Hmm, I don't believe that "petulant" describes my, errm, surprise at
the authority some give "facts" on the www, or in the press.
Gadgets should have instructions only to back up well-designed
functionality. I have just bought 2 digital immersion heater timers
to get rid of the noise that the analogue 24hr gizmos made. I have
read the instructions and set the times, but I keep having to go back
to the instructions because the system is so badly designed. The same
goes for setting the time on our cooker: the functionality is just not
intuitive. I save worrying about it on our microwave by switching it
off at the plug when it's not in use -- saves energy as well ...
That's one reason that I don't trust GM food: if engineers can't get
electronic gadgets right, why should I trust other engineers to modify
the genes at minimum risk?
Chris
On 10 Aug 2008, at 12:45, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>
> That's a bit petulant - clearly Reevoo.com are a respected academic
> source and I'm sure that their interviewers were well trained, their
> interview schedules free of any possibility of generating minor
> invalidities and inaccuracies and their sample of 2000 respondents
> was properly randomised and structured (no, not contradictory).
> Beyond that, it has the grim ring of plausibility to it.
> Andrew Fildes (former market research interviewer - hey, we can't all
> put ourselves through university by more legitimate work like table
> top dancing).
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|