Subject:
|
Re: Robotics subgroups by mail (was: sensors)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Dec 1999 01:10:09 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Andy Gombos <{gombos@ne.}Spamless{infi.net}>
|
Reply-To:
|
GOMBOS@NE.INFIspamless.NET
|
Viewed:
|
4349 times
|
| |
|
|
I also fail to see why a seperate group is needed. If a seperate group is made,
then all the people from this list that do not suscribe to the subgroup cannot
participate in dicussions, unless they go to the website, or use a news reader.
This could prevent people from inspiring other people(Which IMHO is very
important), and it could also leave out a vast number of solutions for peple who
do not see the messages.
Even more confused than Pink Tail...
Andy
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.robotics, "Pink Tail" <pinkmice@borg.com> writes:
> > > In lugnet.robotics, Rob Hendrix writes:
> > > > Todd,
> > > > Now that everyone has been properly schooled of the ins and outs of
> > > > receiving some or all robotics posts (thank you for teaching everyone),
> > > > can I have my robotics.sensors? *down on floor begging*
> > >
> > > I would think the support of Michael Gasperi and Brian Stormont would be
> > > important here, since this would be moving a certain amount of traffic
> > > down to a lower level rather than creating new traffic from scratch
> > > (where there is no loss but only potential gain).
> > >
> > > Perhaps you could write up a proposal, including a charter, and put it out
> > > for comments/review.
> >
> > I still can't quite understand why it is so important to get sensors
> > out of the standard listing. Aren't robots 33% sensors and 33%
> > actuators and 33% software (rounded to the nearest 33%)?
> >
> > Confused ...
>
> I don't either, unless the subject of sensors is currently suffering from
> not having its own group/list, which I don't think it is.
>
> I just responded to Rob trying to be objective. He doesn't have my support
> in creating a new group for sensors unless at the very least Michael G and
> Brian S are both for it, and probably a lot of others. But that doesn't
> mean he (Rob) or anyone else couldn't go ahead and propose it more formally
> for discussion, from my point of view...
>
> --Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Robotics subgroups by mail (was: sensors)
|
| (...) Nope, that statement as a whole is not correct. It's partially correct in that people who subscribe only to the lego-robotics@crynwr.com mailing list would indeed not automatically see a new sensors subgroup of lugnet.robotics, but it's not (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Robotics subgroups by mail (was: sensors)
|
| (...) I don't either, unless the subject of sensors is currently suffering from not having its own group/list, which I don't think it is. I just responded to Rob trying to be objective. He doesn't have my support in creating a new group for sensors (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
