Korea Unveils World's Second Android

Chosun Ilbo is reporting that Korea has unveiled the worlds second android. From the article: "Korea has developed its own android capable of facial expressions on its humanoid face, the second such machine to be developed after one from Japan. The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy invited some 60 children to the Kyoyuk Munhwa Hoekwan in Seoul to introduce Ever-1 to the public. The name combines the first human name found in the Bible, Eve, with the 'r' in robot."

Gynoid

[MITDude]

Isn't that a gynoid, not an android?

Second?

[heatdeath]

Uh...there's only been one before that? What do they define as an android? Because there's obviously a very low bar of quality if they consider that to be an android. Pretty sure all of the tin cans with legs from the 1950's should also qualify as androids if this does.

Re:Second?

[KrayzieKyd]

Wiki states that

An android is a robot made to resemble a human, usually both in appearance and behaviour. The word derives from the Greek andr-, " meaning "man, male", and the suffix -eides, used to mean "of the species; alike" (from eidos "species"). The word droid, a robot in the Star Wars universe, is derived from this meaning.

Your "tin cans" didn't resemble humans, therefore they are not androids. There is a MAJOR difference between Robot, Android, and Cyborg.

Re:Wouldn't Adam be the first

[Arthur Dent '99]

What exactly do you mean by which of the creation myths? There's only one creation story in the Bible.

Genesis chapter 1 [biblegateway.com] tells the story of the whole creation, from day 1 to day 6, in very general terms. Genesis chapter 2 [biblegateway.com] retells the story of day 6 and forward in greater detail. It's very clear that Adam was created first, and Eve was created from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:18-23).

Re:Missing the point on "Eve", and wierd eyes

[supertsaar]

crosseyed:
I once heard that puppeteers purpously make their dolls very very slightly crosseyed to generate the illusion that the doll is looking at you.
They said that if you do not do this, the puppet will appear to have 'dead' look, or appears to be looking right through you. Maybe the Koreans tried this but overdid it?

Re:Wouldn't Adam be the first

[Jester6641]

Nice point, but there's more to it than just that.

"Adam" does mean "man." Good for all of you that like to point that out. However, is it a name, too? Actually, yes. Hold on, it's going to get complex...

1.) If "Adam" was not the name, then his name would have been given in chapter 3 when Eve's is (before then she's just called "the woman"). But since it holds through the next few chapters and even the rest of the Bible as "Adam," it's most likley that this is, in fact, a name.

2.) For those of you Americans (like me!) who aren't used to your names meaning something, then this might come as a shock...but pretty much every name in the Bible means something somewhere. This is why Abram's change to Abraham or Jacob's change to Isreal were significant events. There are these kind of things popping out all over the place. Therefore just because a name means something doesn't mean it's not a name.

3.) Articles are huge here. Looking at the Hebrew I don't see an article for the first time in Genesis 2:20. So? Point is, you don't put an article in front of a name. That's not how it works. But you do put an article in front of a species (think "a man" or "the man" but never "a Timmy" or "the John." Well, maybe that last one on occasion, but that's not the same).

Having said that, the first instance of "man" is in Genesis 1:26 (and it is the same word for Adam, so you could really flip a coin to figure out if they were talking about the name or the species. Both work in context).
The first time it is typically translated "Adam" is in Genesis 2:19, with most coming in by 2:20 and almost all in by 3:17. The 20 or so translations I checked all had "Adam" by the start of chapter 4.
As for "Eve," that word doesn't show up at all until 3:17. Actually just a bit after the word "Adam" or "man" in that verse.
At any rate, a few things to consider. They probably used a Korean translation over English (those jerks! Don't they know the Bible was written in King James English!) so I'm not sure where the first "Adam" would show up there. However, for logical reasons I tend to put it in 2:20 because of the article thing (point 3) and I think we'd all agree original language is probably better than Korean or English.

Whoops. Did I just tip my hand that I'm one of those religious guys? There goes my credibility on /.. And I'd been trying ever so hard to build that up.