|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 04/18/06 03:21
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:
> In article <Xns97A81A2A7AD22httpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251>,
> Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
> wrote:
>
>> So of the 3 options you proposed, I'd say number 2 is the item that
>> fits the poop best.
>
> ie. That he is justified even though he has no perspective on the
> order of mag of the difficulty of success?
Actually, yes. Let's say the difficulty is extreme, like constructing a
300-story hi-rise. Would you exonerate the builders if the structure
collapsed just because they had faced exceptional problems and not-quite
handled them?
> I don't know where to go from here, Boji, it just seems obvious
> that one should have a handle on this to make such a claim. I
> would temper your "hearty agreement".
I see where you're coming from and don't bluntly dismiss the concept, but
my point is essentially "If you can't do something right, don't do it at
all." Yes, there are places and times for trial-and-error methods (e.g.
the beta and alpha programs issued by software developers,) but _not_ in
expensive, auto-touted, highly-marketed programs sold as proficient and
adept.
> But I do understand the sentiment. It is natural and often
> pleasant to play armchair R & D boss, writing out broad
> strategies on the backs of envelopes...
Okay, Barbara....
--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|