Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00433
To: TurtleTek@aol.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:10:26 -0800
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: question
TurtleTek@aol.com wrote:
>
> Greetings List,
>
> After reading the "question" thread (which I find very interesting, more on
> that later), I've noticed many mentions of the "cybug". Most of these
> mentions have been comparing the cybug to the photovore. Sort of "conventional
> robots vs BEAM". Well, as I see it, isn't the cybug BEAM? The meaning of
> BEAM is so very vague and I don't think it's much of a stretch to include the
> cybug under BEAM. Why not?
> It's not solar powered? So what, most walkers aren't.
> "But walkers have nv nets", you say. Big deal.
> "Cybugs aren't self-sufficiant". Neither are walkers, they need their cell
> charged every now and then.
Good points!
> Cybugs don't use programming or a CPU. They can "feed" themselves. So, unless
> the requirements for being BEAM are as follows:
> Must be solar powered, if not then must use nv net.
> Then we can just go ahead and slap a BEAM lable on the cybug too, no? Any
> thoughts on this are welcome.
No no no! Please don't do that. IT would only make things worse than
they are now!
BEAM is a trademark, and there are patents behind it.
The Cybug does not infringe on those patents, and it should not be
subject to paying
for the use of the trademark.
The Cybug reflects a method of building phototropic robots that predates
CPU's and BEAM by decades. BEAM is thought to be new and different, but
a brielf study of the history of robotics will quickly show that this is
pure hype and showmanship.
Only with patents and a trademark.
I find it dishonset to try to emcompass the prior art as being BEAM.
Over the years, BEAM has become so vauge that even the use of a CPU does
not preclude the design being called a BEAM robot.
So where does the patent protection end? What is the scope of the
trademark?
Can I (claim) to invent a new philosophy of robotics (I'll call it SCAT,
Small Cute Automatic Things) that may be BEAM or CPU based. I'll file
for patents and trademarks, and totally ingore the fact that these
things already exit, and have existed scince long before I was even
born.
Now every BEAM design already in existance is sucked into being one of
~my~ SCAT philosophy devices?
HELL NO! Thats intellectual dishonsety, pure and simple.
But this is what BEAM is becomming, because of all the hype, and the
failure to recognise what has already come before 'BEAM'.
> *chokes on drink, spitting it out all over the monitor* What?! Perhaps the
> reason you find so many faults in BEAM is that you don't quite grasp the idea.
> We're not out to make a R2D2 or Lt. Data, nor do we expect to in the near
> future (or distant future). Right about now we have robots that are like
> protists and far from even being like any form of animal with a brain, let
> alone things even seeming like humans. This isn't a huge goverment funded
> robotics (AI) project such as Cog or Cyc, BEAM is a hobby based on the idea
> that robots should be autonomous and don't have to be complex. Just a hobby.
With patents, lawyers, and LANL funding?
> Either I missed something or you haven't quite done your homework on BEAM.
> Neither one of those options are ones I find likely. I just find myself saying
> to myself "eh..what is this guy thinking?"
>
> >This can be construction, hazardous employment, servitude, entertainment,
> >pets, household maintenance, this is limited only by your imagination.
>
> BEAM robots are currently being used for entertainment and pets. The only
> other thing I can imagine them doing is exploring. Hazardous employment,
> servitude, maintenance, all not BEAM. Well...maybe maintenance (Hey, maybe I
> should strap a toothbrush onto ProtoBot....hmm 8)
I disagree, I don't think LANL is developing pets for the military.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home