Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02414
To: JVernonM@aol.com
From: Dave Hrynkiw dave@solarbotics.com
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:37:04 -0600
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Beam genome - waste of time....
At 10:24 PM 4/16/99 , JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
>Actually, that's exactly my point. The environment of copying what others
>have done is how we all advance here. If we had an archive of those
>approaches, an explanation of what worked or did not, we could better service
>that need for information.
But isn't each creator already as responsible as they want to be for
revealing exactly how they built their devices? (Fang-ovore is a good example)
>I'm glad Steven Jobs didn't perceive the computer that way. I and some others
>seem to care more than that Dave. Jeez, I'm not trying to spank your baby
>here, just give my insights as to how we could work TOGETHER to make the tech
>thrive.
AH! But Steve Jobs was part of a face-to-face group of people. This is not
the same as a bunch of computer geeks meeting in person to show off what
they did. We already know when we build something that the chances of
showing them off to other enthusiasts in person will be rare. The net is
what the vast majority of us USE to communicate. Not comparable to Apple's
early days...
>> Carry on if you want to develop a genome, but don't count on my
>> participation. I'd rather be at the workbench rather than developing
>> classifications...
>
>Yep, I am definitely sensing a wall going up here.
I don't see how you can call it a wall when you don't need my permission,
approval, or assistance to do whatever you want to do.
> Documentation is essential
>to any scientific endeavor.
Of course. But there has been very little science done on BEAM besides what
Mark T. and associated academia has done so far. If you want documentation,
then perform your experiments and publish a paper online (referencing my
earlier claim about writing material on your own bots as it is done
presently). I don't think a genome makes this any easier. I think it makes
it harder, as it is one more level of work to perform to be "acceptable".
> You can consider BEAM no more than a hobby and
>that's fine for many, but I thought someone thought it could be more. I think
>it was Mr. Tilden.
You know, for all the stuff I see that is being done by all the BEAM
community online, we're nowhere near what Mark is working on. And for good
reason too - he's doing it full time. I happen to know that he's got more
experiments on the go that need work than all of us combined. I personally
have plans for (non-commercial) Turbot experiments, and (commercial)
BEAMant/Photovore experiments. All I've ever worked on has for the most
part been put up on our website. I don't think I can assist research based
on my work any more than I already have.
To claim that a genome project will assist in making BEAM "evolve" sounds
altruistic, but the fact is more can be done by individual experimenters
posting their own experiments to the group for review. And I'm sure that
we'd all be more than critical enough to examine the data for accuracy and
possible flaws.
All I'm saying is there's no need for this project when things are quite
adequate the way they are now. Convince me otherwise...
Regards,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Um, no - that's H,R,Y,N,K,I,W. No, not K,I,U,U, K,I,_W_. Yes,
that's right. Yes, I know it looks like "HOCKYRINK." Yup, only
2 vowels. Pronounciation? _SMITH_".
http://www.solarbotics.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home