Subject:
|
Re: lugnet.robotics.combat?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:12:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
176 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Micah J. Mabelitini writes:
> Ugh, not in the .robotics hierarchy please. From what I've seen, the
> vast majority of these things simply aren't robots. Maybe in .build or
> something instead. Why perpetuate the fallacy that armored RC cars are
> really robots when they aren't.
Because very few of them are armored RC cars. There are actually lots of
autonomous combat robots, and even those that aren't "smart" have extremely
impressive engineering inside. Also.. isn't the definition of a robot
something that can be programmed and reprogrammed to fulfill a specific
task? I think that an RCX driven machine falls under that category. The RCX
can be programmed. The RCX HAS to be programmed. RCX driven machines are, in
my eyes, robots.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: lugnet.robotics.combat?
|
| (...) The *vast* majority of combat "robots" which I have seen on the net, LEGO-based or otherwise, are not autonomous. (...) Extremely impressive engineering does not necessarily make a device a robot. (...) Of course if it's autonomous and (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: lugnet.robotics.combat?
|
| (...) vast majority of these things simply aren't robots. Maybe in .build or something instead. Why perpetuate the fallacy that armored RC cars are really robots when they aren't. (23 years ago, 16-Apr-01, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
