> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to a smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a malfunctioning smartphone...)
>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be more practical... Just a thought.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>> Certainly a Shelbot would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND Mike all want to participate?
>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged, operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet and MMM equipment as it is.
>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this sucker look like a Dalek?
>>>> -Travis
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea though.
>>>>> - Mike
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to subscription members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think it may go something like this
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he still in Boston?
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD), raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the usage time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so, but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire one or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running off a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd be too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://youtu.be/ycDXejvsYJk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lulz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Brandon Norris <blno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anywhere you want!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars was usually the opposite of practical... Seriously, where do you park a super star destroyer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 7:20 PM, "Travis Smith" <trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, the best you got with that was the door guard at Jabba's Palace. That guy was an ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars never thought it of it as being very practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:01:11 PM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about a telescoping, articulating tentacle that mounts to a wall or the ceiling? Aliens love that tech (Abyss, War of the Worlds)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we're on the right track, but I'd like to second the idea that this thing be attainable/upgradable from a base model. I'd prefer shitty but robust to awesome and always almost ready.
I would come record more presentations, if I knew they were happening. When
I see a meeting date approaching on the calendar, I check this list for an
announcement of a presentation topic but usually don't see anything. So I
assumed there were no "real" presentations happening that night, I figured
it was just an informal get together. Am I wrong?
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
> Yea, we could get better about streaming/recording those... Background
> noise is a huge [but not insurmountable] challenge, both mechanical and
> personal.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>> My interest is being able to watch presentations.
>> - Mike
>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get on
>> the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot
>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>> Travis
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any
>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>> still in Boston?
>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist yet.
>>>>> Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll be able
>>>>> to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives or
>>>>> where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for having
>>>>> one of these things, though.
>>>>> Travis
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd like
>>>>>>>> and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD), raspberry pi
>>>>>>>> with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba available for the
>>>>>>>> project. Let me know if any of the components can be put to use.
>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the usage
>>>>>>>> time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire one or
>>>>>>>> more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or lower
>>>>>>>> cost.
>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <dgo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running off
>>>>>>>>> a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd be
>>>>>>>>> too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the
>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite
>>>>>>>>> a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars was usually the opposite of practical... Seriously,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where do you park a super star destroyer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 7:20 PM, "Travis Smith" <trav...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, the best you got with that was the door guard at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jabba's Palace. That guy was an ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars never thought it of it as being very practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:01:11 PM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about a telescoping, articulating tentacle that mounts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a wall or the ceiling? Aliens love that tech (Abyss, War of the Worlds)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Travis Smith <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we're on the right track, but I'd like to second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea that this thing be attainable/upgradable from a base model. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer shitty but robust to awesome and always almost ready.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:51, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, sorta like one of those gigapixel cameras in reverse...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Knaack <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking that the high def wide angle feed would go
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through a stream filter to crop out the desired section of the image (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe transform it to remove the wide angle distortion), providing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software based pan/tilt feature while keeping hardware and bandwidth down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 12:40 PM, "Kevin Fusselman" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, 1080p is fine; we'll compensate for the bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in framerate... how does 0.2fps sound? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin is worried about bandwidth for high def.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:17:24 AM UTC-6, David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knaack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the camera itself is high def we might be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get away with using a wide angle view to avoid building a control system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the camera.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 8:57 AM, "patrick" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel it needs the same capability that the MMM has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to tilt up and down. the panning of course would be done by the robot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 5, 2012 7:41:26 PM UTC-6, Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OMGers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, I'm moving to Japan, its happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Completely due to self interest, I'm suddenly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smitten with the idea of making a telepresence robot. The
During the summer that would have been somewhat accurate. Currently,
however, every Tuesday is a formal meeting with a scheduled presentation.
We should try to announce them a bit more consistently, perhaps, but there
will almost always be one.
On Nov 7, 2012 12:53 PM, "Ryan Stille" <r...@stillnet.org> wrote:
> I would come record more presentations, if I knew they were happening.
> When I see a meeting date approaching on the calendar, I check this list
> for an announcement of a presentation topic but usually don't see anything.
> So I assumed there were no "real" presentations happening that night, I
> figured it was just an informal get together. Am I wrong?
> -Ryan
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>> Yea, we could get better about streaming/recording those... Background
>> noise is a huge [but not insurmountable] challenge, both mechanical and
>> personal.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>> My interest is being able to watch presentations.
>>> - Mike
>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get on
>>> the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot
>>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>> Travis
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any
>>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist yet.
>>>>>> Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll be able
>>>>>> to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives or
>>>>>> where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd like
>>>>>>>>> and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD), raspberry
>>>>>>>>> pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba available for the
>>>>>>>>> project. Let me know if any of the components can be put to use.
>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the usage
>>>>>>>>> time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire one
>>>>>>>>> or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <dgo...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running off
>>>>>>>>>> a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd be
>>>>>>>>>> too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the
>>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite
>>>>>>>>>> a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars was usually the opposite of practical... Seriously,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where do you park a super star destroyer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 7:20 PM, "Travis Smith" <trav...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, the best you got with that was the door guard at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jabba's Palace. That guy was an ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars never thought it of it as being very practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:01:11 PM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about a telescoping, articulating tentacle that mounts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a wall or the ceiling? Aliens love that tech (Abyss, War of the Worlds)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Travis Smith <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we're on the right track, but I'd like to second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea that this thing be attainable/upgradable from a base model. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer shitty but robust to awesome and always almost ready.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:51, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, sorta like one of those gigapixel cameras in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Knaack <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking that the high def wide angle feed would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go through a stream filter to crop out the desired section of the image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and maybe transform it to remove the wide angle distortion), providing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software based pan/tilt feature while keeping hardware and bandwidth down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 12:40 PM, "Kevin Fusselman" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, 1080p is fine; we'll compensate for the bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in framerate... how does 0.2fps sound? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin is worried about bandwidth for high def.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:17:24 AM UTC-6, David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knaack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the camera itself is high def we might be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get away with using a wide angle view to avoid building a control system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the camera.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 8:57 AM, "patrick" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel it needs the same capability
We've got a big problem getting presentations booked in advance, getting a
summary from the presenter, and an email out in a timely fashion.
Presently, we have a polyclay jewelry presentation booked for next week
(the 13th) and nothing beyond that. We've been pretty steady thus far,
having a good presentation each Tuesday, but the announcement part is the
sticking point.
Reminder: Anyone who is interested in presenting [on anything "maker-ish",
really] can contact i...@omahamakergroup.org to schedule a date :) The
further in advance the better.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Ryan Stille <r...@stillnet.org> wrote:
> I would come record more presentations, if I knew they were happening.
> When I see a meeting date approaching on the calendar, I check this list
> for an announcement of a presentation topic but usually don't see anything.
> So I assumed there were no "real" presentations happening that night, I
> figured it was just an informal get together. Am I wrong?
> -Ryan
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>> Yea, we could get better about streaming/recording those... Background
>> noise is a huge [but not insurmountable] challenge, both mechanical and
>> personal.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>> My interest is being able to watch presentations.
>>> - Mike
>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get on
>>> the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot
>>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>> Travis
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any
>>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist yet.
>>>>>> Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll be able
>>>>>> to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives or
>>>>>> where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd like
>>>>>>>>> and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD), raspberry
>>>>>>>>> pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba available for the
>>>>>>>>> project. Let me know if any of the components can be put to use.
>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the usage
>>>>>>>>> time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire one
>>>>>>>>> or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <dgo...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running off
>>>>>>>>>> a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd be
>>>>>>>>>> too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the
>>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite
>>>>>>>>>> a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars was usually the opposite of practical... Seriously,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where do you park a super star destroyer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 7:20 PM, "Travis Smith" <trav...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, the best you got with that was the door guard at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jabba's Palace. That guy was an ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars never thought it of it as being very practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:01:11 PM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about a telescoping, articulating tentacle that mounts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a wall or the ceiling? Aliens love that tech (Abyss, War of the Worlds)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Travis Smith <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we're on the right track, but I'd like to second
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea that this thing be attainable/upgradable from a base model. I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer shitty but robust to awesome and always almost ready.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:51, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, sorta like one of those gigapixel cameras in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Knaack <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking that the high def wide angle feed would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go through a stream filter to crop out the desired section of the image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and maybe transform it to remove the wide angle distortion), providing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software based pan/tilt feature while keeping hardware and bandwidth down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 12:40 PM, "Kevin Fusselman" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, 1080p is fine; we'll compensate for the bandwidth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in framerate... how does 0.2fps sound? :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 12:15 PM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin is worried about bandwidth for high def.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:17:24 AM UTC-6, David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Knaack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the camera itself is high def we might be able to
A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to allow
Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
on-the-spot setup.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not picky. Either model works.
> -Travis
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to a
>> smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be more
>> practical... Just a thought.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this sucker
>>>> look like a Dalek?
>>>> -Travis
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if that
>>>> would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea though.
>>>> - Mike
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to subscription
>>>> members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get
>>>> on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot
>>>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>> Travis
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any
>>>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist
>>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll
>>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives
>>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd like
>>>>>>>>>> and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD), raspberry
>>>>>>>>>> pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba available for the
>>>>>>>>>> project. Let me know if any of the components can be put to use.
>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the usage
>>>>>>>>>> time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire one
>>>>>>>>>> or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <
>>>>>>>>>> dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running
>>>>>>>>>>> off a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd be
>>>>>>>>>>> too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the
>>>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite
>>>>>>>>>>> a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars was usually the opposite of practical...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seriously, where do you park a super star destroyer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 7:20 PM, "Travis Smith" <trav...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to allow
> Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
> on-the-spot setup.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>> -Travis
>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to a
>>> smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be more
>>> practical... Just a thought.
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this sucker
>>>>> look like a Dalek?
>>>>> -Travis
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if
>>>>> that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>> though.
>>>>> - Mike
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to subscription
>>>>> members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get
>>>>> on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot
>>>>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>> Travis
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any
>>>>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist
>>>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll
>>>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives
>>>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd like
>>>>>>>>>>> and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD), raspberry
>>>>>>>>>>> pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba available for the
>>>>>>>>>>> project. Let me know if any of the components can be put to use.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the usage
>>>>>>>>>>> time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire one
>>>>>>>>>>> or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <
>>>>>>>>>>> dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running
>>>>>>>>>>>> off a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> be too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite
>>>>>>>>>>>> a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to
>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>> on-the-spot setup.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>> -Travis
>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to a
>>>> smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be more
>>>> practical... Just a thought.
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this sucker
>>>>>> look like a Dalek?
>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if
>>>>>> that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to subscription
>>>>>> members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get
>>>>>> on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot
>>>>>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any
>>>>>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll
>>>>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives
>>>>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD),
>>>>>>>>>>>> raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba
>>>>>>>>>>>> available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put
>>>>>>>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> usage time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire
>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running
>>>>>>>>>>>>> off a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
As often as people upgrade phones, it shouldn't be hard to find some that
can just live there. I use my old phone at home in exactly that way. I can
turn on the web cam app and go leave the phone pointed at anything I want
to monitor. Very handy. If we wanted to integrate some old phones into the
existing webcam page it is only a matter of configuration, the app is free,
and the system already supports everything we need to integrate more
cameras.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to
>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>> on-the-spot setup.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>> -Travis
>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to a
>>>> smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be more
>>>> practical... Just a thought.
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this sucker
>>>>>> look like a Dalek?
>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if
>>>>>> that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to subscription
>>>>>> members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get
>>>>>> on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot
>>>>>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any
>>>>>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll
>>>>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives
>>>>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>> like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD),
>>>>>>>>>>>> raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba
>>>>>>>>>>>> available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put
>>>>>>>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> usage time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire
>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running
>>>>>>>>>>>>> off a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As often as people upgrade phones, it shouldn't be hard to find some that
> can just live there. I use my old phone at home in exactly that way. I can
> turn on the web cam app and go leave the phone pointed at anything I want
> to monitor. Very handy. If we wanted to integrate some old phones into the
> existing webcam page it is only a matter of configuration, the app is free,
> and the system already supports everything we need to integrate more
> cameras.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
>> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to
>>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
>>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
>>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
>>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
>>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>>> on-the-spot setup.
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>>> -Travis
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to
>>>>> a smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be
>>>>> more practical... Just a thought.
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this sucker
>>>>>>> look like a Dalek?
>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if
>>>>>>> that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to
>>>>>>> subscription members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could
>>>>>>> get on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The
>>>>>>> bot would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't
>>>>>>>>> any space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll
>>>>>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives
>>>>>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off a raspberry pi?
I'm not trying to derail the Shelbot, especially since it seems to have
been getting a lot of interest and some folks already have some pretty good
ideas about the design. Just want to be practical, too.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not picky. Either model works.
> -Travis
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to a
>> smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be more
>> practical... Just a thought.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this sucker
>>>> look like a Dalek?
>>>> -Travis
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if that
>>>> would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea though.
>>>> - Mike
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to subscription
>>>> members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get
>>>> on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot
>>>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>> Travis
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any
>>>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist
>>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll
>>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives
>>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I
>>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd like
>>>>>>>>>> and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD), raspberry
>>>>>>>>>> pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba available for the
>>>>>>>>>> project. Let me know if any of the components can be put to use.
>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low
>>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the usage
>>>>>>>>>> time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire one
>>>>>>>>>> or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <
>>>>>>>>>> dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running
>>>>>>>>>>> off a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd be
>>>>>>>>>>> too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the
>>>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite
>>>>>>>>>>> a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars was usually the opposite of practical...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seriously, where do you park a super star destroyer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 7:20 PM, "Travis Smith" <trav...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, the best you got with that was the door guard at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jabba's Palace. That guy was an ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
I like "TwitterType". A TeleType was a typing device that ran off the
phone system, so by natural extension a typing device that runs off of
Twitter would be a TwitterType. Or a TwitType....
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
> Between that and the Twittertype (it needs a better name), that'd be
> pretty awesome.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> As often as people upgrade phones, it shouldn't be hard to find some that
>> can just live there. I use my old phone at home in exactly that way. I can
>> turn on the web cam app and go leave the phone pointed at anything I want
>> to monitor. Very handy. If we wanted to integrate some old phones into the
>> existing webcam page it is only a matter of configuration, the app is free,
>> and the system already supports everything we need to integrate more
>> cameras.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
>>> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>>>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to
>>>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
>>>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
>>>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
>>>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
>>>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>>>> on-the-spot setup.
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>>>> -Travis
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to
>>>>>> a smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be
>>>>>> more practical... Just a thought.
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this
>>>>>>>> sucker look like a Dalek?
>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if
>>>>>>>> that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to
>>>>>>>> subscription members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could
>>>>>>>> get on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The
>>>>>>>> bot would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrickpecor...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't
>>>>>>>>>> any space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll
>>>>>>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives
>>>>>>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if
>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like "TwitterType". A TeleType was a typing device that ran off the
> phone system, so by natural extension a typing device that runs off of
> Twitter would be a TwitterType. Or a TwitType....
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>> Between that and the Twittertype (it needs a better name), that'd be
>> pretty awesome.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> As often as people upgrade phones, it shouldn't be hard to find some
>>> that can just live there. I use my old phone at home in exactly that way. I
>>> can turn on the web cam app and go leave the phone pointed at anything I
>>> want to monitor. Very handy. If we wanted to integrate some old phones into
>>> the existing webcam page it is only a matter of configuration, the app is
>>> free, and the system already supports everything we need to integrate more
>>> cameras.
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
>>>> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>>>>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to
>>>>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
>>>>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
>>>>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
>>>>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
>>>>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>>>>> on-the-spot setup.
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior
>>>>>>> to a smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>>>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be
>>>>>>> more practical... Just a thought.
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this
>>>>>>>>> sucker look like a Dalek?
>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if
>>>>>>>>> that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to
>>>>>>>>> subscription members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could
>>>>>>>>> get on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The
>>>>>>>>> bot would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blnor...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> only replace the tv station with robot.
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>> patrickpecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> any space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives
>>>>>>>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for
>>>>>>>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:43 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TeleTwit?
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like "TwitterType". A TeleType was a typing device that ran off the
>> phone system, so by natural extension a typing device that runs off of
>> Twitter would be a TwitterType. Or a TwitType....
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>> Between that and the Twittertype (it needs a better name), that'd be
>>> pretty awesome.
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> As often as people upgrade phones, it shouldn't be hard to find some
>>>> that can just live there. I use my old phone at home in exactly that way. I
>>>> can turn on the web cam app and go leave the phone pointed at anything I
>>>> want to monitor. Very handy. If we wanted to integrate some old phones into
>>>> the existing webcam page it is only a matter of configuration, the app is
>>>> free, and the system already supports everything we need to integrate more
>>>> cameras.
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>>> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
>>>>> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>>>>>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to
>>>>>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
>>>>>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
>>>>>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
>>>>>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
>>>>>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>>>>>> on-the-spot setup.
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior
>>>>>>>> to a smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>>>>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>>>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be
>>>>>>>> more practical... Just a thought.
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>>>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>>>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>>>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>>>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>>>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>>>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>>>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>>>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>>>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>>>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>>>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>>>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>>>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>>>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>>>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>>>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>>>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>>>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>>>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this
>>>>>>>>>> sucker look like a Dalek?
>>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing
>>>>>>>>>> if that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to
>>>>>>>>>> subscription members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could
>>>>>>>>>> get on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The
>>>>>>>>>> bot would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <
>>>>>>>>>> blnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> only replace the tv station with robot.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>> patrickpecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> any space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>>>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we'll be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lives or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor if we wanted to source a
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:43 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TeleTwit?
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like "TwitterType". A TeleType was a typing device that ran off the
>> phone system, so by natural extension a typing device that runs off of
>> Twitter would be a TwitterType. Or a TwitType....
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>> Between that and the Twittertype (it needs a better name), that'd be
>>> pretty awesome.
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> As often as people upgrade phones, it shouldn't be hard to find some
>>>> that can just live there. I use my old phone at home in exactly that way. I
>>>> can turn on the web cam app and go leave the phone pointed at anything I
>>>> want to monitor. Very handy. If we wanted to integrate some old phones into
>>>> the existing webcam page it is only a matter of configuration, the app is
>>>> free, and the system already supports everything we need to integrate more
>>>> cameras.
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>>> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
>>>>> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>>>>>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to
>>>>>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
>>>>>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
>>>>>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
>>>>>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
>>>>>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>>>>>> on-the-spot setup.
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior
>>>>>>>> to a smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>>>>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>>>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be
>>>>>>>> more practical... Just a thought.
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>>>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>>>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>>>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>>>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>>>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>>>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>>>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>>>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>>>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>>>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>>>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>>>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>>>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>>>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>>>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>>>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>>>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>>>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>>>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this
>>>>>>>>>> sucker look like a Dalek?
>>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing
>>>>>>>>>> if that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekapla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to
>>>>>>>>>> subscription members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could
>>>>>>>>>> get on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The
>>>>>>>>>> bot would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <
>>>>>>>>>> blnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> only replace the tv station with robot.
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>> patrickpecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> any space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he
>>>>>>>>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we'll be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lives or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7"
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
> Tell-A-Twit? Isn't that what happens every time a tweet is sent?
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:43 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> TeleTwit?
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I like "TwitterType". A TeleType was a typing device that ran off the
>>> phone system, so by natural extension a typing device that runs off of
>>> Twitter would be a TwitterType. Or a TwitType....
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>> Between that and the Twittertype (it needs a better name), that'd be
>>>> pretty awesome.
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> As often as people upgrade phones, it shouldn't be hard to find some
>>>>> that can just live there. I use my old phone at home in exactly that way. I
>>>>> can turn on the web cam app and go leave the phone pointed at anything I
>>>>> want to monitor. Very handy. If we wanted to integrate some old phones into
>>>>> the existing webcam page it is only a matter of configuration, the app is
>>>>> free, and the system already supports everything we need to integrate more
>>>>> cameras.
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>>>> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
>>>>>> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>>>>>>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be to
>>>>>>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for iOS) to
>>>>>>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network could turn
>>>>>>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming source
>>>>>>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable portals'
>>>>>>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>>>>>>> on-the-spot setup.
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior
>>>>>>>>> to a smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a
>>>>>>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>>>>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be
>>>>>>>>> more practical... Just a thought.
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious
>>>>>>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving
>>>>>>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays
>>>>>>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of
>>>>>>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or
>>>>>>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of
>>>>>>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>>>>>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to
>>>>>>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be
>>>>>>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left
>>>>>>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND
>>>>>>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>>>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>>>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged,
>>>>>>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We
>>>>>>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet
>>>>>>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>>>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>>>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the
>>>>>>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map
>>>>>>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>>>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even
>>>>>>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives
>>>>>>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one
>>>>>>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>>>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this
>>>>>>>>>>> sucker look like a Dalek?
>>>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing
>>>>>>>>>>> if that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea
>>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <
>>>>>>>>>>> ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to
>>>>>>>>>>> subscription members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>> could get on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot.
>>>>>>>>>>> The bot would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <
>>>>>>>>>>> blnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it may go something like this
>>>>>>>>>>>> only replace the tv station with robot.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>>> patrickpecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't any space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't he still in Boston?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we'll be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lives or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raspberry pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available for the project. Let me know if any of the components can be put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage time, so low power
Ok, well, there are a lot of good ideas on this thread, but I'm
concerned that the original desired effect might be lost.
I'd like to link in and actually interact on a personal level, as if I
were there. Unless the webcams can give real time video and audio and
put the user close enough to the action, its more of a spectator
effect than a participation effect.
On 11/7/12, David Knaack <davidkna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org>
> wrote:
>> Tell-A-Twit? Isn't that what happens every time a tweet is sent?
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:43 PM, David Knaack
>> <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> TeleTwit?
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I like "TwitterType". A TeleType was a typing device that ran off the
>>>> phone system, so by natural extension a typing device that runs off of
>>>> Twitter would be a TwitterType. Or a TwitType....
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Fusselman
>>>> <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>>> Between that and the Twittertype (it needs a better name), that'd be
>>>>> pretty awesome.
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM, David Knaack
>>>>> <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>> As often as people upgrade phones, it shouldn't be hard to find some
>>>>>> that can just live there. I use my old phone at home in exactly that
>>>>>> way. I
>>>>>> can turn on the web cam app and go leave the phone pointed at anything
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> want to monitor. Very handy. If we wanted to integrate some old phones
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> the existing webcam page it is only a matter of configuration, the app
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> free, and the system already supports everything we need to integrate
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> cameras.
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Fusselman
>>>>>> <ke...@fusselman.org>wrote:
>>>>>>> We could certainly find some "house" android devices, too...
>>>>>>> Do you have a link to this "IP Webcam" app?
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Knaack
>>>>>>> <davidkna...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm a fan of the 'portals' approach.
>>>>>>>> A related option I was considering for expanding the MMM would be
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> allow Android phone users (there is probably something similar for
>>>>>>>> iOS) to
>>>>>>>> register their "IP Webcam" address so that anyone on the network
>>>>>>>> could turn
>>>>>>>> on their webcam app and be listed on the webcams page as a streaming
>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>> for viewers. That would allow people to easily provide 'portable
>>>>>>>> portals'
>>>>>>>> to remote users (probably on request) without requiring a lot of
>>>>>>>> on-the-spot setup.
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>> <travi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I'm not picky. Either model works.
>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:41, Eric Kaplan <ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <
>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow
>>>>>>>>>> inferior
>>>>>>>>>> to a smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>>>>>>>>>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> more practical... Just a thought.
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan
>>>>>>>>>> <ekapla...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give
>>>>>>>>>>> serious
>>>>>>>>>>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a
>>>>>>>>>>> robot moving
>>>>>>>>>>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on
>>>>>>>>>>> Tuesdays
>>>>>>>>>>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on
>>>>>>>>>>> lots of
>>>>>>>>>>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a
>>>>>>>>>>> piece of
>>>>>>>>>>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Certainly a
>>>>>>>>>>> Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would
>>>>>>>>>>> be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be
>>>>>>>>>>> slick to
>>>>>>>>>>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it
>>>>>>>>>>> gets left
>>>>>>>>>>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis,
>>>>>>>>>>> Patrick, AND
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike all want to participate?
>>>>>>>>>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control
>>>>>>>>>>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it
>>>>>>>>>>> charged,
>>>>>>>>>>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go
>>>>>>>>>>> down. We
>>>>>>>>>>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our
>>>>>>>>>>> internet
>>>>>>>>>>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>>>>>>>>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and
>>>>>>>>>>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on
>>>>>>>>>>> the map
>>>>>>>>>>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a
>>>>>>>>>>> monitor/webcam/mic
>>>>>>>>>>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You
>>>>>>>>>>> could even
>>>>>>>>>>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location
>>>>>>>>>>> and gives
>>>>>>>>>>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could
>>>>>>>>>>> be on one
>>>>>>>>>>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>>>>>>>>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>> <travi...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see
>>>>>>>>>>>> What the consensus is.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this
>>>>>>>>>>>> sucker look like a Dalek?
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tavs...@tavshed.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing
>>>>>>>>>>>> if that would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis'
>>>>>>>>>>>> original idea
>>>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ekapla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to
>>>>>>>>>>>> subscription members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be
>>>>>>>>>>>> another option.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <travi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>> could get on the party line that is the robot, and one person
>>>>>>>>>>>> could pilot.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The bot would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> fits.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <
>>>>>>>>>>>> blnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it may go something like this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only replace the tv station with robot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrickpecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't any space available for that. Jason I could see wanting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't he still in Boston?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we'll be able to attend the meetings, and there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makerspaces where he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lives or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lack. He lives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <patrick...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if I remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this system to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attending may be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage
would allow for a zero-turn radius human-driven platform that operates from
a couple of SLA's. Motor control is just a couple of basic h-bridges, we
can probably get that for nearly free. That would provide a motion platform
with the balls to carry around enough weight to make it stable, and
sufficient power to drive over most of the small lumps on the floor around
the makery (I'm thinking approximately 8" wheels, something like what the
scooters have).
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 11:41:15 AM UTC-6, ejk00 wrote:
> More practical, and potentially easier to implement and expand.
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fusselman <ke...@fusselman.org<javascript:> > > wrote:
>> Wait, are you suggesting that a Protocol Droid is somehow inferior to a >> smartphone? :) (hint: You don't need a Wookie to transport a >> malfunctioning smartphone...)
>> While the "Lots of portholes" solution is less flashy, it might be more >> practical... Just a thought.
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eric Kaplan <ekap...@gmail.com<javascript:> >> > wrote:
>>> Not to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think we need to give serious >>> consideration to the available space and the implications of a robot moving >>> around in it. Things can get pretty tight there, especially on Tuesdays >>> when we have lots of people (that's a good thing!) working on lots of >>> projects (that's an even-better thing!). There is often ducking or >>> swerving to get from one point to another, avoiding an elbow or a piece of >>> pipe or a crowd of observers.
>>> Certainly a Shelbot<http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/Mobile_Virtual_Presence_Device>would be a cool thing to build and develop, and certainly would be slick to >>> show off at events and in our display booth. But is it going to be >>> unrealistic to functionally move around the space, such that it gets left >>> in the corner? And what happens on meeting night when Travis, Patrick, AND >>> Mike all want to participate?
>>> And while I realize it's a boon for the folks to see and control >>> remotely, someone will need to take responsibility for keeping it charged, >>> operational, and maintaining it should the network or power go down. We >>> seem to have a plate-load of challenges already maintaining our internet >>> and MMM equipment as it is.
>>> Would a better solution be to flood the space with webcams and >>> microphones, accessible from a web page? Maybe a page with a map of the >>> space and locations of each camera, clicking on the location on the map >>> brings up the image and activates the mic? Or maybe a monitor/webcam/mic >>> combo (running off a RasPi), each one strategically placed? You could even >>> have some sort of protocol that indicates an "in-use" location and gives >>> the user the option to select another location. So Travis could be on one >>> monitor, Patrick on another, and Mike on a third.
>>> Just offering another perspective.....
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com<javascript:> >>> > wrote:
>>>> Excellent! I think it could be. We'll have to see >>>> What the consensus is.
>>>> Had another idea that may draw some into this thing:
>>>> Borrowing Dave's wide angle lens idea, how about we make this sucker >>>> look like a Dalek?
>>>> -Travis
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16, tavshed <tav...@tavshed.com <javascript:>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> I'll donate a 1-year Skype premium account for teleconferencing if that >>>> would be useful. I don't want to sidetrack Travis' original idea though.
>>>> - Mike
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:00 AM, "Eric J. Kaplan" <ekap...@gmail.com<javascript:>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> The Skype teleconference option may only be available to subscription >>>> members (I.e. paid). Google+ hangout might be another option.
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 8:49 AM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com<javascript:>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> Solution! I believe Skype does teleconferencing. Everyone could get >>>> on the party line that is the robot, and one person could pilot. The bot >>>> would be a bit schizophrenic, but hey, whatever, it fits.
>>>> Travis
>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Brandon Norris <blno...@gmail.com<javascript:> >>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:35 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com<javascript:> >>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah making a fleet of them is both impractical and there isn't any >>>>>> space available for that. Jason I could see wanting to use it isn't he >>>>>> still in Boston?
>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:32:28 AM UTC-6, Travis Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> Erm...I can see where this might be going. Robot doesn't exist >>>>>>> yet. Patrick and I really want it because there is no way possible we'll >>>>>>> be able to attend the meetings, and there are no makerspaces where he lives >>>>>>> or where I'm going. That's our motivation: extreme lack. He lives in >>>>>>> Mississippi, for example.
>>>>>>> I can see how lots of other people would have valid reasons for >>>>>>> having one of these things, though.
>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:25 AM, patrick <patrick...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry I think I came off kinda rude there. Mike im not sure if I >>>>>>>> remember you but I think we will be limiting the use of this system to >>>>>>>> regular attending/paying members. Paying members with out attending may be >>>>>>>> allowed that depends on those building it and usage stats.
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 8:22:49 AM UTC-6, patrick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the use of this should be limited to paying members.
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 7:34:16 AM UTC-6, tavshed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not able to make it to the Makery nearly as much as I'd like >>>>>>>>>> and am very interested in this taking off.
>>>>>>>>>> I have a 17" vesa monitor (circa 2003 so it isn't HD), raspberry >>>>>>>>>> pi with wifi adapter, 720p usb camera, and working roomba available for the >>>>>>>>>> project. Let me know if any of the components can be put to use.
>>>>>>>>>> - Mike
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM, David Knaack <david...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I thought about a Pi. I see it as having certain features: low >>>>>>>>>> power, small, cheap.
>>>>>>>>>> In this case, we will have lots of battery relative to the usage >>>>>>>>>> time, so low power isn't a driving factor.
>>>>>>>>>> Small also isn't a driver, considering that we're looking at >>>>>>>>>> something on the order of a 17" screen up top and something that can carry >>>>>>>>>> a load of SLA's and motors on the bottom. (Size might be more of a factor >>>>>>>>>> if we wanted to source a much smaller display, something around 7" or so, >>>>>>>>>> but I have a feeling that doing that potentially creates some constraints >>>>>>>>>> without providing very much benefit.)
>>>>>>>>>> Cheap is good, but I wouldn't be surprised if we can acquire one >>>>>>>>>> or more laptops with more processing and storage than a Pi for equal or >>>>>>>>>> lower cost.
>>>>>>>>>> So while it's a cool platform, I'm not seeing how it is a >>>>>>>>>> competitor to a laptop in this particular application.
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, David J. Gotrik < >>>>>>>>>> dgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of a laptop; couldn't we just have everything running >>>>>>>>>>> off a raspberry pi?
>>>>>>>>>>> Would have to look into LCD situation, but I don't think it'd be >>>>>>>>>>> too difficult. I was thinking we could also maybe interface it with the >>>>>>>>>>> chipKit board and IO shield for movement/sensor control since we have quite >>>>>>>>>>> a few of those laying around ;)
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Travis Smith <trav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Kevin Fusselman < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ke...@fusselman.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars was usually the opposite of practical... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seriously, where do you park a super star destroyer? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2012 7:20 PM, "Travis Smith" <trav...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True, the best you got with that was the door guard at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jabba's Palace. That guy was an ass.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Travis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:16 PM, patrick < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star wars never thought it of it as being very practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 7:01:11 PM UTC-6, Travis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Smith
