Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02265
To:
From: "Jarrell Clark" Jclark76@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 22:47:55 -0000
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Beam genome
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-beam@corp.sgi.com [mailto:owner-beam@corp.sgi.com]On Behalf
> Of JVernonM@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 1:06 AM
> To: dennlill@buffnet.net
> Cc: beam@corp.sgi.com
> Subject: Re: Beam genome
>
>
> In a message dated 4/12/99 8:09:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> dennlill@buffnet.net writes:
>
>> Look at some papers, tildens and others, they don't describe things in
terms of this >>'genome' all the circuits we are using have been used before
and already have names. >>For us to rename lots of things would seem
redundant. They all already have names.
>
> Well, yes he does. I actually think he is one of the only ones that used
that
> term in connection with robotics. Yes, the circuits are well documented.
The kits are >named. But the bulk of the BEAM species, as far as sheer
number, have no documentation >as to how they are built and perform as
compared to other BEAM critters. So, what do >we use to gauge evolution?
What makes one design preferable over another? Have there >been any
evolutionary dead ends?
> The dual engine photovore perhaps?
There are a lot of designs that differ on mainly mechanical design. There
aren't too many ways to build a 1381 SE. Maybe spliting into Battery and
Solar, then Doing Circuit classes, then goto physical classes. Just calling
something a Tilden Hrynkiw, What came from where? There is just too much
that can be lumped into a name such as Nv/Nu, Bicore/Quadcore etc
-_-_-_-_-_
I find that one of the most handy, helpful, useful, beneficial,
advantageous, valuable items I have in my home is a thesaurus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home