Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: brunix!news.Brown.EDU!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!fenian!timd
From: timd@fenian.dell.com (Tim Deagan)
Subject: Re: It's time to split comp.robotics
Message-ID: <1993Jun8.150008.25144@raid.dell.com>
Sender: news@raid.dell.com (Net News Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: fenian.dell.com
Reply-To: timd@fenian.dell.com
Organization: SLAMDANZ CYBRNETX
References: <1993Jun8.150149@cs.bham.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 15:00:08 GMT
Lines: 33

>In article <C81yIs.JF5@ecf.toronto.edu>, hertz@ecf.toronto.edu (HERTZ ROGER BARRY) writes:
> Hi,
> 
> I've noticed that the postings on comp.robotics often belong to one of
> two threads:
> 		1. mobile robots
> 		2. manipulators
> 
> Although there is the some cross over between the two, it may be more
> efficient to split comp.robotics into the two groups.

I vote NO.  

I find most of the postings to be questions not specifically
related to either mobiles or manipulators.  And my mobiles have
manipualtors on them.  This is a relatively low traffic group, splitting
it is overkill.  I also appreciate the cross fertilization of learning
about eye-tracking, ultrasonics, stepper motors, servos, etc..

If someone could explain _what_ would be more efficient by splitting,
I might be more sympathetic to the idea, but if it's just to ease 
research for someone's school project on mobile robots I am firm in 
my opinion.  Read the group for the long haul, it's GOOD to be exposed
to new ideas.  It's not as if alt.talk.marigolds was merged with
comp.robotics.

*Ding!*  (my $.02 running out)
--Tim
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ revtim@well.sf.ca.us }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
               Rev. Tim Deagan - Official Obnoxious Poster
No one but me is responsible for anything I write, believe in or preach
    KULTURKAMPF - The struggle a culture undergoes to change itself

