Re: [Swarm-Modelling] Good reviews with the info the greenhorn needs?

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Maarten Sierhuis wrote:
> This reminds me of a recent debate we had here at NASA, about similar 
> agent-based tools we have in our organization. Here is a quote from a 
> wise person (not me) in our organization:
> "At a higher strategic level -- drawing on some advice I got once from 
> our good friend
> [name deleted] -- let's keep our focus on *problems* and not on 
> *methods*. We should not
> be drawn into an argument about what [Tool X], or [Tool Y], or [Tool 
> Z] can or cannot do in
> the abstract. Rather we should demonstrate that [Tool X] can solve the 
> actual problems
> that [name deleted] and his team are presented with. If [Tool X] has 
> solved these problems on time
> and on budget, it becomes moot whether or not [Tool Y] or [Tool Z] 
> might be able to solve
> some of them.
We should be drawn into arguments about what tools can do in the 
abstract if we are talking about what tools to make or what tools not to 
elaborate.  It matters what is really true about these tools, not how 
determined rhetoric can make it sound. It's a completely moot point if a 
team has applied a tool to do useful work because that could just be 
because they were lucky enough to have productive teams (e.g. even 
writing in numerical machine opcodes). 

This reminds me of a good talk I went to recently.
The speaker said "to sequence analysts I say I'm a pipette geek, and to 
pipette geeks I say I'm just a sequence analyst".   A listener chuckled, 
"You know, I bet the reviewers say that too!"