| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Toto the Dog" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2006 03:29:35 AM |
| Object: |
On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
It is a subject of debate in Nationalist circles as to the real extent
of "Jewish genius." To what degree is the undoubtedly disproportionate
Jewish influence in a nation's intellectual life the product of innate
racial talents? Or is that influence merely the result of academic
parasitism and mutual Jewish promotion?
Consider, by way of example, the promotion by the British Broadcasting
Corporation's Radio 3, supposedly the epitome of British culture, of
Gershwin and Bernstein as a) American and b) classicists, when in fact
they are neither. It is not merely a question of them supplanting
Beethoven, Williams or Vivaldi, but of relegating to obscurity greater
talents of European blood. More significantly, for a cacophony of sound
is as naught to scientific confusion and disarray, we are subjected to
the deification of Einstein, whose questionable theories are treated as
if they had been given on tablets of stone; the disastrous influence of
the cocaine-inspired ramblings of Freud, a.k.a. King *****; the
mendacious anthropological convolutions of Boas; and this unholy
trinity is but the tip of a diabolical iceberg, displacing the greater
minds and honest instincts of scientists of European stock whose names
we have never heard.
So, shorn of mutual back-slapping, hand-ups, Oscars and the like, and
clambering onto the shoulders of giants with such unseemly alacrity
that the giants themselves sink into relative obscurity, what remains
of Hebrew "genius"? Here Isaac Asimov, Lithuanian Jew, writer of
entertaining fantasies about robots etcetera, discloses the origins of
the etcetera in an account which, should there be any doubt, is
reproduced verbatim. And in order not the prejudice the reader let it
only be said that there is evidence to suggest that nothing remains at
all except for a tenuous grasp of reality and a glib tongue.
THE WORD I INVENTED
by Isaac Asimov
Robotics has become a sufficiently well developed technology to warrant
articles and books on its history and I have watched this in amazement,
and in some disbelief, because I invented it.
No, not the technology; the word.
In October 1941, I wrote a robot story entitled "Runaround," first
published in the March 1942 issue of Astounding Science Fiction, in
which I recited for the first time, my Three Laws of Robotics. Here
they are:
A robot must not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a
human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where
those orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence, except where such protection
would conflict with the First or Second Law.
These laws have been quoted many times by me in stories and essays, but
what is much more surprising is that they have been quoted innumerable
times by others (in all seriousness) as something that will surely be
incorporated in robots when they become complex enough to require it.
As a result, in almost any history of the development or robotics,
there is some mention of me and of the Three Laws.
It is a queer feeling to know that I have made myself into a footnote
in the history of science and technology for having invented the
foundation of a science that didn't exist at the time - and that I
did it at the age of twenty-one.
The Three Laws, and the numerous stories I have written that have dealt
with robots, have given many people - from enthusiastic teenage
readers to sophisticated editors of learned magazines in the field -
the idea that I am an expert on robots and computers. As a result, I am
endlessly being asked questions about robotics.
What I will do, then, is write a question-and-answer essay on the
subject. It will take care of just about all the major questions I am
forever being asked and it should make it unnecessary for anyone to
have to ask me any questions on the subject again.1
Dr. Asimov, how did you come to be such an expert in the field of
robotics?
Alas, I am not an expert, and I never have been. I don't know how
robots work in any but the vaguest way - For that matter, I don't
know how a computer works in any but the vaguest way, either. I have
never worked with either robots or computers, and I don't know any
details about how robots or computers are currently being used in
industry.
I don't take pride in this. I merely present it as a fact. I would like
to know all about robots and computers but I can only squeeze so much
into my head, and though I work at it day and night with remorseless
assiduity, I still only manage to get a small fraction of the total sum
of human knowledge into my brain.
In that case, Dr. Asimov, how did you come to write so many robot
stories, considering that you know nothing about the subject?
It never occurred to me that I had to. While I was reading science
fiction in the 1930s, I came across a number of robot stories and
learned what I had to know on the subject from them.
I found out that I didn't like stories in which robots were menaces or
villains because those stores were technophobic and I was technophilic.
I did like stories in which the robots were presented sympathetically,
as in Lester del Rey's "Helen O'Loy" or Eando Binder's "I, Robot."
What's more, I didn't think a robot should be sympathetic just because
it happened to be nice. It should be engineered to meet certain safety
standards as any other machine should in any right-thinking
technological society. I therefore began to write stories about robots
that were not only sympathetic, but were sympathetic because they
couldn't help it. That was my contribution to this particular sub-genre
of the field.
Does that mean you had the Three Laws of Robotics in mind when you
began writing your robot stories?
Only in a way. The concept was in my mind but I wasn't smart enough to
put it into the proper words.
The first robot story I wrote was "Robbie" in May 1939, when I was
nineteen. (It appeared in the September 1940 Super - Science Stories,
under the title of "Strange Playfellow.") In it, I had one of my
characters say, about the robot hero, "He just can't help being
faithful and loving and kind. He's a machine - made so." That was my
first hint of the First Law.
In "Reason," my second robot story (April 1941, Astounding), I had a
character say, "Those robots are guaranteed to be subordinate." That
was a hint of the Second Law.
In "Liar," my third robot story (May 1941, Astounding), I gave a
version of the First and Second Laws, when I said the "fundamental law"
of robots was: "On no conditions is a human being to be injured in any
way, even when such injury is directly ordered by another human."
It wasn't however, till "Runaround," my fourth robot story, that it all
came together in the Three Laws in their present wording, and that was
because John Campbell, the late great editor of Astounding, quoted them
to me. It always seemed to me that John invented those Laws, but
whenever I accused him of that, he always said that they were in my
stories and I just hadn't bothered to isolate them. Perhaps he was
right.
But you say you invented the term robotics. Is that right?
Yes. John Campbell, as best as I can remember, did not use the word in
connection with the Three Laws. I did, however, in "Runaround," and I
believe that was its first appearance in print.
I did not know at the time that it was an invented term. The science of
physics routinely uses the -ics suffix for various branches, as in
mechanics, dynamics, electrostatics, hydraulics, and so on. I took it
for granted that the study of robots was robotics.
It wasn't until a dozen years later, at least, that I became aware that
robotics was not listed in the second edition of Websters New
International Dictionary or (when I quickly checked) in any of the
other dictionaries I consulted. What's more, when Websters's third
edition was published, I looked up robotics at once and still didn't
find it.
I therefore began saying that I had invented the word, for it did
indeed seem to me that I had done so.
In 1973, there appeared The Barnhart Dictionary of New English Since
1963, published by Harper & Row. It includes the word robotics and
quoted a passage from an essay of mine in which I claim to have
invented it. That's still just me saying so, but at least the
lexicographers didn't cite earlier uses by someone else.
The word is now well established and it is even used in the titles of
magazines that are devoted to the technology of robots. To be candid, I
must admit that it pleases me to have invented a word that has entered
the scientific vocabulary.2
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/asimov.html
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
06 Sep 2006 03:13:20 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:47:51 +1000, Dr Zen <freddyvessant@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:32:55 GMT, wrote:
Whut's up Doc?
Not a thing.
How nice to hear your true voice again.
It has been a very long time since we had a public serious discussion.
I am ready if you are.
The problem with serious discussions is that I tend to be the only
serious discusser, with his patience's being tried by some fucking
idiot more often than not.
Count me serious.
And an opening gambit is not the entire story.
We are totally fucked up in the Middle East, and we desperately need
people of good will on all sides to help put an end to mass murder.
Yes, I daresay that's right. Pity there aren't many.
There are some; maybe just enough.
So much to gain, so much to lose.
Are you prepared to play for high stakes? I believe you are.
Completely useless mass murder and unbelievable mayhem.
The Americans haven't resolved Hurricane Katrina yet.
Look what was wrought on Lebanon and Israel by "Holy Warriors"
wanting an "in" to Heaven.
Israel could end it tomorrow. It doesn't want to though.
Only by surrendering. Not practical. Maybe a spin on the idea
would work.
As I've written elsewhere in email, maybe we have an armed truce
in place. Everyone gets to keep what they've got, for now.
We might be able to work on an equitable reallocation of resources,
but that needs to come last, after a workable bargain is struck.
There is a rumour that there is no word for "Compromise" in Arabic.
Well, how about haggling or bargaining. You could read that as
a put down. It isn't. An honest bargain, with both sides happy,
works every time. We should learn how to do that.
Right, so everyone keeps their current assets, but everything from
DAY ONE onward is a community event. We build our communities
together, with equal share of assets. We build Arab villages the way
they like -- with expandable houses for expanding families.
We work together instead of killing each other's children.
That is not a pipe dream.
The Palestinians are Middle Class for the most part,
with Middle Class values -- not North American values perhaps,
but improving your lives, protecting your children, etc.
Suicide bombing is an aberration and needs to be addressed by
someone much more knowledgable than me.
As for Hizballah and Hamas and all the other "Holy Warriors" --
there is a better way.
It's interesting that you think only they need to be addressed here.
I'm just getting started. We need everyone's participation,
in particular the Israelis, who will be taking as big a risk as the
Palestinians.
There are more important battles to fight:
hunger, disease, early childhood death.
Both organisations do more for the welfare of the people they live
among than Israel does.
Each takes care of its own. Both Hizballah and Hamas have honour
because they usually take care of their people. I'm not sure what
Hizballah thought they would accomplish starting yet another
Israel-Lebanon war. It is a shambles.
I'm not sure, in any case, that we are well positioned to lecture
anyone on morality. Are we certain that our way is best? Is our
society perfect?
Somebody had better lecture somebody, cuz both sides have become
nutbars, as far as governing bodies are concerned.
The people just want decent lives with respect.
I could rant on, but I'm eating into Zen's time again.
Your answer, old enemy, new friend.
Or is that old friend. Full Stop.
It doesn't seem you've changed any.
You are wrong. I have changed my mind.
We need to work for peace in a new way.
You're still a member of the Blame the Arabs school.
Nope. I blame them both for killing children -- the Future.
Spank both their monkeys. It's time for a change.
I know it's more complicated than that but without any thinking about
where the other side is coming from, there's no resolution.
You always have to put yourself in the other guy's headspace
to be able to suggest a workable solution.
Sala'am aleichum.
__
MJK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Zen" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
06 Sep 2006 06:16:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:13:20 GMT, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:47:51 +1000, Dr Zen <freddyvessant@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:32:55 GMT, wrote:
Whut's up Doc?
Not a thing.
How nice to hear your true voice again.
It has been a very long time since we had a public serious discussion.
I am ready if you are.
The problem with serious discussions is that I tend to be the only
serious discusser, with his patience's being tried by some fucking
idiot more often than not.
Count me serious.
And an opening gambit is not the entire story.
It's generally a good clue to how the story is going to go.
We are totally fucked up in the Middle East, and we desperately need
people of good will on all sides to help put an end to mass murder.
Yes, I daresay that's right. Pity there aren't many.
There are some; maybe just enough.
So much to gain, so much to lose.
Are you prepared to play for high stakes? I believe you are.
Sadly, no one is going to consult me on this particular question.
Completely useless mass murder and unbelievable mayhem.
The Americans haven't resolved Hurricane Katrina yet.
Look what was wrought on Lebanon and Israel by "Holy Warriors"
wanting an "in" to Heaven.
Israel could end it tomorrow. It doesn't want to though.
Only by surrendering. Not practical. Maybe a spin on the idea
would work.
It is not surrendering to give a just settlement. It is not
surrendering to help establish a proper Palestinian state. It is in
Israel's interests to a/ create a neighbour it does not have to fear
and b/ rob Islamists of an excuse for attacking it and its friends.
As I've written elsewhere in email, maybe we have an armed truce
in place.
We would more usually call that a brutal occupation, given that only
one side is really "armed".
Everyone gets to keep what they've got, for now.
No, that would never be acceptable. That you, and others like you, do
not grasp that, is one reason ex-Israel Jews, and others in North
America, have nothing positive to offer.
We might be able to work on an equitable reallocation of resources,
but that needs to come last, after a workable bargain is struck.
No. This is where you go wrong, Meyer.
The problem is, one side is not honest about what it wants; the other
is brutally honest.
The Palestinians want Palestine. They'll settle for about a quarter of
it. They had nearly all of it before they were run off the land, so
clearly they will compromise.
But Israel claims to want peace but also, mostly, wants Palestine. It
won't settle for three-quarters because, frankly, it doesn't feel it
has to. It's in a position of strength. It doesn't want peace *at
all*. Just as Hizbullah/Iran define themselves partly by their hatred
of Israel, Israel defines itself by its beleagueredness.
There is a rumour that there is no word for "Compromise" in Arabic.
That's just ugly racism. The Arabs are willing to give up
three-quarters of what they had before they were dispossessed. They
are also willing to give up some of what the UN promised them.
Well, how about haggling or bargaining. You could read that as
a put down. It isn't. An honest bargain, with both sides happy,
works every time. We should learn how to do that.
Yes, but honest is the problem here.
Right, so everyone keeps their current assets, but everything from
DAY ONE onward is a community event. We build our communities
together, with equal share of assets. We build Arab villages the way
they like -- with expandable houses for expanding families.
We work together instead of killing each other's children.
That is not a pipe dream.
The Palestinians are Middle Class for the most part
Erm, no they're not. They're unemployed in large part, and those that
aren't are mostly labourers in lowpaid jobs.
That also is part of the problem.
with Middle Class values -- not North American values perhaps,
but improving your lives, protecting your children, etc.
Yes, that is at the heart of the conflict.
Suicide bombing is an aberration and needs to be addressed by
someone much more knowledgable than me.
People have always died for causes one way or another.
As for Hizballah and Hamas and all the other "Holy Warriors" --
there is a better way.
It's interesting that you think only they need to be addressed here.
I'm just getting started. We need everyone's participation,
in particular the Israelis, who will be taking as big a risk as the
Palestinians.
The Israelis can end it tomorrow.
They need only give up the West Bank. All of it. And East Jerusalem.
That's it, done, over. They become the good guys at a stroke.
There are more important battles to fight:
hunger, disease, early childhood death.
Both organisations do more for the welfare of the people they live
among than Israel does.
Each takes care of its own.
Yes.
Both Hizballah and Hamas have honour
because they usually take care of their people. I'm not sure what
Hizballah thought they would accomplish starting yet another
Israel-Lebanon war.
They didn't start it. And what did they accomplish?
Meyer, they won. They made Israel go home. Hizbullah is still there.
And the world had Hizbullah as the good guys. Can you imagine?
It is a shambles.
I'm not sure, in any case, that we are well positioned to lecture
anyone on morality. Are we certain that our way is best? Is our
society perfect?
Somebody had better lecture somebody, cuz both sides have become
nutbars, as far as governing bodies are concerned.
The people just want decent lives with respect.
Is that all they want?
Most people, yes. But some don't feel that's enough.
I could rant on, but I'm eating into Zen's time again.
Your answer, old enemy, new friend.
Or is that old friend. Full Stop.
It doesn't seem you've changed any.
You are wrong. I have changed my mind.
We need to work for peace in a new way.
You haven't changed. You will have changed when you say "first a just
settlement for the Palestinians, then we work on how we go forward".
You're still a member of the Blame the Arabs school.
Nope. I blame them both for killing children -- the Future.
Spank both their monkeys. It's time for a change.
Yes. I do have the feeling that if more mothers in the region
delivered some good hard spankings, they would not have raised so many
fuckwits.
I know it's more complicated than that but without any thinking about
where the other side is coming from, there's no resolution.
You always have to put yourself in the other guy's headspace
to be able to suggest a workable solution.
Yes. I know that the Left often forgets that it works both ways. Hamas
don't usually trip over themselves to understand what the Jews want.
Sala'am aleichum.
Aleykum wasalaaamu.
--
Dr Zen
King of the wild pixels.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
06 Sep 2006 10:53:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 09:16:23 +1000, Dr Zen <freddyvessant@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:13:20 GMT, wrote:
You haven't changed.
Yes I have, and I ask you to believe me.
If we need a true starting point in establishing trust,
I am prepared to advocate your way.
You will have changed when you say "first a just
settlement for the Palestinians, then we work on how we go forward".
A just settlement for the Palestinians which gives them a country to
call their own and pledge alegiance to. I am not Israeli. I am a
Canadian. But I would call on the Israelis to swear to help defend
a new Palestinian (democratic I would hope -- their choice) state.
That the warrior Yihudim (proper name, not Jews) can and are perfectly
capable of doing.
So, a just settlement for the Palestinians; then we work on how we
go forward.
Is that acceptable as a starting point?
If so, we have some very hard bargaining ahead of us.
The Israelis will not surrender East Jerusalem, given the Wailing
Wall. But they have already given complete control of the Muslim
religious sites to the Wakf. We should not mess with what works.
Perhaps, a joint commission to control East Jerusalem, with the seat
of Palestinian government there.
Complicated, but not unworkable. At least a starting point for
discussion.
Turning over the West Bank settlements carefully and slowly to
Palestinian Arab control; with Arab workers help to build replacement
homes within the Green Line for the Israeli citizens currently
residing (occupying is a nasty word; perhaps we can give that up)
in the "West Bank" -- Palestine to be.
Withdrawal from the West Bank except perhaps for the settlements
that abut south East Jerusalem; in which case there should be an
equal exchange of territory currently inside the Green Line acceptable
to the Palestinians. (Details are someone else's headache. Just do
it.) Fair? At least a starting point.
What do I know? I just have some interesting connections and can
propose these ideas for consideration. I can promise no more.
But, I want to see two Independent, democratic states side by side,
as envisioned in the Partition of 1947...friends and allies
eventually. Then we keep a promise to the Egyptian people to
make their lives better, because that had* to be part of what
Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin secretly agreed to.
A cold peace just doesn't cut it.
We have a long discussion ahead of us.
Can you bargain, Zen? Or is this just a theoretical position?
No offense meant or intended.
Shalom soon if now achshav (now).
---
Maher Yussef ibn Salah (an adopted name. one I honour)
Meyer Joseph Kalin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Zen" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
07 Sep 2006 12:54:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 03:53:53 GMT, wrote:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 09:16:23 +1000, Dr Zen <freddyvessant@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:13:20 GMT, wrote:
You haven't changed.
Yes I have, and I ask you to believe me.
If we need a true starting point in establishing trust,
I am prepared to advocate your way.
Okay.
You will have changed when you say "first a just
settlement for the Palestinians, then we work on how we go forward".
A just settlement for the Palestinians which gives them a country to
call their own and pledge alegiance to. I am not Israeli. I am a
Canadian. But I would call on the Israelis to swear to help defend
a new Palestinian (democratic I would hope -- their choice) state.
I think a democratic state is possible but unlikely.
That the warrior Yihudim (proper name, not Jews) can and are perfectly
capable of doing.
So, a just settlement for the Palestinians; then we work on how we
go forward.
Is that acceptable as a starting point?
Yes. But our ideas of what is just are possibly different.
If so, we have some very hard bargaining ahead of us.
The Israelis will not surrender East Jerusalem
They must. It is a pity the Western Wall is in the Arab capital but
that is where it is.
given the Wailing
Wall.
As part of the settlement, the Jews must of course be allowed access
to it, but the argument that this is holy to us, that is holy to us
has driven Israeli policy for too long. Often it is an excuse not to
give anything. "Oh, this was Jacob's meadow 3000 years ago, this was
Sarah's bedchamber for a week in 1790BC."
But they have already given complete control of the Muslim
religious sites to the Wakf. We should not mess with what works.
Perhaps, a joint commission to control East Jerusalem, with the seat
of Palestinian government there.
No, that would be unacceptable to them. They must be allowed East
Jerusalem as their capital and some agreement to make it an open city.
Complicated, but not unworkable. At least a starting point for
discussion.
Perhaps if all of Jerusalem was controlled jointly?
I can't see it though.
I can see the Palestinians' giving up Jerusalem in some way if it
means they get the rest.
Turning over the West Bank settlements carefully and slowly to
Palestinian Arab control; with Arab workers help to build replacement
homes within the Green Line for the Israeli citizens currently
residing (occupying is a nasty word; perhaps we can give that up)
in the "West Bank" -- Palestine to be.
We cannot give up "occupying", because that is what Israel is doing.
Certainly, including the Palestinians in the resettlement effort, and
helping them to build infrastructure in their country, is a good way
forward. If each side has an investment in the other, they can stop
seeing each other as the enemy.
Withdrawal from the West Bank except perhaps for the settlements
that abut south East Jerusalem; in which case there should be an
equal exchange of territory currently inside the Green Line acceptable
to the Palestinians. (Details are someone else's headache. Just do
it.) Fair? At least a starting point.
No. All of the West Bank. The settlements should not even be there. If
the people residing there want to become part of the new Palestine, I
think their rights should be protected.
Do you know how big those settlements are? The area they cover? They
make a state in the West Bank impossible. I know it is a tragedy for
the people who live there. But it's what it is.
What do I know? I just have some interesting connections and can
propose these ideas for consideration. I can promise no more.
But, I want to see two Independent, democratic states side by side,
as envisioned in the Partition of 1947...friends and allies
eventually.
If only our American friends could be convinced of the power of that
concept.
Then we keep a promise to the Egyptian people to
make their lives better, because that had* to be part of what
Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin secretly agreed to.
A cold peace just doesn't cut it.
Egypt is a difficult problem to resolve.
We have a long discussion ahead of us.
Can you bargain, Zen? Or is this just a theoretical position?
No offense meant or intended.
Were it for me to bargain, I would bargain. But if the two sides were
made up of people like me, they would not be such demented fuckers to
begin with!
--
Dr Zen
King of the wild pixels.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
06 Sep 2006 01:55:09 AM |
|
|
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 16:05:12 -0700, "andyandy68" <andyandy68@gmail.com>
wrote:
Leonard Bernstein was born in Massechusetts (or New York? well,
somewhere in New England)...
New York isn't in New England.
Only six states are in New England -- Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
....Close enough. It's all on the same side of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Towse" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
06 Sep 2006 02:12:08 AM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 16:05:12 -0700, "andyandy68" <andyandy68@gmail.com>
wrote:
Leonard Bernstein was born in Massechusetts (or New York? well,
somewhere in New England)...
New York isn't in New England.
Only six states are in New England -- Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
...Close enough. It's all on the same side of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Lawrence, MA. Bernstein was born in Lawrence.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 05:29:15 PM |
|
|
Toto the Dog wrote:
It is a subject of debate in Nationalist circles as to the real extent
of "Jewish genius."
Your opening sentence stopped me cold.
Any debate of "Jewish genius" should include such luminaries as the
world-renowned brothers Moses Horwitz, Jerome Lester Horwitz, and
Samuel Horwitz, as well as Louis Fienberg and Joseph Besser.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dorothy J Heydt" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 05:39:48 PM |
|
|
In article <1157495354.919939.129530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
Toto the Dog wrote:
It is a subject of debate in Nationalist circles as to the real extent
of "Jewish genius."
Your opening sentence stopped me cold.
Any debate of "Jewish genius" should include such luminaries as the
world-renowned brothers Moses Horwitz, Jerome Lester Horwitz, and
Samuel Horwitz, as well as Louis Fienberg and Joseph Besser.
I don't recognize these names. What were they world-renowned
for?
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Towse" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 08:25:42 PM |
|
|
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1157495354.919939.129530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
Toto the Dog wrote:
It is a subject of debate in Nationalist circles as to the real extent
of "Jewish genius."
Your opening sentence stopped me cold.
Any debate of "Jewish genius" should include such luminaries as the
world-renowned brothers Moses Horwitz, Jerome Lester Horwitz, and
Samuel Horwitz, as well as Louis Fienberg and Joseph Besser.
I don't recognize these names. What were they world-renowned
for?
the Stooges: Curly Howard (Jerome Lester Horwitz), Shemp Howard (Samuel
Horwitz), Moe Howard (Moses Horwitz), Larry Fine (Louis Fienberg), Joe
Besser. Besser also hung out with Abbott and Costello and Joey Bishop.
Joey Bishop, by the by, was born Joseph Abraham Gottlieb. He performed
early in his career as Joey Gottlieb before changing his name. He's the
only Rat Packer still around. He'll reach ninety in February 2008 if all
goes well.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dorothy J Heydt" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 08:56:41 PM |
|
|
In article <wIadnVmYELT1vmPZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Towse <self@towse.com> wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1157495354.919939.129530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
Toto the Dog wrote:
It is a subject of debate in Nationalist circles as to the real extent
of "Jewish genius."
Your opening sentence stopped me cold.
Any debate of "Jewish genius" should include such luminaries as the
world-renowned brothers Moses Horwitz, Jerome Lester Horwitz, and
Samuel Horwitz, as well as Louis Fienberg and Joseph Besser.
I don't recognize these names. What were they world-renowned
for?
the Stooges: Curly Howard (Jerome Lester Horwitz), Shemp Howard (Samuel
Horwitz), Moe Howard (Moses Horwitz), Larry Fine (Louis Fienberg), Joe
Besser. Besser also hung out with Abbott and Costello and Joey Bishop.
Oh. Well, no wonder.
If you had mentioned David Daniel Kaminski, or Benjamin Kubelsky,
that would've been something else.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 10:34:10 PM |
|
|
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
If you had mentioned David Daniel Kaminski, or Benjamin Kubelsky,
that would've been something else.
Ot Nathan Birnbaum, or even Julius Henry Marx.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dorothy J Heydt" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 10:37:54 PM |
|
|
In article <SkrLg.15669$%j7.11963@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
If you had mentioned David Daniel Kaminski, or Benjamin Kubelsky,
that would've been something else.
Ot Nathan Birnbaum, or even Julius Henry Marx.
Groucho, right?
Googling on Nathan Birnbaum now ....
Ahhhhhhh.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Towse" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 09:11:06 PM |
|
|
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <wIadnVmYELT1vmPZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Towse <self@towse.com> wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1157495354.919939.129530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
Toto the Dog wrote:
It is a subject of debate in Nationalist circles as to the real extent
of "Jewish genius."
Your opening sentence stopped me cold.
Any debate of "Jewish genius" should include such luminaries as the
world-renowned brothers Moses Horwitz, Jerome Lester Horwitz, and
Samuel Horwitz, as well as Louis Fienberg and Joseph Besser.
I don't recognize these names. What were they world-renowned
for?
the Stooges: Curly Howard (Jerome Lester Horwitz), Shemp Howard (Samuel
Horwitz), Moe Howard (Moses Horwitz), Larry Fine (Louis Fienberg), Joe
Besser. Besser also hung out with Abbott and Costello and Joey Bishop.
Oh. Well, no wonder.
If you had mentioned David Daniel Kaminski, or Benjamin Kubelsky,
that would've been something else.
I had to look up Kubelsky (Jack Benny). I knew Kaminski (Danny Kaye).
I wasn't the one who'd mentioned the Horwitz brothers, that would be
tadchem, but I remembered you not being interested in Web-based link and
search engines back when I met you (gosh, NINE years ago?!?!!), so I
decided I'd be your news-based, text-based Google substitute.
Do you play around on the Web these days? Click links that show up in
Usenet?
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dorothy J Heydt" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 09:19:11 PM |
|
|
In article <ya-dnSldsueVs2PZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Towse <self@towse.com> wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <wIadnVmYELT1vmPZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Towse <self@towse.com> wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1157495354.919939.129530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
Toto the Dog wrote:
It is a subject of debate in Nationalist circles as to the real extent
of "Jewish genius."
Your opening sentence stopped me cold.
Any debate of "Jewish genius" should include such luminaries as the
world-renowned brothers Moses Horwitz, Jerome Lester Horwitz, and
Samuel Horwitz, as well as Louis Fienberg and Joseph Besser.
I don't recognize these names. What were they world-renowned
for?
the Stooges: Curly Howard (Jerome Lester Horwitz), Shemp Howard (Samuel
Horwitz), Moe Howard (Moses Horwitz), Larry Fine (Louis Fienberg), Joe
Besser. Besser also hung out with Abbott and Costello and Joey Bishop.
Oh. Well, no wonder.
If you had mentioned David Daniel Kaminski, or Benjamin Kubelsky,
that would've been something else.
I had to look up Kubelsky (Jack Benny). I knew Kaminski (Danny Kaye).
I wasn't the one who'd mentioned the Horwitz brothers, that would be
tadchem, but I remembered you not being interested in Web-based link and
search engines back when I met you (gosh, NINE years ago?!?!!), so I
decided I'd be your news-based, text-based Google substitute.
Do you play around on the Web these days? Click links that show up in
Usenet?
Yes, I have finally managed to learn how to do so. It took a
[adjectival] while, too. I even read Girl Genius.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 07:40:38 PM |
|
|
On 5 Sep 2006 15:29:15 -0700, "tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote:
Any debate of "Jewish genius" should include such luminaries as the
world-renowned brothers Moses Horwitz, Jerome Lester Horwitz, and
Samuel Horwitz, as well as Louis Fienberg and Joseph Besser.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Ah, the home of the Confederacy. Welcome.
I* am a jewish Genius. So what?
<Dr Hook> Spank his monkey NOW.
Shaddup, you quack.
There are many geniuses. It's how you apply it and the moral code
you honour that counts.
I honour no code but my own and that common to all religions:
get stuffed; I want everything.
oops.
Love thy neighbour and he will be there when you desperately
need help.
He will protect your children, your spouse <whatever gender>.
He will make sure that something survives, even if you don't.
Semper Fidelis. A military code of Honor.
HATA
---
MJK
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 06:52:46 AM |
|
|
Toto the Dog wrote:
It is a subject of debate in Nationalist circles as to the real extent
of "Jewish genius." To what degree is the undoubtedly disproportionate
Jewish influence in a nation's intellectual life the product of innate
racial talents? Or is that influence merely the result of academic
parasitism and mutual Jewish promotion?
Consider, by way of example, the promotion by the British Broadcasting
Corporation's Radio 3, supposedly the epitome of British culture, of
Gershwin and Bernstein as a) American and b) classicists, when in fact
they are neither. It is not merely a question of them supplanting
Beethoven, Williams or Vivaldi, but of relegating to obscurity greater
talents of European blood. More significantly, for a cacophony of sound
is as naught to scientific confusion and disarray, we are subjected to
the deification of Einstein, whose questionable theories are treated as
if they had been given on tablets of stone; the disastrous influence of
the cocaine-inspired ramblings of Freud, a.k.a. King *****; the
mendacious anthropological convolutions of Boas; and this unholy
trinity is but the tip of a diabolical iceberg, displacing the greater
minds and honest instincts of scientists of European stock whose names
we have never heard.
So, shorn of mutual back-slapping, hand-ups, Oscars and the like, and
clambering onto the shoulders of giants with such unseemly alacrity
that the giants themselves sink into relative obscurity, what remains
of Hebrew "genius"? Here Isaac Asimov, Lithuanian Jew, writer of
entertaining fantasies about robots etcetera, discloses the origins of
the etcetera in an account which, should there be any doubt, is
reproduced verbatim. And in order not the prejudice the reader let it
only be said that there is evidence to suggest that nothing remains at
all except for a tenuous grasp of reality and a glib tongue.
THE WORD I INVENTED
by Isaac Asimov
Robotics has become a sufficiently well developed technology to warrant
articles and books on its history and I have watched this in amazement,
and in some disbelief, because I invented it.
No, not the technology; the word.
In October 1941, I wrote a robot story entitled "Runaround," first
published in the March 1942 issue of Astounding Science Fiction, in
which I recited for the first time, my Three Laws of Robotics. Here
they are:
A robot must not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a
human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where
those orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence, except where such protection
would conflict with the First or Second Law.
These laws have been quoted many times by me in stories and essays, but
what is much more surprising is that they have been quoted innumerable
times by others (in all seriousness) as something that will surely be
incorporated in robots when they become complex enough to require it.
As a result, in almost any history of the development or robotics,
there is some mention of me and of the Three Laws.
I did not know Asimov was a Jew. I wish he would not try to be a moral
philosopher. The laws of robotics are laws to which humans should obey
as well. Pacefism is something which has been hotly debated by
Christanity (if you want someone secular choose John Stuart Mill) since
the time of Constantine. Aquinas proposed the concept of a just war.
In AI the ultimate objective is to have computers aguing about
concepts. About Philosophy, about right and wrong. To me the laws of
robotics should state that :-
1) They should discuss a boating holiday.
2) Understand that stations do not obey Hooke's law.
3) Produce statements on moral philosophy which are reasonable and
intelligable.
The boat goes through a lock - El barco attravesta una cerradura.
The season of spring. - La estacion de ressorte.
Presummably as a Jew he would support Israel. Come on, your soldiers
are on patrol INSIDE your border. They are ambushed, a number are
killed and 2 taken prisoner. There have been soradic rocket aracks on
Northern Israel for years. What do you do? Now an AI system might have
fought the war differently, the Israeli generals may have deserved the
sack for their professional incompetance. But - no system could have
simply let things go.
BTW - Sheik Nasrallah has now said that the Shiites casnnot go to war
again in the forseeable future. Thsat may well constitute vindication.
It is a queer feeling to know that I have made myself into a footnote
in the history of science and technology for having invented the
foundation of a science that didn't exist at the time - and that I
did it at the age of twenty-one.
The Three Laws, and the numerous stories I have written that have dealt
with robots, have given many people - from enthusiastic teenage
readers to sophisticated editors of learned magazines in the field -
the idea that I am an expert on robots and computers. As a result, I am
endlessly being asked questions about robotics.
What I will do, then, is write a question-and-answer essay on the
subject. It will take care of just about all the major questions I am
forever being asked and it should make it unnecessary for anyone to
have to ask me any questions on the subject again.1
Dr. Asimov, how did you come to be such an expert in the field of
robotics?
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On Asimov's 'Robotics' FAQ |
05 Sep 2006 10:21:27 PM |
|
|
The laws of robotics are laws to which humans should obey as well.
In one of his essays, Asimov did write the three laws of humanics,
which were adapted from those laws. It was published in 1987 and
collected in Robot Visions.
And although he was born a Jew, he eschewed the religion and considered
himself a humanist.
Caroline
The Thunder Child
http://thethunderchild.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
