Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:34:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3644 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
<snip>
This entire conversation reminds me of my high school machine shop classes
the first day of Machine Shop in grade 9 the shop teacher comes in, after a
brief introduction, brings out this little spinning top--1 inch diameter and 1
inch high, and he spins it on a desk. It spun around for a long time and he
sent out the challenge--anyone who has time build a top and the last day of the
year we'll have a competitoin to see whose top spins the longest. The only
criteria was that the top had to be 1 inch or under diameter, and 1 inch or
under high.
So the end of the year shows up and we all have our tops ready--and the
competition begins.
Turns out that one kid didn't adhere to the directions very well--the teacher
looks at the top and says, 'that's over an inch in diameter'--then we get the
micrometer out to measure it--turrs out that the top was, indeed, over an inch
by a few thousanths--how the teach saw that with the naked eye is still beyond
me.
Anyway, the kid rants and raves about how the rules were unfair and such, and
that we shuld have been able to make the top any diameter.
The point for the rest of us was that the constraints were there--laid out--1
inch. It's arbitrary and it gives boundaries for building--we all have the
'common framework' to go by. I mean we had rolled steel that was 4-5 inches
diameter for projects, but this competition called for an inch or under--that's
the 'rulz', and that's what we have to work in, no matter what other materials
were available to us.
I love NQC. I use it for my robot building projects. That said, if the rules
state no NQC, then why are we even talking about it? Use what is required by
the competition rules. You (not direfcted at Steve 'cause he's on the other
side of this issue and I'm supporting him) may not like it--you may think the
rationality behind it is ludicrous, and all the power to you for those feelings.
State your objections nicely but if the organizers of the competitions say 'no',
then 'no' it is.
And with that, I'm going to find a cupcake.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) The length of time a top will spin depends (in part) on its diameter. As a result the analogy to a pleasant conversation (during which, to my ears, there has been no ranting or raving) about FLL allowing NQC or not breaks down. John Hansen (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| On Wed, March 16, 2005 10:22 am, Steve Baker said: (...) <discussion of cost...> Actually, I'm not talking about the cost. How often do we see LEGO robots out in the "real world" performing tasks? Not very often. I'll bet it's less often than (...) (20 years ago, 16-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
|
|
|
|
