Sorry for the absence, I've been busy (lame excuse, sorry. The actual excuse is that I'm tired of uploading my pictures for this blog because it's annoying and blog entries without pictures suck).
This, however, is too important. I've been building a robot for a class this month and it's now alive and moving! We cut him from acrylic, slapped three motors and some omniwheels on him, and gave him a battery + eeePc. He's just now learning to drive and move (which is exciting!) but even more exciting is the fact that we trained him to tweet whatever he's doing. So, if you'd like, you can follow our robot as he becomes sentient and grows up into a red-ball-nomming beasty.
Definitely be tuned in to the feed on Jan 29th for the final competition, he'll tell you what he's doing the entire time!
Cheers.
Comments (Closed after 30 days to reduce spam)
Posted by: Derek on January 12, 2010
Posted by: Piper '12 on January 13, 2010
Posted by: makesense on January 13, 2010
Posted by: Caio '14? on January 13, 2010
Good luck, c2bot.
Posted by: Justin on January 13, 2010
Posted by: parav on January 13, 2010
Posted by: Snad on January 13, 2010
Observable laws and set conditions define our methods of definition in relation to Cosmological models of the universe, and by intransalistic association, the "theory of everything", or better yet, the very notion of existence itself. Clearly seen are accepted properties such as gravity, universal expansion, relativity, and so forth; few stands are given to any aberrations from these "standards", as they are, of course, proven.
However, the questionable reason for origin (or its reciprocal) may coerce perusal of such unquestioned 'absolutes.' The in-sanstrinstic law of infinity procalates an idea: what if ANYTHING could have theoretical existed? After the big bang? Or before the big bang? Why is the universe as it is at all- a big bang 13.7 billion years ago followed by what we see today? If random trumps reason, not form should be any more expected then another. Existence could have created a non-physical universe, or a universe that hasn't started yet (now THERE'S a mind-warping thought) or ,I suppose, ANYTHING. Existence might not have been at all. Or there might have been (or might be) more than one. This would also challenge the concept of "supernatural." Theoretically, any verison of reality mathematically could have (and paradoxically does.) So is natural theomorphism to hard to believe?
After the big bang, anything could have formed. Whose to say there aren't multiverses, "superverses", or an infinite number of scenarios?
Posted by: astrophysicist on January 13, 2010
Observable laws and set conditions define our methods of definition in relation to Cosmological models of the universe, and by intransalistic association, the "theory of everything", or better yet, the very notion of existence itself. Clearly seen are accepted properties such as gravity, universal expansion, relativity, and so forth; few stands are given to any aberrations from these "standards", as they are, of course, proven.
However, the questionable reason for origin (or its reciprocal) may coerce perusal of such unquestioned 'absolutes.' The in-sanstrinstic law of infinity procalates an idea: what if ANYTHING could have theoretical existed? After the big bang? Or before the big bang? Why is the universe as it is at all- a big bang 13.7 billion years ago followed by what we see today? If random trumps reason, not form should be any more expected then another. Existence could have created a non-physical universe, or a universe that hasn't started yet (now THERE'S a mind-warping thought) or ,I suppose, ANYTHING. Existence might not have been at all. Or there might have been (or might be) more than one. This would also challenge the concept of "supernatural." Theoretically, any verison of reality mathematically could have (and paradoxically does.) So is natural theomorphism to hard to believe?
After the big bang, anything could have formed. Whose to say there aren't multiverses, "superverses", or an infinite number of scenarios?
Posted by: astrophysicist on January 13, 2010
@astrophysicist: A tad late? Anyways, I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of this essay. What prompt is it answering?
Posted by: Andrew Huang ('14?) on January 13, 2010
"He's just now learning to drive and move (which is exciting!)"
OH... BETTER GET HIM SOME INSURANCE...lol! Pretty cool bots you Mit-ers build!
Posted by: genius ('18) on January 13, 2010
Posted by: astrophysicist: on January 14, 2010
Posted by: joemill on January 14, 2010
mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a
tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe. This theory states that there is also a
classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativity and is located at: http://www.superrelativity.org
This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and
deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious.
Posted by: MikeS on January 14, 2010
Thank you
Posted by: Protoform X Y on January 15, 2010
Actually, to be more accurate, it's like Sheldon reminds me of you...but that's moderately creepy, so...
Posted by: penny on January 15, 2010
"...we trained him to tweet whatever he's doing."
How did you DO that?
At the danger of sounding like I live on a farmstead with twenty cows and fifteen goats, I never knew that was possible.
@Caio '14 Twitter bots! LOL.
Posted by: peiyun on January 15, 2010
wonder if the robot can be instructed by tweets too :p
Posted by: Dipta on January 17, 2010
Counterpoint to your long-ago link to "Final Countdown".
Posted by: Mom out west on January 18, 2010
Posted by: Amethyst ('14?) on January 20, 2010
Posted by: Mason '10 on January 21, 2010
Add a comment
Comments have been closed.