Talk:Robot/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The issue

I think both users are informed now (both parties edited the MedCab page), so let's begin.

Since I don't want to repeat what has been discussed already, I'll summarize what has happened so we can work towards a compromise.

• The issue itself is the definition of a "Robot".
  • Bangthedash101 says: "I do not feel the ISO standard is the minimum, but as I stated in my penultimate posting, at the very least, a robot must have autonomous motion, and be either teachable/programmable or responsive to its environment."
  • Rocketmagnet says: As the article tries to explain, there is no hard and fast definition of a robot. Rather, there are machines which more or fewer people consider to be robots...The problem is this: there are many devices which are not programmable (from the user's point of view) or autonomous, but are still referred to as robots. Singularity 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• There are several possible solutions.
  • 1: We use the ISO definition only (disagreed with by both parties)
  • 2: We use the ISO definition, but as a minimum requirement (Bangthedash101's stance)
  • 3: We use the current definition in the article
  • 4: We use no definition, and include all machines which are referred to as robots by their creators or reporters (Rocketmagnet's stance).

Objections? Comments? Singularity 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1: The ISO definition is not intended to be a definition of a robot in the general case. It is simply used when counting the number of industrial robots in each country. Such official definitions (eg the JIRA and RIA) are intended for legal purposes. e.g. when deciding which safety laws apply to particular machines. So we should not apply the ISO definition to all robots in the article.

2: BTD did say "All references to machines that do not meet the ISO minimum standard should be deleted." but also said "I do not feel the ISO standard is the minimum..." So I'm not exactly sure what his stance is. I'm not sure what the difference is between 1: and 2:.

3&4: The "definition" in the article is supposed to be less a definition, and more a description of the types of machines which get called robots. Also, the article should not just include the robots, but also state that some machines are called robots by nearly everybody, and others (like telerobots) are often debated. The article already does this.

Now to tackle BTD's request: "Why don't you start with providing some authority for your contention that "teleoperated machines are widely referred to as robots, by both experts and laymen" rather than purporting to speak on their behalf. I can't imagine any robotics expert referring to a radio-controlled vehicle as a robot. In fact, I can't imagine calling anyone a 'robotics expert' who misses such an obvious distinction!"

I refer you to three examples of teleoperated machines which are widely referred to as robots: iRobot's Packbot, the Foster-Miller TALON, and the Da Vinci Surgical System. The fact that these are widely referred to as robots means that, in the interests of NPOV, the article should also call them robots. It is not for the editors to impose their views on the article. Rocketmagnet 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait for BTD to join in. Singularity 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

May I add a comment here? I've been in industrial robotics for 25 years and I contribute to a few robot articles. I do believe the ISO definition only applies to industrial robots. The definition includes the word 'manipulator' and a robotic vehicle might not even have one. On the second point it does annoy many to see radio controlled vehicles described as robots. I do believe there must be a high degree of autonomy. It is a fact that many things in life are misnamed by the public in general and in some cases the wrong name is accepted and in some it is not. For example laptop computers were replaced by 'notebook' computers but people keep right on calling them laptops. Who is right? In this case I think we should include autonomous in the definition of robot. Just my 2 cents! Robotics1 19:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; we're still waiting for BTD to join so we can continue to discuss. Singularity 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I said "by both experts and laymen". People seem to have forgotten that I said experts. Robotics1, please refer to the iRobot Packbot, the Foster-Miller TALON, and the daVinci surgical system, which are all teleoperated and all referred to by their manufacturers as robots. ASIMO used to be teleoperated. Would anyone declare ASIMO as a non-robot. Rocketmagnet 12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bangthedash101 where are you ? Rocketmagnet 12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, I would. It *looks* like a robot but it isn't one. (sorry *wasn't* one when radio controlled.) I think some manufacturers use the term to enhance their sales quite frankly. So it conforms to the laymen's definition of robot rather than the purist one. Maybe that's OK. That's the nature of language. Now I ask you, is a radio controlled toy robot (or Asimo) subject to the technology of robotics and should it conform to the 3 laws of robotics? There is another word for 'robots' that are only radio controlled - automaton. The Oxford dictionary lists 1 a moving mechanical device resembling a human being. Just like Asimo. But then 2 a machine which operates according to coded instructions. Just like a robot. For more bad news there is a Wikipedia page on automaton. That describes an automaton the way I would describe it but then includes robot. Personally I think we're in the s**t. Robotics1 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Robotics1 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're in the s**t. The problem, as the article tries to explain is that there really is no definition of robot, and everybody's personal definition is a little different. Because of this, the article should not try to impose one particular definition, but take a neutral point of view, accepting and explaining that there are shades of grey. This is what it tries to do now. Which was the first "real" robot? Dunno, depends what you mean by "robot". This is the same way it is in the battle for first real computer.

Actually, looking at the various machines in the timeline, I would think that Al-Jazari's automata satisfy the conditions for first robot better than Tesla's or Devol's. They are automatic, and possibly programmable (maybe by changing cams inside). Another candidate would be Heron of Alexandria's robot which could be programmed to travel across the floor in different and predictable patterns by placing pegs and winding string [1]. Rocketmagnet 17:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what I'll do is to add a paragraph entitled: "Candidates for first real robot", and discuss several machines, each of which introduced a new feature, bringing them further up the spectrum. I'll refer to Devol's robot as "first industrial robot", rather than first real robot.

Actually I wish I hadn't written that about Automata. A radio controlled "robot" is not an automaton. Error 101. I like the idea of first real robot and Devol's first industrial robot. That would be a wonderful addition. Of course industrial robots are essentially an example of manufacturer's romance because they are not robots either as Asimov and Capek envisioned them. They are just the arms of a robot, hence robot arm rather than robot. Then if we are to include RC look-alikes as robots then we need to work on the definition. That is the s* that I was thinking of. Robots as I understand it are programmable, including programmable with the 3 laws. Automata are not programmable as such but when you look at the cams etc. that control many of them those are kind of mechanical programs. Sheesh the more you look at this the worse it gets. Robotics1 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'll pretend you didn't say it. As for the 3 laws, I really don't think they apply to any robots yet created. Don't forget, they were just a literary tool, used to help generate stories about robots. The 3 laws don't apply to RC cars, industrial robots or ASIMO. The only laws that apply are the laws of physics, and the health and safety laws. If BTD doesn't come back by wednesday, I might just go ahead and write that section about "Candidates for first real robot". Rocketmagnet 19:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, R, the trouble is the literary tool, the romance, is what has led to the reality. If it were not for Asimov and Capek the industrial robot would be called a programmable manipulator, which is what it is, no more. There seems to be several categories of which industrial robots are one, automata are another, RC 'bots' such as those in robot wars would be another, walking robots another. Would addressing the various categories or lay perceptions of robots be useful somewhere? As for the 3 laws they are OSHA / COSH under another name. Such concepts inspire engineers to look forward to possible realities. Robotics1 20:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rocketmagnet has a point in an earlier post: It's difficult to determine the first robot like determining the first computer. Quoting the computer article:

It is difficult to define any one device as the earliest computer. The very definition of a computer has changed and it is therefore impossible to identify the first computer. Many devices once called "computers" would no longer qualify as such by today's standards.

I'm not really familiar with robot history and whatnot (I'll leave that to you guys), but I think this statement can be somehow applied for robots. We can definitely see that there are many definitions for what a robot can be. Restriction by a rule set in stone here may prevent views from being expressed in the article. The definitions for robot are much different than the definitions of a robot 30 or 40 years ago. Singularity 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point Singularity. People's ideas of what counts as a robot would have changed through time. The same is true with AI. Once an AI problem has been solved, it stops becomming Intelligence, and simply becomes an algorithm, and so people chase a moving goal. As robots become more sophisticated, I reckon that people must demand more and more autonomy from a machine before calling it a robot. I've even heard people say that a machine must have emotions before it's a robot! As I mentioned in the Timeline section (i think), I'm sure that when Tesla first showed his boat, people must have been quite amazed by it, commenting that it seems to move around all by itself. (BTD rightly pointed out that this is total conjecture. But I still reckon it's true.) Now that we all know how RC works, it's not in the slightest bit amazing, and practically falls off the end of the robot spectrum. (They still scare the c**p out of my cat though, who probably believes it's some kind of animal.) Rocketmagnet 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the wisdom of having sharply defined categories because there are an infinite number of gradual steps from one 'category' of robot to another. There would be so many robots which fall on the edges that it would lead to more arguments. I tried to give an idea of the 'robotyness' of various machines in the "Defining characteristics" section, ranking several machines by how many people (estimated) called them robots. One possibility would be to draw this explicitly as a spectrum of robots, trying to rank them by robotyness. Or, you could have a 2D spectrum, with one axis showing how roboty a machine looks or functions (physical agency), and the other axis showing how how autonomously it thinks (mental agency). One corner would be definitely not robot (like a lamp), the other corner would be totally robot, (like the Terminator). Rather than plotting machines as points on the 2D spectrum, they could be shown as fuzzy areas to show that they are not sharply defined. One foreseeable problem with this is that it's not referenceable, and could count as original research (or just made up). Rocketmagnet 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rocketmagnet gave me a link to the mediation page and I have been checking there for a week waiting for the mediation to start. Now it looks as though the issue has pretty much been decided without me.

If you can't agree that robots need to function autonomously, then this is hopeless. If you erase that BRIGHT LINE then Wikipedia can let its readers swim in a stew of retarded relativity for eternity. Now if anyone with a mind that can actually SEE black and white as opposed to "shades of grey in every direction" is still with me, then there is another line just past autonomy. This line is there so that a gyroscope is not considered a robot. That line is programmability. Fine, you say, a kitting loom is programmable and functions autonomously, so now it is a robot. Well, I agree that is a problem, so there needs to be yet another line. A robot needs to be able to move independently or manipulate something, and furthermore, in three dimensions (otherwise the kitting loom still qualifies). Now we have arrived. You call it an industrial robot. I call it the first truly modern robot because all subsequent modern robots stem from George C. Devol's original patent (against which not a single other patent was cited).

The Cult of Tesla wants to usurp credit from Mr. Devol based on a radio-controlled manually-operated non-programmable non-teachable toy boat that only moved in two dimensions and didn't manipulate anything. The historical relativists want to include every tool since the dawn of time. The science fiction fanatics will not rest until they can take an android on a date.

So fine, you say, see, Bangthedash101 has proven my point that nobody can agree on a definition.

Well, no. I did not prove that point. I have proven that there are a lot of WRONG opinions out there. And yes, laypeople can be WRONG and very often are WRONG and come to resources like Wikipedia to find out the RIGHT answer.

Oh, and don't get me started on advertisers. You are telling me because Irobot and packbot and TALON all call themselves "robots", that the robotics experts should follow THEIR lead?!?!?!

And believe it or not, even "experts" can be wrong. [Further, just because someone calls himself an "expert" does not mean he is.]

My point in entering this discussion and editing the robot page in the first place is that I was disturbed that George C. Devol's credit for inventing the first truly modern robot was being usurped by the Cult of Tesla, claiming that a radio-controlled toy boat spawned an entire industry.

Tesla's boat does not deserve to be called the "first truly modern robot". The Unimate deserves that distincion and Unimation deserves the distinction of being the world's first robot company.

The toy boat and the Unimate are not even comparable, and, as such, do not deserve EQUAL STANDING.

THAT is my point.

I couldn't care less what you consider all the things that predate the Unimate. Yes, many were robots but they were not "modern" robots in the sense that the Unimate was.

The Unimate was a huge innovation because it made the leap from "mechanical" robots to a digitally controlled, teachable robot that could manipulate things in three dimensions. Mr. Devol advised me that it was accurate to within 1/10,000 of an inch!

[as I stated above, if anyone has questions for Mr. Devol, I would be happy to get them answered. In spite of his 95 years, he is sharp as a tack and has vast knowledge of the "halcyon days" of the electronics industry (not just robots)] Feel free to email me at godd@kaom.com. I will post the questions and responses under the "Father of Robotics" section of this page.

Rocketmagnet stated above: "The thing is, Bang, I agree with you about the boat. I wouldn't call it a robot either."

In other words, Rocketmagnet agrees that Tesla's robot does not deserve the credit it was getting. Robotics1 also seems to agree. As far as I can tell, everyone who has chimed in all has the same opinion, but the debate rages on.

As far as the ISO standard, as I stated on the mediation page (where I thought the debate would take place), "I do not feel the ISO standard is the minimum, but as I stated in my penultimate posting, at the very least, a robot must have autonomous motion, and be either teachable/programmable or responsive to its environment. That standard is far broader than the ISO standard on which Rocketmagnet presumes this dispute is based and covers virtually every type of robot listed on the page, save for so-called "telerobots" which are merely radio controlled machines. ~ Bangthedash101 4.228.27.82 03:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)"

Tesla's "contribution" to robotics (if any) needs to be put in its proper perspective and George C. Devol should be given credit for the first truly modern robot, as proven by his singular patents and his company, the worlds' first robot company, Unimation - neither of which can be disputed.

Say what you will about the mechanial robots that predate the Unimate. Say that the Unimate is "just a robotic arm" and only bi-pedal androids that smile back at you are really robots. But put the Unimate in its proper perspective as the seminal machine that spawned the modern robotics industry. Bangthedash101 05:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is already pretty well established that the Unimate was the first industrial robot. Singularity 09:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bang, nobody here is saying that your grandfather's contribution to robotics was anything less than extraordinary. More than Tesla's, by a very long way indeed. You are rightly very proud of Mr Devol, but I do think that the family collection is giving you an emotional involvement here. I don't know what this "cult of Tesla" is, but I am not one of them, and am not interested in Tesla in the slightest. Who invented the radio controlled boat is totally irrelevant; it could have been Jack the Ripper for all I care. So, please stop talking about this cult.

When I hear someone saying that they alone know the true definition of robot, and all the other people are wrong, even the manufacturers and experts, I think it sounds more like religious fundamentalism than objective reason. How did you come across this knowledge? Was it revealed to you in a divine vision, or do you have a reference for it that anyone can refer to? If I were to say something like that, you would jump down my throat with: "Upon what authority is that statement based?".

Now, the authority I would like to call is the Japanese Industrial Robot Association (JIRA). They would disagree with you. JIRA recognizes six types of robot, including teleoperated robots (class 1). Here is a link to a PDF which contains a list of the classes. I believe that the Robotics Institute of America (RIA) have different definitions, which do not include teleoperated robots. But to say that nobody calls telerobots robots, or that you are right and they are wrong is just weird. Rocketmagnet 12:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you all have missed my point again.

I have never been anything less than candid about my reasons for wanting Tesla put in his proper perspective. Mr. Devol has no idea that I am involved in this dispute and frankly would be mortified to find out. He would also be beside himself to learn that the Japanese definition of "robot" has pushed aside his contribution in favor of Tesla's. Particularly in light of the fact that the Japanese copied the Unimate to create their robotics industry.

Yes, the "family connection" creates an emotional involvement when you have grown up reading that Joe Engleberger is the "father of robotics" when you know damn well that your grandfather invented the first modern robot and Engleberger has simply promoted himself as the "father" because he was the spokesman (albeit a very effective one and a very nice man as well).

Then some smart-ass named Rocketmagnet, calls your grandfather a "liberal" which would make him furious beyond belief.

The authority on which I base my opinion is that of Mr. Devol who insists that a robot must be programmable (noting that all American manufacturing definitions of robot are in agreement). Obviously this authority is unavailing in light of the Japanese manufacturers wishes to have radio-controlled toys sold as robots, and Rocketmagnet's fervent desire to let everyone in the door who calls his product a robot.

There are no definitions in this world. The sky is grey and the sun is grey.

Bangthedash101 is "weird" because he can see black and white. Rocketmagnet is "normal" because he can see subtle distinctions between machines and recognizes a vast continuum of machines stretching from the first stone tools (which are just as robotic as Tesla's boat) all the way into the future when robots will weep softly at the sight of the grey sun dipping below the horizon.

You win Rocky, you have rewritten history. Now let me hear you scream for Adrian:

http://www.teslasociety.com/ http://www.tesla.org/

Bangthedash101 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bangthedash101. May I first say that you do yourself no good by expressing such emotion. If I may pour oil on troubled waters: first I read Rocketmagnet's comment about liberals as being entirely lighthearted and not intended to cause offense at all. That you are Devol's grandson is great; pleased to meet you. I for one find it sad that Engleberger seems to have taken all the credit, just as no-one has ever heard of Paul Allen, Bill Gates' partner.

Like it or not people are calling things robots which are not robots and because of that they become robots. I don't think there is much we can do about that but an answer may be to raise 6 categories like the Japanese robot classes. Then we can put tele-operated robots in a class of their own and not confuse them with what we purists would call 'real' robots. Incidentally tele-operated robots in the nuclear industry are usually wire controlled not radio. And alas they call them robots.

Rocketmaget may be right that there is no definition of robot. You are right that there should be. Maybe now is the time to write one.

I didn't know there was another debate on mediation. I think we can come to a consensus here.

Robotics1 16:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Robotics1. Actually it was a reference to the 1980s sitcom My Two Dads, and how, if robotics had two dads, it would probably have to have been quite a liberal household. It probably got teased at school about it.

"Maybe now is the time to write one." - It is not the job of the Wikipedia to make up definitions. That would count as original research. The only thing we can do is to try to record the state of the world as it is, with all its faults.

Bang, the RIA have no more or less authority to define robot than the JIRA. If there is one person in the world who could claim this right, I guess it would be Carel Kapek. What would he say? I don't know. Maybe his idea only stretched as far as artificial people, ruling out most robots today.

What I might try to do is to re-write the history section, removing all mention of first "real" or "modern" this or that, and simply talk about the significant developments which led up to robots as we know them today. And I'll try to do it in the farest possible way. I'll post it on a scratch page to people can comment on it before it goes live.

Bang, one more thing. I originally put up a picture up Tesla, because his was the only picture I could find on the Wikipedia. I would much rather have put a picture of Devol, as his contribution was far more significant. If you have any pictures of him, especially standing next to his robot, that would be awesome to have in the article. Rocketmagnet 16:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not our job to write definitions, but we are allowed to break down what is fact into categories that more clearly describe the facts. Now you said that JIRA had 6 classes. Can we not use those? Could we/you not say: robots fall into 6 distinct classes (subheading 'classes of robots') 1. teleoperated robots, 2. industrial robot arms 3. etc. (no order preferred). I would have thought that would clarify things for the reader without breaking new ground. What do you think? I think what is troubling Bang is that readers will want to know 'what is a robot'. Are we not obliged to tell them? Robotics1 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "robot" is defined as "One of the mechanical men and women in Capek's [1923] play, hence, a machine (sometimes resembling a human being in appearance) designed to function in place of a living agent, esp. one which carries out a variety of tasks automatically or with a minimum of external impulse."

Frankly, Rocky, you need to read about the history of robotics before you start writing the history of robotics.

Start with Asimov's book I mentioned above. Then please post a link to this "scratch page" you are developing.

This "off-the-cuff" style of creating Wikipedia entries creates big problems because the authors get married to their original postings to the exclusion of others; or in this case, demand equal standing for their original postings no matter how tangential and can enforce those demands because they somehow "own" the page since they were the first to create the entry, and can therefore initiate a "cabal" when opposing viewpoints threaten their worldview.

Your desire to erase any distinction between what is "modern" and what is not is nonsense. Even at the "computer" Wikipedia entry, something even more amorphous than "robot", the authors state "...none of those devices fit the modern definition of a computer because they could not be programmed..."

The history of modern, and I mean Modern with a capital "M", robotics does have a starting point, and that is the Unimate. Is this fact in dispute? If not, then when you are drafting the History of the development of the robot, you need to identify it as such.

Bangthedash101 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the overall definition, Robotics1 has the right idea, but I think using the Japanese definition as a starting point would unfairly give radio-controlled machines "equal standing" when the American definitions don't. As such, when the Japanese definition is set forth, it should be emphasized that their inclusion of "telerobots" is in direct conflict with the accepted American definitions that exclude such devices, and explain why, i.e. that such machines are neither autonomous nor programmable. Bangthedash101 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaps. It was done a couple of days ago. Check out the robot article now, and you will see a section about the JIRA and RIA definitions of robot. Rocketmagnet 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bang, before I rewrote the first sections of this article, I extensively researched people's definitions of robot. I looked at dictionary definitions (none of which agree exactly, though I think the Oxford one is my personal favorite), many books on robotics at our company, people's discussions on forums about the definition, quotes from well known roboticists, and articles discussing the possibility of finding a definition. Please don't presume that I did no research before I came into this. I admit that the history of robotics (or any kind of history) is not my forte, which is why I barely touched the history section, except to tidy it up.

I am actually surprised that you mentioned that particular definition, as I interpreted it to include Tesla's boat, as it says "minimum" of external impulse, which could include radio based instructions. Rocketmagnet 18:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You certainly are open-minded, Rocky. Did you also see that part that says "one which carries out a variety of tasks", and that other bit which says "designed to function in place of a living agent". I guess not, because Tesla's boat would not fit into the remainder of the definition, now would it?

Also, "a minimum of external impulse" seems to logically exclude any machine that is constantly under the control of a human, doesn't it?

Just so we are clear Rocky, does your company manufacture "telerobots" and call them robots? I laid my cards on the table long ago but you have yet to do so. What is the name of your company? Whose interests are you really advocating? - Bangthedash101 Bangthedash101 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bang stated in an earlier post: "The history of modern, and I mean Modern with a capital "M", robotics does have a starting point, and that is the Unimate. Is this fact in dispute? If not, then when you are drafting the History of the development of the robot, you need to identify it as such." We need to slowly come to a consensus here, so can we all agree that the Unimate will fit the current definition of a modern robot (this may not exclude the fact that it was the first robot)? Singularity 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that the Unimate was the first "robot" by any means. I am saying that it was the first Modern robot and spawned an entire industry and therefore should be recognized accordingly, and Tesla should be, at most, a sidenote in the history of robotics.

Rocky, is this your company: http://www.shadowrobot.com/hand/overview.shtml

I find it interesting that your only product, The Shadow Hand, is described as "the closest robot Hand to the human Hand available. It provides 24 movements, allowing a direct mapping from a human to the robot." In other words, this "direct mapping" means that a human is constantly under control of the the "Shadow Hand", just like Tesla's boat, am I right???

Bangthedash101 19:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not try to find out who's advocating what; that would only create extra unnecessary discussion. Singularity 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey guess what else gang, our good friend Rocky, the man who insists upon a "neutral point of view" also pasted pictures of his company products all over the robot page and even provided links!

You sack of s**t. Take all that self-serving crap off and resign. YOU are the problem.

See: Actuation A robot leg, powered by Air Muscles. Built by The Shadow Robot Company Ltd. (link under photo)

See: Manipulation Shadow Hand, an advanced robot hand system, holding a lightbulb. Touch sensors in the fingertips allow it to apply gentle pressure. (link to a page advertising his product, Shadow Hand under photo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Hand even described by Wikipedia as "This article or section is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view per Wikipedia policy. Mark blatant advertising for speedy deletion... ") Another link to his company website in the discussion part as well as two more links under the reference section.

The truth has been told. Now crawl back under your rock.

Bangthedash101 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy tiger. Firstly, you are wrong, the Shadow Hand is a component of a robot. It's up to the customer whether they use it as part of a fully autonomous robot (some of them are, e.g. Bielefeld University and CMU) or you choose to have it slaved to a data glove. Secondly, you are wrong, "direct mapping" means that for each joint on the human hand, there is a similar joint on the Shadow Hand.

The reason I used two of our own pictures to illustrate the article is simply because they are the easiest for me to come by. I can upload them myself and don't have to ask for copyright. As it happens, I have written numerous e-mails to other robot companies asking for permission to use pictures of their robots on the Wikipedia article. Did you notice that I have also pasted 21 pictures of other people's robots all over the article, and provided links? Am I working for them as well? No, of course not. Is the robot article better for having a good quality image of a robot hand? Yes it is. I used ours because it's a picture I have. If I were to use someone else's, then it would take me ages to get their permission, if I ever manage to get it at all. If you have any better alternative pictures then please, please upload them and paste them all over the article. I used the image of our leg only because it was the best image of air muscles I could find. I would much rather it was just a picture of a muscle. If you have a better picture of an air muscle, please upload that and replace the picture of the leg.

About the Wikipedia page on the Shadow hand, we are actively trying to get some of our customers to edit the article themselves with their own opinions about it. When it was written, I tried to make sure that it contains only facts and no advertising waffle. However, as it stands, it does contain only information from my company, which is a shame, and I hope that one the hand will be successful enough that other people edit the article too, without me having to ask them. Rocketmagnet 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Singularity, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Unimate doesn't fit the definition of robot. Also, can we get some more mediation in here, it's overheating.

It's only overheating because you have been burned. Sure you can claim the photos were the only ones available, but the links. At least five separate links, four of which go directly to your website (calling it "the most advanced robot hand in the world" product of its kind! How neutral is that?!), and the other to a Wikipedia page for Shadow Hand you posted that constitutes a "blatant advertisement" of your product that is earmarked by Wikipedia for "speedy deletion".

You have lost all credibility my friend. You wouldn't know a neutral point of view if it bit you on the ass. You have no business controlling the contents of the robot page or even discussing what constitutes a neutral point of view. Please go away now. Bangthedash101 20:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you have resorted to an ad hominem argument suggests to me that you have run out of decent arguments in favour of your original claim about the definition of robot.

Take a breath and think for a moment. If my motivation was simply to advertise the hand, what do you think I would have done? I would have put up pictures and links, and some gushing comments about it, and left it at that. In fact what I did was to spend tens or hundreds of hours researching and writing and finding references and e-mailing companies, proofreading and asking for advice and opinions, on a whole bunch of different robots and technologies in order to create a good quality robot article. The section containing the shadow hand was actually one of the last things I put in.

I agree, though, I may have put in a couple too many links. I'll take some out now. Rocketmagnet 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) - Done Rocketmagnet 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, we must stay on topic here. This mediation was intended to resolve the issues in the article; not to debate on emotional issues and who Rocket is working for. Bang, please try to assume good faith on Rocket's work here and don't disrupt the discussion any further. Singularity 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if I was just here to advertise, why would I have spent many hours researching, drawing diagrams and contributing to the Milling cutter article? Do we sell milling cutters? No. It's because I love the Wikipedia, and believe it is an extremely valuable resource. I have also tried to encourage my friends to contribute on their own specialist subjects. I will be visiting one of the world's foremost beetle experts this month, and will try to get him to look over the beetle article. Rocketmagnet 20:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)