🚀 go-pugleaf

[Third and last time that I'm going to try and post this.  Sorry about the
multiple posts, but something in the crosspost list is buggering things!]

I just thought I'd point out that there is a discussion about an possible
image processing group over on news.groups.  I think it's a *great* idea,
and about bloody time, too.  But I seem to be surrounded by computer
vision / computer graphics people.  Could we get some scientific image
processing people over there too?  If we don't act now, we're likely to end
up with comp.graphics.image.processing, which would be a gross restriction
on an otherwise tremendously useful group.  Actually, I'd like to see a
general imaging group, not restricted to conventional image processing
techniques, but expanded to included techniques of indirect observation,
calibration and processing, as well as general imaging theory.  Say
sci.imaging.  Do we have enough support for such a group?

-- 
| Daniel Briggs  (dbriggs@nrao.edu)                      |        USPA B-14993
| New Mexico Tech / National Radio Astronomy Observatory |            DoD #387
| P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM 87801   (505) 835-7391        |
Support the League for Programming Freedom  (info from league@prep.ai.mit.edu)