Difference between an android and a robot

Abhinav S

I ran across a couple of posts on CP today that requested new sections on robots and androids. Now, here's my question. What is the difference between an android and a robot?

There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't.

modified on Saturday, January 2, 2010 9:25 AM

Gary R Wheeler · modified on Saturday, January 2, 2010 9:25 AM

A robot is a machine that may exhibit human-like behavior or some elements of the human anatomy, but does not necessarily resemble a human being. It is obviously a mechanism. For example, many industrial robots resemble an arm, with a 'wrist' and even a 'hand'. An android is a robot that has a fairly complete set of elements of human appearance: walks upright on two legs, two arms/hands, head with face, and so on.

Software Zen: delete this;
Fold With Us![^]

Pete OHanlon · modified on Saturday, January 2, 2010 9:25 AM

Strictly speaking, an android is a subset of robotic beings. Specifically, it is designed to look humanoid. George Lucas suborned the term in Star Wars to refer to anything that we would view as a mobile robot, be it humanoid like or not.

"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith

As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx

realJSOP

I thought an android was one of those fleshy things that popped outa yer butt every once in a wh... oh, wait...

.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001

realJSOP

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

George Lucas suborned the term in Star Wars

But we all know Lucas is a putz...

.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001

Brady Kelly

Gary R. Wheeler wrote:

A robot is a machine [...] does not necessarily resemble a human being.

That's why we Saffers get away with calling traffic lights robots. E.g. "..then turn left at the second robot."

Abhinav S

Brady Kelly wrote:

calling traffic lights robots

That's definitely a new one.

There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Luc Pattyn · modified on Saturday, January 2, 2010 9:25 AM

public class Android : Robot {
...
}

:jig:

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.

CalvinHobbies

Gary R. Wheeler wrote:

A robot is a machine that may exhibit human-like behavior or some elements of the human anatomy, but does not necessarily resemble a human being. It is obviously a mechanism. For example, many industrial robots resemble an arm, with a 'wrist' and even a 'hand'. An android is a robot that has a fairly complete set of elements of human appearance: walks upright on two legs, two arms/hands, head with face, and so on.

Wouldn't an Android be a child of the "Robot" class?

///////////////// Groucho Marx Those are my principals, if you don't like them… I have others.

Gary R Wheeler

class Android : public Robot
{
void ImplementThreeLaws();
};

Software Zen: delete this;
Fold With Us![^]

Gary R Wheeler

If a pun thread gets started here, I ain't particpatin'...

Software Zen: delete this;
Fold With Us![^]

Gary R Wheeler

Ah. The C# version of my post above.

Software Zen: delete this;
Fold With Us![^]

realJSOP

Coward... :)

.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001

Pete OHanlon

+5 for total accuracy.

"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith

As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx

Indivara

So it should follow that

class Cyborg : IHuman, IRobot
{
}

?

Pete OHanlon

Shouldn't it be:

public class Android : Robot, IHumanoid
{
}

"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith

As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.

My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx

Gary R Wheeler

Careful, you might incite a case of android rage.

Software Zen: delete this;
Fold With Us![^]

Luc Pattyn

Your logic is strange to me; you have three new concepts, and none of the ones I had, so I don't see how that "should follow". :confused:

Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.

Gary R Wheeler

Hmm.... I think something like this is more the thing:

public class Cyborg
{
public Cyborg(IHumanElements human_elements,IRobotElements robot_elements)
{
_Human = human_elements;
_Robot = robot_elements;
};

private IHumanElements \_Human;
private IRobotElements \_Robot;

}

In the cyborg's case, I think it's more of a 'has-a' relationship than an 'is-a' relationship.

Software Zen: delete this;
Fold With Us![^]

Keith Barrow

To clarify: C3PO is an andriod (and a robot) R2D2 is just a robot. George Lucas is a human (who doesn't know his a*** from his elbow).

CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!) 37!?!! - Randall, Clerks