estate@abnjh.UUCP (D.R.Pierce) (08/10/84)
Would anyone be interested in starting a newsgroup for amateur robotics ? I havn't got the slightest idea how to go about starting a new newsgroup, but I've seen quite a few interesting articles and ideas on the net concerning robotics. To my knowledge their are only a very few periodicles dealing with the subject of amateur robotics and robotics experiments, but I have found a few interesting articles on simple robotic interfaces that will work off a home computer (one of which I built). If anyone else out there in net-land enjoys tearing apart their household appliances and and reconstructing them to do things that they were never meant to do, please let me know and we'll see if we can get anything rolling ! (Visions From The Orcrest Stone) Carl D.
rclewis@uok.UUCP (09/01/84)
#R:abnjh:-79200:uok:5700004:000:353
uok!rclewis Aug 31 22:51:00 1984
I would also like to see a news group formed for Robotics.
It seems ashame that we have so very few schools that offer classes
in robotics. It is in the a time compariable with the vacuum tubes
that were used in the early computers. As intrest builds so shall
this field of science.
Richard Lewis.dms@mit-hermes.ARPA (David M. Siegel) (09/01/84)
I think that a robotics group would be worthwhile. I second the motion! -- David Siegel Usenet: mit-eddie!mit-hermes!dms The MIT AI Laboratory Arpa: dms@mit-hermes.arpa Cambridge, MA 02139
rjk@mgweed.UUCP (Randy King) (09/12/84)
Here's my "yes" vote on robotics. I spent all day visiting over 2000 robotic displays at McCormick Place in Chicago last week at the International Machine Tool Show. Let's talk about sub-groups while we're into "net.robots" - we will definitely need a "net.robots.vision", a field akin to and as growing as big as the mechanical manipulators. Inspection for manufacture is a biggie for vision. I saw a Seiko robot pick up drill bits, hold them in front of a camera, and within 100 msec it had decided if the bit was within +/- 0.005. It then disposed of the bit in the "too big", "too small", or "just right" bin. This stuff is hot and saves *big* bucks!!! Let's do it!! Randy King AT&T-CP@MG ihnp4!mgweed!rjk
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (09/12/84)
> From: dms@mit-hermes.ARPA (David M. Siegel) > I think that a robotics group would be worthwhile. I second the motion! I am not familiar with the readership of net.ai, but it seems to me that (un- less this is already the case) robotics discussions could continue in net.ai until a significant portion of the newsgroup is seen to contain robotics articles, then someone can go ahead and create net.robotics. Note I didn't say net.ai.robotics because a lot of robotics discussion is not necessarily related to ai, and robotics has a wide enough range of subject matter to warrant its own group. How does everyone feel about this? -- Hug me till you drug me, honey! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (09/14/84)
> I am not familiar with the readership of net.ai, but it seems to me that (un- > less this is already the case) robotics discussions could continue in net.ai > until a significant portion of the newsgroup is seen to contain robotics > articles, then someone can go ahead and create net.robotics. Note I didn't > say net.ai.robotics because a lot of robotics discussion is not necessarily > related to ai, and robotics has a wide enough range of subject matter to > warrant its own group. > > How does everyone feel about this? If only robotics were as simple as AI... Besides sensing the environment, robots also have to manipulate: programming them is a 3D animation problem, and has nothing to do with AI. I am in favor of net.robotics. -- Ken Turkowski @ CADLINC, Palo Alto, CA UUCP: {amd,decwrl,dual,flairvax,nsc}!turtlevax!ken ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.ARPA