There are known knowns.These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know.
(There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know.
Barbarossa is not my real name,
Tue 28 Apr 2009, 12:50,
archived)
I thought for a sec that was yes minister, but unfortunately it was real
Donald RumsfeldThe man's a genious :)
( Barbarossa is not my real name,
Tue 28 Apr 2009, 12:55,
archived)
It is actually an interesting pointin that we can't predict what future knowledge is going to be - obviously, otherwise we'd already have it - and yet we can somehow know what type of information it is that we're trying to find out. Whatever that means.
(,
Tue 28 Apr 2009, 13:05,
archived)
There is some good commentary inwikipedia.
We do our best to "know what type of information it is that we're trying to find out", but that meta-knowledge is itself something we continually struggle to find out. I suppose that's why prototyping is such a successful strategy.
(We do our best to "know what type of information it is that we're trying to find out", but that meta-knowledge is itself something we continually struggle to find out. I suppose that's why prototyping is such a successful strategy.
Bee Nice |-|,
Tue 28 Apr 2009, 13:39,
archived)
It is scarily similar to a scene in Yes, Minister EDIT:
The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, and therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt that the information that he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known, and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.
(The fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, and therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt that the information that he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known, and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration,
Tue 28 Apr 2009, 12:57,
archived)
If this was Jane Austen, it would, eventually, make sense.(And more: the words chosen would approximately be both necessary and sufficient).
But try as I might, I can't unravel that! [Edit: I mean, it doesn't seem to make sense without some further context]
(But try as I might, I can't unravel that! [Edit: I mean, it doesn't seem to make sense without some further context]
Bee Nice |-|,
Tue 28 Apr 2009, 13:20,
archived)