Talk:Robot/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

What to do now

Since the discussion for the last several days has been quite confusing (and opinions may have changed), I want straight opinions on what should be changed in the article so we can come to a compromise. Please look at the article first before making any comments. No allegations, claims...etc. Singularity 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rocky feels I have made an ad hominem attack, but is the one who claimed, in all seriousness "Wikipedia articles must take a neutral point of view, which I have taken great pains to do".

Rocky has not done that, as proven by the evidence set forth hereinabove.

Rocky claimed my (readily admitted) family connection clouded my judgment and he didn't get called out on that, but now Singularity wishes to chastize me for calling out Rocky when he was hiding his true motivations from all of us and posting "blatant advertisements" (not my words, but the words of Wikipedia). That hardly seems neutral.

What is this debate really about?

It began and should end based not on the correct definition of a robot, but whether Rocky and the Cult of Tesla can bestow credit to Tesla's toy boat for the first "truly modern robot" thereby usurping the Unimate's place in history.

The whole issue is how the History section should read. After Rocky got done with it, Tesla was placed at the top of the mountain with a giant picture and credit for the first "truly modern robot". George Devol was given a subordinate position, followed immediately by pandering comments about "deaths by robot"

I submit that there is a correct definition of the first "Modern robot" just like there is a correct definition of the first "modern computer". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer

Shadowhand doesn't like it because it means his robot hand is not a robot, but just a part of a robot. That's why he artfully espouses a "neutral point of view" that, of course, includes his products. (Note that even the name of his company, shadowROBOT is a misnomer under all American definitions).

Singularity, or whomever has final say, needs to decide whether there exists a correct definition of a "Modern robot". I think you have all the facts and opinions. If not, please advise. Bangthedash101 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to change about the article in its current state? The article does not mention a sentence about Tesla's boat, but clearly mentions that the Unimate was the first modern robot. Singularity 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Singularity, the article doesn't mention Tesla because Bangthedash101 deleted the section about Tesla, which started all of this.

Bangthedash, I did not write the history section of the robots article. All I did was to re-format it, and add the pictures. Please, please stop connecting me to Tesla, or a cult of Tesla. The reason I chose the pictures I did was because those were the only ones I could find on the Wikipedia. If I could have found a picture of Devol, I would much rather have used that. If you have any pictures of him, I would be delighted to see them on the article in place of Tesla. If you connect me to the cult of Tesla again, I'll begin to suspect you're not actually reading what I write here. Rocketmagnet 23:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am not in the slightest but concerned whether people call the Shadow hand a robot, or component of a robot. Because a component of a robot is what it is. Any fool can see that. If one of our customers decides to use it on a machine which is arguably not a robot, good for them. We are called Shadow Robot because we make a) components for robots, and b) machines that even you would call robots. If you keep trying that one, I'll begin to suspect you're not actually reading what I write here. Rocketmagnet 23:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Singularity, what I would like to see in the history section (which I have actually been trying to get other people to write, rather than myself, because I don't feel I am qualified), is a careful use of words which do not cause massive time wasting arguments like this one. Something like "this machine is the earliest known example of such and such". Or "this machine was the first to introduce programmability". Perhaps that kind of thing is less debatable. Rocketmagnet 23:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see a picture of Devol. BTD are you reading this? Rocketmagnet 23:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see Tesla and his boat, with some non-angering fair text. Rocketmagnet 23:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion

The two parties in this dispute disagree on a number of points, but I think there is a conclusion that will work out for both parties:

Tesla will be included in the history section of the article, but in the early developments section (I have already done so). In addition, it will not be dubbed the first modern robot, but simply what some may consider one of the key developments to what is now called the robot.

Because the usage of the word robot is varied and difficult to distinctly define and has changed over time, one cannot accurately define the word robot with a single definition. Any attempts to define the modern robot should be adequately cited.

Is this satisfactory enough for both parties? Singularity 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Rocketmagnet 09:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That proposal is acceptable BUT, as we discussed above, the quote about Tesla's statement of intent included in the PBS article and Cheney's book is demonstrably false. As such, the reference thereto needs to be removed, which I have done. Bangthedash101 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again may I butt in! The article looks pretty good to me now. The dispute has been moderated by singularity. BUT the paragraph on Tesla really is really bad and there I agree with Bang. OK, Rocketmagnet is not responsible for it but can we not get rid of it? It is a very weak connection indeed and lets the article down IMO. "A device some considered to be the first robot..." Who? I have never heard of it in 25 years of robotics. It reads to me like an RC toy ahead of its time, but a robot? Also I would be in favor of removing the picture of Tesla (famous for magnetism but not robots) and putting a picture of Devol further down. Can Bang provide a non copyright photo perhaps? Such a photo would be great on industrial robot also. I would love to see Devol more recognized. Robotics1 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a photo of Mr. Devol. I have an even better one that I can't find right now from the 1950's and will upload that one instead when I find it. I am not sure whether there are any still photos of him and the Unimate floating around. I don't have one like that but I will ask him. I know there are Unimation promotional films etc. that he has and there was a History Channel documentary a number of years back, both of which contain interviews.

I agree with Robotics1 that the Tesla connection is weak, but I am not going to be the one to remove it after all that has transpired. Rocky really wants a photo of Tesla on the page. I would much prefer a scaled-down photo of Tesla (if any) rather than a copy of the giant one that is in the headline of his own Wikipedia entry. Can users scale down photos that someone else has uploaded without violating any copyright? Bangthedash101 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mate, you cannot possibly have read a single thing I have written here. How many times have I asked you for a photo of Devol, and said I would much rather have him tha Tesla? I also explained that the only reason I put up a pic of Tesla was because it was the only one I could find. Why do you so love writing things you know to be false? Rocketmagnet 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think the whole of the history section is weak. It lets the down the article. If anyone here knows anything about robot history, it would be so great if people could add some real content. Rocketmagnet 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bang, the image of Tesla is not giant. It is exactly the same width as all of the other pictures on the page. The width is chosen by the Wikipedia. It is possible to force a width other than the default one, using |120px| for example, to set the width to 120 pixels. However, apparently, we're not supposed to do this now. All of the px fields were removed from the images of the robot page a while ago by someone. This allows users to set their own default width for viewing the Wikipedia on things like mobile phones, which need smaller images. (Please stop throwing unfounded emotional accusations around. It does you no credit) Rocketmagnet 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I should say 'thanks' for uploading a much needed photo of Devol. This could well be the first photo of him on the internet. I searched a lot on Google images for one, but only found millions of pictures of Engleberger. If you can find a larger image, especially one with a Unimate in it too, I would be more than happy to see the picture of Tesla removed. Rocketmagnet 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Me again. I guess this is concluded but I will leave these thoughts from my perspective: 1. The Tesla paragraph is still too big compared to its true significance and the photo not warranted. 2. I think the link to the Shadow hand is commercially biased. I also have a company, st robotics, been making robot arms for 20 years and I resisted the temptation to insert a link. It's hard, I know. Rocketmagnet I do respect your good faith but I would ask you to be more self critical. And Bang's language took my breath away. I'm going to put the pic in industrial robots which is really my forte and wish this one all the best. Robotics1 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will watch this page for a couple of days if anything comes up. The inclusion of Tesla, I think, is agreed on, but what the paragraph contains is up to you guys. Singularity 01:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've revised the Tesla entry consistent with what I think we decided here. I apoligize for my egregious breach of etiquette and assure you it will not happen again.

Regarding the Devol photo, yes I am sure it is the only one on the net. He didn't want a photo on Wikipedia but my mother talked him into it. I will be talking to him in the next day or so and plan to get more details about the Unimate (if not for this page then for the industrial robots page or his own page).

If anyone has suggestions, please post them here. I will be asking how the Unimate was taught (I know it was with a control pad but don't know if the arm was moved manually and the position recorded or if it was moved electronically at all times). How many steps could be recorded. How many angles/vectors were recorded at each step. How the speed of motion was controlled. How long (time-wise) the cycles could last. How much weight it could handle. Where the first one is (I think it is now in storage at the Smithsonian but was at the Henry Ford Museum on display for a long time).

Also about tactile and visual sensors he patented for use in robots, whether any others existed prior to his and the nature of his designs.

He also developed automatic controls (I think in the 30's) based on Theremin technology. This was primarily used in the context of laundry presses that would open and close based on the proximity of the user. When the war came around he was told to stop working on any proximity controls and not to talk about it. He still won't tell me any more than that, as he promised his secrecy and was very involved in the war effort, primarily with radar counter-measures -- which led to the first commercial use of the microwave oven, the Speedy Weeny. That is his secretary in the photo on his page, although he doesn't hold any microwave-related patents.

He also designed and installed what might be the first bar-coding machinery (again probably in the 30's as United Cinephone made a huge variety of photo-cell based products) for routing packages at a shipping company, whose name escapes me, using black paint, lightbulbs, and photocells. I know this was a one-off project that didn't end up in production or get patented, but is fairly interesting in the context of robotic visual sensors if not historically verifiable.

He also designed and built amplifiers and phonograph needles in the 30's. I have asked him about this but he doesn't think it relates to robotics. I think it does because it is another method of recording and controlling signals and shows the evolution of his ideas from audio products to photocells to automatic machine controls to robots. Anyway, enough of my ranting, you get the idea.

I know my mother has a copy of the Asimov robot book and will see if I can get a copy which should serve to bolster the History section. I do know that it contains one Engleberger fable about meeting Devol at a cocktail party and waking up with a hangover thinking that the Unimate "still looked like a good idea in the cold grey dawn". Though I admit GCD could put 'em away with the best of them. People run out of the room when he mixes the drinks...Bangthedash101 05:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very glad that this is finally coming to a conclusion, and the language is calming down. Bang, I'm also glad your mother managed to convince Devol to show his face :) You seem to know a great deal of interesting information about him and the unimate, and it would be great to see the robot, Unimate and George Devol articles benefit from this. Rocketmagnet 07:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The motivation for in-depth pages about specific robots

Now I would like to address the dispute about the Shadow Hand page. As a frequent user of the Wikipedia, I like to see in-depth pages about as many robots (and robotic components) as possible, eg Kismet, Packbot, Unimate, Roomba, ASIMO, Roboraptor, Robosapien, Foster-Miller TALON, Ballbot, Robonaut and many others. I was actually quite disappointed, when I was writing sections in the robot article, to find there were no Wikipedia pages about so many others, like the Schunk Hand, Barrett Hand, PUMA Robot, VersaTrax, MIT Hopping Robots, Dexter (Robot), and many others.

So, I think it is quite fair for me to add a page about a notable robot hand. Not about our company, not about other products we make, not about me, but about a notable item, alongside many pages about others. It currently contains only information from our company, which is a shame. However, I made sure the information was limited to only the factual specification about the hand.

If the contents of the Shadow Hand page should be deleted, then so should the contents of many other pages about specific robots and robot components.

Robotics1, If your company produces a notable item, then you should start a Wikipedia page about it. Rocketmagnet 08:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be WP:COI. If an item is notable enough, it will be written be someone else. Singularity 08:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Singularity is right. As for other grippers I would like to extend the existing article on industrial robots with various types of end effectors with names. I personally feel that if there is to be a link to, for example schunk, then it should be in the external links list and not embedded in the text. Am I right?

As for how the Unimate was programmed; we actually owned one at one time so I played with it. It was programmed in VAL (covered in Wikipedia) but the early ones may not have been. A pic of George with a robot would be fantastic for the industrial robot page. I'll use the existing one for now. Robotics1 09:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A Class status

Since this article seems to be A-class status now, I have removed the "Failed GA" notice at the top. I hope this was the right thing to do. Rocketmagnet 12:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Versatras150.jpg

Image:Versatras150.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate link?

Listen, I'm not sure if you guys want to delete this, but the current note #26 directs to what I could only describe as a hate link [1]. I'm not gonna take any action it, because I'm not sure what the point of referencing it was... So if I'm mistaken, forgive me. Themindset 03:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. It was me who added the link, as it was the only reference I could find for the Asimov statement. It wasn't until I re-read the page a couple of months later that I realised what the whole web site was about. I've looked hard for a page on the web which is a suitable replacement, but I can't find one. I'm not sure what the policy is about this kind of thing. I almost deleted it myself, but didn't because I couldn't find a replacement. Any ideas anyone? Rocketmagnet 12:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! After a lot of Googling, I finally found a replacement for the link. Rocketmagnet 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Reducing the size of this article

This article is pretty long now. I reckon that quite a lot of it can be moved to other sections. For example, some of it might be moved to the Robotics article. Anyone got any opinions? Rocketmagnet 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) ^{Superscript text}

Good Article Nomination

I'm a little confused now. It was my understanding that someone had made this article A-class. And if A-class is better than GA-class, why are we trying to get it voted into a lower class? Rocketmagnet 12:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the GA people always find some way to improve articles, even A-Class ones. It'll certainly help, specially to aim for FA-class. igordebraga ≠ 14:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my general impression only. I'm giving it because I put a page up for GA status:

• It seems as though the "Can move with one or more axes of rotation or translation" example is included in the "Can make dexterous coordinated movements" example. I would think having a shorter list of what makes a robot would be an improvement.
• The term "agency" is a bit overused. I'm sure the writers know their stuff and this is a common term in the robotic field but some synonyms or a better definition of the word agency would help.
• It also seems as though the bulleted "robotic property" list should be ranked. As a layman the first two things I think about robots are that they are intelligent and shaped like some sort of lifeform.
• The rubber dog chew, shaped like ASIMO, example seems a tad too informal. Light humor is fine but I think this example is approaching slapstick.
• The Pick and Place robot, Contact Systems C5 Series[33] picture doesn't stand out as very robotic. The pick and place operation doesn't come across in the picture. After looking hard at the picture one last time I see what it is describing. It's not a big deal but a time lapse picture that was immediately recognizable might be a better candidate here.
• The picture of Cadmus is wonderful and I enjoyed the loose historical references to robots.

These are just comments. The page is outstanding. I can see from above that this article might actually be shooting for FA-class. It's got my vote. Mrshaba 10:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I contributed substantially to the article, and although I'm fairly happy with it, I think there is still a lot of work to do before it could be an FA.

• I'm not too happy about the list of robot properties either. I was hoping to come up with something more axiomatic. It's hard to rank the list because different people have different ideas about what are the most important properties. But it may be possible to produce a rough ranking.
• There is a link to the definition of agency. I don't think the robot article is the right place to define the word.
• I hardly think the rubber chew is slapstick, but if anyone think of an alternative, it should be replaced with something which is unambiguously passive.
• I agree about the Pick And Place robot picture. The problem with such robots is that they are really quite hard to illustrate in a single picture. They don't look much like robots, but they move like them. If anyone can find a better picture, that would be great.

Things I would like to see improved:

• History section: Currently there is a great deal about ancient historical stories about (probably) fictional robots, and very little about the development of real robots, and the technologies that enabled them. History is my weakest area, so I haven't tackled this much. It would be great if someone could do some work here.
• Dangers and fears: I'm just starting some research to tackle this now. I would like to rename it "Hopes and Fears" and discuss some of the things that are predicted in the future. It also needs more references.
• Literature: It's not bad at the moment, but could still use tidying up, and some references.
• Competitions: It's just a list at the moment (almost linkspam). Could do with some prose at the beginning at the very least.
• References: I'm slowly converting them all to templates. Only a few more to do.

Rocketmagnet 14:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I went too far by using the term slapstick. Goofy would more accurately describe my impression. There is no insult intended. I agree that something unambiguously passive should be thought of. I'll float it around. But getting back to the term agency... As I started through the page I wasn't immediately moved.. Agency was a significant part of this this because I was confused at first. My comments above concentrate on the first quarter of the page because as I went along I became increasingly impressed. It seems as though the early stuff is rather stiff. I figure part of this stiffness is due to the writers' desire to describe things accurately with the terminology of the field. I would like to stress again that the word agency, while I can understand it, needs more support. I looked at the link and I'm still left without a complete understanding of the term as it applies to robots. Again, I'm a layman, I'm only pointing out what I see as a weakness on the page. I assume robots can display different sorts of agency. An early sentence describing a primary agency of robots would help from my perspective. Again, the page is great. It's stuffed with oodles of good stuff. I don't think it's too long because it totally kept me going.

No insult taken. Now, agency: as the article explains, there really is no simple or official definition of the word robot. Anything that attempts to define robot will need some time and thought to understand it. While I was researching peoples' definitions of robot, it took me a little while to realise that agent was the best word. I agree that a layman's understanding of the word agent is different from someone involved in robots. They might think of travel agent, or estate agent. They might even think of a chemical agent. However, these meanings are actually very close to robot too. An agent is something which has the power to act, or has the authority to act on our behalf. Having agency of its own is what differentiates a robot from other machines.

I wanted to keep the first paragraph as short and simple as possible, and tried to elaborate on the meaning of agency in the 'Defining characteristics' section, and the difference between a roboticists' understanding and a layman's. But clearly something more is needed. Can you give some idea what you had in mind? Rocketmagnet 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from with specific word choice. The first thing I would suggest is to remove either agent or agency from one of the the first two sentences and instead use another word which means something close. I think the reader needs to be hit with different words to help them get the point you are trying to make. If you can spike neurons in different places you're more likely to get the reader. Hope that makes sense. I figure you've had to defend this word agency some so I don't want to protract this for you. The word intelligence might be used. Is there a reason why intelligence isn't used? Is it that you don't want robots to be confused with artificial intelligence? That would make sense. You could use the word intelligence and then just say flat out that robots should not be confused with artificial intelligence. Many might confuse the two so pointing out the difference doesn't hurt. I'm just throwing things out here. Again, I randomly came on the page and I'm not sure what you're thinking so disregard anything you wish. One other thought is that you could prioritize the two types of robots mentioned. You use the word both to describe robots and bots. Maybe using a phrase like, the word robot generally describes physical robots but also... The page is all about physical robots so you should give physical robots a higher rank with your phrasing.

Unfortunately, intelligence isn't quite the right word. Many robots do not have any intelligence at all. For example, most industrial robots are just running a script, and do not think for themselves in any way. The thing that makes them robots in people's minds is that they look like they're going about their business, and they look like arms. The only alternative to agency I can think of, is the appearance of intent. But I can't think of an alternative for agent.

The 2,3 and 4 references can be move to the end of the sentence. No worries. Easy fix.

I wondered about this. I know that the refs normally go after the punctuation, but they relate to the discussion, not to the list of properties. So I thought they should go immediately after the word discussion.

There should be some sort of tag or invisible note you can use to pull these references to the end of the sentence while still maintaining their relationship to the word discussion. I've used some tags in microsoft works that when you scroll over the word (or the reference in this case) the definition of the word pops up. In this case just the word discussion would pop up. I've really only been doing WP aggressively for the last 3 months. I'll come back with something. References are great but they annoy the eye in this case.

The alternative is to re-phrase the sentence so that the word discussion is at the end. Rocketmagnet 10:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I know you want to keep the intro short and sweet. There's nothing wrong with that. I think it could use a few (2 or 3) sentences that hook the reader. From a layout standpoint I would think two solid paragraphs should be used so a few more sentences of explanation would produce this. The second paragraph dangles. One more sentence would fix this. If you appreciate these comments I'll try to comment further. Remind me on my talk page and I'll come back. Mrshaba 08:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to add more sentences, as long they help.

Double Hmmm... use the some degree of intelligence phrase you use in the bulltes in place of one of your uses of agency. i.e. A robot is a mechanical or virtual agent with some degree of intelligence. Or... conveys a sense that it has some degree of intent or intelligence of its own. Just thoughts... good luck. Mrshaba 08:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right about agent taking a little while to understand, and I would really love the first paragraph to be phrased in a way that makes it sink in more quickly / immediately. I've tried to explain that definition of robot to some of my friends, and their first reaction is always "huh?". After some verbal explanation, some of them begin to agree. So I'm sure the article needs some kind of extra punch to it. Rocketmagnet 09:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the phrase, "behave in an ordered or intelligent way." This or something like it would encompass the script (ordered) idea that you brought up as well as more sophisticated (intelligent) machines that interact a bit. I looked here [2]. All they care about is re programmable. I think the word "ordered" might be the ticket because it will take care of the programming aspect of robots and hint at the slavish nature of them.

Whatever phrase is used, it should distinguish between robots and other machines. It should include robots, and exclude other machines. The word agent is the only word I have seen so far which does both. I think that ordered includes robots, but also includes many (most?) other machines too (how many disordered machines can you think of?). I think that intelligent excludes many (most?) robots. However, perhaps you mean ordered in a different way? Perhaps in the sense of giving an order? Rocketmagnet 10:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I order you to do this. Follow this script. Having a phrase like "behaves in an ordered or intelligent way" or another phrase of your choosing gives things up to the imagination of the reader. I think you should consider doing this rather than perusing an exact definition. Give a little ground by using a synonym in place of agent or agency. You understand what agent is but I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say over 90% of your audience does not understand this word in the way you are using it. I think you should sacrifice some exactitude to communicate things to your audience better. As I say, I figure you've had to defend this word agency a bit. I don't want to prolong your defense of the word but I council compromise. I don't think I'm going to be the last to wonder onto the page and bring this word up.

I agree. I'd think it was more like 98% of people would not fully understand the word agent. Pretty much everyone I've discussed it with has needed some help. But here is the dilemma: I want to get across a good definition of robot, and give an insight to the reader. I could either use what I think is the right wording, and thus they would learn, but risk the reader not making the effort to understand the definition. Or I could use a wording that was easier to understand, but which I think is not a good definition. In the latter case, the reader has not really learned something. In the former case they might do if they made the effort.

I would rather use the best words I could think of, but help the user to understand them, than to use another wording. I already tried to give the reader some help to understand the word agency, by saying the appearance of intent and giving links to the definition, and also links to reification, anthropomorphisation and pathetic fallacy. But I guess something more is needed.

One possible phrase, which I like, but I'm not sure is right for an encyclopedia is: "looks like it's going about its business". Because robots do look like they've got business to get on with, while other machines just look like they're clattering away. Rocketmagnet 10:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Wiktionary definition of agent is very good. Read it a couple of times and it could almost be describing robots.Rocketmagnet 10:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, this web page tries to examine the definition of robot, and comes to a very similar definition. Rocketmagnet 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I ran into an issue over the definition of solar energy which is my home base page. I wrote to everyone I could think of in an attempt to find a good working definition. National and international laboratories, famous authors, one member of the Solar Energy Hall of Fame etc. I did not get a definition which satisfied everyone. The definition currently used is far from the one I would like but what are you going to do. People are going to bring their own ideas to the page. If that's what they understand give in a little. You've written a great page. Good luck with the rest of it Rocketmagnet. Mrshaba 21:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am seeing this more and more as I think of the definitions of things. So many things are impossible to define exactly. Mostly we seem to use the Engleberger definition. "I can't define it, but I know one when I see it". Rocketmagnet 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing and this might just be me. I was anticipating the root explanation of the word a little earlier. I looked up the word years ago and remembered it kinda meant slave. The origin/etymology of the word is quite interesting. The page does a good job explaining the origin of the word robot as well as all the things that robots do for us. This is just a thought but it seems like one of the important qualities of a robot is that they do low work (dangerous, repetitive etc). This is explained on the page but it is not included in the bulleted list. Maybe it should be. These are follow up thoughts. I am only a reader of the page. And once again... I think the page is great. Mrshaba 16:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking the same. At the moment, it's lost in the middle of the History section. Maybe it could have its own section Etymology. However, the fact that some robots do useful work is not one of the defining characteristics of robots. Therefore I did not include it in the bulleted list. Rocketmagnet 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added the Etymology section, using text from the article, and the Karel Capek and RUR articles. Rocketmagnet 09:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better. Mrshaba 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Rocketmagnet 10:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)