Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #03952



To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com, beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Sharon Williams swilliam@cadvision.com
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 16:40:38 -0600
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Unicore BeamAnt schematic!


Maybe Mark is on the list, just as someone else. That way he wouln'd have
all the questions directed at him? Who knows, maybe Wilf or Wouter or
someone is really Mark in desqiuse =^) He could post his new Ideas and such
through his alius, and no one would ever know it was him.
-Jeremy Williams




At 03:55 PM 5/29/99 -0600, Jean auBois wrote:
>At 03:48 PM 5/28/99 , you wrote:
>>I bet you can't guess what I have. If you guessed that I have the
>>schematic for a Unicore BeamAnt you get the grand prize!
>
>In fact, this is one of my major BEAM sadnesses just now. (footnote: second
>postscript, below) Mark kindly permitted me to make a xerox of the
>schematic at least 1 1/2 years ago & also about that time allowed me to
>copy the handout that was distributed at one of the Telluride Neuromorphic
>Workshops. Both of those pieces of paper look pretty tattered because I've
>read them so many times. I've sat on the bulk of that information ever
>since -- originally, at that time, because he hadn't shown it to the small
>gods yet (and requested that I keep my overly large mouth shut) and later
>simply because I didn't feel I had permission. Even though he got rather
>angry at me when he thought I was distributing "proprietary" information
>about Lampbot, I wasn't -- the information has either been freely available
>on the Web for -years- or was easily deduced given Suzanne Stills' papers &
>visual inspection of Snakebot. Now, there are other, valid reasons for him
>to be legitimately angry at me which I won't discuss here, but when it came
>to "trade secrets" I believe I've done a good job of keeping quiet
>(although I may be deluding myself about this).
>
>However -- just for the sake of jollies, let us presume (well, it IS true,
>but just for the sake of argument) that Mark is the leader in BEAM control
>technology innovation (although Mr. Rigter is giving him a close chase.)
>Although he has been -exceedingly- generous supporting isolated individuals
>& the Los Alamos Workshop & the Telluride Workshop & the small gods
>(whoever THEY might be) and so on and so forth, he hasn't been supporting
>this bunch right here (yeah -- you -- the reader) as far as I can see.
>Either we get the same exceedingly high-level ElectricTalk he uses to
>market the BEAM concept (which isn't particularly applicable on a practical
>basis) or silence or yet another promise that his book will come out some
>day Real Soon Now so just wait. I can hardly remember ANY article
>published directly by him on this list that describes the stuff he has
>actually built in concrete terms. The little things in popular science
>magazines and the incredibly esoteric articles published in certain
>professional journals don't really count because the first contains the
>same old same old and the latter doesn't give you enough/any information
>about the Tilden GeeWhizRobot '97 to build one for yourself.
>
>Of course, the usual rationale for not doing this is that he'll be deluged
>with email & he'd certainly like to answer it (he is, in fact, very
>generous) but he wouldn't have the time & that really doesn't set up a very
>healthy situation for him. As such, this is understandable. Three hundred
>messages asking for circuit details (and not just the old "which way do I
>put in the resistor" routine) is more than anyone could bear and answering
>even a portion of them would stop the rest of his work dead.
>
>Is this truly an insoluble problem, though? For example, a moderately
>simple solution to this might be: that he gets someone else (a person or
>set of persons, probably some of US) to whom THAT mail is forwarded, as
>automagically as can be done. I realize that email filters don't do the
>same quality job of a human secretary, but I nonetheless find them useful.
>Done properly, he would never see the distressingly large bulk of that mail
>and only the truly interesting or incredibly arcane questions would filter
>back to him.
>
>A middle rationale for not doing this would have to do with the training of
>the people who would have to deal with the deluge of mail created by the
>above solution. That could be a real drag, but I'm pretty sure I can
>discuss the BEAMAnt or even the newer SMT 2.0 Bicore boards intelligently
>(and better once I really understand Rigter's and Wouter's explanation of
>bicores better) -- and I'll bet that others on this list, providing they
>were willing to COMMIT themselves could discuss Mark's various creations
>with a minimum of his time & effort if they had been told about them in any
>detail in the first place and were given permission to write about them
>publicly. [I admit that my understanding of the Bicore boards is somewhat
>dated, but it is to be hoped that the delta would be small.)
>
>A less known rationale is an attempt to keep the information proprietary.
>From the day his non-profit organization begins (or began, if it has
>already happened), that organization can set policy on the dissemination of
>information. Otherwise. . . well, I'm not sure of the ramifications here
>-- legalities concerning "intellectual property" are still on exceedingly
>shaky grounds -- for example, this is a _National_ Laboratory so doesn't
>the work belong to the Nation (um, old inside joke. sorry). Perhaps
>keeping the information proprietary is a good idea, perhaps it is not.
>Perhaps the information simply can't be released because it is owned by
>someone who won't or truly can't release it, perhaps it is public (at least
>to the United States) property. I don't know, and even bringing up this
>topic is frightening because I'm such an idiot in this domain.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, Mark is operating in an utterly ethical manner
>with regard to this stuff.
>
>No matter what, given not only that Mark is the foremost innovator in the
>field, that he has produced several years of robots, and that he doesn't
>seem to be releasing any of that information to this list about them in a
>practical manner... well, it just plain _hurts_. Once again, mebbe he
>doesn't have to. However, if this list isn't the foremost body of human
>beings interested in BEAM in the world, if it doesn't contain the most
>ardent supporters (although financial support would be a Good Thing), then
>what is it? Perhaps we don't -deserve- the information, but wouldn't it
>vastly further the field if we had it?
>
>In summary:
>
>I request, I beg that the readership (yes, this means YOU again) discuss
>with Mark how to break the information logjam. I don't pretend to have a
>solution but then, what do I know . I'm incredibly frightened
>about getting flamed out of my wits for posting this, or getting in
>official trouble, or even hearing dead silence as a result.
>
>I just wish I knew how we could get the most people working on the most
>projects based on as much of the research that Mark has so successfully
>produced as is possible.
>
>
>p.s. Once again (just because I'm expecting this complaint,) yes I KNOW he
>doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to. I understand. Please, I
>beg of you, don't climb all over my back about it.
>
>p.p.s Ok, I understand that whether or not I feel hurt is probably not the
>least bit important to you -- you aren't responsible for any of my feelings
>and I hope I'm not coming off as a crybaby. If I am, I apologize in advance.
>
>p.p.s. Perhaps BEAM isn't stuck (it feels a little stuck: yes, we've got
>nifty new Rigter circuits and all, but how many people have built robots
>with them? -- Mark has CERTAINLY built robots with HIS circuits) but it
>still feels like it is at one of those points in a dynamic system when
>things break wide open. Again, my feelings are not your problem. Your
>mileage may vary. Please adjust your seatbelt. No smoking in aisles E, D,
>and A.
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications



Home