William R. Penrose wrote:
>>> I read it, too, and found it to be more than a little self-serving. It
> is easy to juggle statistics about things like employment. For
> perhaps the number includes all companies that bought university
> intellectual property and then hired people, regardless of whether the
> people were hired *because* of the technology or just for company
> expansion that would have happened anyway. Getting a true figure on
> creation would be exceedingly difficult, and anyway, no one would want
> to do it, because it might give the "wrong" result (less than 200,000
> jobs).
most editorials i read are at least a bit self-serving and I agree with
your statement. but to now argue that the editorial is worthless 'cause
you don't agree with a number might be construed as self-serving too
