<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>robots.net blog for NeonElf</title>
    <link>http://robots.net/person/NeonElf/</link>
    <description>robots.net blog for NeonElf</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <generator>mod_virgule</generator>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:57:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2005 19:03:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>24 May 2005</title>
      <link>http://robots.net/person/NeonElf/diary.html?start=2</link>
      <guid>http://robots.net/person/NeonElf/diary.html?start=2</guid>
      <description>What do you think: is a &lt;a
href="http://www.rccaraction.com/"&gt;R/C car&lt;/a&gt; a robot? It
moves, however I think many people would say it is not a
robot. What then are the &lt;a
href="http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/"&gt;mars robot
explorers&lt;/a&gt; other then glorified R/C cars with cameras,
other attachments, and a longer range radio signal?  Perhaps
it's the recreation aspect?  However, the robots
competing in &lt;a href="http://www.battlebots.com/" &gt;battle
bots&lt;/a&gt; were for entertainment, as well as being remote
controlled, but they qualify as robots (don't they?). So it
is not the remote control aspect either.  Maybe we should
start at the other end of the spectrum.

&lt;p&gt; A fully humanoid automated mechanical being would obviously
be considered a robot (ie: &lt;a
href="http://www.starwars.com/databank/droid/c3po/"&gt;C3P0&lt;/a&gt;
from &lt;a href="http://www.starwars.com/" &gt; Star Wars&lt;/a&gt;).
Today industrial robots are  most commonly the robotic arms
that weld, rivet, and otherwise work on mass production
assembly lines.  That common definition is not what most
roboticists think of when someone says robot. I think we can
be safe in saying that robot must contain some kind of
electrial components (yes mechanical ones might exist but I
doubt they'd hit the level of robot-hood, more likely they
are automaton). What else, must a computer contain to be a
robot?

&lt;p&gt; How about a large &lt;a
href=&lt;http://www.pasternackstruevalue.com/40dancingsanta.html&gt;
Dancing Santa &lt;/a&gt;, is that a Santa robot?  I think sensors
are another important component to robots.  These dancing
Santas wouldn't qualify because they merely have an on/off
switch.  Before you ask: NO! Dancing sunflowers don't count
just because they perceive sound.  Let's modify that
definition to include sensors to perceive with AND some sort
of complex processing of that input.  That eliminates remote
controlled robots.

&lt;p&gt; But are those remote controlled robots really robots in the
strictest sense? I don't believe so. I'd have to say they
were remote controlled devices. And the debate continues&#x2026;&#x2026;

&lt;p&gt; Current definition of Robot:
Moves, has electrical parts, has sensors and processes the
input received from those sensors.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2005 21:36:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>23 May 2005</title>
      <link>http://robots.net/person/NeonElf/diary.html?start=1</link>
      <guid>http://robots.net/person/NeonElf/diary.html?start=1</guid>
      <description>So, here's the deep thought of the day:  How can we build a
simple system that losses it's determancy and enters the
realm of chaos?  It seems to me that genetics is one of
those systems.  It appears simple, perhaps I don't
understand it well enough to make the statement, but DNA is
the map, chemicals and protiens control cellular growth and
development. I dunno, I guess it's not that simple a system.
What I mean is how do we build a system with simple RULES
that creates complexity: the phenomenon know as "&lt;a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence"&gt;emergence.&lt;/a&gt;"
I'd like to create a sysem like that sometime.

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;I was reading something on molecular biology about
how DNA creates protiens and the protiens can attach back to
the DNA and inhibit the creation of other protiens.  Got me
thinking about self modifing systems.  

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt; .... hrm ... what's my point you're wondering.  This is
a journal I don't have a point.  </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2005 20:30:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>16 May 2005</title>
      <link>http://robots.net/person/NeonElf/diary.html?start=0</link>
      <guid>http://robots.net/person/NeonElf/diary.html?start=0</guid>
      <description>Robot is such a broad term.  I ponder the definition.  The
first definition in a &lt;a
href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&amp;q=robot"&gt;dictionary&lt;/a&gt;
states robots "sometimes resemble a human" although the
second definition does not.  The third entry actually refers
to a type of person!   I agree that it's hard to nail down
but perhaps we should try and hack out some new terms.  

&lt;p&gt; I have a strong belief that robots must be capable of some
kind of motion. A robotic assembly arm at a manufacturing
plant, though it can not change it's origin, it is capable
of swinging it's hand to and fro and arriving at some point
specified.  To me a "robot" that doesn't move is a computer,
or if simple enough a sensor.

&lt;p&gt; I submit for thought:  &lt;a
href="/robomenu/1111097288.html"&gt;SAR (Sound Activated
Robot)&lt;/a&gt;*.  At first I thought this didn't qualify as a
robot, but when I looked up the definition, I realized it is
so lax that it technically does. But then by that definition
so could a computer. This lead me to question the difference
between a computer and robot.

&lt;p&gt; We all know what computers are (I hope) although the lines
are blurring there as well. Computers, and PDAs (ex: palm
pilot), cell phones with operating systems.  But what's the
difference between a computer that controls a factory
machine (let's say a cookie making factory that has a
computer controlled conveyor and stamping system), and a robot?

&lt;p&gt; I guess this is an old discussion, much like what qualifies
as life but there must be something more definitive people
can agree on. More definitive than a definition that
includes the word "sometimes", anyway. 

&lt;p&gt; I sincerely believe that mobility is at least one major
point of defining a robot. I'll have to think some more on
it to decide what else differentiates a robot from a computer.

&lt;p&gt; -
* Please &lt;a href="http://robots.net/person/Botnerd/" &gt;Steven
Frye&lt;/a&gt; don't be offended. I know that is probably the
begining of a robot but I just use it as an example. No harm
intended. I have to laugh anyway becuase it's more than I've
ever made!
</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
