Hey, check this out. It's something called the "Big Dog" and was developed in the US. It uses a gas-powered engine rather than electricity and can perform more high-energy feats for longer than things like the "ASIMO".

I remember seeing this a long time ago. It's pretty neat.

heh, that thing's pretty cool. I kept having to remind myself that the thing was a robot... it moved almost like a real animal.

I WANT ONE!

That was really cool when it slipped, it really did look like a real animal trying to right itself.
But what's with the buzzing noise it makes in all the outdoor shots?

Japan 2 America 1







and they don't look like screaming headless dogs

anyway ... why doesn't asimo count ?

Old asimo-


New asimo -

Oh shit, Metal Gear!

And Lothar, I think you missed the "Practical" part of the thread title. There's not much call these days for dancing robots, and I certainly hope there isn't much call for creepy reanimated corpse style animatronics. The only link from those you posted that has been actively pursuing practical uses is the Asimo, and if nothing else that's not going to be able to do much of jack if you kick it over while it's walking.

why does "practical" automaticaly translate to WAR ?

Why does "It walks more efficiently" automatically translate to "War"?

When it has an obvious military application being able to transport heavy payloads over rough terrain with a minimal amount of effort?

And that's exactly what the American walking machine is being developed for.

Heh, robotics... the idea is funny. Computer control makes it easier to design machines that'll be able to walk and cope this way, but you can also do it with simple methods... Doesn't have to be electronic at all really. If you engineer it well enough the thing could work with a gas motor, steam, or even clockwork, using gyroscopes and carefully balanced weights and things to set it up for self correction. It makes it easier to think in those terms when you drop the scfi baggage laden ideas associated with Karel Capek's invented name, which was actually meant to refer to a sort of slave.
-Any machine qualifies as that.

Whatever can make things easier, especially when it comes to war. I wonder, however, how easy it could be to sabotage these machines. Of course their programming would be so fortified that a simple hacker probably wouldn't be able to dream of being able to do such a thing, but a Korean/Chinese terrorist who knows what the heck they're doing, especially one who collected integral blueprints to one of these machines, might actually be able to take control of it and screw us. I'm referring more to machines that are built for destruction, not simple transportation units.

This is a simple robot with a complex structure. I think creating machines with heavily destructive capabilities is not far down the road. Things that pilot themselves and don't need humans to control them. Then the opposing nations who know how to really mess us up can attack us from within using our own machinery. But that'll probably come either during or after chemical warfare, assuming we're not wiped out beforehand. Technology is quickly advancing. We're stepping into territory that we won't be able to control!

Next thing you know, we'll have a robotic apocalypse on our hands and we will be their slaves.

Odds are that they wouldn't let the things be programmed remotely and force the use of physical connections to program if it's REALLY going to be autonomous. If they lose the connection to one due to it going offline, they could just decomission the unit for later inspection.

Walking is merely a useful form of locomotion for a machine. There are already remotely controlled machines used in warfare that use caterpillar tracks, turbo fans and propellers.

Machines deigned for bomb disposal have been adapted to carry machine guns. We know that the predator surveillance drones have been adapted to carry hellfire missiles and these have been used to destroy targets. The Germans used the tracked remote controlled "Goliaths" as directable bombs.

None of those are autonomous weapons systems, but they do exist:
The radar controlled anti-aircraft and close in anti missile defence systems on warships, such as the Goal keeper or the Phalanx are turned on and left the track and destroy the targets themselves- targets moving too fast for a human to catch.
These fixed emplacements have also been adapted to guard things like encampments in Afghanistan from rocket fire.


Many missile systems also act with a degree of autonomy...

That's reality, unlike the "robot" fantasy.
If you want machines that are going to go around finding and destroying targets themselves... well, that's a bit more improbable: when something as basic as efficient autonomous locomotion and navigation is so difficult in practice, however do you think you could program in the judgement required to only attack the right sorts of target? With those fixed emplacements it's a lot easier because their role is so limited. The same with a missile systems, but if you want the device to go after humans, or even only certain types of vehicle it gets more complicated. Makes me think of Ed 209 in Robocop.

Just out of curiosity, how are you so extensively educated about all of this. I'm not asking to refute anything, I believe all that you say, I was simply curious.

Also, "robot" fantasy is quickly becoming a reality.

There is no reality to it, because it's just a term with a great deal of baggage and mythology. What you have is what you've always had: machines. Some that are more complicated than others.


I'm normally educated about all things, like everyone should be. I have a large about of general and specific knowledge about many, many things because I find most things interesting and so I look up and find out about them.

When things are confusing, or terms for things seem to point to other meanings, it makes me curious enough to find out more and investigate. This is how I know that "Robot" was coined by a Czech playwright in the 1920s, and later adopted by Sci-fi writers. And I suppose many fans of this genre became engineers and then adopted that name for certain classes of machine that they worked. The association is really more romantic than anything else (i.e. a nice, evocative association).

Unfortunately it's more than just a simple issue of semantics. The whole concetp of "robotics" is misleading and fraught with fantasy.

Here's a pic of one of the so called military "robots" :



(Predator drone) You could call it that, or you could call it a big remote controlled plain with a camera and a laser guided bomb attached...

German remote controlled Goliath bombs:



Phalanx CIWS:



Goalkeeper CIWS:



Prototype CIWS with a bushmaster autocannon:



Armed bomb disposal device prototype:



Similar devices designed to crary the "Metal Storm system" :








And finally, exoskeleton research by Raytheon (Defence systems maker. -info):

But you fail to acknowledge that words and terms grow and change as they are frequently used and altered by time and misunderstanding and misuse. The term "robot" may have been used to denote a "fanciful" concept, but fanciful concepts and impossible ideas of the past are becoming possible today. And nowadays the term "robot" is much more broad in meaning. As I posted before (which I got from Merrium Webster's dictionary), the term "robot" can mean

A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance

and we have wide array of such technology.

Many words from several decades ago have changed significantly in meaning to today.

that's a pretty vague deffinition. by those standards you could call a can opener a "robot". it doesn't resemble a human, but it doesn't have to(only sometimes) and it doesn't perform a very complex task, but they only state that a robot often performs complex tasks. but it does do it on command, in a way.
so ... realy , we are all surrounded by "robots" they're everywhere !!!!

especialy those rainbird sprinklers , now theres a hydropowered robot !!!

That's exactly it Lothar. The point isn't that the word is used wrongly, it's that it's a rather silly word to begin with.

People fall into the trap of using a fanciful word to redefine reality. It has no real meaning.

Machines are machines. Calling them "robots" just makes them sound more spooky and fun. Doesn't mean they are more spooky and fun though.

The trouble comes when you think "um, what could robots do???! In the FUTURE???".
Then we get mixed up in fantastical associations. but if you always keep in mind that what you're really talking about isn't anything really special, just mechanical devices like any other you think more realistically.

What we used to call a "Mechanical arm" as now a "robotic arm". See how one sounds more exciting than the other?

"Robotic Vacuum cleaner", or a self directed vacuum cleaner...? It's just a Vacuum cleaner that hovers and the sensors on it tell it weather or not its cleaned a certain area before, as well as how to avoid obstacles. A simple application of currently available technology or a practical evolution in the field of "robotics"?

that thing is damn creepy DAMN CREEPY MAN!!!