Actually, I'll go further in my support of joeontap's comments: Considering the extent of Good's reach through its mailing list, I think that wholesale forwarding of less-than-rigorously-tested ideas borders on the irresponsible. At least, it makes the quality of Good's output seem very dubious.
I agree. Based on the admittedly limited amount of info in the article, there're so many glaring question marks in the concept that if you value critical thought and support generation of technology that has some tangible benefit, it's best to be sceptical. I think that the focus should be on encouraging the students who will continue to develop progressively better solutions.
axienjii is now following…
Staff picks of what's best from across the GOOD community