to that, you might want to consider some cultural background of Japan and the company Honda.
Most Japanese boys of my age (born around '60s and '70s) grew up watching robot animes and other robot shows. The tradition of those shows begin perhaps with ``Astroboy (Tetsuwan Atom),'' and other influential shows include ``Tetsujin 28-gou,'' ``Giant Robo (whose American version is titled `Johnny Sacco and His Giant Robot' or something)'' and ``Majingaa Z'' and ``Gundom'' series.
We all dreamed that in some day anthropomorphic robots are in common place and help humanity (but more like weapons to fight the evil). And I am assuming that the engineers who developed P3 are from that age group. For the Japanese, robots have to be anthropomorphic.
In addition to that Japanese males' preoccupation to to anthropomorphic robots, there is a culture of the company Honda.
Honda is known for its investing useless or not immediately salable technologies.
Beginning 1950s, I believe, Honda began participating in motorcycle Grand Prix racing. At that time, noone knew a small motorcycle company from Asia. Its country had lost big time to the allies just 10 years or so. The attempt was completely rediculous in terms of corporate investment. No return is guaranteed and it was quite likely that the motorcycles would end up running the very last after European motorcycles.
The common wisdom among Japanese public is that the idea of participating the Grand Prix racing was from the company's founder, Souichiro Honda.
The term ``running lab'' was applied to the motorcycles to justify the effort. The rationale was that racing requires rapid development of technologies, so it's worthwhile to invest to. But I personally think that Souichiro just liked racing.
After beginning to win in the motorcylce racing with small replacement bikes (such as 50cc class, 125cc class), they even began participating in the Formula 1 car racing in the '60s. I think the car won a race or two. You have to remember that at that time, still, not only Honda, but also any Japanese car manufacturers were not known as major car manufacturers. I believe that the name Honda became household name in America after the '70s Civic. Imagine how riduculous it looked that an obscure Asian car manufacturer participating in Formula one Grand Prix against manufactuerers such as Ferarri, Lotus (and Mercedes?).
So, there are backgrounds for Honda for investing such a useless technologies as anthropormorphic robots.
I remember seeing a news show that first reported the existence of walking robot, presumably P1, at a Honda lab in 1993 or 1994. I knew that the biggist hurdle of anthropormorphic robots was to have them walk like a human. So, it was a big news.
And in the news show, the engineers talked something like I said in the above.
BTW, I am not a big fan of Honda. I did not like their motorcycles when I was racing. I liked and still like Kawasaki green:-)
Re:while I'm not familiar with Behe's work...
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 2
While I have not read or heard anything about Behe's work, the discussion here sounds like age old theological discussion to me.
I cannot speak for Christian theology. I am specialized in Indian philosophy.
There was certain period in the history of Indian philosophy when the existence of God was a popular topic. Each school was devided into two major schools--One posits the existence of God, and the other who denies.
The Behe's argument sounds almost like one famous proof of God. The proof goes like this: Everything that has a design implies an existence of intelligent being. The universe has a design. Therefore the universe has an intelligent creator.
Although the formal proof in Indian philosophy is not quite the same as that of the West (it requires examples as a part of syllogism.), the above should represent what it is expected to prove. (Also there are variations of the logic.)
Interesting part in relation to your last question is that Indian theologists, at least some, including Sankara, did not think it necessary to distinguish ``intelligent'' from ``deity.''
In a nutshell, the philosophy of Sankara claims that God is pure intellignece (Brahman/Isvara/Cinmatra). He did not even distinguish individual intelligence (Atman/Antaryamin) found in us (if we have any) from the intelligence that is the source/cause of the universe.
There is a text ascribed to Sankara although some think it is not authentic. I think it is quite likely that the text was his own for various reasons. The text contains about 50 syllogisms to prove an intelligent and personal cause of the universe. Some of them and the presentation, I think, is flawed, but still interesting and powerful.
Furthermore, there is another text written by a Sankara's contemporary that argues aginst those proofs. One argument is that the intelligence that created things that seem to imply a designer does not have to be one. Each thing can have different intelligence behind it. At this point it becomes to seem the problem of faith. If one wants to be theistic, that person will say it has to be one.
I find it interesting that the arguments already recorded something like 1300 years ago keep coming back with new clothes. There are more in Indian philosophy than just Nirvana and Karma.
It takes some time for me to realize that Star Blazers is the anime I loved, Uchu Senkan Yamato, when I was 11 years old. It was in year 1975, and the show was the reason why I wake up before 11 on Sunday morinings. (My local station showed it on Sunday mornings.) I think that was the show that made ``anime'' mainstream in Japan.
But I never have seen Star Blazers. According to this, the show was made suited for American audience. Seems quite different.
After growing up, I had chances to see Uchu Senkan Yamato couple of times. I realized that there were so many right-wing things going on in the show. Some points were embarassingly nationalistic. Maybe that was the Japanese mentality in those days. And modifying the show may be justifiable.
However, the whole point of Yamato was that they used WWII battleship, which was already obsolete at the time it was born (ironically the Japanese made it clear that the time was not for battleships but for airplanes), but still the biggest and perhaps the most beautiful, as a spaceship. Many Japanese see the battleship as a tragedic ship. It was used for a Kamikaze attack. The ship being revived to save the earth naturally had quite a power to attract Japanese audience. The ship being named Yamato was a crucial point of the story.
It also seems that Star Blazers was tamed for younger audience. The original show was not meant for kids at least, it just seems that creators of the show created what they wanted to create, not thinking of marketing or anything. In fact, IIRC, the show was cancelled or shortened by commercial pressure. (But the popularity exploded after the show was over, and they made sequels, movies, etc.) But because of this show, and people realizing that creating good story in anime can be successful, anime in Japan completely changed.
So, if you could have a chance, I'd recommend to see the original. (Is dubbed or subtitled version available in the U.S.?)
You may be confused with another show on the British's efforts of deciphering the Japanese Imperial Navy's code. I remember seeing a show how the British successfully decoded Japanese Naval code, and knew exactly when (12/7/1941) and where (Pearl Harbor) the Japanese Navy would attack.
The show went on, IIRC, to say that Churchill decided not to warn the US of the potential attack so that Americans, enraged by the surprise attack, would enter the war.
I think the show was on the History Channel or the PBS.
> Didn't anyone else see the "twist" ending coming right from the start?
I did. Even a reviewer at CNN(?) mentioned that the movie has a twisted ending. So, I spent two hours hoping that the ending is not what I expected, but...
Still, It's nice to see the town I live in the movie. I live in Philly and saw some filming. I'm glad the movie did well.
There is an interesting reading on the ENIAC and inventors at PENN's library site. It rather focuses on the inventors' side and talks about before and after ENIAC. The pages are pretty and I enjoyed reading it.
Slashdot Mirror
to that, you might want to consider some cultural background of Japan and the company Honda.
:-)
Most Japanese boys of my age (born around '60s and '70s) grew up watching robot animes and other robot shows. The tradition of those shows begin perhaps with ``Astroboy (Tetsuwan Atom),'' and other influential shows include ``Tetsujin 28-gou,'' ``Giant Robo (whose American version is titled `Johnny Sacco and His Giant Robot' or something)'' and ``Majingaa Z'' and ``Gundom'' series.
We all dreamed that in some day anthropomorphic robots are in common place and help humanity (but more like weapons to fight the evil). And I am assuming that the engineers who developed P3 are from that age group. For the Japanese, robots have to be anthropomorphic.
In addition to that Japanese males' preoccupation to to anthropomorphic robots, there is a culture of the company Honda.
Honda is known for its investing useless or not immediately salable technologies.
Beginning 1950s, I believe, Honda began participating in motorcycle Grand Prix racing. At that time, noone knew a small motorcycle company from Asia. Its country had lost big time to the allies just 10 years or so. The attempt was completely rediculous in terms of corporate investment. No return is guaranteed and it was quite likely that the motorcycles would end up running the very last after European motorcycles.
The common wisdom among Japanese public is that the idea of participating the Grand Prix racing was from the company's founder, Souichiro Honda.
The term ``running lab'' was applied to the motorcycles to justify the effort. The rationale was that racing requires rapid development of technologies, so it's worthwhile to invest to. But I personally think that Souichiro just liked racing.
After beginning to win in the motorcylce racing with small replacement bikes (such as 50cc class, 125cc class), they even began participating in the Formula 1 car racing in the '60s. I think the car won a race or two. You have to remember that at that time, still, not only Honda, but also any Japanese car manufacturers were not known as major car manufacturers. I believe that the name Honda became household name in America after the '70s Civic. Imagine how riduculous it looked that an obscure Asian car manufacturer participating in Formula one Grand Prix against manufactuerers such as Ferarri, Lotus (and Mercedes?).
So, there are backgrounds for Honda for investing such a useless technologies as anthropormorphic robots.
I remember seeing a news show that first reported the existence of walking robot, presumably P1, at a Honda lab in 1993 or 1994. I knew that the biggist hurdle of anthropormorphic robots was to have them walk like a human. So, it was a big news.
And in the news show, the engineers talked something like I said in the above.
BTW, I am not a big fan of Honda. I did not like their motorcycles when I was racing. I liked and still like Kawasaki green
While I have not read or heard anything about Behe's work, the discussion here sounds like age old theological discussion to me.
I cannot speak for Christian theology. I am specialized in Indian philosophy.
There was certain period in the history of Indian philosophy when the existence of God was a popular topic. Each school was devided into two major schools--One posits the existence of God, and the other who denies.
The Behe's argument sounds almost like one famous proof of God. The proof goes like this: Everything that has a design implies an existence of intelligent being. The universe has a design. Therefore the universe has an intelligent creator.
Although the formal proof in Indian philosophy is not quite the same as that of the West (it requires examples as a part of syllogism.), the above should represent what it is expected to prove. (Also there are variations of the logic.)
Interesting part in relation to your last question is that Indian theologists, at least some, including Sankara, did not think it necessary to distinguish ``intelligent'' from ``deity.''
In a nutshell, the philosophy of Sankara claims that God is pure intellignece (Brahman/Isvara/Cinmatra). He did not even distinguish individual intelligence (Atman/Antaryamin) found in us (if we have any) from the intelligence that is the source/cause of the universe.
There is a text ascribed to Sankara although some think it is not authentic. I think it is quite likely that the text was his own for various reasons. The text contains about 50 syllogisms to prove an intelligent and personal cause of the universe. Some of them and the presentation, I think, is flawed, but still interesting and powerful.
Furthermore, there is another text written by a Sankara's contemporary that argues aginst those proofs. One argument is that the intelligence that created things that seem to imply a designer does not have to be one. Each thing can have different intelligence behind it. At this point it becomes to seem the problem of faith. If one wants to be theistic, that person will say it has to be one.
I find it interesting that the arguments already recorded something like 1300 years ago keep coming back with new clothes. There are more in Indian philosophy than just Nirvana and Karma.
--
kengo
It takes some time for me to realize that Star Blazers is the anime I loved, Uchu Senkan Yamato, when I was 11 years old. It was in year 1975, and the show was the reason why I wake up before 11 on Sunday morinings. (My local station showed it on Sunday mornings.) I think that was the show that made ``anime'' mainstream in Japan.
But I never have seen Star Blazers. According to this, the show was made suited for American audience. Seems quite different.
After growing up, I had chances to see Uchu Senkan Yamato couple of times. I realized that there were so many right-wing things going on in the show. Some points were embarassingly nationalistic. Maybe that was the Japanese mentality in those days. And modifying the show may be justifiable.
However, the whole point of Yamato was that they used WWII battleship, which was already obsolete at the time it was born (ironically the Japanese made it clear that the time was not for battleships but for airplanes), but still the biggest and perhaps the most beautiful, as a spaceship. Many Japanese see the battleship as a tragedic ship. It was used for a Kamikaze attack. The ship being revived to save the earth naturally had quite a power to attract Japanese audience. The ship being named Yamato was a crucial point of the story.
It also seems that Star Blazers was tamed for younger audience. The original show was not meant for kids at least, it just seems that creators of the show created what they wanted to create, not thinking of marketing or anything. In fact, IIRC, the show was cancelled or shortened by commercial pressure. (But the popularity exploded after the show was over, and they made sequels, movies, etc.) But because of this show, and people realizing that creating good story in anime can be successful, anime in Japan completely changed.
So, if you could have a chance, I'd recommend to see the original. (Is dubbed or subtitled version available in the U.S.?)
You may be confused with another show on the British's efforts of deciphering the Japanese Imperial Navy's code. I remember seeing a show how the British successfully decoded Japanese Naval code, and knew exactly when (12/7/1941) and where (Pearl Harbor) the Japanese Navy would attack.
The show went on, IIRC, to say that Churchill decided not to warn the US of the potential attack so that Americans, enraged by the surprise attack, would enter the war.
I think the show was on the History Channel or the PBS.
> Didn't anyone else see the "twist" ending coming right from the start?
...
I did. Even a reviewer at CNN(?) mentioned that the movie has a twisted ending. So, I spent two hours hoping that the ending is not what I expected, but
Still, It's nice to see the town I live in the movie. I live in Philly and saw some filming. I'm glad the movie did well.
John W. Mauchly and the Development of the ENIAC Computer
Wow! So Gerald Holms is reading /.
He was on last quickies. This guy is real funny. He can make Microsoft look bad better (worse?) than anybody else.
But be prepared to be sued by his lawyers if you read his pages and use ``Linus'' (sic.) ^_^
A joint mission between NASA and a Japanese counterpart is planing a mission called MUSES-C. It is supposed to drop a tiny rover on an asteroid.
:-)
It does not seem to use a harpoon, though