|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
Nothing more than a (single) toaster on wheels (or whatever a kitbot-plus-nothing-else is called in your neck of the woods) is needed to "compete".
In this thread and the parallel one, folks keep talking past each other by using different definitions of "compete" and of "competitive".
Using the word "competitive" when you mean "performs well", "performs very well", or "good chance of winning a banner"; is a mistake because the people you are trying to communicate with are unlikely to define that word the same way you do.
The term "compete", and its cousin, "competitive", are far too imprecise in discussions like this one. They are words that looks good on a PowerPoint slide, but that don't help you much when you try to get down to brass tacks.
Blake
[EDIT]To be more precise, any (immobile) lump the inspectors will let you put on the field for a match "will enable you to participate in an FRC competition". In other words, "will enable you to compete".[/EDIT]
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases  I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate
Last edited by gblake : 11-20-2015 at 12:34 AM.
|