Subject:
|
Re: Science Magazine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:36:13 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
amit <amitt@pune.tcs.*IHateSpam*co.in>
|
Viewed:
|
903 times
|
| |
|
|
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Hills/8306/Lego/mindprog.html
jUST TRYING TO GO THORUGH THTE PROGRAM BUT THIS SITE DOES not contain
anything. Any Ideas. Also I am a beginner on Mindstorms and wish to download
a small program (C++) onto the brick but don;t know how to go about it. Any
help?
Regards
Am
----- Original Message -----
From: <news-gateway@lugnet.com>
To: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Science Magazine
>
> From: "Mike Reddy" <mreddy@glam.ac.uk>@lugnet.com on 07/19/2002 12:38 PM
> GMT
>
> Please respond to "Mike Reddy" <mreddy@glam.ac.uk>
>
> To: lego-robotics@crynwr.com
> cc:
> Subject: Re: Science Magazine
>
>
> As a service to Lugmanity, here are extracts from "Reverse Engineering of
> Biological Complexity" ME Csete & JC Doyle, Science 1st March 2002 vol 295
> p1666
>
> "Consider the ubiquitous Lego toy system (33,34). The signature feature of
> lego is the patented snap connection for easy but stable assembly of
> components. The snap is the basic Lego protocol, and Lego bricks are its
> basic modules.
> ...
> Lego exhibits multilayer robustness, from components and toys to the
> product
> line. Lego bricks and toys are resuable and robust to trauma, and the snap
> is versatile, permitting endless varieties of toys from an array of
> components. This makes both a given Lego collection and the entire toy
> system evolvable to changes in what one chooses to build, to the addition
> of
> new Lego-compatible parts, and to novel toy designs. Evolution here is
> simply robustness to (possibly large) changes on long time scales. The low
> cost of modules and the popularity of the system confer other forms of
> robustness and evolvability; lost parts are easily replaced, and
> enthusiasts
> constantly design new modules and toys. The Lego protocol also creates
> fragilities at every level. Superficially miniscule damage to the snap at • a
> key interface may cause an entire toy to fail, yet noninterfacing parts of
> bricks may be heavily damaged with minimal impact. The success of Lego
> means
> that any new snap, even a superior one, would not be easily adopted.
> Selection pressures thus preserve a protocol in two ways: protocols
> facilitate evolution and are difficult to change."
>
> [After this segment is a discussion of comparison with other protocols,
> such
> as smooth glue and mold, followed by discussion of the protocols for • motors
> etc, which add complexity to the basic protocol.]
> ...
> Lego has a perfectly complete "legome" of all parts, including full
> structure and function. A similar compendium is far from available for • even
> simple organisms. Yet understanding a collision-avoiding,
> software-intensive, feedback-regulated Lego robot would require extensive
> reverse engineering of additional layers of protocols and modules beyond
> the
> legome. That the legome would not be sufficient is no surprise, but for
> reverse engineering such details may not be entirely necessary (see • below).
> Imagine that such a Lego robot was a prototype for a single toy that
> dispenced entirely with the Lego modules in favour of custom
> implementations. Similar to 'Mold', this toy could easily have much more
> robustness to trauma, be faster, and navigate more complex obstacles, but
> at
> the expense of limited part reuse. The modules and lower level • protocols --
> most of the legome -- would be completely different, yet we might claim
> that
> the essence of the toy, and what the prototype aimed to capture, remained.
> That essence involves the protocols that organized the sensors, actuators,
> and feedback control system that enables the obstacle avoidance and
> contributes almost the entire cost and complexity. These too are goverened
> by protocols, but also by entirely new laws.
> ...
> [the we get into the Maths!]
> "
>
> Why am I quoting this? Well, it is the essence of the Lego contribution,
> but
> also of academic interest to me, as I am currently being funded to look
> into
> the modularity of lego Mindstorms with other educational robot products in
> the UK. So thanks for the reference. People not interested in Systems
> Biology need not read the rest...
>
> Mike Reddy, School of Computing, University of Glamorgan
>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Science Magazine
|
| As a service to Lugmanity, here are extracts from "Reverse Engineering of Biological Complexity" ME Csete & JC Doyle, Science 1st March 2002 vol 295 p1666 "Consider the ubiquitous Lego toy system (33,34). The signature feature of lego is the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
