I remember it's one of the first things I tried when we got our first phone in the early 90's.

Reminds me of the first time I tried the Internet, at a stand in a mall; they suggested people to visit the site for (then upcoming) Independence Day, but it was slow as all hell. Didn't know what else to do so I left.

That was me BTW.

For instance, imagine you're given a set of parts with simulated physics and physical+logical interconnects.
I figure with real robots there would be a lot of welding and metal-piece-shaping involved, but imagine if somehow all that was virtual/programmable, and the whole thing moved according to your programming (lower leg goes up to xx degrees, has such and such torque/force/movement curve). .... we could have competitions to see who can program the fastest running bot!

BOT DANCE COMPETITIONS!

AMERICA'S NEXT TOP ROBOT!

I can't help but contrast this with the kernel driver project's message, where they call for open HW specifications so they can maintain code for them.
I realize that contributing specs isn't the same as contributing shabby code, but save for that difference, it almost seems like a contradictory message:
* on one hand it's ok for hardware companies to just drop specs and leave it to the community to code and maintain drivers
* on the other, it's not ok if Microsoft drops code and then doesn't maintain it.

It would seem as though no one wants to maintain Microsoft code. If that was so, I wonder how much of it is due to community bias against MS, and how much because of a lack of community interest. Also, no use cases maybe?

gynecology.

MAYBE not every group of friends is in a 30min drive radio from each other, ever think about that?
in other words, i think this push is to overcome too long distances, not to overcome too short distances.