At 2000-08-25 15:07:41, Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, inter alia:
# >
# > Maybe it's just me, but I cannot agree with the "ethical" stances taken
# > dismissively by most of the thread. [...]
# > I see no reason to limit the scope of their
# > enquiry, even though the queries are fuzzy, and the results fuzzier. [...]
# > Then again it's
# > also a defense of tolerance and pragmatism.
#
# I don't see it as an "ethical" stance to refuse to provide garbage, but as a
# "pragmatic" one. Can I defend the results to my customers?
I'm afraid we agree to differ here. I will defend approximations - provided that
I can give the usual caveats and mount a rational defense.
# I get lots of mails like this defending "approximations", or as you put
# it "fuzziness". The problem is, I don't think they're approximations. I
# strongly suspect they're often closer to 5 or 10 times out. Think of it this
# way and you'll perhaps realise why analog doesn't provide them.
"5 or 10 times out" would be acceptable to my customers. As my current customer
said about another package that provided sticky results: "Inaccurate but
interesting". The people I deal with realise that the stats produced by these
approximations are not to be wholly relied on and come with massive warnings.
They want the approximations all the same.
Roger
whose email this is and not my employers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
