Port Manteaux churns out silly new words when you feed it an idea or two. Enter a word (or two) above and you'll get back a bunch of portmanteaux created by jamming. Disney’s 2009 animated film The Princess and the Frog offers an important metaphor of the second line tradition in New Orleans, although with a twist. 9781419663611 1419663615 I Felt the Hand of God - A Gripping Story of a Shattered Dream, V. D. Marshall 9781436882644 1436882648 Institutes of Jurisprudence (1866. We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us.

Robot carers, ethics, and older people. When what is in question is the promotion of autonomy, independence and some form of human contact, what, if anything, recommends a carebot solution to providing care for older people over a telecare, or single- function and simple companion robot solution, or a combination of telecare and single- function and simple companion robots? If the money cost of a multi- function, humanoid carebot is taken into account, the answer may be “Nothing”.

On the other hand, if financial costs are disregarded, then the answer on the basis of the previous discussion may be that the carebot solution delivers physical help, and the ability in principle to integrate telecare and sophisticated presence. By ‘sophisticated presence’, as explained in the section “Robots, ‘presence’ and the requirements of care”, we mean that the carebot interacts and can even initiate interaction with the user. Moreover, the quality of interaction is far more sensitive and far more challenging than the passive twitches and facial expressions of Paro. By taking over some of the functions of telecare, the ACCOMPANY Care- O- bot® can keep track of the location and condition of the user. It does so, however, from close at hand, potentially enabling quicker intervention or emergency response than conventional telecare devices relaying data to a remote information hub (assuming that the carebot is not itself programmed to summon help from a similar hub). In other words, cost considerations apart, a carebot may give us in a single package a highly desirable embodiment of assistive technology alongside practical help with lifting, carrying and fetching. The previous discussion, however, may be inadequate for a full answer to the question of the comparative value of low- tech and robotic assistive technology.

9780739006238 0739006231 Accent on Achievement, Bk 3 - Oboe, John O'Reilly, Mark Williams 4024572104023 Fire on the Line, Gazoo Bill 9788375080377 8375080373 Tylko. Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer.

So far we have been guided by a list of ethical issues raised by philosophers and technologists who have reflected on the capabilities of robots designed or used to provide care for older people and meet the needs of older people as they present themselves in ordinary experience. But perhaps the common sense of philosophers and technologists is a bad guide to the needs or preferences of the elderly. Mighty Mouse Online. The preferences and needs of the current population of older people are not representative of future older people, and are subject to cultural variation even in the present.

Retrouvez toutes les discothèque Marseille et se retrouver dans les plus grandes soirées en discothèque à Marseille. Clarke's Bookshop (established in 1956) is situated in Cape Town, South Africa and carries both new and second hand books on Southern Africa. This paper offers an ethical framework for the development of robots as home companions that are intended to address the isolation and reduced physical functioning of.

Moreover the list of ethical issues depends on the assumption that the experience of older people, especially in the West, is more or less uniform (Parks 2. Any development of an ethical framework for evaluation of carebots must be informed by the attitudes of older people themselves, with allowances being made for big variations in technophobia between people who currently are 6. The importance to an ethical framework of taking into account user- attitudes is connected with the value of autonomy. If carebot use is to take its cue from the wishes of individual older users of carebots, and if surveys of older people reveal a range of design- relevant preferences which do not correlate with the design features of the carebot that engineers intend to realize (Van der Plas et al.

Either way, the potential of the engineer- designed carebot to promote the autonomy of older users might be compromised. ACCOMPANY has conducted research among panels of older people in the UK, the Netherlands and France. The project is investigating what users might want from a carebot, and has found that mobility, self- care and isolation are major preoccupations, while co- learning seems not to be. Does this finding mean that ACCOMPANY should drop co- learning from its designs for robots? Not necessarily. Co- learning may have other effects that older people could benefit from and that they want, even if they want other effects more. There could be a therapeutic rationale for some design features that older people don’t want or don’t want much, so long as on balance groups of older people have been consulted and listened to in relation to design, and so long as the ACCOMPANY Care- O- bot® accommodates itself to individual users rather than coming up with an agenda of its own. To go back to Siena’s methods of keeping up older people’s social skills by adjusting its behaviour to the user’s tone of voice, this might have what is broadly speaking a therapeutic benefit even if the older person doesn’t like it much.

Vallor’s list of ethical concerns indeed anticipates the way that the Siena design might be justified. It in effect asks philosophers and technologists to think about: 3.

The potential of carebots to enhance or reduce engagement of cared- fors with their surroundingsand. The quality of physical and psychological care that robots can realistically be expected to supply. The Siena innovations try to improve social skills and, indirectly, the psychological well- being of older users. They also introduce companionship into such routine ways of engaging with one’s surroundings such as watching television and helping with such tasks as moving objects from one room to another, which promotes living in orderly and clean surroundings. Even when the attitudes of users are taken into account, there may be conflicts within the range of ethical values that are individually relevant to providing care for older people. We have already seen that autonomy can conflict with safety: a carebot that is otherwise dedicated to fulfilling the wishes of its older user ought not to comply with a request that is suicidal. Similarly, although older autonomous people have a right to privacy at least as extensive as that of younger people, there may be occasions when a carebot should report a fall to a non- resident carer or a medical assistance hub, even if that is against the wishes of the older person himself or herself.

Against this background, what sort of ethical framework should be proposed for the design of carebots. The framework must identify and define values that should be promoted or at least respected by carebot design and use in relation to older people, and it must say which value is, or which values are, overriding when there is a conflict. The ACCOMPANY project addresses isolation and declining physical capacity in older people who continue to live and want to live in their own homes. If a robotic companion is to be a solution, its design must promote the following: autonomy—being able to set goals in life and choose means; independence—being able to implement one’s goals without the permission, assistance or material resources of others; enablement—having or having access to means of realizing goals and choices; safety—being able readily to avoid pain or harm; privacy—being able to pursue and realize one’s goals and implement one’s choices unobserved; social connectedness—having regular contact with friends and loved ones, and safe access to strangers one can choose to meet. All of these values lie in the background of most able- bodied, independent adult life, and our approach is to extend these values to later life unless there are reasons not to do so. Isolation and physical decline might be thought to be such reasons—unless a technology can compensate for them. The ACCOMPANY scenarios animate these reasons.

And a particular design of robot companion compensates for them. It is, however, inevitable that circumstances will arise where these values are in tension.

When this happens one value is likely to be given priority over another. The preceding discussion has suggested that autonomy is a crucial value but that it can be outweighed when respecting it would threaten a user’s life or physical well- being.

It might be thought to follow, then, that of the six values, safety is supreme, trumping even autonomy. This seems to be a mistake. Not every threat to safety, even when realized, produces major injury.

When the worst that the exercise of autonomy produces is minor harm, or not- so- minor but tolerable and survivable harm, autonomy might win out over safety.