Slashdot Mirror
How Long Until the Cyborg Olympics Are Better Than the Traditional Games? (ieee.org)
the_newsbeagle writes: In October 2016, a stadium in Zurich will host the world's first cyborg Olympics. During this event, more officially called the Cybathlon, people with disabilities will use advanced technologies such as exoskeletons and powered prosthetic limbs to compete in the games. This article chronicles one team's training for the bicycle race, where the athletes will be people with paralyzed legs. The team is composed of the paralyzed biker who has an electrical stimulation system implanted in his body, and the engineers who built the gear that energizes his nerves and muscles.
BOO-YAH!
In snowmobile racing, they used to have "stock" and "supermod" classes. I've always thought the Olympics should do the same and have separate events for those people willing to undergo harmful body modifications in order to win -- no drug testing necessary!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I have ocular implants and adjustable, augmented hearing. Is that enough to make me a cyborg? If not, why not, and how much more would it take?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
More interesting is the cyborg gladiatorial fight.
The winner can assimilate cybernetic parts from the vanquished. The last one standing will assimilate them all.
Captcha: nested
All depends on how you define "better". Faster, further, higher? Soonish, if events are exact same-same. Some events like trap shooting a disability may not matter - I've seen a guy in a wheel chair keep up with the pros. Some like perhaps the high jump I'd almost expect them to do it kinda soonish - it becomes a matter of engineering. If you look at Olympic vs. Paralympic record - I picked 200m men's sprint - you can see some times that are getting *very* close to Usian Bolt's 9.30 second time from the 2008 games.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
They shouldn't call such a thing an 'olympics' of any sort, because there's no real athleticism involved; it's more like a technology demonstration, and has more in common with 'Battlebots' than it does the Olympics.
Of course that being said, the Olympics, anymore, are more about world politics than they are about athleticism anyway.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
iddqd idkfa
Let's see who knows those two magic strings...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
But how long until we have a purely robotic Olympics--not just augmented humans? (Not like BattleBots, but something more like Boston Dynamics BigDog or Cheetah robots...although cheetahs never win.)
Will we end up with the same issues regarding finances, hosting, and sponsorships? Will we end up with cities and states shelling out big bucks for empty promises and artists being sued for using anything closely resembling the logos in their artwork?
Most Respectfully Yours Mrs. Cleara Plastique
Will the proud people of Robonia be represented? I kind of have a thing for Coilette.
#DeleteChrome
Amateur instead of professionals, i.e. people that are really into sport but they have a non-sport day job. However, they are so good that others are willing to pay their room and board so these competitors can spend more time training. Each country selects the best amateur competitors to represent the best of the country's common people. (if you are already a professional sports player, sorry, you already have world cup and series competitions)
mfwright@batnet.com
Performance, popularity, etc? If it ever did become really popular I think there would just be so many rules and regulations regarding the technology you can use that it would make it all pretty boring. Keep it unregulated and I think it would be interesting.
The olympics are the single most boring events out there. This is just slightly more interesting.
This. Most Olympic sports don't have much strategy to them. A lot of them are in part a question of who has the best unfair evolutionary advantage (how big are your feet, Australian Swimmer), in part a question of how much money you have for your coach (hi, rich kids!), in part a question of how much your country is willing to lie (Weren't the Chinese Gymnasts too young to compete last time, or something like that?), and in part a question of how good you are at not having your drugs detected (hello, Lance Armstrong). And don't forget the politics where judges select people not based on their ability or grace, but based on their personal resentment of the politics symbolized by the person being judged (hello, figure skating).
Some people enjoy it, but lets not pretend its some pinnacle of human accomplishment, ideal competition, or... interesting television.
Mmmm, how about now?
Given how commercialized and tied up in monopolies the traditional games are, isn't trying to be better than the tradional games setting the bar pretty low?
Do you know how hard it is to find the person with the best genetics, that will train the hardest, with an expensive coach / equipment, with few public records floating around, and is morally flexible enough to cheat?
The Olympics are about showing what nation is the most powerful and I think they do a fairly good job.
best unfair evolutionary advantage
How is evolutionary advantage unfair?
reminds me of that cyborg coin op game..
Take a bunch of extremely competitive regular athletes. Some of them will never reach the top. But if they chop their legs off and stick on a pair of blades, they might be be winners after all. These people are obsessive enough without the temptation for mutilation.
Don't forget rotten to the core, too
best unfair evolutionary advantage
How is evolutionary advantage unfair?
Seriously?
It is unfair because it is an advantage that a person receives without effort, resulting in a biased starting point as compared to other competitors.
Consider whether it is fair to have a basketball team of 5'4" players play against a team of 7'4" players. Both receive the same amount of practice.
It has already happened.
"It would seem strangely restrictive to deny the farming industry GM technology already so widespread in fields like large-scale construction, computer programming, pornography, and professional sports."
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
and in part a question of how good you are at not having your drugs detected (hello, Lance Armstrong)
What Lance Armstrong did was wrong, but it had nothing to do with drugs. Please do not spread lies. Or if something else came up involving Lance Armstrong and drugs, then cite it.
and in part a question of how good you are at not having your drugs detected (hello, Lance Armstrong)
What Lance Armstrong did was wrong, but it had nothing to do with drugs. Please do not spread lies. Or if something else came up involving Lance Armstrong and drugs, then cite it.
It had nothing to do with drugs if you are the biggest Lance Armstrong supporter in the world, maybe. In the real world, if it quacks like a duck, it probably is one.
See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are (reasonably) clear expectations on what is allowable in the Olympics. No enhancements, no doping (although supplements are a bit of a grey area). There is a little bit of arbitrariness required to make clear rules. But it's nowhere as bad as in Cyborg Olympics. Where's the limit? We can't have rocket cars with a little bit of human DNA thrown in there competing in the 100m dash. How do you clearly define what a cyborg is in a way that will hold up in light of rapidly increasing technology?