Re: Common House Use Proposal | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: list (list![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:05:06 -0700 (PDT) |
> In addition, I am equally curious about the electric engineering > applications, The IEEE runs largely on volunteer labour and because it's made up of engineers they have a tenency to look at the large number of meetings and go "there has to be a better way" (or other, more earthy statements to that effect). I once read a very carefully worded study to the effect that adding money to many of the standards committees in an attempt to counter what I think they called "corporate sponsorship" did not have the expected effect, and that committees which responded by publishing everything did best. It was more sociological than electrical except that it tried to evaluate effectiveness of published standards, and was hence interesting to users of said standards. And, of course, it was done by IEEE members. Sorry if you were thinking more Abu Gharib than just another meeting. Personally I have kept that approach because it appeals to me as much because it's shown to possibly work in some circumstances. I cheerfully accept most bribes and tell anyone who might be interested that I have done so (and when I'm speaking for the bribe, or not). Disappointingly, I don't get many repeat bribes :( Moz
- Re: Common House Use Proposal, (continued)
- Re: Common House Use Proposal James Kacki, May 10 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Wayne Tyson, May 11 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Naomi Anderegg, May 11 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Wayne Tyson, May 10 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal list, May 10 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Wayne Tyson, May 10 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Sharon Villines, May 10 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Wayne Tyson, May 10 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Naomi Anderegg, May 10 2011
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.