Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #04048
To: sargon@gte.net
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 10:20:43 -0400
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM and machine evolution
"Ed Jones Jr." wrote:
> Bob,
>
> Talk about having a bias !!
> Bias # 1-you said " often the CPU is the most minimal soultion"
>
> For who ? Me ? Someone just getting started ?
> Don't think so !
A good number of people start with simple CPU based robots, and never
have the problems some have with FLED engines and bitty motors.
The nature of the SE circuit makes it much more fussy than many just getting
started would wish. This is not the case for a STAMP, thats why they are so
very popular with beginners (personally I just use the PIC's directly).
And for me, I've consistantly had better sucess with CPU's than SE's, but I do
use both approaches, so I'm aware of the limitations of each.
> Bias # 2- you said "This is such a clear bias its disgusting "
>
> You are right-see bias # 1
Hmmm, if Mark Dalton thinks discussing CPU's in the context of BEAM is ok,
but you yourself tell people wanting to use a CPU to find another list, then
how
should people see this behavior?
I'm willing to be open-minded about this Ed. But it looks like your openly
admitting to
a bias here.
> Bias # 3- you said " Secondly , check with the list owner on what is , and
> is not on topic "
>
> First off-I have been on this list since 1996 . I have seen many
> discussions on topics not directly related to beam but none the less
> interesting , with many point/counterpoint issues talked about . Second , I
> don't have to "check" with anyone Bob. This list , originaly , was for beam
> related topics, free of censorship , ( barring vulgar , profane , or
> otherwise disgusting topics ) . Its easy enough for the list owner to drop
> me from the list if thats what he really wanted to do ,I'll still continue
> on with my " Beam" research . But hey , thanks for the "tip" there Bob.
Ok, so you have seniority here. Fine.
But Mark Dalton clearly set ground rules that INCLUDE discussions of CPU's
applied in a BEAM context. Also Tilden's patent covers CPU based approaches!
But we won't discuss such things here, even if you think this list is free of
censorship.
I was not aware that any ammount of senority on the list exepted you from the
rules,
or precluded me from pointing them out to anyone else.
> Bias # 4-you said " You happened to fail to notice that the thread had been
> dropped long (?) ago , Ed."
>
> Dropped by who ? You ? the list owner ? Are you sure we are both reading
> the same last few weeks e-mails ? Oh , by the way , I just noticed a
> e-mail from Babu Alihastubot dated Sunday , may 30 , 1999 at 9.33 Pm . It
> seems he had a question about a basic FLED solar engine , using diodes .
> Uhmmmm. I didn't miss that one , Bob .
Re-read the archives. I dropped the subject in response to the majority
opinion,
out of respect for the list members. I stated this clearly some time ago.
But did you miss the STAMP and PIC/AVR messages recently posted?
> Bias # 5 - you said " As I have posted before, the anti-CPU bias crowd "
> CLEARLY OUTNUMBERS " those who agree with the list owner's rules , so the
> subject was "DROPPED"
>
> Tell me it's not true !! ; do us so-called anti -cpu guys really outnumber
> those few of you ?? I'll repeat myself ; dropped by who ? you ? the list
> owner ? and I thought censorship was dead , my , my .
I'll repeat myself, once, I dropped the discussion, and clearly gave my reasons
for
doing so. Perhaps you would prefer that I drop my subscription to the list?
> Bias # 6 - you said " It's quite clear that new designs along those lines
> are unwelcome here "
>
> Clear to who ? you ? Now you're picking on Terry Newton for god's sake !!
Not at all, Terry and I are in the same camp on this issue! Read Terry's posts
on this subject and its very clear he agrees that his design is 'off-topic' for
this
list.
Terry and I have discussed this at some lenght off the list server. I'm not
picking on Terry in any way Ed, please check Terry's opinions on this issue.
> I happen to like Terry Newton , not for his cpu bots , but for his many
> other neat ideas on so many different topics . Since this is a " family "
> list , I'll refrain form saying what I would like to say about your
> disgusting remarks !
Ahh, excuse me there Ed, please let me interject a few words here...
I hope your not personally offended at my reaction to a perceived bias on the
part
of the majority of this list. My disgust is not directed at any individuals at
all, but
at the misinformation and hype that brought about this bias, as its perceived
by many
on the list.
> I will say that I and many of my bot building friends
> chafe at the idea that a few of you who promote cpus as the " minimal
> solution " try to run this list by censorship and your own bias and then
> have the gall to tell the rest of us on this list to check with the " list
> owner " to ask permission to discuss topics like this .
>
The only censorship going on here is that people like Terry Newton and myself
clearly agree that designs, however beam-like they may appear, are thought to
be
off topic here, and subject to a clear (stated) bias against programmable
devices.
You may chafe at the idea that a CPU can be more minimal than a pure-beam
approach,
but I challange you and anyone else to match the functionality of Terry's
PICBOT using
'pure beam' technology. Simply put, prove me wrong:
Then look at the parts count and power consumption. The CPU wins, hands down,
unless
you can make a true learning machine out of a single '240 chip.
Now you claim I'm trying to "run this list by censorship". Can you defend this
claim Ed?
After all, your the one telling others to go find their own list, so it seems
that your acting
as the censor here.
How on Earth am I trying to run this list, or censor it, when I choose to
ignore the rules
and respect the majority opinion, and NOT DISCUSS CPU based designs here?
The only censorship going on here is the self-imposed censorship of not
discussing new
and better ways of building small robots. Terry knows better than to discuss
his designs
on the list, and now I can clearly see why.
All I've done recently is to discuss the bias, not even the CPU designs
themselves, and your
all over my case for it Ed. Why is that?
Censorship is alive and well, and the fact that people like Terry and myself do
not feel
that we can discuss designs that clearly fall within the 'on-topic' guidelines
set by Mark
Dalton go a long way towards proving that fact. If my refering to those
written
guidelines is a demonstration of 'gall', then I'd like to put this matter to
the list owner
for clarification Ed.
Your turning this into a personal attack, and this has nothing what so ever to
do with the
BEAM philosophy or intended role of this list according to the vocal majority.
Please take a step back, count to ten, and take a fresh look at this
situation. People do
not feel free to discuss subjects specifically stated as being on-topic in the
list rules.
And now Ed Jones Jr. is acusing me of trying to "run the list by censorship"!?
(I think an apology is in order here Ed...)
This situation is sufficiently absurd that I'd like to call for moderation from
Mark Dalton.
Lets either play by the list rules, or change them to reflect the consensus of
the list.
If I had never built true beam designs, I could understand this reaction to
some degree.
But I have entered Chiu's last contest, and even developed some new beam
circuitry and
chassis innovations. I'd like to think that I'm trying to contribute to beam
technology, but
then there are these over-reactions to 'alien' ideas, telling people to take
their ideas
elsewhere that seems to me to be the exact opposite of what this list is
supposed to be.
It's as if conventional robotics people are actually more open to beam tech
than beam fans
are open to conventional robotics. This 'us versus them' mentality is
poisoning the list
and restricting the discussion of new designs and advancements. Apparently I'm
a bad
person for mentioning CPU's, and I should go away, despite my work on true beam
tech.
At least with conventional robotics, what matters is if and how well it works,
not what
chips you used to make it work!
Wow, what a friendly community those beam fans are! I just love this hobby!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home