Subject:
|
Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:56:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
684 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> That's a good idea for a competition. I'm sure we'd have to define the rules a
> bit to state that the hopper can't be covered, and once a block is in the
> hopper, no mechanism can knock it out of the hopper...
Oh my god! I had a good idea? Wow. I think if a hopper design was posted that
had to be made exactly the same, and there were some minor requirements for
where you can attach it, and you just say "you intentially can't knock recived
blocks out" then all is fine. However I know we won't do this idea because Chris
didn't come up with it. Oh, I know we've been told the library is big and we can
run another competition at the same time... oh lucky us.
> since I'm one of the
> least capable 'bot builders out there
What?!?!
> I was originally concerned when it went from a hopper to a vertical opening, but
> that's just part of the robot making. I have some good ideas, and my 'bot will
> neither be stationary, nor depend on luck--block stacking, though luck was a
> factor, was for the building of an autonomous robot to complete the task.
> Block sorting--same thing. Now we do block exchanging and now we have an issue
> because of the 'visual'?
>
> I think it'll be fine. I think that if its just Chris and I showing up with a
> 'bot, eh, so rtl 20 is like rope climbing....
>
> We've had competitions with many 'bots, we've had competitions with few 'bots.
> That's the way rtl works. And I wouldn't change a thing.
>
> I am the first person to make sure that everyone's okay and comfortable with
> situations. That said, I'm going to say this--if I think that this competition
> is going to work and will be fun (and even I can create a 'bot for it), and it
> doesn't go against my somewhat liberal Christian values, then I think we'll be
> okay.
>
> I know that LUGNET's going thru another 'snippy stage', where everything that's
> said is going to be looked at, analyzed, and thought about every which way from
> Sunday, and flame posts are going to go on for a bit...
I'm not really against this competiton, and I agree that luck isn't the major
factor in it. I understand the skill in both buiding and programming that is
needed. I knew it was "suggestive" and I was fine with that -- when I thought,
and I think alot of us thought, that it was dropping bricks into a hopper or
box. When it became putting blocks though a hole, coupled with all the, tee-hee,
almost dirty talk on these posts, I thought this is lame. I'm not offended by
the prospects of "screwing robots," and I have no "liberal Christian values" to
be offended, but I'm offended by how lame things became. It's become an
embarrasing idea and I think it'll be an embarrasing event. As I've said, and
you said, things have become "snippy" and just plain moronic here on the ol'
LUGNET, and I was annoyed that we were just contributing to it further.
I don't think I ever said "don't do this!" I just said I think it's lame. I know
this event will run. Because it was Chris's idea, and what he wants gets done.
By the way, I think our Mr. Koudys here, is one of the most diplomatic people
I've ever known!
-Greg
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
| (...) That's a good idea for a competition. I'm sure we'd have to define the rules a bit to state that the hopper can't be covered, and once a block is in the hopper, no mechanism can knock it out of the hopper... Here's the thing about the other (...) (19 years ago, 26-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
