 | | Re: new Mindstorms servos?
|
|
(...) Hi Dennis, Interesting to see you posting here too (there cant be that many Dennis Clark aka DLC's in robotics). You will be happy to hear I am a proud new owner of your book. Anyway - If there is a conversion cable, I have certainly hear of (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Java for Robots
|
|
Bruce I guess we're going to have to differ on this one. We're talking about completely different classes of robots. This is a Lego discussion group and the vast majority of people who post here use RIS or NXT (soon) or computers of equivalent (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: How many people signed up for the NXT Developer's Program?
|
|
(...) i'd test it with people who are and arent into mindstorms to analyze just exactly how simple it is to use (if thats allowed) build models using all parts of the lego system to remind us and show us how its still part of one system of bricks (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: How many people signed up for the NXT Developer's Program?
|
|
Steve Hassenplug writes: > If you were going to be included, what would you do to help the development of the NXT? I'd run a mailing list for people to get together and talk about lego robotics. Oh wait, I *already* do that. Hrm. Actually, my (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Pneumatic Control in 8868 Alternate Model
|
|
(...) Alas, the 9617 and 9633 Pneumatic sets are no longer in production - retired, to use the proper terminology. So also has the 5218 pneumatic pack and much other useful pneumatic stuff. The current sets are the 8421 and the 8436. You would be (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Java for Robots (university vs hobbyists)
|
|
(...) Maybe we are at cross purposes here. You may be right, that for many hobbyists, Java is too advanced and complex, and since their needs are simpler, C is more than enough. Ease of use and low cost is probably more important than computing (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why Java for Robots (was NXT and bluetooth enabled phones)
|
|
(...) Why do you say that? I thought we were discussing Java on robotics. You said Java for small robots was not practical. I presented our system as but one implementation which works. (...) That's the total *available* memory. The JVM is in (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java (or other langs) for Robots
|
|
(...) ... (...) The 3-level concept as traditionally taught doesn't really say #2 is 'subsumption' -- that's my perception of it. Here's an example of typical course material: (URL) was just making a rough analogy to your "3 levels of robotics (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: NXT release date.
|
|
(...) Yeah, I can understand though I still contend 100 is too small darn it! But your point is well understood (especially by me who has dealt with countless examples of this scenario). (...) Its fantastic no doubt! Very rarely do you find such a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: NXT release date.
|
|
(...) I suspect that the logistics is a big issue. I am a debugger for a living, and know how to report the information that is critical to a bug. As a developer (of LPub and LSynth for example). Most of the bugs reported to me are extremely vague (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
