 | | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
Citando Alexander Horoshilov <hor@demo.ru>: In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote: > > Sorry if I misunderstood you. But, actually, I was talking about the blue Scout, > not the Microscout (from the droid developer kit) Oh, It may be because of (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
(...) Unless I misunderstood the thread - I thought the concept was that the inital box would come with some programs, you could buy others, or you could buy(or utilise) a module allowing the freedom to program from a PC. Its not restricting the (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
(...) "The idea" is to made Mindstorms attractive for those who do not like programming. If you do like, then you need and extra kit which will allow you to create your own programs like current RCX. You will able to create your own program. So (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
(...) Since this keeps being phrased in terms of good markets, etc... how much of a market is there to tap here (i.e.- how many potential sales have been lost due to "RIS programming being to complicated"?). Having watched a group of 8-year-olds (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
(...) Brian, you've made very good points. I have neither: numbers for market share, nor real experience of techning kids to RCX programming. Actually, I do not even sure that this idea is so good. I hope it is, but it may be wrong for one or (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
(...) I have to agree. If you don't want to build programmable robots, why not just build a motorized model with a motor and battery box. The whole point of Mindstorms, as I see it, is that you "add" programming to a structure of Lego elements to (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
Isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have a person who wants to build robots, but doesn't want to program? A true robot, of the kind we see on this newsgroup, is a harmonious blend of decent programming and decent construction. If you take the (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
When I read this Idea about no programming, I thought you guys must be crazy. The programming is the coolest part of this system. I'd like to see Lego do more with the programming capabilities not less. -----Original Message----- From: (...) (19 years ago, 27-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
(...) Never I said, that RCX must have less programming capaiblities. All current features (there are not too many of them now) must be kept. They may be expanded, it is also good, but it is slightly different topic. (19 years ago, 28-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorm
|
|
(...) Yes, exactly - some models have to be just small step behind Technic. It will allow people to easy shift from "just Technic" to robotics. Currently, there are too large gap between Technic and Mindstorm, I think. If filled, it will allow (...) (19 years ago, 28-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorms - event potential?
|
|
While I think mindstorms needs to be computer-programmable out of the box (ie no corner cutting by making the PC interface a seperate acessory), I'm intrigued by the concept of fixed programs as a robotics challenge - for many kinds of robot, far (...) (19 years ago, 28-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorms - event potential?
|
|
Citando Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net>: Justin wrote: > A fly can land on the ceiling not > because it is smart (it isn't), but because it's body is built such that the > laws of physics themselves automate a process that would be prohibitively (...) (19 years ago, 28-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorms - event potential?
|
|
Justin wrote: > A fly can land on the ceiling not (...) Don't be too hard on the fly's brain. A housefly has about a third of a million neurons. If you think of a neuron as being about the power of a transistor - then there is a computer that's more (...) (19 years ago, 29-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorms - event potential?
|
|
(...) I'm not knocking the fly, I'm saying that landing on the ceiling is a very difficult problem to solve by realtime calculated piloting (even using a desktop PC). But it needs very little calculation at all if the problem is almost entirely (...) (19 years ago, 29-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorms - event potential?
|
|
(...) I've been interested in estimates of insect (& arachnid) brain power for some time, with neuron counts, up-to-date analysis of cognitive abilities, etc. For some reason I've found this material hard to find online. Any references would be (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jul-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: An Idea for new Mindstorms - event potential?
|
|
(...) Human brain: 100,000,000,000 neurons. Bee brain: 1,000,000 neurons. Housefly: 300,000 neurons. Fruitfly: 400 neurons. Nematode: 100 neurons. Sea slug 7 neurons. The housefly is actually suprisingly smart for the insect world. I found somewhere (...) (19 years ago, 3-Jul-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
