Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!hobbes!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Splitting comp.robotics
Organization: The Armory
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 09:44:52 GMT
Message-ID: <Cw45qu.6D9@armory.com>
References: <34rl8p$pk7@cabinboy.studio.disney.com> <1994Sep11.074815.18602@news.uta.edu> <CLEARY.94Sep12151705@everest.ccs.neu.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 49

In article <CLEARY.94Sep12151705@everest.ccs.neu.edu>,
Michael Cleary <cleary@everest.ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>I would vote for a split.  The reason is that what I'm interested in is the
>kind of information that shows up later in academic conferences and journals
>(c.r.research).  Almost none of that shows up here now and very little of
>what shows up concerns me at all, but it takes 10 minutes a day to determine
>that for sure.  10 minutes isn't a lot but it's *almost*always* 10 minutes
>wasted.  I'm a grad student and I've considered just dropping c.r from the
>groups I follow.  Generally profs and other researchers feel like they have
>even less time than grad students do.  That supports the claim made earlier
>that the reason the research-type discussions don't appear here is because
>there's too much c.r.homebrew-type discussion.  
>
>I don't see a problem with splitting groups if clear topic distinctions can be
>made that won't go away over time.
>
>The other topic I'm interested in (sometimes) is the repair and use of
>commercial bases (when ours fail).  I guess that would fit in the
>c.r.industrial category, but I'm not sure.  What was the intent for
>'industrial' of the person who suggested it?
>
>Mike
>--
>Michael Cleary     cleary@ccs.neu.edu      http://www.ccs.neu.edu/USER/cleary
>Robotic & Vision Systems Lab, Northeastern University, Boston  (617) 373-5242
----------------------------------
I see no real problem with creating another group, such as:
comp.robotics.research-snob   or whatever he wants it called, but I think
that this group is simply to small to "split", and that we like to be able
to read a range of questions, answers, opportunities, and news in the more
rarefied domains as well! This group should NOT be "split" but another snob
group should be created for all those without five or ten minutes to read
ours. May their group then increase into mounds of snobby mathematical
gibberish and build nothing! On the other hand a copy of Rodney Brooks' IEEE
paper here I saw the other day in another group would be truly great. It
had the simple flow charts and everything as used in the development of the
"Genghis" six legged walking robot and its cuter little state machines. I
have a copy on paper so I simply forgot where it was and now I can't find
it! Anyone else have it in data format in ASCII? It would be welcome here,
as well as some discussions for the isolated folks who get left behind
without a bit more technical tutorials on electro-electronic mechanical
topics spelled out solidly. I think this barrier is what the "lower"
eschelons of expertise need to break through, and what causes the raft of
not very intriguing questions that seem to go semi-answered or not at all
answered. Comp.robotics should be for everybody, and if they want to branch
from there, they should go for it, but cross post to good old C.R!!!
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

