2006 Robot Hall of Fame Inductees Announced

qeorqe writes "The Robot Hall of Fame 2006 inductees have been announced! The induction ceremony will be at the RoboBusiness Conference in Pittsburgh on June 21. Anthony Daniels portrayer of C3PO, will be master of ceremonies. The selected robots are: AIBO, SCARA, David (A.I.), Gort (The Day the Earth Stood Still), and Maria (Metropolis). The announcement was made in conjunction with the 50th anniversary celebration of the computer science department at CMU (formerly CIT)."

Comments

Black Velveteen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, I'd hit that!

/me takes a look at the current poll.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, CowboyNeal is clairvoyant now?

i have a nomination

[jjeffries]

I hereby nominate Vicki of Small Wonder for the 2007 induction ceremonies.

Re:i have a nomination

[pope1]

I had a crush on her when I was 12 =P

Re:i have a nomination

[MachDelta]

Oh dear. I remember that show. I remember how amazingly fucking creepy that little robot girl was. That damned show gave me nightmares. I totally forgot about them until I googled Small Wonder. I must have been supressing the experience, because now i've got a faint memory of being 8 years old and unable to sleep because I was afraid a 10 year old girl with a circuit board in the back of her skull was going to murder me in the middle of the goddamn night.

Thanks for reviving my childhood horrors, jackass.


(Just kidding... about the jackass part. The nightmares were real. Anyone else have them? Just me? Okay then.)

Re:i have a nomination

[ArtfulDodger75]

Just to scare you even more, that robot girl was real!!! She's still around and continuing her acting, but she changes her name all the time so you never realise she's not growing older. You can see her in Poltergeist and Aliens playing young girls, and currently she's getting around with the name Dakota Fanning.

No love for the Hodgson Wisecrackers?

[MilenCent]

Man, first they get faced in a Slashdot poll, then completely snubbed in the Robot Hall of Fame. You'd think it was the Cable Ace Awards or something. Little Tom Servo's sarcasm sequencer must be overheating right about now....

Hm. One missing?

[gardyloo]

I suppose that the fact that Sandstorm and Highlander got beaten means that Stanley won't be on this year's list...

Robot Hazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the ceremony has a moment of silence for the robots that were hazed at MIT.

Oh crap, here we go

[revscat]

...David (A.I.) ...

Ok geeks: Yes, that movie should have ended when he found the Blue Fairy. We all know this. It's been beat to death. I know. You know. We all know. And yes, I too would like to kick Spielberg in the balls for that one. And if it wasn't his fault, then I would want to do it anyway because Kubrick is dead and kicking corpses isn't all that satisfying.

But ALL THAT ASIDE I think that this is a great choice because (a) in my mind, the movie DOES end when he finds the Blue Fairy, and (b) it was an excellent, emotionally moving robot. While the "robotic existential angst" thing has been done numerous times (both Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell also come to mind), this one was done quite well, and David was a compelling, sympathetic, and very human character.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Ok geeks: Yes, that movie should have ended when he found the Blue Fairy. We all know this. It's been beat to death. I know. You know. We all know."

The super robots found a creative solution to a seemingly unsolvable endless loop. Cool. David dies at the bottom of the ocean sitting in front of the statue of the Blue Fairy. Big journey that comes to a pointless end. Dumb. Hopefully now you understand why people like me come out of the woodwork every time this is suggested and beat it to death.

Go ahead and read this. Hopefully this will lead to a little clarification AND (hopefully) a little less dead horse beating.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[WIAKywbfatw]

A human playing a robot playing a human comes across as "a ...very human character".

Wow. Just wow.

On a connected note, I would have taken the A.I. the other way: boy finds out that he's a mecha, meets his creator, accepts his fate and then the "mother" realises that she can't let go of her "son" after all. Much more life in that (if you'll pardon the pun) than the whole "aliens giving David his one wish for a day" thing that literally gave us the usual Spielberg fairly-tale ending.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[Anonymous Coward]

a. They were not aliens.
b. It was not a 'wish for a day'.
c. The ending was more 'profound' than 'fairy tale'.

Go read the Wiki on it.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[kfg]

David was a compelling, sympathetic, and very human character.

I Sing the Body Electric - Ray Bradbury, 1950 something or other. Twilight Zone episode 100, 1962, redone as TV movie The Electric Grandmother in 1982.

Certainly nothing against Brian Aldis (the short story is actually rather good. You can find it online by Googling on Supertoys Last All Summer Long), but Ray got there first, and perhaps better.

A better choice for the Robot Hall of Fame, but didn't have the "good fortune" to attract the attention of Kubrick/Spielberg.

KFG

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[TummyX]

Much more life in that (if you'll pardon the pun) than the whole "aliens giving David his one wish for a day"


Aliens? They were robots.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[ozmanjusri]

I Sing the Body Electric - Ray Bradbury, 1950 something or other.

Or even Walt Whitman, 1850 something or other.

The expression of the face balks account,
But the expression of a well-made man appears not only in his face,
It is in his limbs and joints also, it is curiously in the joints of
his hips and wrists,
It is in his walk, the carriage of his neck, the flex of his waist
and knees, dress does not hide him,

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[Fallingcow]

I would like to take this opportunity to note that A.I. consisted of the beginnings of about ten potentially really good movies, all strung together in a row, followed by the ending to a completely unreletated--but also possibly good--movie.

It's like someone in editing dropped the folders with the plots to several good sci-fi movies on the floor, got them mixed up, and this was the result.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[Fallingcow]

When were they revealed as being robots?

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[TummyX]

They never explicityly stated it but there are some hints..

When the machines find David, they touch him and download his memories. His memories are displayed on their faces (much like the earlier mechas that had displays instead of physical faces). I doubt aliens (organic ones at least) would have electronic-like displays integrated into their bodies.

Their faces and bodies were transparent/glass-like with internals that resemble electronic circuits showing.

The machines (through the blue fairy) stated that David was very important to them.

Watch the movie again and I think you'll find that the aliens being robots makes sense. The only thing which really makes you think they're aliens is their tall skinny "grey" alien *shape*. Everything else implies robotics/mechatronics.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[revscat]

The super robots found a creative solution to a seemingly unsolvable endless loop. Cool.

Boring, unoriginal, uninspired, and banal.

David dies at the bottom of the ocean sitting in front of the statue of the Blue Fairy. Big journey that comes to a pointless end. Dumb.

Your last two sentences just described life for the vast majority of humans on this planet now and throughout history. But we avoid such conclusions at all costs, consciously and unconsciously, and lash out when we are reminded of it. The reality is, however, that the universe rarely works out nicely those who inhabit it. Most creatures die violent deaths, more often than not when they are very young. So while fairy tales with neat, happy endings are nice and make us feel good, they do not reflect the human condition. But people do not like to be reminded of the ultimate pointlessness of it all, so you have endings like A.I.'s.

There is no angel to step in and rescue us from death. David's journey was one of finding out what it means to be human. By selling out on the most important defining characteristics OF humans -- their denial of death, but its eventual, unavoidable arrival -- the movie failed utterly instead of triumphing gloriously.

Separately, although less important, the ending of A.I. broke the rules that it set up for itself at the beginning. Here is this universe, with people, and androids, and it basically follows this timeline... And then all of a sudden what do we have? Aliens, hundreds of years in the future. It lost its internal consistency at that point.

Finally, the deus ex machina device has been around for thousands of years, and has been considered a cheap writer's trick for just as long.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt aliens (organic ones at least) would have electronic-like displays integrated into their bodies.

Really? How about these? Or these?

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Boring, unoriginal, uninspired, and banal."

... said the guy suggesting that the movie should have ended with David dying.

"So while fairy tales with neat, happy endings are nice and make us feel good, they do not reflect the human condition. But people do not like to be reminded of the ultimate pointlessness of it all, so you have endings like A.I.'s."

Oh brother. That is not the reason at all why these stories are told. They're told to make the audience's time worthwhile. If the journey doesn't take the character somewhere, happy ending or not, then it is pointless. You have given your audience no reason to invest their time. Remember Poochie the Dog? Yes, I'm talking about the Itchy and Scratchy cartoon from an episode of the Simpsons. The cartoon opens with Itchy and Scratchy driving down a road. On the way, they passed signs saying "Fireworks Factory 10 mi", "Fireworks Factory 5 mi", "Fireworks Factory 1 mi", until they came across Poochy. Poochy then went into spaz overload ... to the EXTREEEEEEEME! Suddenly, an angry cry rang out. "When are they going to get to the FIREWORKS FACTORY!?!" This was a brilliant and wonderfully satirical example of bad story writing. This is exactly why these movies that follow a character's journey always end with the successful completion of the adventure. (By successful, I don't mean happy ending. I mean they reached their destination and took the final step to complete their mission.) This isn't some cheap Hollywood invented gimmick to make everybody feel all warm and bubbly inside, it's to take us on a ride from beginning to end. Itchy and Scratchy didn't arrive at the Fireworks Factory, and it left Milhouse frustrated. There was no closure.

So you say this movie does not reflect the human condition. Well, I'm all too happy to argue with that. David had a wish that the odds were against him attaining. Guess what? This is a VERY human condition. It is the human condition that drives people to take classes, apply to star on the Apprentice, or make a demo reel that will land them a CGI job on Battlestar Galactica. The thing about wishes like these is that simply having a wish is not enough. You have to pursue it. All of those people have to start their own journeys to make their wishes come true. This is EXACTLY what David did. He was seperated from the person he wanted to spend eternity with. Logically, he should have just given up. A lot of people would have. Just like a lot of people drop out of school, don't send in their applications to the Apprentice, or learn what they need to learn to get that gold-plated CGI job at Zoic. He didn't. He went on his journey, and others became aware of his wish. They sought to help him. His journey ended when he found somebody who actually could help him, and they did. If he had not made progress towards his wish, then blammo, that's it. It would never be granted. The people who are successful in life are the ones that pursue their dreams. This is an important message that many many people out there just do not seem to get. If there is any question at all about that, try watching tryouts for American Idol. Human conidition, indeed. This story addresses one of the fundamental weaknesses of humans.

So here we have a story about a little boy trying to get his wish fulfilled. Let's pretend it ended with him dying at the bottom of the ocean. Okay. The world is unfair, lesson learned. So what is the value in this story, then? The world is always unfair. You cannot live on this planet without being taught this lesson. So why do you need a 90 minute movie to illustrate this to you? To make you sad? Well, okay. A cute little boy dies. Boo hoo. Now all that's left is to imagine what would have happened had he managed to get.. just.. a... little... further...

"There is no angel to step in and rescue us from death."

You are absolutely right. This is why you have to stand up and do something

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[pipingguy]

Danforth: "[...] a person is either with this court or he is against it [...]" Arthur Miller, "The Crucible"

Thanks for ruining the movie for me, jerk.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[WilliamSChips]

Or these.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[revscat]

So you say this movie does not reflect the human condition. Well, I'm all too happy to argue with that. David had a wish that the odds were against him attaining. Guess what? This is a VERY human condition.

Certainly. But if the movie is about David becoming human, and yet it denies making available to him the penultimate human moment -- death -- then it has not lived up to its premise.

The people who are successful in life are the ones that pursue their dreams. This is an important message that many many people out there just do not seem to get.

But for every human success is ultimately irrelevant. Pursuing your dreams will not postpone the inevitable conclusion to life. Humans die, yet David didn't, and so he did not complete his journey. Had he ended his journey eternally gazing at the Blue Fairy, the movie would have been consistent, poignant, and accurate. Instead it turned into a fairy tale, with no applicability towards what it means to be human.

You are absolutely right. This is why you have to stand up and do something about it.

You can't, though. No matter how hard we may try death still awaits us. If the movie was about the humanity in a robot, yet he doesn't die at the end, then he has failed to become truly human, and the movie failed to show the audience that such a thing -- a "human" robot -- is possible. In other words, its entire premise is contradicted.

You have been corrected on this numerous times already, but those were not aliens. They were robots.

Unfortunately irrelevant.

Ask anybody who has ever pursued their wishes to fruition. They will tell you that they ended up in a far different place than they EVER expected to be.

Not at the end. The end is the same for everyone: death. The movie did not end with death. It ended with a feel-good fairy tale ending that does not reflect the human condition.

I know you didn't like the movie. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not replying to make you like it. I'm replying mainly because I think you missed the critical details that could lead to you liking it.

Actually I loved the movie and thought it was a beautiful work of art... right up until the alien/robot deus ex machina scene. I own it, and continue to enjoy it. I am in the minority.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[Cappy Red]

"Certainly. But if the movie is about David becoming human, and yet it denies making available to him the penultimate human moment -- death -- then it has not lived up to its premise."

You seem to be implying that death is the human experience. I cannot make out how that is.

Death does not separate us from any other living thing -- all that lives eventually dies. Hell, all things larger than the basic motes of matter and energy eventually break down and apart.

Knowledge of mortality doesn't separate us either. Animals on the brink of death will seek out places to die. Even if this was the definitive human element, it would not take in David, regardless of the ending you choose, because he never showed any recognition of his own mortality.

Humanity isn't a simple thing. The simplest definition I can come up with in relation to David is this: Humanity is overcoming his programming, and becoming more than just the some of his parts/code.

Personally, I thought the teddy bear came much closer to humanity than David did... but I didn't like the movie very much... at all. In the least. Rather loathed it, actually.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[Cappy Red]

Haven't read "I Sing the Body Electric" yet, but I have faith in Bradbury that his story was probably better. I take his dystopian future (Fahrenheit 451) over the more popular Orwell one.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[Fallingcow]

Huh?

Did you intend to quote my sig? Or was that an accident? I don't get it.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[TummyX]

Well I doubt a squid has the ability to download and display the contents of a robot boy's electronic brain by touching him.

Re:Oh crap, here we go

[zippthorne]

The "second ending" with the robots reenergizing david didn't seem all that happy to me. Instead of dying at the bottom of the sea after a very long period of rejection, he gets to spend eternity with the knowledge that he will never again be reunited with the woman he loves as a mother, espically considering that tantalizing tease at the begining of that eternity.

Nay, some of us thought it was gratuitious, cliché, and unnecessary, especially in a film as long as it already was, not to mention unbelievably more depressing than if it had ended with his blue-fairy death.

The second ending wasn't a happy ending at all. It was a depiction of Hell. an antiseptic hell devoid of physical needs to be sure, but Hell nontheless.

There can only be one

[Anonymous Coward]

http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/

game over
thank you for playing

Hah, you wish!

[Anonymous Coward]

You 21th century robots can bite my 31th century metal ass because everyone on slashdot wants to be a bending unit like me, Bender!

Something Special About 2006

[buckhead_buddy]

I realize that this award is only in it's third or fourth year and I don't mean to be a party pooper, but we're talking about a ubiquitous industrial arm, a robot toy, and three movie icons from 1927, 1951, and 2001. My first impression is that these are big enough losers to have not been chosen in the previous years of this award.

Other than "We ran out of other good nominees", why is 2006 a good year to recognize this particular group?

Re:Something Special About 2006

[Ohreally_factor]

Also, why was there not a winner from the field of political robots? When is A.I. Gore going to get his due, and be inducted into the robot hall of fame? Is there some sort of prejudice against robots constructed of wood, or is A.I. destined to always be a loser?

What no Bender?

[Photar]

Was he even in the running? If not this hall of fame has no legitimacy.

Re:What no Bender?

[atrocious cowpat]

David Duchovny missed out, too.

Re:What no Bender?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. I rock. Not like I need an award to know how cool I am.

Oh, and C3P0 can bite my shiny metal ass.

Love,

Bender

It's a stupid award

[Animats]

I can't take seriously a robotics award that mixes fictional and real robots.

Back when the Computer Museum was in Boston, there was a robot exhibit. And, up there on a platform, were most of the early famous robots. Shakey. The Hopkins Beast. The Stanford Arm. Those are real winners. Gort is a costume. This "award" is an embarassment to the field.

Re:It's a stupid award

[Concerned Onlooker]

It's a good point. But it's also good to remember that science usually follows science fiction so perhaps it's not quite as ridiculous as it seems.

Re:It's a stupid award

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up.

Re:It's a stupid award

[Hays]

I don't think your comment is fair. Do you not believe that fictional robots could have a real impact on the field of robotics? I believe they can, possibly more so than real robots.

Re:It's a stupid award

[Spock_NPA]

"The Robot Hall of Fame recognizes excellence in robotics technology worldwide and honors the fictional and real robots that have inspired and made breakthrough accomplishments in robotics." - Robot Hall of Fame

Science Fiction is often the inspiration behind the sciences, the field of Robotics is no different. Science Fiction can help us better imagine how robots might interact with society, what values might they bring to our lives. Why is it wrong to remember the dreamers along with the doers?

Re:It's a stupid award

[Anonymous Coward]

While real robots cannot be judged on the same level of technical brilliance as fictional robots it doesn't mean they should be kicked out of the hall.

It is the fictional robots that make the subject of robotics accessible to the masses, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the people in this field were inspired to be there because those 'costumes' they saw as a kid.

Re:It's a stupid award

[zippthorne]

Well if they want, they should have separate categories for fictional robots and real robots. Real robots are far more impressive than some stupid cartoon.

I have a totally cool idea...

[TechnoGuyRob]

Someone should make a robot that rows a bot. Robot row, row, row your boat ROW BOAT ROBOT!

Re:I have a totally cool idea...

[Depili]

Already done by the Helsinki University of Technics automation department. It does preprogrammed routes, voice control and "power rowing" where the electronics assist a human rower.

where's Chin-Killa?

[cashman73]

Somebody's got to nominate Jay Leno's BattleBot, Chin-Killa !

EVERY VOTE COUNTS

[OctoberSky]

The Slashdot community can make a difference by nominating thier favorite robot.

May I suggest BENDER BENDING RODRIGUEZ

I mean, come one people, he leads the current poll with 41% of the vote. And it's a biased poll, there is a ringer robot from the future named Cowboy Neal!

WTF?

[LouisZepher]

Maybe I just can't find him listed on their site, but why isn't Marvin in there? Not mainstream enough? I'm willing to bet that quite a few of the inductees wouldn't be known outside the geek circle. If fuggin David came make it in, why not Marvin? Haley Joel Osment is a helluva actor, but Marvin is your plastic pal who's fun to be with!

The problem with Marvin is...

[hackwrench]

Everytime anyone goes to a computer to cast their vote for him, it immediately locks up, sends out a beep code that roughly translated says "Why Me?" and... and... well, I don't know what and... wait a minute, does not turn on ever again. That got rather costly, one would think.

Gort?

[BobNET]

Klaatu barada nikto!

I Nominate

[idontgno]

The Space Robots!

They are, after all, protecting us from the Terrible Secret of Space.

Bagle

[Jozer99]

I ate a bagel litterally 20 feet from where this was announced this morning. No joke. I go to Carnegie Mellon. Anyway, the article is wrong, the computer department is separate from CIT (Carnegie Institute of Technology, the engineering school). Computer Science is its own self contained department.

Re:Bagle

[qeorqe]

I did not mean that CS was formerly CIT, I meant CMU was formerly CIT. The name CIT was subsequently reused for engineering. If they had named the engineering school "Mellon Institute of Technology" it would have had an amusing acronym.

Re:Bagle

[Jozer99]

Sorry, the University now known as Carnegie Mellon University was never known as "Carnegie Institute of Technology", or CIT. When it started, it was called "The Carnegie Technical Institute" or CTI which is probably what you meant. When the school started creating other programs than engineering, and accepted a large amount of money from the Mellon family to start a buisness school, the University's name changed to "Carnegie Mellon University" and the Engineering program became "Carnegie Institute of Technology". The school was not associated with the Mellon family before this point. This was well before the founding of the school of Computer Science, which was sometime between 1956 and 1969 depending on which aniversary part you believe (the 50th aniversary of the department was held in 2006, while the 25th aniversary party was held in 1994.

Re:Bagle

[dr0n3]

The submitter of the article incorrectly stated that CMU was celebrating 50 years of its computer science dept (known as SCS since 1988) and that is not the case. The first CS dept was actually established sometime in 1965 I believe. What is being celebrated here is "50 Years of Computer Science Excellence" in other words, 50 years of CS research being done at the school, which predates the establishment of an actual department solely dedicated to the discipline.

Re:Bagle

[Jozer99]

What he said.
In summary:

CIT = Engineering, SCS = Computer Science. They both have completely separate admissions departments and curiculums, and transfering from one department to the other is just has hard as trasfering from one university to another (if you are accpeted by both). Carnegie Mellon University has born several names, but has never been called CIT, the current name of the Engineering Department. Carnegie and Mellon were not the same people, but two seperate people. Andrew Carnegie founded two colleges that eventually became the current university (Carnegie Technical Institute for men and Margret Morison school for women). At a later time, the Mellon family donated a significant amount of money to the school to establish a buisness school (Tepper School of Buisness), and the name of the university was changed to Carnegie Mellon University.

Also, the SCS department likes to have lots of parties celebrating its establishment, after the successful 50th aniversary party this year, I anticipate an excellent centenial extravaganza in 2018.

Data!

[flogic42]

Data from Star Trek TNG should of course be included in the hall of fame. Though technically he's an android, not a robot, and so are many of the other nominees.

Re:Data!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Data from Star Trek TNG should of course be included in the hall of fame. Though technically he's an android, not a robot, and so are many of the other nominees."

Well if yer gonna let Data in, then we need to let Daleks in, too. Yes, I know, they're more like little green blobs driving salt-shaker-tanks, but ... well ok my argument ran out of of steam right there.

*walks away*

I probably... should have thought that through a little better..

Re:Data!

[zippthorne]

But data is just the ST version of Asmov's humaniform robots. So you should really include the psychic robot, R. Daneel Olivaw.

Other robots forgotten

[Nitewing98]

And what about "Robot" from "Lost In Space?" Granted, the series sucked, but Robot was cool.

For that matter, what about Robbie from "Forbidden Planet?"

And R. Daneel Olivaw? And Questor? (re:sex - "I am fully functional." He said it BEFORE Data did).

Hmmmm....this smells like a rigged election. Maybe the Dan Quayle robot should be questioned...oh wait, he was "upgraded" to the G.W. Bush robot.

Re:Other robots forgotten

[mppm]

The LIS robot was the only one on the show that had a sense of humor and the only one that had any sense, whatsoever. And in spite of moving around on tracks, the guy could go anywhere.

Re:Other robots forgotten

[Anonymous Coward]

That last one's just a muppet.

Notable Omission

[Cyphermage]

I'm surprised the Lost in Space robot hasn't been included. He was designed by some of the same people who did Robby, and although the show was a bit campy, he was a big hit with the fans.

These days, the robot would have sounded an Amber Alert everytime Will went somewhere unsupervised with Doctor Smith.

Disgraceful

[ArtfulDodger75]

I'm shocked that Dakota Fanning wasn't even nominated!

What no Bender? Go nominate him!

[atrocious cowpat]

You can actually nominate robots yourself:

http://www.robothalloffame.org/nominate.php

Bender is currently at ~ 7% -- I think we can do better.

Go Bender! Go Bender!

Re:What no Bender? Go nominate him!

[Photar]

Mod parent up! Nominate Bender B. Rodriguez!

Re:What no Bender? Go nominate him!

[sootman]

Aah, forget you guys. I'm gonna make my own awards show, with hookers and blackjack!

What?

[monkaduck]

What, no Norby? Those books were the stuff growing up. Plus, he's named after a guy named Weiner! How is he not in?

What no Roomba ?

[cobbaut]

Roomba has already saved me hours of cleaning. Are useful robots excluded or something ?

Agreed! Distinction is needed.

[RossumsChild]

Agreed. It's kindof like having a martial arts hall of fame induction include one of the Gracie brothers (competitors in the UFC), Morehei Ueshiba (O'sensei-founder of Aikido) and Mr. Miyagi.

The first are skilled and proven fighters, the second was an infuential force in the community, and the last was a character in a movie.

Make these seperate freakin' categories. Duh.

Work Bots, Play Bots, Fictional Bots. Then induct one or three per category, per year. Lumping them all together is ridiculous. In fact, A fourth category for research would be nice too.

It's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than "We ran out of other good nominees", why is 2006 a good year to recognize this particular group?

Well the AIBO has been used in robotics competitions a lot. The most famous example of this happening being the RoboCup 4 legged competition. The SCARA robot is probably awarded because it has probably seen some important use in industrial applications. It seems that SCARA does not refer to one robot persay but a particular configuration that has the same kinematics as a human arm. Much more useful than a robot with a cartesian arm. I have no freaking clue about the movies because I never say them but then again I do know who Gort is despite never having watched the movie.

Meh.... Your argument is a bit flawed

[technoextreme]

Back when the Computer Museum was in Boston, there was a robot exhibit. And, up there on a platform, were most of the early famous robots. Shakey. The Hopkins Beast. The Stanford Arm. Those are real winners. Gort is a costume. This "award" is an embarassment to the field.

Let's face the facts. Robotics has always been a field that had significant influence between in both the real world and in our creative minds. Remember the word robot was borrowed from a play. Also, if you were to completely discount some of the most important robots that ironically were not even called robots or even exsisisted. You can't open a robotics book without having Braitenberg's name mentioned even though his robots were just a thought experiment like Flatland.

Why Google?

[camperdave]

Here's a link: Supertoys Last All Summer Long

Re:Data! - The idiot.

[camperdave]

An android is a robot made with a human appearance, so saying he's "an android, not a robot" is like saying Fifi is a poodle, not a dog.

It's FUTURA, not Maria!

[objekt]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=futura+metrop olis&btnG=Google+Search

Maria was the human that Futura impersonated. Holy shit, these idiots can't do a minimum amount of research!

A much more interesting read...

[Spikeman56]

Wired's top 50 Robots If you want a more thorough review of robots check out Wired's article. Maybe I'm baised because Stanford has 3 bots in the top ten (Stanley is #1!). But, it has pretty pictures too, and everybody loves pictures.

AWESOME-O

[ioudas]

We all know who the best robot is: *Initiating Fart Sequence

Oh brave new hall, with such inductees in it

[Cappy Red]

Two classics and... who? from where?

I don't care if you DID like A.I. -- David is not in the same class as Gort or the robot from Metropolis, and neither should he be inducted with them.

Sheesh. Two landmark science fiction films... and that thing. Where is the justification for this totally pointless, and yet nonetheless infuriating decision? ...

If you need me, I'll be in the angry dome.

Robby is in, plus a few more

[Cappy Red]

Robby is already in the hall.

Main inductees page is here. Click the ultra-light grey link in the sidebar to see the 2003 inductees.

Astroboy is also in. Not terribly knowledgeable regarding the character or its impact, but I've heard him mentioned enough that I can't argue his place there. R2-D2 and C-3PO are in as well.

Then there's one last science fiction member: HAL 9000. All these years, I could've sworn he was a computer... but, well.

Can anyone explain what HAL is doing there?

Metropolis

[ScaryFroMan]

How the hell did it take this long for "Maria" to make it in to the hall of fame? Isn't that one of hollywood's earliest robots? and most important in the development of the science fiction genre?

Number Five is alive!

[rapidweather]

Could someone direct me to the Short Circuit thread here?

Stephanie!

Also need a link to the Robot Johnny Five thread also.

Why HAL is listed

[Nitewing98]

Well, the only explanation I can come up with it this. HAL was in charge of the ship systems. He could control all sorts of things, from the cold sleep chambers to the pod bay doors. I guess, if you look at it, HAL was the computer and the Discovery was actually a robot. Sort of.

C-3PO

[zippthorne]

is the character in Star Wars most like us? I'm gonna have to say, no. The character most like us is Owen Lars. He plods through life with no real goal and burns out at a young age.

MST3K

[King Shazbot]

No Crow or Tom Servo?! I shall never forget this slanderous outrage! Outrage, I say!