Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00535
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:47:02 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM `claims' and misdemeanors, WAS: question
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Zulu 35 wrote:
> welll pardon me if i;m wrong.. i;m extremely new to this..but BEAM
> robots... is it really a must for them to have a microcore on them??
Certainly not. BEAM is about maximum fun with something which moves
about, using minimal electronics. You could even use a uC as the
brain, as long as you "don't port Unix to it," in the words of Mark
T. The idea being that you shouldn't add complexity to a `bot
without extracting payment in the form of interesting behaviour.
Note that there are plenty of other lists for discussing `bots based on
programmable devices, so uC talk is discouraged on this one.
> well i heard somewhere that BEAm is sort of like a philoshiphy rather that
> a fixed ""technology"?? if thats the case, wouldnt it be better to simply
> describe BEAM robots as eh..robots that can survive all by themsleves,
> without external help, once they are put together and powered up? hmmz.....
Even that would be too much of a restriction :)
Best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# sbolt@xs4all.nl # Steven Bolt # popular science monthly KIJK #
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home