mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (02/06/90)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Well, how about splitting off two new hierarchies? > arts.* Arts and Humanities. > tech.* Technology and Engineering (excluding computers). >Then we can mass-move some groups out of sci. We already have a rec.arts.* hierarchy. Do we really need another? Were you planning on dumping the rec.arts.* hierarchy if an arts.* hierarchy was started? On the other hand, a sci.eng.* or tech.* hierarchy maybe useful for engineering and "practical" physical-science concerns and applications that engineers and technologists deal with (rather than scientists). Maybe if we had a sci.eng.* hierarchy, then we could start a sci.eng.comp.* hierarchy so that hardware oriented groups like comp.arch would now become sci.eng.comp.arch. News groups would become organized like a library. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/06/90)
In article <511@dino.cs.iastate.edu> mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes: > peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Well, how about splitting off two new hierarchies? > > arts.* Arts and Humanities. > > tech.* Technology and Engineering (excluding computers). > >Then we can mass-move some groups out of sci. > We already have a rec.arts.* hierarchy. Do we really need another? The "arts" here refers to "arts and letters", rather than "fine art" or "popular art". > Were you planning on dumping the rec.arts.* hierarchy if an arts.* > hierarchy was started? No. Arts as recreation and humanities are seperate concepts. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'