Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00635
To: Zulu 35 zulu35@singnet.com.sg, steven bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl,
From: "George Rix" rix.g@bmts.com
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:11:29 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM `claims' and misdemeanors, WAS: question
What I said was 'a' BEAM circuit, not THE BEAM circuit. I just figured out
that the guy probably meant microCPU, not microcore. I guess I'm pretty slow
when I haven't had sleep in 36 hours =)
Signing off,
Rob Rix
'If anything can possibly go wrong, it probably already has'-Murphy's law
----------
>From: "Zulu 35"
>To: "George Rix" , "Steven Bolt" ,
>Subject: Re: BEAM `claims' and misdemeanors, WAS: question
>Date: Tue, Feb 16, 1999, 3:25 PM
>
> 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??
> cosh it seems to me that that would make BEAM very rigid in terms of ..
> eh.. thinking? i dunno cant find the correct word... come on, its 4 in the
> morning here..
> 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.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home