OT: The Truth About DARPA

those

: d

ry

ave

The ass is the one that does not actually read the posts. JosephKK's post was not presented as you describe it. He said (I quote his post of June 5): "That is, unfortunately, a close approximation to the truth about research and research funding."

This is not a claim about experience or any particular case. It is a statement about supposed truth. It was not qualified.

illywhacker;

hose

y

ve

rom

* 1) This is not what "anecdotal" means. It means precisely descriptions of the incidents someone may have seen, with no actual objective study of the situation. 2) JospehKK presented anecdotal evidence as if it were objective. He said (I quote his post of June 5): "That is, unfortunately, a close approximation to the truth about research and research funding."

This is not a claim about experience or any particular case. It is a statement about supposed truth. It was not qualified.

illywhacker;

Um...this has nothing whatsoever to do with my post, at least not the one to which you replied. The OP is the one with the revolutionary idea.

Enough said.

illywhacker;

as

And you have a problem with that why?

Be advised of an article in the July 6 issue of Information Week titled "Feds on the Edge" starts: "Software that learns how to schedule your day. Supercomputing tricks our PCs will soon borrow. Networks resilient enough for the rigors of space. These are some of the bright ideas coming out of different government agencies." There is a following article "How government's grabbing the cloud". Information Week's "dig deeper" points to informationweek.com/alert/fedcto . Gives you a better idea as to what they think "progress" means...

s

Because if it is anecdotal it is misleading to present it as objective fact without qualification.

illywhacker;