Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #03821
To: "Richard Piotter" richfile@rconnect.com
From: "Nigel Joyce" nigel.joyce@qr.com.au
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:37:46 +1000
Subject: [alt-beam] Fw: Evolution Comparison
> Not very optimistic! 100 years for Nanotech? Look at our advances since
> the first "computer" How long? 50 yrs (about, I don't really know) and
now
> we have a proof of concept nano sized stepper motor, not to mention the
> superfast microchips, a far cry from the vacuum valves of 30 years ago,
> given the exponential growth of technology at this rate, I predict that
> nanotech will be perfected and in everyday use within 30-40 years, same as
> the computer's exponential growth. Someone once said that 3
supercomputers
> would be enough to meet the worlds needs and this was back when their
> "supercomputer" was less powerful than your Sony Playstation and the size
of
> a small house. In reference to RAM, even Bill Gates was caught once
stating
> at a conference "640k should be enough for anyone" (he'll never live that
> one down)
> Cya
> Blue Skies
> ---Buzz---
>
>
> > Nature does clean itself up, and maybe some day BEAM fill fill that
> > position. maybe in 100 years, we will have perfected nanotechnology, and
> > mayby, just maybe BEAM will be able to opperate the size limited
> > vehicles. It may be optimistic, but hey, anything is possible! Look at
US!
> >
> > While I'm at it, I threw one of the Nv Inside logos on Bronco, and it
> > looks so cool!!! I can't wait to get my video card so I can take
> > pictures of it!!!
> >
> > davidperry@mail.geocities.com wrote:
> > >
> > > well come to thing of it, BEAM isn't really a robot, since the
> > > definition is something to replace the actions of a human's work
> > > (roughly). First of all, BEAM emulates nature, what the hell is the
> > > practical use of nature (damn maybe i should've talked about an
> > > easier subject like quantum physics) , well its an ecosystem right?
> > > It supports life and keeps going, wait, theres still no point to
> > > nature is there?!
> > > BEAM wasn't meant to create a robot to clean our carpets. It was
> > > supposed to be recreating nature. So whether you've got serious
> > > research like Mark, or whether BEAM is just a hobby where you make
> > > stuff that moves, there wasn't meant to be a practical use.
> > >
> > > David Perry
> > > > It hasn't? Didn't think so. When is BEAM going to solve some of
the
> > > > -real- problems then?
> > > >
> > > > :I doubt many people will spend $375 for a vacuum when a $150 one
will
> do.
> > > >
> > > > $375??? Give me a break!!! You
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ____________________________________________
> > > I'm sure David sinceraly apologises if he
> > > insulted anyone, it won't happen again.
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Richard Piotter
> > richfile@rconnect.com
> >
> > The Richfiles Robotics & TI web page:
> > http://richfiles.calc.org
> >
> > For the BEAM Robotics list:
> > BEAM Robotics Tek FAQ
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bushbo/beam/FAQ.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home