<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>lean &amp; six-sigma - Latest Comments in Statistical software is not six sigma</title><link>http://leansixsigma.disqus.com/</link><description>lean &amp; six-sigma plus eveything in between</description><atom:link href="https://leansixsigma.disqus.com/statistical_software_is_not_six_sigma/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:22:06 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Statistical software is not six sigma</title><link>http://learnsigma.com/statistical-software-is-not-six-sigma/#comment-1495722</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Excellent post.  I agree JMP is also good.  Depending on your needs, &lt;a href="http://www.1stcourses.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.1stcourses.com/"&gt;Six Sigma&lt;/a&gt; XL is good for a lot less.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John Asher</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:22:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Statistical software is not six sigma</title><link>http://learnsigma.com/statistical-software-is-not-six-sigma/#comment-1495721</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Robert; great post, and I am constantly cautioning folks about the dangers of confusing correlation with cause&amp;amp;effect; can never say it too often!&lt;br&gt;Just a small note to add, and not trying to be too 'marketing' ... but we feel JMP (&lt;a href="http://jmp.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="jmp.com"&gt;jmp.com&lt;/a&gt;) is certainly a full-service, standalone software package to be considered as well. Thanks again, and keep up the good work!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Don Gregory&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dhgregory2000</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:33:08 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>