I think that it is the lack of a carrying angle that gives the tight-muscled intestinal-distress look. In normal humanoids, there is a distinct angle from the broader pelvis to the narrow knees. This makes it possible to take consecutive steps in a straight line, something that is extremely difficult for our primate cousins. Presumably, makers of androids would wish for them to walk like humans.
Mine are robots, Not androids. There's a difference. However, I have no idea what you refer to, mine are fully articulate as can be seen from the joints. The body panels are rigid, though. Think suit of armour as apposed to polyflesh.
What is a "half-android"? do you mean a cyborg? Robot - think Terminator or better still, Honda's Asimo. Android - think West World 2017, or even Blade Runner. Cyborg - part human, part machine. Perhaps think Borg.
R.F.G. Cameron a.k.a. Sphinx
My work can be found at:
Just Kevin said:
I think that it is the lack of a carrying angle that gives the tight-muscled intestinal-distress look. In normal humanoids, there is a distinct angle from the broader pelvis to the narrow knees. This makes it possible to take consecutive steps in a straight line, something that is extremely difficult for our primate cousins. Presumably, makers of androids would wish for them to walk like humans.Mine are robots, Not androids. There's a difference. However, I have no idea what you refer to, mine are fully articulate as can be seen from the joints. The body panels are rigid, though. Think suit of armour as apposed to polyflesh.
Your robots, in contrast, appear to be desperately awaiting a loo.
And I think you appear to be doing your best at trying to be amusing. Mine are simply stereotypical robots as often depicted when the possibility of humanoid robots was first considered. You are thinking too much.
One could posit that when humanoid appearing robots [a.k.a. androids]
Androids are not the same as robots. I gave you examples of why that is a fact.
This is an Android. Note that it is not electro-mechanical.
is a Robot. Spot the difference?
It is common to get the two names mixed up, though.
That's not relevant to these postings. Although it is being studied.Consider a construct that somewhat resembles the human form, if the proportions and movement are more than a bit off people will fear and / or ridicule the android.
That's not true. I own a robot and people think it's amusing or annoying. Very few look like the Terminator.
This is part of why early attempts to create companions for people or replacements for workers were unsuccessful.
Early ones were unsuccessful because they were rubbish and expensive. Apart from the actual robots that have replaced workers in factories. And that started in the 1960s.
Who would want a companion weighing several hundred pounds that would tower over them while inspiring fear?
Why would anyone buy a robot that frightens them? But as I said, they cost too much for the common person to buy, and they were never mass produced or marketed, anyway. They are still too expensive for most people, even the ones that are not human sized.
Add in jerky movement and the problem gets worse.
Quite so, but you are talking about decades ago. One could say the same about the Model T Ford.The Japanese companies working on android projects figured that part out.
You are still mixing the names up, regardless of me pointing out that there's a substantial difference. Just because a robot looks like a human does not mean it is constructed like an android.
This is why there is a hotel in Japan where the majority of the staff are androids, mostly female in appearance.
Not just there, but they are not androids and they don't have legs, or even useful arms. Even the rare one sat at a reception desk does not exist below the waist, and only her head and face moves. *The staff in hotels etc are often already female, anyway.
The female form was chosen due to both stature and appearance being less likely to be perceived as threatening.
Not as such. Read above. *
The other option is both less realistic while still being both cute and diminutive.
What other option? The majority of robots you can buy are androgynous, or do not even have body panels.Now back to our movie: "How I Slept Through The Anthropocene"
Gosh. the whole last 15,000 years?!
Just Kevin said:
Your robots, in contrast, appear to be desperately awaiting a loo.And I think you appear to be doing your best at trying to be amusing. Mine are simply stereotypical robots as often depicted when the possibility of humanoid robots was first considered. You are thinking too much.http://cyberneticzoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/budapest-robot-topfoto-RV4428-3-x640-640x1007.jpg
Ah, in one fell swoop the dictionary has been proven completely wrong
Well that one is. If there was no difference there'd be no need for two names.
An android is a synthetic organism designed to imitate a human. An orgasm is not a machine, whereas a robot is. Meanings change. I will assume you looked at those videos showing the exact difference?
Actually, no. I was merely explaining why they give that perception.
To you perhaps. They just look overly fat, so are you saying that fat people always look as they want a crap?
You are not required to understand,
Because it made no sense?
but I do make every effort to make my writing as transparent as possible and thus I always work on being better understood.
Indeed. Especially when mooting a personal opinion.There is no such thing as thinking too much;
In many cases it is.
but I have often seen the opposite case.
But that can be true.
Since the subject of the thread is the cover of a book concerning androids and the acceptance, rejection, and apparent humanity thereof, the relevance seems rather clear from where I sit.
The cover of the book does not depict that. However I will say that you are sort of right, but a little out of date. The worry now is the advancement of AI.
I do believe many of the people I used to work for [and with] would appreciate someone who [like you] sees outside the box.
It depends what is seen. But feel free to have the last word.
‘Roboti’ derives from the Old Church Slavanic ‘rabota’, meaning ‘servitude’, which in turn comes from ‘rabu’, meaning ‘slave’. Whereas Android does not mean that. One does indeed find this > Word Origin and History for android. n. "automaton resembling a human being," 1842, from Modern Latin androides (itself attested as a Latin word in English from 1727), from Greek andro- "human" (see andro-) + eides "form, shape."
However in many definitions it also includes golems, which are not robots at all. They are mythical magic.
But I think you are missing my point. If you look for people and companies who make robots or robotics, not one calls themselves a maker of androids.
In SF (because androids do not as yet exist, (man made biological creature)) a robot is an electro-mechanical device, at times in the shape of a human. An android is not an electro-mechanical creature. The latter so far only exist in SF.
This is a potential android muscle.
This is mechanics >
What I am saying is that due to advancement of science, there has to be and is, a differential between the words Robot and Android. One cannot describe a flesh heart created by man from stem cells mechanical.
But no doubt I am wasting my text.