White Box Robotics Pre-order

Using a spell checker?

"Correct" spelling is really one of convention.

Thus Americans have a different idea as to what constitutes "correct spelling" than do the English.

-- John

In this case, John, there is no progression in the term "hobby" to make "hobbier" and "hobbiest." It's hobbyist, a person who pursues a hobby.

A minor point, but for a person struggling to be better understood, a small step in the right direction, in my opinion.

-- Gordon

Sometimes I get picked on for spelling "mistakes". In my English classes I never got high marks for spelling, I did get high marks for my stories.

I remember an old English teacher (head master) who complained that his local church magazine's editorial had spelling and grammar mistakes.

I asked him what the article was about. He didn't know!

There are reason why some people have difficulty with spelling just as some people have dyslexia. Also sometimes as a touch typist I find my fingers sometimes misspell a word without my even being aware of it :)

-- John

You are not qualified to comment on me or my experience. Try to stick with the topic. The whitebox marketing strategy.

Expert in what? Who are you to say who is an expert and who is not? I am stating an opinion. Marketing is all about opinion based on aggregates and observations.

I was stating my opinion as to why I don't think whitebox has a viable market. I detailed my assumptions about the constraints on what I see as the market. You are welcome to disagree with my assumptions, but that doesn't give you the right to comment on me.

If you don't agree say so and offer some wisdom on the subject. I HATE that you always fail to participate in a rational discussion and always try to imply something derogatory about me because you are unwilling or unable to discuss the topic at hand. I think I have practiced a great deal of restraint, but I'm getting sick of it. Please debate the topics like an adult or refrain from posting response to my posts.

This doesn't really explain the people who have difficulty using a spell checker.

Mitch

Nope. I started to, but then I saw something shiny. My eyes glazed over, I started drooling, and went into fits of laughter while my fingers rapidly twitched in patterns that ended up forming words.

Sorry for the confusion.

Rich

No, you made statements you wanted to be implicitly understood as fact. When you make yourself out to be the subject matter expert in so many things, you should expect others to question your assertions.

I question your approach, not your opinions. I couldn't care less about your opinions.

I don't feel you've been open to anyone else's wisdom, quite frankly.

-- Gordon

I have dyslexia (as does my son and grandson), and I have always been a lousy typist. But still I try my best to spell words correctly. All we have to express ourselves here are words. A program like As-U-Type will correct on-the-fly, and works with most any Windows program (alas, not Netscape 3, which have returned to in order to avoid viruses). I assume there are similar programs for Linux.

I don't want to belabor this, as it's not cogent. I was trying to offer some constructive criticism to someone who once asked for pointers about getting published. Won't make that mistake again!

-- Gordon

Mmmm, not sure of the rules for turning verbs into adjectives,

fussy fussiest

bossy bossiest

easy easiest

Before someone decided to codify the common spelling conventions there were no spelling mistakes. If you write the way you speak it actually can carry more information such as accent.

In fact if you scan newsgroups for "hobbiest" you might find it is "correct" by common use.

A "robot hobbyist" likes robots.

A "robot hobbiest" is even more hobbier.

Anyway its all a bit off topic so I better end it here?

-- John

That's ok Gordon, just don't do it again :-) :-)

Just kidding. I hope you do continue to offer constructive criticism as it is most appreciated.

-- John

MLW, this sounds harsher than I meant. I meant the opinions over the course of the last several messages, not your opinions in general.

-- Gordon

I don't have a spell-checker for my newsreader. Many people do not. Or can't be bothered.

-- D. Jay Newman

I have *NO* problem with people questioning anything I say, if they can offer information or counterpoint, I welcome it 100%.

If you don't like my opinions, please, by all means don't read them. My approach is none of your concern, nor is any opinion you may have of me or anyone else. Statements made by the wisest man or the village idiot can be equally flawed or true. Take all things based on the merit of the argument, not the falicy of authority.

You always play the "insult the poster" and not "refute the point" play. Maybe that passes for intellect or wit in your circle of idiots, but in a real environment where people think for a living, it indicates you are a moron who can't differentiate the subject of the debate from the people doing the debate, and you wouldn't last a minute.

I'll let it go if you will, but I am sick of you talking trash instead of discussing the topic.

Again, you are saying something about *me* and not about the topics. And for the record, I believe you probably lack the wisdom to contribute in the first place.

OK, I'm done. If you wish to be civil, I won't get nasty again first.

Actually, New Guy, Gordon has a long record here of helpful and informative postings that go back for years.

Your history here, on the other hand, has been both brief and abrasive, and -- I hate to break this to you -- it has nothing to do with your ideas. In fact, I don't think anybody has managed to make so many enemies around here in so short a period since Fractal Robot Guy -- which is a shame since FRG was a total crank, and you clearly are not.

It's Usenet, after all, so you can post whatever and however, and as vociferously as you please, but I don't think you're being taken very seriously around here.

If you say so.

You know, it doesn't matter if I am "taken seriously" on usenet, does it really?

On a serious note, I may be -- what did you say -- "abrasive?" that may be true, but have my facts been incorrect? Have my opinions, while perhaps contrary, been poorly considered?

I disagree with a lot of the conventional wisdom on this group, and in doing so, have had a large number of insults sent my way. Hey, I don't care about being insulted, per se', but I do dislike insults being used instead of argument. For instance:

In response to a statement, I get this: "You obviously don't know what you are talking about."

Now, the above helps no one. It is missing any sort of foundation and is meaningless. However, if someone responds:

"I think you are mistaken, because ....."

That is a valid response, it isn't merely an insult.

So, you may call be abrasive, and that's OK, I may be at times, I'm too old to change. I'm going to be one of those old men pelting pidgeon's with stale bread, but I have attempted to discuss things in a rational informitive way. I should appologize for some of my more angry responses to some of the more irritating posts, but I didn't start the personal stuff.

Mobile

Movies like Silent Running and Star Wars seemed to provide a lot of the ripples to create the wave. The HERO robot line from Heathkit didn't merely "ride" the wave. It amplified the wave! It was in almost every magazine article on robotics from that era (I have copies of most), appeared on TV shows like Newtons Apple, Computer Chronicles, Letterman show, etc. One of the HERO 1 robots even spoke in front of and addressed the US Congress. It was also one of the first robots that people were exposed to and got people to think about robotics.

The Androbots, RB5X, and others contributed too but there were only a fraction of those out there compared to the HERO's.

Nope. I feel it is more accurate to say that none of them single handedly "created" the wave, most of them "rode it", and a select few like the Heathkit HERO's did a great deal to "amplify it". I wouldn't belittle their accomplishment.

Most of the early robotics companies folded before their prototypes were finished or after making a small # of their creations. They "rode" the wave and drowned in it. It really is a shame since some were fantastic and should have made it.

sensor

It all depends on which HERO robot you refer to. They each were targeted at different areas and had different features. To judge the whole lot on your impression of the inital offering isn't a fair comparison if that is what you've used.

Also, Heathkit had come out with enhancements/upgrades over time which address some shortcomings and improve reliability.

The HERO 2000 is a very capable robot and does lend itself well for upgrades and expansion. With the sonar on the head it can see as if there were a ring of 24 sonar sensors around it. The differential drive system works great and all of the motors are closed loop servo motors with quadrture encoding. There were quite a few goodies as add-on options. It can even write some of it's own code. It's great!

One of the options allows it to find the charger, dock with it, and recharge on it's own.

Let's assume we are talking about the ET-18 or ETW-18 HERO 1 robot.

Well that is cool since that is what it was "designed" to accomplish. They were pleasantly surprised by how many hobbyists were lining up to buy a robot of their own. People started creating all sorts of programs and suggestions that the kept on going.

The HERO Jr was targeted specifically for the HOME market and the HERO

I've done extensive work on all the HERO robots and will be happy to go over specifics or help anyone who owns a HERO keep their robot going. Any topics on that should probably be moved to a new thread though.

Best Regards,

Robert

At times, absolutely. At times not -- and I occasionally even agree with you.

You don't get this kind of response because you're "challenging conventional wisdom". This kind of thing generally comes after a heated exchange in which you've refused to concede a point that you should have conceded some time ago, or simply agreed to disagree.

A simple case in point: "Microcontrollers are too expensive". While you may have perfectly legitimate reasons to not want to use microcontrollers in your project, you state your opinion on cost issues as if it were a fact, and simply fail to respond when others give you actual numbers that refute this. You have answered other arguments by simply accusing the other side of being "pedantic". Which would be fine, except the argument itself wasn't pedantic while you chose to participate in it, was it?

You come off as if you are trying to sound like an authority on a topic to which you are clearly something of a newcomer, at least in recent years. Yes -- Denning Robotics... -- I know. But the repeated references to Denning are starting to wear a little thin, and are beginnning to sound like name dropping (and occasionally like attempts to argue from authority), whether you intend this or not. You and I are about the same age, and we both know things have changed greatly since the mid-80s.

All of this tends to lead folks to conclude that you are here primarily to win debates at any cost and have no real interest in exchange of ideas. Things get nasty, you get called a "turd", told you have no idea what you're talking about, people start sticking pins into wax dolls with your likeness, etc., and there you go. What can I say? You end up getting fractal robot guy treatment.

Of course it is, but as I've pointed out, insults are never the initial response.

It's not as if you showed up here, announced your intention to do a PC-only robot, and we all responded as one: "FOAD YOU BASTARD!". There are other people around here who have done PC-only robots.

Well, sure -- but expect responses to be equally abrasive, and to occasinally escalate to nastiness.

Oh cripes, grandpa -- you can't be much older than me.

As a nit: I'm not calling you abrasive -- I'm saying your postings come off that way. I don't know you personally, so I'm not really qualified to comment on your personality. Maybe you've just spent to much time in cola, dunno. Personally, I think os advocacy ngs are bad for the psyche.

Here -- because I'm just that kind of guy, you can have the last word.

Don't forget Creative Computing, November 1983. (And a couple others...)

At best the robots in movies serve as inspiration. Inspiration is important, and while that may get people dreaming, turning ideas into products needs a wee more. Let's consider that even today hobby robots have far more in common -- looks and function -- with HERO than R2D2. Or the Denning Sentry, for that matter, a product that never found its market because there was no market for a quarter-ton robot that posed a greater liability threat than any burglar. A classic example of hubris and too-little market research.

This "wave" is someone else's definition, and IMO, it's a poor one. Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, but he capitalized on it and ushered in the era of mass production, which he also didn't invent. Still, Ford should get at least some credit. It's all irrelevant anyway, as the "wave" considers only the part of market dynamics this other person wants it to convey. No one can argue with the wave.

Exposure to actual hardware also played an important role in the rise of robotics, and this should not be ignored. The early commercial prototypes like Hubot, Odex-1, Sentry, and the others were just pictures in a magazine for most people. The HERO was real hardware you could find in most any college or university (and even some high schools). Its influence was far, far wider because of it. Take that, you wave!

-- Gordon

Hello,

White Box Robotics is a great idea, and one that a number of people have been working on for some years. I wish Tom every success in his venture.

I spent many years making my living as a professional musician and composer. Some of the tenor of this discussion reminds me of the early years of electronic music, especially with the introduction of synthesizers (Moog, Arp, Putney, Buchla) in the late 60's and early 70's. That spawned an enormous amount of creativity in the same way that the microprocessor and advances in sensor technology have goosed the field of experimental robotics 30 years later.

Part of the excitement at that time centered around the idea that this new technology would take "music making to the masses." The concept was that now folks would be able to make music without all the messy contingencies of having to learn, you know, all those notes and chords and scales and arpeggios and theory and stuff. The synthesizer would do it all for you. (think "disco").

Turns out, of course, that if you ever wanted to do any more than just play the demos on your Casio keyboard, that you actually DO have to learn all that other stuff. And yes, there is quite a bit to learn.

Now I seem to hear an echo of that same thing with experimental robotics: "Can't I just do robotics without having to learn all that mechanical, electronics, and software stuff? Can't I just buy that part from somebody else?"

With robotics, as with music, I think the real answer here is no.

You can, of course, buy a trumpet or a piano built by someone else, just as you can buy a micro-controller or gear-head motor or IMU built by someone else. But you can't "buy" the ability to play that piano. You actually have to take the time to learn the skill; there are no shortcuts (as my music teachers used to tell me!!!)

If you want to write a symphony, you really do have to master the entire orchestra. No other way to do it.

(For the non-musicians among us, substitute the word "math" for the word "music" and the words "pocket calculator" for the word "synthesizer" and the words "calculus and algebra and geometry" for the words "scales and arpeggios and music theory." Then substitute "build a robot" for "write a symphony" and "master hardware AND software" for "master the entire orchestra" :>} )

Part of the problem with the "commodity" approach to robotics, as Gordon and others have pointed out, is that there is no good definition of what problems we are trying to solve, or even agreement on the problems themselves, much less their definitions. This makes it very hard to define a commodity level, hardware, software, API, whatever. Your API ("you" in the universal sense) will probably not provide the functions that I want my robot to have, and vice versa.

So the "innovative" robots tend to be innovative in both software AND hardware. The two are really inseparable. I believe it will be that way for a long time to come.

The good news is, with robotics as with music, learning a new skill set is still worth it! Indispensable, some might say.

regards, dpa