John James Cowperthwaite (1915–2006) British colonial administrator
February 26, 1964, page 47.
Official Report of Proceedings of the Hong Kong Legislative Council
[Sheyene Institute Founder`s Letter, http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=38c46884-5abc-491a-89aa-c9bb0b71195c]
John James Cowperthwaite (1915–2006) British colonial administrator
February 26, 1964, page 47.
Official Report of Proceedings of the Hong Kong Legislative Council
“Failing to plan is planning to fail”
Alan Lakein (1973) American writer
Randy Pausch (1960–2008) American professor of computer science, human-computer interaction and design
Time Management (2007)
Howard Raiffa (1924–2016) American academic
Epilogue, p. 360.
The Art and Science of Negotiation (1982)
“If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.”
Harvey Mackay (1932) American businessman and journalist
K. R. Narayanan (1920–2005) 9th Vice President and the 10th President of India
Shri K. R. Narayanan President of India in Conversation with N. Ram on Doordarshan and All India Radio
Peter Dicken (1938) British geographer
Source: Global Shift (2003) (Fourth Edition), Chapter 15, Winners and Losers, p. 509
Benoît Mandelbrot (1924–2010) Polish-born, French and American mathematician
A Theory of Roughness (2004)
Context: Do I claim that everything that is not smooth is fractal? That fractals suffice to solve every problem of science? Not in the least. What I'm asserting very strongly is that, when some real thing is found to be un-smooth, the next mathematical model to try is fractal or multi-fractal. A complicated phenomenon need not be fractal, but finding that a phenomenon is "not even fractal" is bad news, because so far nobody has invested anywhere near my effort in identifying and creating new techniques valid beyond fractals. Since roughness is everywhere, fractals — although they do not apply to everything — are present everywhere. And very often the same techniques apply in areas that, by every other account except geometric structure, are separate.