Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00468
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Justin jaf60@student.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:28:42 +1300
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Is a CYBUG BEAM?
> My CYBUG is BEAM in philosophy ( in my interpretation of BEAM ), but is
> not in any way associated with the BEAM trademark. ]
?? Is BEAM a trademark? I thought it was (strictly?) a philosophy(?)
I have to say, I find the idea that `genuine BEAM robots are those
patterned after Tilden's technology' repulsive and AFAIK, false.
Founding BEAM (or anything else) doesn't mean that BEAM is restricted to
his work (and derivitives thereof). BEAM is a philosophy (IMHO little
else) and (also IMHO) is independant of the technology used. Tilden's
designs are used because they suit. New technology tommorow could make
everything Tilden has done go the way of the HBS, yet people would still
make genuine BEAM robots with the new technology. (Transistors are going
to be around for a while yet, but hypothetically speaking... :-)
> So, in my opinion, CYBUG's are not BEAM, they are BEAM-like, but not
> BEAM.
I'd say that they become BEAM when you consider BEAM as a philosophy
rather than a technology. (And people can independantly arrive at the
same philosophy, which throws even more mud into the equation :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home