I have replaced the definition of Robot, with something, I believe, covers the machines we call robots. It's not a sharp definition, in the same way that robot is not a sharply definable word. The definition looks a little cleaner now too. Rocketmagnet 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The demining link is only to a particular company and could be considered an advertisement. Another link, which has a more detailed comparison and study of the issue is http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/ .
I would like to ADD this link (not just delete the other one). To contact me, please e-mail robotworks (at) gmail
130.95.52.218 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The link to the IEEE-RAS (IEEE Robotics and Automation Society) page has changed to http://www.ieee-ras.org. Can somebody change that? Ovz 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just trying to clean up the links on the AI page, moved the podcast one here, should have asked first to see if you wanted it, sorry... will leave it now to see what you think. bugone
Bruyninckx, Herman, De Schutter, Joris. Introduction to Intelligent Robotics - This source does not seem to be a real book. Both authors listed have publication lists at their personal sites and they do not mention this as a book or article that they have written. I think its a false source.
well this article appears to be being maintenenced right now with vandalism present so whenever this is unlocked, can someone please revert and yell at the vandal on his talk page... it was the second latest change. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a tough job. Imagine a human who receives suggestions, information or orders from an external source. Is he an autonomous being or a remotely controlled being ?
In my own private thinking, a robot is any machine which can make independent decisions for on-going or future actions based on its own sensors and based on information from external sources, if available -- decisions which are NOT already programmed, although segments of the resulting actions may be, as in human reflex actions.
All other machines, including those now often spoken of (hyped) as robots, are simply remote controlled and/or pre-programmed devices -- One clear example is probably the existing surgery machines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.188.43 ( talk) 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I just want to know why people have the opinion they do. Where do people's definitions of robot come from? I believe that the article should acknowledge that there are many opinions about this, and try to explain the pattern of which machines tend to get called robot, and which don't. Rocketmagnet 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Since we are talking here about definitions of robots, I added this page as a reference from the main article (currently ref number 6). I don't know if that's really allowed though, because this might count as original research. Anyone know? Rocketmagnet 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I nominate WowWee Robotics for getting a link in the external links section. In fact, there seems to be a shortage of discussion on robotic toys in this entry. Perhaps a section could be added to Robot on that topic. Thoughts?
Rocketmagnet 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Why not write some more? Rocketmagnet 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a relatively light hearted look at recent developments in anthropomorphic droids.
http://www.vaasapages.com/RobotsAndroids.htm
-- Malcolm Pemberton 07:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest include in the external links : http://robots.wikia.com -- Altermike 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) give me some amo was one of the most well used sayings my automaton said writen by rosie
Actually, I am wondering if it would be a better idea to make a whole separate page on robotics as User:ThurnerRupert tried to do. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 13:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to see this page a good article. I took the reason it failed the first time from the archives and put it back up at the top. I hope to be doing more work on it soon. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
These are some things I think should be done before the article is re-nominated. Let's not just do the minimum.
Is it possible for robots to be sabotaged? Is it possible for robots not to be able to be sabotaged?
I'm doing research for robotoid and am trying to track down the word's origin. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - Eep² 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed "a typical robot must have several, but not all of the following properties" to "a typical robot will have several, though not necessarily all of the following properties", as in its original form this sentence could (in theory) be taken to mean that if a machine did have all of the following properties, then it couldn't be called a robot. It's clear enough from the context, but I just thought it might be worth removing the ambiguity. --Dependent Variable.
I'm working on a whole new Current Developments section. As with the changes to the Contemporary Uses section, I'm trying to give it a lot of structure, headings etc. I want to try to give a good coverage of everything that's the state of the art, and the cutting edge of robotics. It could end up pretty long, but it's the 'meat' of the article. If anyone wants to contribute, please do. You can find the work in progress here. Rocketmagnet 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Robot&diff=134072317&oldid=133916362
“ Juanelo Turriano made a wooden humanoid robot in the late XVI century that was called "El Hombre de Palo".”
El Hombre de Palo translates to The Man of Stick. Has anyone heard of this guy or this robot? It seems to be vandalism to me so I am removing it for now. NightFalcon90909 Talk 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The first line read:
Robot is a mechanical or virtual, artificial agent designed for total world domination and annihilation of the human race.
I undid this edit because I don't think this is true. The article is full of examples of robots that aren't designed for world domination- in fact, I don't know of any real robots that are. If this really supposed to be true, please explain! Tcturner2002 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Added another major chunk of article, replacing Current Developments, which I think was a bit of a mess. There's a lot more to come. The work in progess is on my talk page. Please feel free to contribute to it, and to edit the new stuff I posted. Rocketmagnet 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This article still needs lots more material. Specifically, does anyone have anything to add on the subjects:
I think that the following sections could also use a re-write:
Anyone interested in taking on one of these sections? - Rocketmagnet 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to think we should have a separate page for robotics (the study of robots) and robots, but I would say currently the robotics page is way behind the robots page. In particular, the robotics page has no references, whereas if it were really reflecting scientific or engineering disciplines it should have more references than robots. It may be that it is not really sustainable to separate the concepts. I've put up the "merge into"/"merge from" tags to see what others think.-- Jaibe 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has a nice section about bipedal robots, but nothing about multi-legged robots.
Please go easy on robotics. I am a robotics professional and have been making robots for 25 years (yes really) and there isn't much I don't know. The problem is that robotics is an umbrella term and information on robotics nearly always falls into the categories of robots, industrial robots or robot software. That's why you won't easily find references. Robotics1 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I see the tag for the merge has been removed by Disavian. I wrote to him: You say both editors agree no merge is possible. However I think the original person who suggested a merge had a good point. Robotics is the 'science' of robots and includes robots, industrial robots, mobile robots, robot software etc. Therefore it could easily assimilate all the other articles, merged into it. The task is to cleanly refer to specific issues by linking to them. The section on 'structure' is not really about robotics but is about the design considerations for robots. You will find a section in robot called 'Robotics' and the content is almost the same as the content of this section. Therefore a link to 'robot' from robotics might be worth considering. OR - remove the Robotics section in robot to the robotics article.
What follows is even worse: Common Uses of Robotics is not common uses of robotics at all but is common uses of robots - moreover common uses of Industrial Robots. The content of all these last sections could easily be distributed between robot and Industrial Robot.
The article on robot is excellent but the article on robotics is weak and for a very good reason. There is, as yet no really good definition of the term 'robotics'. Robotics1 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. There should definitely be two separate articles. But we need to think about what belongs in what article. For example the (as you say) very long article on robots contains a section called 'robotics'. Why is that there when there is a separate article called robotics? Then within the article robotics there is a section called structure which *might* belong in robots. On the other hand kinematics might properly be part of robotics and not robots. And then there is that section called 'common uses of robotics'. This really is not robotics IMO; it's common uses of robots.
I'm certainly not advocating a merge of robotics into robots, rather a bit of movement both ways. Robotics1 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Put my pen where my mouth is! Thanks alot. It will take some thought and planning and may take me a while. Robotics1 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the definition of Robot, with something, I believe, covers the machines we call robots. It's not a sharp definition, in the same way that robot is not a sharply definable word. The definition looks a little cleaner now too. Rocketmagnet 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The demining link is only to a particular company and could be considered an advertisement. Another link, which has a more detailed comparison and study of the issue is http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/ .
I would like to ADD this link (not just delete the other one). To contact me, please e-mail robotworks (at) gmail
130.95.52.218 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The link to the IEEE-RAS (IEEE Robotics and Automation Society) page has changed to http://www.ieee-ras.org. Can somebody change that? Ovz 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just trying to clean up the links on the AI page, moved the podcast one here, should have asked first to see if you wanted it, sorry... will leave it now to see what you think. bugone
Bruyninckx, Herman, De Schutter, Joris. Introduction to Intelligent Robotics - This source does not seem to be a real book. Both authors listed have publication lists at their personal sites and they do not mention this as a book or article that they have written. I think its a false source.
well this article appears to be being maintenenced right now with vandalism present so whenever this is unlocked, can someone please revert and yell at the vandal on his talk page... it was the second latest change. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a tough job. Imagine a human who receives suggestions, information or orders from an external source. Is he an autonomous being or a remotely controlled being ?
In my own private thinking, a robot is any machine which can make independent decisions for on-going or future actions based on its own sensors and based on information from external sources, if available -- decisions which are NOT already programmed, although segments of the resulting actions may be, as in human reflex actions.
All other machines, including those now often spoken of (hyped) as robots, are simply remote controlled and/or pre-programmed devices -- One clear example is probably the existing surgery machines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.188.43 ( talk) 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
I'm not saying you're wrong or right, I just want to know why people have the opinion they do. Where do people's definitions of robot come from? I believe that the article should acknowledge that there are many opinions about this, and try to explain the pattern of which machines tend to get called robot, and which don't. Rocketmagnet 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Since we are talking here about definitions of robots, I added this page as a reference from the main article (currently ref number 6). I don't know if that's really allowed though, because this might count as original research. Anyone know? Rocketmagnet 23:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I nominate WowWee Robotics for getting a link in the external links section. In fact, there seems to be a shortage of discussion on robotic toys in this entry. Perhaps a section could be added to Robot on that topic. Thoughts?
Rocketmagnet 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Why not write some more? Rocketmagnet 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a relatively light hearted look at recent developments in anthropomorphic droids.
http://www.vaasapages.com/RobotsAndroids.htm
-- Malcolm Pemberton 07:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest include in the external links : http://robots.wikia.com -- Altermike 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) give me some amo was one of the most well used sayings my automaton said writen by rosie
Actually, I am wondering if it would be a better idea to make a whole separate page on robotics as User:ThurnerRupert tried to do. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 13:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to see this page a good article. I took the reason it failed the first time from the archives and put it back up at the top. I hope to be doing more work on it soon. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
These are some things I think should be done before the article is re-nominated. Let's not just do the minimum.
Is it possible for robots to be sabotaged? Is it possible for robots not to be able to be sabotaged?
I'm doing research for robotoid and am trying to track down the word's origin. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - Eep² 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed "a typical robot must have several, but not all of the following properties" to "a typical robot will have several, though not necessarily all of the following properties", as in its original form this sentence could (in theory) be taken to mean that if a machine did have all of the following properties, then it couldn't be called a robot. It's clear enough from the context, but I just thought it might be worth removing the ambiguity. --Dependent Variable.
I'm working on a whole new Current Developments section. As with the changes to the Contemporary Uses section, I'm trying to give it a lot of structure, headings etc. I want to try to give a good coverage of everything that's the state of the art, and the cutting edge of robotics. It could end up pretty long, but it's the 'meat' of the article. If anyone wants to contribute, please do. You can find the work in progress here. Rocketmagnet 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Robot&diff=134072317&oldid=133916362
“ Juanelo Turriano made a wooden humanoid robot in the late XVI century that was called "El Hombre de Palo".”
El Hombre de Palo translates to The Man of Stick. Has anyone heard of this guy or this robot? It seems to be vandalism to me so I am removing it for now. NightFalcon90909 Talk 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The first line read:
Robot is a mechanical or virtual, artificial agent designed for total world domination and annihilation of the human race.
I undid this edit because I don't think this is true. The article is full of examples of robots that aren't designed for world domination- in fact, I don't know of any real robots that are. If this really supposed to be true, please explain! Tcturner2002 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Added another major chunk of article, replacing Current Developments, which I think was a bit of a mess. There's a lot more to come. The work in progess is on my talk page. Please feel free to contribute to it, and to edit the new stuff I posted. Rocketmagnet 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This article still needs lots more material. Specifically, does anyone have anything to add on the subjects:
I think that the following sections could also use a re-write:
Anyone interested in taking on one of these sections? - Rocketmagnet 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am inclined to think we should have a separate page for robotics (the study of robots) and robots, but I would say currently the robotics page is way behind the robots page. In particular, the robotics page has no references, whereas if it were really reflecting scientific or engineering disciplines it should have more references than robots. It may be that it is not really sustainable to separate the concepts. I've put up the "merge into"/"merge from" tags to see what others think.-- Jaibe 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has a nice section about bipedal robots, but nothing about multi-legged robots.
Please go easy on robotics. I am a robotics professional and have been making robots for 25 years (yes really) and there isn't much I don't know. The problem is that robotics is an umbrella term and information on robotics nearly always falls into the categories of robots, industrial robots or robot software. That's why you won't easily find references. Robotics1 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I see the tag for the merge has been removed by Disavian. I wrote to him: You say both editors agree no merge is possible. However I think the original person who suggested a merge had a good point. Robotics is the 'science' of robots and includes robots, industrial robots, mobile robots, robot software etc. Therefore it could easily assimilate all the other articles, merged into it. The task is to cleanly refer to specific issues by linking to them. The section on 'structure' is not really about robotics but is about the design considerations for robots. You will find a section in robot called 'Robotics' and the content is almost the same as the content of this section. Therefore a link to 'robot' from robotics might be worth considering. OR - remove the Robotics section in robot to the robotics article.
What follows is even worse: Common Uses of Robotics is not common uses of robotics at all but is common uses of robots - moreover common uses of Industrial Robots. The content of all these last sections could easily be distributed between robot and Industrial Robot.
The article on robot is excellent but the article on robotics is weak and for a very good reason. There is, as yet no really good definition of the term 'robotics'. Robotics1 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. There should definitely be two separate articles. But we need to think about what belongs in what article. For example the (as you say) very long article on robots contains a section called 'robotics'. Why is that there when there is a separate article called robotics? Then within the article robotics there is a section called structure which *might* belong in robots. On the other hand kinematics might properly be part of robotics and not robots. And then there is that section called 'common uses of robotics'. This really is not robotics IMO; it's common uses of robots.
I'm certainly not advocating a merge of robotics into robots, rather a bit of movement both ways. Robotics1 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Put my pen where my mouth is! Thanks alot. It will take some thought and planning and may take me a while. Robotics1 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)