Now its you who are doing the silly attacks based soley on nationality.
Many of us here are from the USA, and some of us have an actual
attention span. Please restrict your attacks to individuals rather
than stereotyping entire nations.
And while I agree with free speech, disallowing criticism is also
against free speech.
D. Jay Newman
Oh come on now. I'm from freak'n Boston, MA USA. Born here, raised here, and
gosh darn it, I even pay taxes here.
Jeez, dude, have you looked at your country? Do you have *any* children in
The mere fact that creationism and/or "intelligent design" is even a debate
over evolution in this country should scare any one with an intellect or an
attention span out of their wits.
Sorry, I don't want this conversation to get political, and this is also a
digression which proves my point.
This is one of those arguments that suck. To have "free speech" people have
to respect free speech. Critisizing someone's free speech, not what they
said, but that they said it at all, may be an excersize in your free
speech, but it is also an intimidation and form of censure. Using your
freedom to make someone else's freedom more difficult.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right
to say it" Voltaire
My favorite author, Douglas Adams, wote this and it is a great wording for
what I want to say:
"To be frank, it sometimes seems that the American idea of freedom has more
to do with my freedom to do what I want than your freedom to do what you
If you believe in freedom, it means you believe in other's freedom just as
much as your own. If not, you're not really interested in freedom, are you?
Jay is in education. Or was, before he took his sabbatical. In any case,
I think you must admit that by phrasing it as "your country" it is
immediately divisive, regardless of your nationality.
I've taken the time to read your more political threads in some other
groups, so I think I understand your comments a little more (and maybe
agree with some of them -- horrors! <g>). But if you don't want to be so
misunderstood, maybe try not to use less inflammatory terms. Just a
I think there's a difference between criticism of ideas and criticism of
approach. I was offering my constructive criticism that I felt we had
covered this ground before. What's worse, you couched the new thread in
ways implicitly negative to those who like the hardware side -- they are
somehow deficient elsewhere.
I don't think you were interested in the debate of the ideas, but in the
debate of the debate. I felt this lent itself to criticism, which I
tried to frame with some humor (being "bored"). Obviously you took it
the wrong way, for which I apologize.
*Constructive* criticsm only intended here:
More like this: MLW's posts like his PID code or path planning or
suggestions for avoiding brownout resets in PICs
Fewer like this: MLW's posts where he reopens the same subject just so
people can argue about it all over again
How is it devisive if we are from the same country? Perhaps the wrong
pronoun, "our" instead of "your," but, come on now, we're engineers.
In the USA, most people actually agree on the substantive issues. You should
find no shame in agreeing with any of my political views. I'm sure my rabid
libritarian views are somewhat disagreeable to many.
It's a characteristic that engineers often have. It isn't intentional. You
say "not" to do something, but more often than not, we (people like myself)
often don't even know we've said something offernsive or inflammatory until
someone says something. It's sort of a Dilbert thing.
For instance, "That idea sucks" or "That's the stupidest idea ever" are
things often said during design sessions. If we got on about offending
people, RT128 in Massachusettes would be a single lane dirt road.
You weren't critisizing an approach. You said: "My opinion is that you've
over-posted on this already"
What? Next time I should ask your permission? Get real. Not only that, you
did not even address one of the issues. Not that you had too, but it is
indicative of critisizing that I wrote something, not what I wrote. Its
subtle, but I'm sure you get the difference.
There is a *lot* of gound to cover, it isn't a simple topic at all. If you
didn't think it was valuable, you could have moved on...
"No one can make you feel inferior without your concent." Eleanor Roosevelt.
You may not like my choice of words, but what I wrote is a viable
perspective. If you have issues with it, address the issues. If you don't
want to read it, ignore the thread. If you critisize someone for the act of
posting a sincere writing, then you're the person who is wrong.
From an engineering perspective, there are a *lot* of depth to the PC vs
microcontroller debate. It is all trade-offs, but what is VERY debatable is
what the exact trade-offs are.
(1) "Real-Time" is a subjective property and not always needed, even though
you think you may.
(2) The amount of real CPU processing dedicated to control is usually
It is a conceptual debate and IMHO, an interesting one. It is also a
valuable knowledge set in the PC industry. A better understanding of the
ways around latency and accomplishing "real-time" applications on the
popular non-realtime operating systems is always marketable.
Who knows, it may even spill over into micro-controllers and make them even
This isn't at all what you stated at the beginning of the thread. You
wanted opinions to this statement:
This is hardly worth a response. It's divisive from the outset,
presumptuous, and historically inaccurate. Small example: Since you're
from Massachusetts, no doubt you're aware of the work at MIT, where they
commonly use "many small PICs" (or other microcontrollers), and they
approach their research nearly 100% from software, relying heavily on
algorithms and behaviorial models. The hardware is close to being
If you really wanted to debate using a PC with a non-RT OS for a robot
and no subcontrollers, you'd complete yours, and then compare it with
other examples available on the Web that use other methods. In the true
spirit of scientific exchange, you could demonstrate precisely what you
did to overcome the limitations. If others choose, they can challenge
your findings, using their own specifics.
*THAT* is debate, and it exchanges ideas. What you engage is in arguing,
and all it exchanges is animosity.
I have taken the time to look up other groups you're in, and there's a
common thread among them: you spend a lot of your time re-explaining
yourself. I don't think you come across the way you think you do.
Perhaps you could take a moment for inner reflection, and make a fresh
*This* thread was started because of a similarity I noticed between 'EE' and
'CS' engineers, especially at Metrabyte.
That is a trend I think I recognized, and I was asking if it made sense or
anyone else noticed it.
Really, I though it was an interesting observation.
It was an observation, and I was asking if anyone noticed it.
Their design goals are interesting. One could look at the work in other
places. I remember Hans Morivick driving a van around with a generator and
a VAX, saying funny things like "To a vision system, a road and a tree look
very much a like." (The unstated punch line was the series of events that
lead up to that observation.)
I notice you are very big on trying to tell people what to do. *That* is
One does not need to build a specic implementation of "X" to debate the
doability of "X," especially if it has been done before.
If you don't want to debate, then by all means don't debate. If you don't
like the debate, by all means, don't participate. Whether or not I and
others wish to debate it, really isn't your call.
I did and I posted code with explanations. I even posted pictures of parts
And I hope some do.
It *only* exchanges animosity when people take a subject personally. Someone
is *always* annoyed at some level when a person disagrees with them, that's
human nature. A thinking human being *should* be able to see beyond this
initial effect, and decide whether or not the points have merit.
If they do not have merit, then you either ignore the debate or counter with
your valid points.
Perhaps you should take very good care of Gordon's own business.
A lot of non Americans would agree with that :)
However I think that it is true for all nations.
There is also the question of peoples freedom to
say things that incite racial hatred or antisocial
behavior... but that is for another newsgroup.
Most people are not interested in the freedom of
speech when they perceive it as a personal attack.
Although most people like to think they are "logical"
in reality we are entirely motivated by emotions.
Something robot builders interested in higher AI
for their machines need to consider.
Robots have a long way to go than before they can
meet those worthy goals :) Most of them get off
with a zap of electricity when their batteries get
a bit low. Although some have a religious zeal and
see the light.
Did VIKI have a logical reason to be logical?
It depends on your goal. If it is to work together
happily we need empathy. Interestingly enough those
without empathy, but intelligent, are usually very
successful, at the expense of everyone else. Those
without empathy and without intelligence tend to
end up in goal and be called psychopaths.
Apparently you can detect a psychopath by monitoring
their involuntary reactions while viewing neutral
and emotional material. A psychopath doesn't react
emotionally to someone else's suffering.
If robots are to care for the increasing percentage
of elderly people in many societies I think they
would need empathy of some kind.
I think that's an extreme over-generalization.
Speaking for myself only (I realize that there are proponents of
certain technologies that sometimes tend to favor their preferences
for all applications) I try to apply the technology to the task at
hand based on what will get the job done most effectively. For some
applications, I think a PC is best, while other applications find a
number of microcontrollers optimum. Or, maybe some combination of
both? I try to start with the question, "What do I want it to do?" &
work from there, & let the technology fall out of the requirements.
I also consider software to be the "easy part", & find the
manipulation of low-level functionality via electronics to be
fascinating, so perhaps I have a bias in that direction.
Does that make me the anti-geek?
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.