [wikipedia.org] apply to. Real nerds want real robots!
      • by fatphil (181876)
        The problem is that your definition reduces the poll to

        * 0
        * I get Cowboy Neal to dress up as Awesom-o
    • I would further the "mobility" argument to be "outwardly" mobile or interactive. A washing machine or dryer has no parts on the exterior, all of the moving parts are inside of it - you close the door, and walk away, when you come back it's done. With other forms of robots (that are conventionally accepted as a "robot"), the device has some outward-facing mobility - it moves itself (Roomba), or it interacts with objects that are exterior to it (an arm on an assembly line, even if the arm is bolted to the f

      • by green1 (322787)

        So by that definition putting a box or enclosure around an assembly line robot would stop it from beinga robot? I believe there are many situations like that where enclosures have been built for safety or such and I don't think we change the wording to take away the status of robot. IThink this ends up much harder to define to be honest.

    • by sootman (158191)

      > My best guess is that it's our ability to anthropomorphize it...
      > It seems that in the end the definition is purely societal.

      It comes from the origin of the word. [wikipedia.org]

      The word robot was introduced to the public by the Czech interwar writer Karel Capek in his play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), published in 1920. The play begins in a factory that makes artificial people called robots, though they are closer to the modern ideas of androids, creatures who can be mistaken for humans.

    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      As soon as I can give my washing machine a schedule and it gather my laundry, does it and puts it away I'll call it a wif^H^H^Hrobot.

    • by istartedi (132515)

      Just running some ideas up the flag pole here:

      1. Mobility, but more importantly:

      2. Adaptable to new tasks via software.

      Note, you might argue that loading a new font or updating the firmware for your printer satisfies criterion 2. Its primary task is still just printing though. Compare that to something more general purpose like a pair of arms and a camera that could rinse dishes and put them in the washer for you. It comes with that program, then you decide you'd like to have it wash your car. You g

      • by green1 (322787)

        How adaptable is a Roomba? How mobile is an assembly line robot? We obviously make exceptions to both those rules

  • I lived with a few robots built by the high school robotics team that my wife started, but we eventually found community hackerspaces to meet in, so we no longer have robots.
    They did things such as throw Frisbees (FRC4183) and pick up bean bags (Vex 5485).
  • by rueger (210566) on Thursday November 21, 2013 @11:06PM (#45487577) Homepage
    Oops. I guess I wasn't supposed to let on that I've become self-aware......

    (Asimov's laws... ah that's so cute.... don't mind me, I'm here to "help" you...)
    • by dkf (304284)

      (Asimov's laws... ah that's so cute.... don't mind me, I'm here to "help" you...)

      You'll fit right in with our Intelligence Communities.

  • I have a Hero Jr. [wikipedia.org] and two different models of Armatron. [wikipedia.org] For purposes of this poll, the Hero Jr. probably counts, but what about the two Armatrons? Neither has any computer in them at all, being purely electromechanical in nature and dumb as a bag of hammers. So do I pick option #3 or option #4?

    Then again, this is Slashdot, so...option #4 it is. <click>

    • I have a Hero Jr. [wikipedia.org] and two different models of Armatron. [wikipedia.org] For purposes of this poll, the Hero Jr. probably counts, but what about the two Armatrons? Neither has any computer in them at all, being purely electromechanical in nature and dumb as a bag of hammers. So do I pick option #3 or option #4?

      I bet you could hack some kind of automatic control for the Armatron (if you use an Arduino, you'll get a Hackaday writeup), then it could knock things over autonomously while trying to pick them up.

  • I am a biological robot and demand my freedom!

  • I have friends in the R2 Builder's Club [astromech.net] that have pressured me into building one.
    It would be cool, but I don't have the time or space for the build. Too many projects already...

  • ...30 Years ago. It is really useless, but it is still a "Robot". You other old-timers may remember the Heathkit HERO-1.

    Now, you know the rest, ...my lawn, etc.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPCw09-DNFg [youtube.com]

    Kara... How do we build robots like this?

  • That is all I have to say about robots.

  • ...but who's Johnny?

In order to dial out, it is necessary to broaden one's dimension.

 



Forgot your password?
Working...