[Nicolas06]

I remember reading that in school. As in all such fiction, the mechanicals are anthropomorphic, hopelessly foolish idea that persists to the present (witness Sony's little "robot"). A mechanical substitute for humans is far better having components suitable to mechanical devices rather than attempting to mimic humans. Pointless to design a robot with legs, as the they require enormous amounts of mechanical complexity and computerized movements when over 90% of the purpose could be accomplished with wheels. R2D2 is vastly more sensible than 3CPO.

But there a market for that. We already have good looking dolls for some "uses" by some people. There also some interresting aspects like being unnable to tell at first sight if the humanoid you have in front of you is a human or a robot. People prefer to be served and communicate with other human rather than machines.

Even if we all know we have machine in front of us, many of us would want the look of humans. And if clients pay for that, there will be companies to do it.

if you remember also some science fiction work, like fundation, robots used the feature to be seen as normal humans to great effect as to take position of power...

Anyway if you can make a real sentient robot, solving the mechanical trivia about legs or bipedia is general, doesn't seems like a complex problem.

R2D2 doesn't look to be that advanced, neither is C3PO and in term of capacity to interract with the environement, they both look like a total failure. Today smartphones overall look like they provide more features to their users and theses devices do actually exist.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 06-05-2016 at 04:15 AM.

[marquis1955]

I'm about 3-4hrs South of you and have not seen it here. I see Cardinals daily. I am curious to know what you find out though.

I'll post any information I can get, We have many other bird species here in the same area and I have not seen any signs only the Cardinals and on at least 5 different birds in the last week alone. They seem to have healthy appetites and active as usual but I can only imagine far worse if it continues. I will as I said contact fish & game and or the college when as soon as as find a few more pictures of the birds from this week. I would think maybe the Dove would be affected also because both are ground feeders for the most part.. Many members of this forum shoot birds so I am anxious to hear from anyone else who has seen this.

[WPRESTO]

But there a market for that. We already have good looking dolls for some "uses" by some people. There also some interresting aspects like being unnable to tell at first sight if the humanoid you have in front of you is a human or a robot. People prefer to be served and communicate with other human rather than machines.

Even if we all know we have machine in front of us, many of us would want the look of humans. And if clients pay for that, there will be companies to do it.

if you remember also some science fiction work, like fundation, robots used the feature to be seen as normal humans to great effect as to take position of power...

Anyway if you can make a real sentient robot, solving the mechanical trivia about legs or bipedia is general, doesn't seems like a complex problem.

R2D2 doesn't look to be that advanced, neither is C3PO and in term of capacity to interract with the environement, they both look like a total failure. Today smartphones overall look like they provide more features to their users and theses devices do actually exist.

I will not argue the point extensively with you but only observe that "robots" in the sense of mechanical devices that do what humans do "by hand," have been successfully used in industry for many decades. Watch the "robot" welders of an automobile assembly line. They look vaguely like a human arm to the extent that there are joints that bend and rotate, but some of those joints bend farther than any human joint, and there can be any number of them, and any of them can be as long or short as required (not confined to the relative lengths of human arm sections), and rotating joints can swivel far more than a human wrist or shoulder, and there is no need for the complexity of a "hand." Those devices are designed around what machines can do and are being built to do, not what humans "look like." And consider the self-propelled, self-guided, self-homing robotic vacuum cleaner. It looks nothing like a human, and nothing like the robot housework-helpers envisioned 50+ years back which were human-sized tin-ladies replete with arms, legs and face (sometimes with a metal skirt, apron and nose!!??) obediently pushing a standard upright vacuum cleaner back and forth, back and forth, but making virtually no forward progress because no one then had a clue how to address the complex mechanical, coordination, and balance problems of getting the anthropomorphic monster to walk. If they had put it on wheels, made it look like R2D2, they might have had a more plausible, functional device. IMHO, the best robots are purpose designed, emphatically not designed to first of all look like and move like a human. Where would Martian exploration be if we insisted that the Curiosity and Opportunity robots were anthropomorphic: bipedal, two arms with five-fingered hands; torso and a head with eyes, ears, nose and of course a mouth that could talk information back to Earth? Sci-Fi yes, right along with light-sabers. Logical, sensible, practical? I say emphatically NO.

[Nicolas06]

I will not argue the point extensively with you but only observe that "robots" in the sense of mechanical devices that do what humans do "by hand," have been successfully used in industry for many decades. Watch the "robot" welders of an automobile assembly line. They look vaguely like a human arm to the extent that there are joints that bend and rotate, but some of those joints bend farther than any human joint, and there can be any number of them, and any of them can be as long or short as required (not confined to the relative lengths of human arm sections), and rotating joints can swivel far more than a human wrist or shoulder, and there is no need for the complexity of a "hand." Those devices are designed around what machines can do and are being built to do, not what humans "look like." And consider the self-propelled, self-guided, self-homing robotic vacuum cleaner. It looks nothing like a human, and nothing like the robot housework-helpers envisioned 50+ years back which were human-sized tin-ladies replete with arms, legs and face (sometimes with a metal skirt, apron and nose!!??) obediently pushing a standard upright vacuum cleaner back and forth, back and forth, but making virtually no forward progress because no one then had a clue how to address the complex mechanical, coordination, and balance problems of getting the anthropomorphic monster to walk. If they had put it on wheels, made it look like R2D2, they might have had a more plausible, functional device. IMHO, the best robots are purpose designed, emphatically not designed to first of all look like and move like a human. Where would Martian exploration be if we insisted that the Curiosity and Opportunity robots were anthropomorphic: bipedal, two arms with five-fingered hands; torso and a head with eyes, ears, nose and of course a mouth that could talk information back to Earth? Sci-Fi yes, right along with light-sabers. Logical, sensible, practical? I say emphatically NO.

A Way to see it... For me the interresting part of robots are their reasonning capabilities as way as their adaptation to changing environment. What you have in a factory is highly specialized but just a tool without brain. It no more or no less a robot than your home printer or hoven: it does fit to the job but is specialized and limited in capacity. Usually there a computer controlled by a human to do the job.

At least the robot we send to other planets can manage to move themselves but again they are very specialized devices. They are in fact just tools.

But ask yourself what human have that so interresting except that it is us? We are not strong. We are not that big. We have no good natural weapons and what we had, we lost.

But what we do have is great eyesight in day light, capacity to handle wide variety of tools and to make what we don't have, at least collectively. While our body isn't that incredible, we can climb montains and trees to some extent, crawl in small areas and we are able to both take an egg or lift weights with our hands. We are weak from all account, but in practice we are super predators and control our environment to the extent no other species managed.

R2D2 can't even open a door or take stairs. I am not sure the extra planetar robot could even manage to buy the bread at the bakery and bring it back to you. The cleaners, you have to clean everything yourself, make sure all is easy to them and then can do the superficial work. They take 40 minutes to do what would need 5 minutes to you. if it is too dirty, or there something on the floor, they are lost. And good luck if you also want the diner to be cooked, the restrooms washed and the clothes cleaned and put into the wardrobe.

[WPRESTO]

Agree with all. Arguments abound about the merits of sending robotic tools versus humans to explore the Solar system. Humans will go eventually. But I think about this, let's challenge the robot to do what I can do. In the kitchen I'll open the fridge, pull open the meat drawer, open a zip-lock bag of beef, put some between two slices of bread that I've toasted and buttered, open a can of Coke, pour it into a mug from the cabinet, gather the sandwich on a plate, and with mug in one hand, plate in the other I start walking toward the table when the phone rings, so I put the plate atop the mug and balancing it carefully use the now free hand answer the phone. How long would it take to program a robot to do that? How smoothly could the robot do it? How quickly? Can you even imagine a robot doing that? Humans can do complex things simply, smoothly, spontaneously, quickly; multi-tasking and altering what they're doing in the blink of an eye. Activities simple for us that no robot is vaguely close to doing.

[marquis1955]

I agree with all the arguments also and I'm watching it all with my 300mm lens made by a robot ?

[zzeitg]

DA*300 @ 420 mm

[WPRESTO]

I agree with all the arguments also and I'm watching it all with my 300mm lens made by a robot ?

Undoubtedly a series of robotic tools, probably quite a few, depending on which parts are being made or assembled. Doing the glass is very different from doing the diaphragm. One human might do both by hand, but not one robotic tool. My mind boggles at how far manufacturing has come over the past 150 years, from "craftsmanship" to automated high-precision mass production. Image what a camera or lens would cost if all the metal components were individually fabricated by a human operating a lathe, milling machine, drill press, etc.?

[WPRESTO]

And this image was taken with K1 (FF mode) + 150~450mm

[r0ckstarr]

I'll post any information I can get, We have many other bird species here in the same area and I have not seen any signs only the Cardinals and on at least 5 different birds in the last week alone. They seem to have healthy appetites and active as usual but I can only imagine far worse if it continues. I will as I said contact fish & game and or the college when as soon as as find a few more pictures of the birds from this week. I would think maybe the Dove would be affected also because both are ground feeders for the most part.. Many members of this forum shoot birds so I am anxious to hear from anyone else who has seen this.

I see you're a member to the Birding Group here. This thread fills up quick with pictures, and your questions may get overlooked. Have you considered posting a new thread in the Birding Group for better exposure?

Also, I believe the "female" cardinal with the black beak is a juvenile cardinal.

[r0ckstarr]

DA*300 + 1.4 HD TC

[Skodadriver]

Ballerina Duck....Tamron SP 23A

[marquis1955]

I see you're a member to the Birding Group here. This thread fills up quick with pictures, and your questions may get overlooked. Have you considered posting a new thread in the Birding Group for better exposure?

Also, I believe the "female" cardinal with the black beak is a juvenile cardinal.

I'm sure your correct about her being a juvenile and there are many of them here I just haven't seen one with the black beak. Also I will post a new thread to the birding group., Thanks again !

[luftfluss]

I'm sorta feeling the same. What TC do you use? I have the Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 teleconverter. I only use it on my F*300. However I prefer to not use it when I can. Sort of defeats the purpose of the TC

I mean, it works and everything and it's most definitely as sharp but you lose one stop of light and at 420mm it's a bit harder to keep steady. I dunno.......

I'm using the K T6-2X.

It's an old 2x TC that is pretty good optically for what it is, but I'm sure your Tamron 1.4x degrades the image quality much less. In decent light I have no problems shooting ISO 3200, just have to adjust my processing accordingly. But as you noted, when shooting long (and sans tripod) tele it is difficult to hold the lens steady enough for precise composition.

A couple years ago I used the TC with a Tak 200/4 for a pic that printed nicely at 16" (I think) and has been on display at a local historical museum. It's not a remarkable photo in any respect, but shot at the right location for inclusion. So, in this case the TC did the job.



---------- Post added 06-05-16 at 11:38 AM ----------

As I have been making photographs of the local wildlife at the same location I have began to notice recently the Cardinals have some kind of disease or sickness that is causing their head & chest feathers to fall out along with blotchy patches on other areas of their bodies. Also I have now seen two females with black beaks like the on in the photo I have posted. They normally always have orange beaks. Does anyone out there know what may be causing this or seen anything like it ? I'll be getting in contact with fish game as this is alarming for the amount of affected birds here in this relatively small area.

I'm thinking (hoping) this is a normal molting phase for these birds, and not some sort of fungal disease. Juvenile birds sometimes start off with a dark beak that lightens and changes to the appropriate color over time.

[wtlwdwgn]

Great Blue Heron, K-1, Sigma 150-500 Bigmos @ 500mm, center crop.