Re: State of the art

Subject: Re: State of the art
From: Kris Olberg <KJOlberg -at- AOL -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:57:11 -0500

In a message dated 95-11-30 13:47:29 EST, you write:

>The term "state of the art" has been used for some time to refer to
> the highest level of development. In your opinion, is it hackneyed?
> I posed the question once to an STC PIC a while ago and one member
> suggested: "Bleeding edge." This may be too bloody for many. I
> considered " the fore-running cusp" for a softer sound, but neither
> terms seem adequate to me. They just don't have the ring of an
> engineering feat. I've also run across "state of the edge," but it's
> a mere substitution of one word for another. Any suggestions
> welcomed.

IMHO: "state-of-the-art" does not necessarily cover ALL items described as
"bleeding edge" or "the fore-running cusp." Items falling into the latter two
categories carry a high probability to either succeed OR FAIL. I view
state-of-the-art items as having a high probability for success only.
Therefore, state-of-the-art items are a subset of "bleeding edge" items.

kjolberg -at- aol -dot- com
kjolberg -at- ix -dot- netcom -dot- com
102031 -dot- 3556 -at- compuserve -dot- com

Previous by Author: Re: Damn Lawyers, damn lawyers, damn lawyers
Next by Author: Re: Advice on User's Manual
Previous by Thread: Re: State of the art
Next by Thread: Re: State of the art

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads