Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:46:47 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail*spamless*.net>
|
Viewed:
|
3303 times
|
| |
|
|
Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Steve Baker wrote:
>
> > But not one single eensy-weensy bit of NQC ends up in the robot - it's
> > just a tool. This is the HUGE misunderstanding that people seem to have.
> > NQC *isn't* somehow loaded into the robot.
>
> That doesn't matter. What matters is what people _perceive_... which is
> why non lego tools shouldn't be allowed. People who have more of a
> computer background would _tend_ to develop better robots, and would
> also tend towards using tools like NQC, and to less experienced people,
> the competitive advantage that these people have which is actually
> solely a result of their differences in personal background would
> instead get focused towards the difference in which tools were used.
OK - so there are two horrible implications in what you say:
1) People who have more of a mechanical background are allowed to have
a huge advantage - but people who have more of a software background
have to be constrained to prevent them from doing well in the contest.
2) That constraining people's abilities in order to 'level the playing
field' is a good way to run a contest.
That kind of attitude makes me very, very angry.
The point of a competition is to allow people to exercise and demonstrate
their skills.
If my kid happens to be a talented programmer and is interested in robotics
- and by exercising his talents in software is able to overcome his limited
mechanical abilities - then you say he has to be handicapped to keep things
'fair'.
OTOH, my hypothetical neighbours kid who maybe spent his youth helping his
father mend cars and who tinkers with gears and motors - who has a talent
for building clever mechanisms but who couldn't progam his way out of a
paper bag is a helped to victory by a 'levelling of the playing field'.
If my kid's robot is slow because he messed up the gearing - but thanks
to a really CLEVER navigation algorithm still manages to get to it's
destination in half the time of the super-fast robot with the clever
drive chain and elegant steering mechanism...what business is it of
the rule makers to rule that my kid is too good at software so his
solution to the problem is somehow unfair.
That makes me *SICK*.
The thing that makes robotics so interesting is the fusion of software and
hardware - and the cut and thrust of the interplay between them. How a
clever hardware change can simplify your software immensely - or how a
sneaky software trick can save you two motors and a sensor.
Seeing software as something that has to be pushed away and limited by
arbitary restrictions like what tools you can use to make it with is
unbelievably WRONG.
Most real world robots have pretty mundane mechanicals - but really
sophisticated software. Just pull apart one of those 'Roomba' vacuum
cleaners - which are by far the best selling true robots in history. There
is almost nothing inside - I bet quite a few FLL entries are mechanically
more complex. The Roomba makes up for that with super-sophisticated
software. The Roomba it reputed to have over 30,000 lines of software
inside.
The contest should be left open - if a clever mechanical solution is the
way to win - so be it - if a robot can employ cunning software to get an
advantage then bring it on. Understanding which approach works best and
how to compromise between them is where practical robotics is at.
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M-
V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) .... (...) I agree... unfortunately, there's not a heck of a lot anyone can do about it. The easiest solution is to simply not compete with so dramatically less competent people who don't understand that while you may use different tools, the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| Hell, let's just switch over to a meritocracy. We can imprison the inept and get it all over with. Who gets to decide whom has merit? In no way does LEGO or FIRST try to level the playing field by constraining anyone's abilities. They constrain the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| On Thu, March 10, 2005 1:46 am, Steve Baker said: (...) People with a mechanical background have a huge advantage over who? People without a mechanical background? Yes, I agree they can build better robots. So, just how is your son constrained? What (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) Probably nothing. There certainly are things you can do in MindScript that you couldn't do in NQC until recently. You couldn't use pointers, for example. But I don't think that is what Steve Baker is arguing. He's arguing that his son's (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) That doesn't matter. What matters is what people _perceive_... which is why non lego tools shouldn't be allowed. People who have more of a computer background would _tend_ to develop better robots, and would also tend towards using tools like (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
114 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
