Forgot your password?

I would soonest put my trust in a ...

Displaying poll results.
Robotic bus.
  5129 votes / 18%
Robotic plane / airship.
  3890 votes / 14%
Robotic ship / submarine.
  3335 votes / 12%
Robotic chef.
  6580 votes / 23%
Robotic spouse.
  8552 votes / 31%
27486 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I would soonest put my trust in a ...

Comments Filter:
  • Robotic chef (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    We more or less have fully automated food processing lines already. Most of the canned and frozen stuff in your local supermarket never sees the touch of a human hand.

    • by mosb1000 (710161)

      Yes, and it's AWFUL. Hence, the robotic chef is out. I said airplane, because they're pretty much robotic right now and they seem to work fine.

      • Don't hate the robot, hate the recipe.

      • My robotic chef (for certain values of "chef" [wikipedia.org]) makes the food just the way I tell him to, and it's delicious.
        Food that is, not the robo-food-maker which tastes the way all robots do. Like plastic, metal and if you're not careful - electricity.

        As for the plane... Sure. If it's a bomber.
        Wouldn't want to be flown in a robotic passenger jet though.
        Not because of the robotic part, though I have some issues with machines "doing the thinking" since first I figured out that my fridge "thinks" it's closed when I pre

        • Re: bread machines - cookery is an art, baking is a science.
        • Wouldn't want to be flown in a robotic passenger jet though.

          Bad news, you already have been!

          The pilots are there for little more than taxi control and emergency backup as it is. This is why I voted "plane." Because it's the most established technology so far.

        • by jamesh (87723)

          Which wasn't cleaned properly

          wasn't cleaned properly by... a human?

          cause the ground crew was "downsized"

          downsized by... a human?

          so now they don't clean the parts of the plane that aren't visible from a distance.

          not visible from a distance by... a human?

      • While robotic chefs aren't very good at final prep, they do great on processing a great many ingredients. For instance, are you going to cut up, boil, strain, and puree pumpkins, or are you going to take a can of pumpkin from the pantry? Is your homemade pumpkin puree really better than the factory? If its got to be cooked and processed anyway, the factory does a good job. If it ought to be fresh, e.g. salsa, the factory does a lousy job. There is simply no canned salsa that can hold a candle to real f

        • by green1 (322787)

          Your objection to the robot in the salsa example is not an objection to robotics, but an objection to canned goods. If the robot was in your kitchen, using fresh ingredients, why could it not produce a salsa every bit as good as your own?

          On another one of your examples, yes, my pumpkin puree is much better than the factory one, but once again, not likely because I know how to chop, boil, and strain a pumpkin any better than they do, but because it's fresh. If I had a robot in my kitchen doing the work, I'm

          • A lot of the task of using fresh ingredients has to do with "cutting out the bad spots". I'm pretty sure robotics will eventually be up to this, but at the present it can only recognize bad items in a collection (on a conveyor belt, for instance). I wouldn't trust a robot to cut up my tomatoes and onions. Now I'm wondering how many "bad spots" are in canned pumpkin...

          • Dang it. Now I want to bake a pie.

            Mmm. Pie.

      • by Stargoat (658863) *

        Boat. If it goes wrong, it is using ancient and very very robust technology. It will not sink right away and you'll have time to help yourself or have other people help you.

    • by Pharmboy (216950)

      You need to go visit a meat packing plant, as you are mistaken. We touch the meat LESS than we used to, but that is all. The weakness in our current food safety IS the humans, and lack of cleanliness. Even with "mechanically separated chicken", humans have been touching the bird all along with the way, And humans are busy touching the machines that will touch the food as well.

      No two animals are exactly the same, thus you will always have a degree of human interaction with butchering them.

  • Commercial airliners are pretty close to being robotic already of course
    • by khakipuce (625944)

      And there is a lot less to hit - much more room to manouvre and the whole environment is much less complex. Add to that that the whole industry is under much more control and you get a safer option.

  • by Tom (822)

    that one was easy. Planes, of course - they are already largely automated, with the crew watching the autopilot do its job. Including landing. I don't know 100% about take-off but if it can land, I figure take-off is even easier.

    • Take offs are easy: Apply power, and at a certain airspeed, the aircraft will lift off the runway. As long as you know the performance parameters of the aircraft, you just need to make sure you have a long enough runway. (The Cessna 172 is a wonderful aircraft this way, even fairly short runways are plenty long for it. You literally just push in the throttle, and before you get to the end of the runway, you're airborne, without touching anything else. -- Barring crosswinds, of course.)

      Landings are easy,

    • Straight-and-level flight might be automated-ish, but most landings are still done by hand, and takeoff is in fact much *harder* than landing. See the last two questions and answers in this article: http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2010/10/08/question_and_answer [salon.com]
    • by fbjon (692006)
      Bring me a system that can crash-land safely, then we can talk.
  • Spouse (Score:5, Funny)

    by B1ackDragon (543470) on Saturday July 23, 2011 @03:22PM (#36858720)
    I think I'd have had a lot better luck if I trusted a robotic spouse rather than my recent non-robotic one.
    • Re:Spouse (Score:4, Funny)

      by erice (13380) on Saturday July 23, 2011 @03:45PM (#36858816) Homepage

      I'm not sure I want robotic fingers "down there" which might decide to fork and then segmentation fault. The resulting core dump isn't something I want to clean up either.

      And I'd be especially wary of any that have the ability to Terminate and Stay Resident.

      • Which spouse would most likely cause you to "face-palm" from him/her doing something really dumb? A robot, or a human? You see, one is forgivable while the other is not so much.

    • by antdude (79039)

      And most of us don't even have a spouse or a girl/boyfriend in flesh. :P

    • Yes but be very very careful if you get the model with a built-in pencil sharpener

  • by KevMar (471257)

    If it malfunctions, just shut it off and call for help. The majority of its travels in the open sea don't require much precision. In am emergency, just about anyone can be guided on how to drive a boat over the radio (if they cannot figure it out them self). The biggest drawback would be that if it does malfunction, you may never know it.

    A sub is another story.

    • by erice (13380)

      For small pleasure boats this should be fine. My concern would be large cargo ships and oil tankers. They often navigate narrow channels. The first sign of a malfunction could be when the hull strikes a rock and fuel and cargo start tumbling into the bay. Experienced skippers also know a thing or two about the weather conditions of their run.

  • Robots/automation would be/are able to handle any of these tasks under perfect conditions. Google has cars that drive themselves [nytimes.com] with a passenger in the driver's seat, as mandated by law. As pointed out above, automatic pilots can already fly planes over the entire flight, rotations included. Food preparation may also been dome automatically, etc. etc.

    Where robots may fail, al least at present, is in extreme conditions or when experience needs to be applied.

    Let's look at planes. A robot can't see other t

  • Something every wife should come with...standard.
    • Someone's clearly not thinking ...
      Someone's not thinking clearly ...

      Ctrl-Alt-Del reboots the system. When it comes back up, it does exactly what it was doing before.

      Only faster.

  • Isn't that called autopilot?
  • Unless the robot tries to murder me, it's the one with the least consequences of failure. Vehicles could kill all occupants, chefs could poison anyone who eats its produce, and all without a hint of malice or purpose to the act. A robotic spouse wouldn't be likely to poison you since you control access to ingredients, or can at least easily check, rampaging around the house localizes damage, etc.

    Of course, I'm differentiating between "spouse" and "Sex-bot," because I wouldn't trust a fully-AI sex-bot any ti

  • It seems to make sense that if Androids dream of Electric Sheep, I should start dreaming of Robotic Sheep any day now.

    Well that's what Cyborgs ought to do, don't you think?

    Besides - given the alternatives, at the current level of robotic technology that's about the level I'd be comfortable with a fully robotic solution ;-)

    If things go as well as I hope within 10 years I will have a large, heavily advanced robotic part in me. An Artificial Lung, to be specific. They've already got them working, so I hope tha

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      I think there must be a joke in here combining Robot Spouses and "where men are men and sheep are nervous", but I'm not quite coming up with it.

      • by Dahamma (304068)

        Whatever you come up with, it should also reference how he "will have a large, heavily advanced robotic part in me"...

    • Would those robotic sheep produce steel wool?

  • Why the hell don't we have these yet? Train-on-train collisions are absolutely preventable.

    • by prefec2 (875483)

      We have. For example in Nuremberg Germany they have robotic suburban railway which can even share the tracks with human controlled devices. High speed trains are computer controlled when on route. However, they need a "pilot" when they leave the high speed route. So technically we are already there. It is a question of implementation. And there is one other issue: When a suicide uses a train as his/her way of ending the live, someone has to call the police...

    • by jandrese (485)
      We do. Like most automated systems these days though,we still require a person be present to handle contingencies.
  • ships and planes are already heavily automated. You could call them robotic and not be wrong. Buses and cars with autopilots and automated navigation and active collision avoidance will be with us within the decade. Most of our pre-packaged food is already made in factories. A robotic chef, I suppose that's possible now; however, I think people will want to do that job at some level. But, a robotic wife? Where's the fun in that?
    • by Lumpy (12016)

      "Buses and cars with autopilots and automated navigation and active collision avoidance will be with us within the decade"

      Bet you $100.00 they wont.

      Who do you sue when an autopilot car runs over someone? The legal system alone wont allow this stuff.

  • I voted spouse, obviously. I mean, what else would I put my... oh, hang on. It says trust. Misread it, sorry.
  • On second thought, maybe not ...

  • We've been putting our trust in robotic airplanes for decades, now.

  • I would soonest put my thrust in a robotic spouse...
  • Some have said that we currently have automated kitchens and autopilots, but these are not robots. They follow predefined algorithms with no "creativity", no real decision making. Perhaps autopilots are closer than automated kitchens, but to be a "robot chef" it has to decide what ingredients to use, not just follow a recipe. If it mis-reads a quantity or an ingredient label then it needs to be able to work out itself that something is wrong and correct it in order to qualify as a robot in my opinion.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      "Some have said that we currently have automated kitchens and autopilots, but these are not robots. They follow predefined algorithms with no "creativity", no real decision making. "

      REally? modern autopilots will do collision avoidance, that's making a decision.

      No it wont say, "hmm, I need to avoid that mountain. I'm in a good mood.. let's do it upside down while flashing the landing lights"

  • Release the robotic Richard Simmons!

  • Already there kiddies. you do it every time you fly... The pilot is there in case the "push to land" button fails to do what it is supposed to.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

 



Forgot your password?
Working...