This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
The book is well reported. by beancounter
They weren't making fast enough progress to meet the targets they had set, and resorted to fraud as a result, gaming results, obfuscating what technology was actually being used, etc. They had other problems, such as poor lab quality control and rampant employee turnover. (I tried for a few chapters to keep all the characters straight, then realized that most of them would be gone by the next chapter.) I think the book focused on what happened based on what they did do, not what would have been theoretically possible if they had approached things differently, and were different people.