2009/2/11 Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/2/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/2/10 AndrewRT raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep the current 5 or expand to 9?
Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
...which was, for those interested, rediscussed in 'New Scientist' a week or three ago. (Eight is apparently a terrible number)
online anywhere? :-)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.300-explaining-the-curse-of-w...