Buffalo spreading in numbers.
Thought for use at hazardous waste facility (like at Love Canal). But though capable of performing their duties but the sociological status of the robots working with toxic substances is of a very low status prompting human rearing in dominant behavior by watchmen or managers.
The hazardous waste is accounted for in it’s chemical properties. But vagrants or staff are leaving dangerous chemicals in the robots which render them useless (standard deviation too high from chemical corruption of hardware.)
Thinking this part of human behavior, perhaps robotics with no orifices used in hierarchies would be more practical.
Men/women would have to accept robotics not as intrusion but as aides in menial dangerous work.
There is the concern that “no orofice” robotics may be left vulnerable to attacks or assaults and I think the engineers were attempting to avoid these forms of violence (assaults causing physical damage to this smart equipment).
My opinion is the following. This smart equipment working with toxic siibstances can share human behavior for organizational behavioral structure. The membranes have to have a barrier that itself is a hazardous waste skin similar to material placed below ir under a hazardous waste site pools.
Thinking has to go into the emerging of economic value of these robotic aides for prostitution purposes. Those who are inclined to engage in this type of business will do so when the supply of smart equipment is high enough for the price to lower sufficiently; and, consequently, no longer warrant searching for “lost” smart equipment w property that is very, very expensive.
At that time more burglaries will occur because economic value will be building in the properties’ use in social problem areas or vice.
Abraham Boulder
