>C'mon, dude, this is engineering! Enough of this THIS IS IT:
DEAL WITH IT
I agree with your point above completely -- which is why I'm having
problems with those on this list bashing a proposed option here while
still admitted they have nothing to base in on scientifically....
I don't think "THIS IS IT", even though I work for
that same company. I just don't like the idea of engineers admitting they
are using flawed and incomplete data when taking a position (the list
email archive proves this to be true)....
>At 11:17 AM 5/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>Don't tell anyone- but I am bored- really.
>>let's go, what happened to the 1000BT -like wrestling? over
>>I was promised that this would be fun, and so far nothing,
>>I would really flame someone, or impose my ideas on you but
at this point
>>I shall speak for at least myself at CISCO (likely for a lot
of us), what
>is important to me in this
>>standard is having a spec that an engineer understands when
>>will read it without calling everyone that was present
at the meeting and
>>still be confused about it. And having a
standard that is engineering
>>to the customer and myself, from a
>>otherwise, let's send in the MBA's they can do a much better
>>at agendas and business flare ups, and at setting up rules
for what is
>>and what is not right.
James M. Polk
"At the end of the day... the most committed win!"
Sr. Product Manager, Multiservice Architecture and Standards
Enterprise Voice Business Unit