Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02417
To: dave@solarbotics.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:35:14 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Beam genome - waste of time....
In a message dated 4/17/99 1:58:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dave@solarbotics.com writes:
>
> 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)
Yes it is. Since it also relies heavily on Paul's designs. But it has become
the Fangovore. Chiu mentions Paul's contribution, then you have to go over to
Paul's site to see what that means. I just thought a more coherent source of
information that relates was needed.
>
> >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...
Actually, I was referring to the time before Apple. When Steve and his
partner (I'm sorry I don't remember his name) started tinkering with CPU's in
their back yard garage. Yes, that lead to Apple and the whole Personal
Computer industry. My point was that if he was convinced that what he was
doing was to hard and should be done only at the university level, we would
probably be having this conversation by snail mail.
>
>
> >> 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.
Actually, I was not asking for those things. I was asking for your input.
Man, why is this such a fight?
>
> > 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".
One more time. This is not about ego. This is not about me. This should be a
group effort. This will require the cooperation of everyone. Some of us
standing in the wings whispering and nudging will only make for that
nightmare Wilf mentioned. I don't know what you mean by acceptable.
Information never makes things harder, it makes them easier.
>
> > 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.
And it will continue to be little work other than Tilden's if that is the
prevailing attitude of those who are mentioned as a roll call of who's who at
those workshops by those that attended. I'm not saying more work, I'm saying
a compilation of work and how it relates to the tech.
> 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.
But, that's not true. Collaborations are often the stuff of greatness. To say
we should all just play in our own pens isn't the way.
> 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...
I don't think that's going to happen. I wish someone who's been around awhile
had come up with this idea. I think that would make it easier to accept.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home