 | | 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)
|
