[FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

8/23/16 FRC blog post.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Good guy Frank separates Carson and Carver, removing some verbal confusion. Thanks Frank!

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Will both Championsplits have an Einstein division called Einstein?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Cue all the jokes about natural selection in the Darwin division

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Can you imagine the fun people will have with that if Darwin goes on a long time Curie like streak?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Eventually there would have to be a thread explaining the lack of winning teams coming from the division. It'll be titled: "Darwin's Origin of Superstition"

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Please let there be a Carson-Daly division.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Or was that Alfred Russel Wallace? Some say Darwin only got around to publishing because he learned that Wallace had submitted a paper to the Royal Society first. Wallace subdivision would be cool. :cool:

I am not biased. :rolleyes:

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Other than giving recognition to famous scientists/engineers/inventors, I don't really see a reason to not just use the same division names for both championships.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Because it's really supposed to be one championship in two places on two different places?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Because everyone would just start calling them Archimedes-North and Archimedes-South anyway. Which two division names don't make the cut? How do you define event codes for the API?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Imagine this conversation:
"Curie is the most stacked division ever! Newton 2016 isn't even close!"
"Dude, what are you talking about? Curie is so weak that *random other division* could beat it with two robots!"
"Whaddaya mean, weak? With[list of legendary teams], there's no way it can lose!"
"Those teams aren't in that division, what are you talking about?"
*cue discussion to figure out what's going on, several posts later...*
"OH! I meant Curie South! You're talking about Curie North!"

Sometimes, it's better to just have different names than to use *name**descriptor*.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I don't see how that is a bad thing.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Can confirm. Mr Macs is awesome.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Probably. The question is going to be whether they keep the two fields for Einstein in each event, or have Mass in one and Energy in the other.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I can't believe that there is no discussion about "The Bride of Frankenstein" being a possible game hint

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Nah, too obvious. They're bringing back an old game and playing it again but different. The question is which one, and I'm not willing to take a guess--there's only 24 of them to choose from.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Well it's probably not gonna be 2008 and 2014. 1 in 22 seems like good enough odds :rolleyes:

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

My vote is for Mass and Photoelectric in one, Energy and Relativity in the other. On the photoelectric effect and general relativity hang all of modern physics.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I sent Frank an email about this a while ago. Glad to finally have the answer :)

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

But isnt Frankenstein, and his bride, put together with parts from a bunch of different bodies? Would lend to believe of another amalgamation of previous games.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

To help the dyslexic and the nearly so, I would like to see unique first letter names.
For example: move one of the "D" names (Daly or Darwin) to Houston and find a name to replace either Carson or Curie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FIRST Championship Houston
Carver
Galileo
Hopper
Newton
Roebling
Turing

FIRST Championship St. Louis
Archimedes
Carson
Curie
Daly
Darwin
Tesla

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

2004.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

An assembly (NOT stacking) game could be very cool.
I'm envisioning a cross between Logomotion and Hangman, then flip the switch and the figure comes alive to sing "Puttin' on the Ritz"

RIP Frank Barone

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I wish the powers that be had considered a Hawking subdivision given that the gentleman is still alive (will be 75 in January, 2017).

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I feel particularly bad for the yearly Darwin Award Winners.....

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Good idea. Although maybe they have a rule like stamps - can't honor any living person.

But if it's a game involving throwing things, I could imagine a game announcer saying "hurling on Hawking."

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

...especially when I think about the stories of those few who won the Darwin Award and lived to tell about it.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Personally as a creationist I'm not too thrilled with a Darwin division. I'm sure there are others that feel similarly. Not trying to start a war here I just figured I'd throw that out there. Being Darwins 'discoveries' are controversial im not exactly sure why first thought it was a good idea to use his name opposed to thousands of other names that they could have potentially used.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Not that I'm trying to argue, but he was an extremely talented naturalist and geologist. As a compromise I propose we host the "Spencer" division, named after the famous Percy Spencer.

- Gravity

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

You might want to read "Belief in God in an Age of Science" by Polkinghorne.
here's a link. You might find it interesting. He's a Theoretical Physicist who is also an Anglican priest.

As for science being controversial: almost all large leaps of science are considered controversial by one group or another. Relax about Darwin. He deserves to be recognized for this body of work and thought.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Because his findings are extremely well regarded in the Science world? Its not FIR(eligion)ST; FIRS(cience)T wanted to recognize Darwin's accomplishments too?

Personal beliefs aside, the man is one of the most most well known names in the Science World. I remember learning about him in middle school. I think its better to have division names with recognizable names for the students, the kids will be excited to recognize names. I'll be honest, I'd never heard of Hopper or Carson (and VERY little about Carver) before they were given division names.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I can see where you're coming from. Personally, as a flat-earthist I've never been too thrilled with the Galileo division myself.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I like that they included Turing. He doesn't get the accolades that should be accorded to him due to the way his work was hidden after WWII.

The way this thread is headed, I'm sure someone will bring up his sexual orientation or the fact that he committed suicide though... Stay classy CD.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

This thread as a gif:

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I typed some sort of statement about how Turing being a division is politically relevant... then I deleted it because it is not worth stoking the flames.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Man it even hurts as a GIF

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Let's behave a bit more gentlemen and ladies, or this thread will be going away....

I've been asked once already for this thread to go away. I'll give you one chance.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Did bobwolf1 just get his post removed/banned?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

and ladies ( :) )

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I shoulda known there was at least one lady in the mix. :p

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

From the looks of it.. I believe so. First time I ever posted an FRC blog post on CD and it's threatened to to go away. :yikes:

What a rambunctious crowd.. :D

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Sadly it seems like it did, perhaps there could be more transparency in the moderation of the forum.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Just behave...

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

remember they are only dots. Trolls will be trolls.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Wasn't there a thread about this like... Within the last week?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Yes. Having seen it, it needed it. Next step on that would have probably been an invocation of Godwin.



I happen to not believe in Mr. Darwin's theory (please note that it is still a THEORY, not a law, last time I checked) as a whole, but on the micro scale (similar species), it is rather accurate. And, I can understand choosing his name for a field, as every schoolkid will at least have some basic "hey, maybe I remember something about him, didn't he have a beagle?*" knowledge.

But, if that field name were changed, may I suggest Gregor Mendel? Very, very respected botanist. (And, as I recall, a monk.)



Just to stir the pot: If you really want to have a rivalry field, name one of the subdivisions Leibniz, and pair it with Newton. Calculus Division will never be the same. :p:p

*Random guessing as to how much an average non-sciency schoolkid may remember--Darwin did sail on H.M.S. Beagle.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I'm really disappointed in the moderation of this thread. When a mod makes themselves look like an $@#$@#$@# they should recuse themselves from moderating the thread

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

This is probably the most mundane possible original thread topic to turn into a mess of a thread.

Everyone think twice before you hit "Submit Reply", whether you're stating your opinion or trying to make a snarky reply.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Did more posts just get removed?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

In regards to what you said about making anon-accounts not allowed.

The issue I see is that it is very difficult to verify if an account is anonymous or not. You could end up having people masquerading as someone from a team which may not have a presence on CD and it is very difficult to police that.

It is better to have accounts that are blatantly anonymous than ones who may misrepresent actual existing teams, individuals and sponsors.

But let’s not let this thread digress into an argument/discussion of anonymous accounts.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Little sad that Newton got moved to Houston.

How can the LigerBots have a home field advantage if Newton is moved to Houston? (Our town is Newton.)

Overall, interesting new scientists. It's good to see some relatively unknown figures receive a field, and even cooler to learn about them!

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Anon-accounts are just havens for small people who don't want to be held responsible for their actions on the interwebs. But you are right, let's not derail you trolling a student on the web. Please, continue.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

If you're gunna delete my post correcting this, at least delete your post too.

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Not a Lady :)

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Yeh if you're going to blatantly censor anything that makes you look bad with your moderator powers at least make sure you get all of them!

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bkahl again."

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

darn

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Sorry, not lady. :p

It was changed to be correct.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Or pair it with Darwin, and make it the philosophy division. There's a lesser known rivalry there, as Leibniz was also a great philospher who famously wrote about the cosmological argument (for God's existance).

Yeah this is out there... the odd things one learns about in a philosophy of religion class...

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Shockingly actually posting on topic...

Happy to see both People of Colour and LGTBQ+ representation in the division choices. It's a great display of diversity and more exposure to minority STEM role models. Nice job.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

The gender, race, and orientation inclusion is really something to be proud of :D

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

In academia, a good working definition of a scientific theory is something that is "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

A scientific law is a tool that display a casual and repeatable relation among many scientific phenomena. These are often conveyed as mathematical equations.

Here is an example of how laws and theories can work together to further scientific conquest:

Newton, who I assume most of you may know of, devised many scientific laws that might be of some use to you. The law of universal gravitation is commonly shown as F=G((m1*m2)/r^2). Through large amounts of empirical data and inductive reasoning, Isaac Newton determined that a particle attracts all other particles in the known universe with a force directly proportional to the product of two masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. Thankfully, we mostly just have to focus on the formula.

Isaac Newton discovered this law in the 17th century, and this discovery helped the scientific community understand how two bodies act between each other in the universe. This law helped put man on the moon. Unfortunately, the law does not help make concrete how the magic G in the formula (gravity/the gravitational constant) even works.

In the 20th century, Albert Einstein formed the Theory of Relativity. The project, which included multiple falsifiable hypotheses tested out by Einstein and other scientists, helped develop the theory. The Theory of Relativity transformed theoretical physics and essentially created and justified modern astronomy. The law of universal gravitation was a tool used in putting a man on the moon, but the theories developed by Einstein showed us how we could use that formula to do the great things aerospace engineers have done and will continue to do.

There is no Law of Evolution because such a relationship has not been distilled from the Theory of Evolution, nor has any law of evolution been concocted in a way that is divergent from or tangential to the existing theory. This does not change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is one that had falsifiable hypotheses carried out through controlled experiments.

----

I hope this post was unlike most of my posts, XaulZan11, in that it did contribute something.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Yah, I'll even give you a free pitchfork for your witch-hunt.

---E

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Can I get a torch too its pretty dark here.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Apparently it's dark enough for posts to keep disappearing into the abyss.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

The fire emoji doesn't work on CD, but assume this is one

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

People: Moderating should be more transparent
Mods: Let's delete just enough posts from this thread to make it completely incomprehensible to anybody who just got here (e.g. me)



Darwin was a great scientist, whether or not evolution is compatible with the stories many people are taught*. Science doesn't get to back down to religious beliefs, and neither should FIRST.

*It doesn't even matter if evolution is right or wrong. Darwin did great scientific work, there's no disputing that.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

While I agree there was some inappropriate moderation earlier in the thread I tried to be very clear about why I deleted posts.

Bobwolf1 (anonymous troll account) made a wildly inappropriate racist post, which was deleted. He then proceeded to bully another user. His offending posts were deleted and those which quoted his posts were also deleted so that the content was no longer visible.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I saw the posts before you deleted them, you were absolutely correct in removing them. They were out of line and unacceptable, and your reasons for deleting them were clear and easy to follow. It's a shame other mods can't follow your example and that some are only in it for themselves.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

This thread is becoming one of my all-time favorites. It's also a shining example of why I no longer suggest my students do research on chiefdelphi.

Sorry for the interjection; Back to your regularly scheduled derailing.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Can we please get back to the important stuff, this:

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

As an English teacher, I'm offended that no science fiction authors were chosen as names for fields. Asimov pretty much predicted the field of robotics.

/snark

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Given that the division names do not affect the competition itself in any noticable way, I don't really care what division names they chose. I just don't see how it really matters.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I don't know why there has to be two Einstein divisions. Maybe they could rename one Asimov.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Maybe its one Einstein division and the winners of North and South will be invited to duke it out on Dean Kamen's helipad?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

or at a venue somewhat further south?...

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

That's kind of sad. There's gold in 'dem photo galleries. If you can find what you're looking for using the search tool that is... it can be pretty hit or miss.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

We can do this with Mendel, too, since someone mentioned it. Mendel's laws work via the Boveri–Sutton chromosome theory. We should ensure we don't explain Boveri-Sutton as 'less than' a law to students; it's called a theory not because it lacks scientific evidence but because it provides a different type of content. Chromosome theory, germ theory, the theory of relativity, evolutionary theory, etc. would never become laws with more evidence because they're descriptions of mechanisms, not descriptions of behaviors.

This is kind of fun. Anyone have some for other subdivision names? They don't have to actually be invented by the namesake, just related to them. I'm sure others will find more elegant ways to sort the scientists, but to start:

1. Turing, representing logic - contradition(L), identity(L), excluded middle(L)
2. Archimedes, representing mathematics -
3. Newton, representing classical physics - interia(L), F=ma(L), action and reaction(L)
4. Einstein, representing modern physics - special and general relativity(T)
5. Telsa, representing electromagnetism -
6. Galileo, representing astronomy - elliptical orbits(L), equal areas(L), orbital periods(L)
7. Curie, representing chemistry - equlibrium(L), reversibility(L)
8. Darwin, representing biology - independent assortment(L), segretation(L), dominance(L), cell(T), evolution(T)
9. Daly, representing medicine - germ(T)
10. Carson, representing ecology -
11. Hopper, representing computer science -
12. Roebling, representing engineering -
13. Carver, representing invention -

...So clearly I am not a Renaissance woman. It seems like a neat learning opportunity with more iteration though. Interdivision quiz bowl!

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

As much a fan of SF (and Asimov in particular) that I am (I started with his non-fiction in middle school (OBTW he taught me to use a slide rule), wore mutton chops through most of the '80's following his lead, and have read the full robots-empire-foundation series about a dozen times), if you really want to honor a ground-breaker in the field of robotics, you can't do much better than Heron of Alexandria. Though he is best known today for his formula for the area of a triangle given the length of the three sides, he invented robotics more than a millennium before the term was coined. He built devices powered by falling weights and cords. In the first century, he programmed a ten-minute long autonomous play using strings and knots and pulleys. He also invented a steam engine, the vending machine, and (particularly noteworthy to this acoustician) the principle of the shortest path.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Your facts pale in comparison to the sheer awesomeness of Robert Heinlein. That is all.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I can see Asimov, Heinlein, and all those guys...

But I'll raise you Jules Verne. Read what he wrote, then look at current technology and how close it is to what he wrote about. Composites (pressed paper with some form of filler), heavier-than-air flying machines (gyrocoptor class), electric submarines, and who'da thunk that Florida was a good place to try to get to the Moon?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Arthur C Clarke. 'Nuff said.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Philip K. Dick.

One of his books is even a television show now! And Blade Runner is one of the greatest movies of all time.

Someone needs to name their rookie team Electric Sheep.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Puhlease.... Clarke has laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

All three of which apply to CD... especially the first one.

and

Wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is FAR superior to Blade Runner.

And he was a knight!

Boom.

(I like PKD too but Clarke and Asimov are two obvious choices if we are to name fields after SF writers).

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Sir Terry Pratchett.
Who wouldn't love to see a circular FRC field, on the backs of four elephants, all riding on a gigantic turtle?
And the Librarian would make an incredible Game Announcer.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

I would have thought you would have know this... It can't ever be a law.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

For scientists, I would have loved to see Mendeleev as a division name. I think it'd be really cool as he did a lot to help modern chemistry evolve (especially his Table of the Elements).

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Because of the silly "What's the best 254 team" thread I recently found there is an Electric Sheep! 2546

TBA also says 2505 is The Electric Sheep :)

But which team is the one androids dream of?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Bacardi Bowl FRC?

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

HOT TAKE / IDEA: Give the divisions new names every year, maybe picking representatives from a set number of categories.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

While FRC Rhapsody shall be too soon dated by the divisions it does not name, please don't accelerate this by changing division names.

(My reasons for letting division names stand actually has nothing to do with FRC Rhapsody, but I thought this might be a more convincing argument.)

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

Here's something different: how will the playoffs go with 6 alliances each?

(btw, regarding another topic that came up, if I were to suggest one name for a subdivision, it would be Emmy Noether, a scientist who I feel is just not commonly known enough)

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

It sounds like it will be a round robin playoff as mentioned in a previous blog.

Re: [FRC BLOG] Bride of 2017 Updates
 

E=mc^2 has four parts, maybe they will be Energy and Mass at one and the Speed of Light and Squared at the other? ;)