I can't speak for those, but when I flew throw Madrid last summer (just a layover), they made everybody take everything out. iPods, electronic games, phones. The second time I didn't bother to remove them though, nothing happened.
>> If you read his history, you will see he was defeated in a House run.
Yeah. To Bobby Rush. Another popular black Chicago politician. Not just black, a former Black Panther. Seriously, we have tons of black politicians. You do realize blacks outnumber whites in Chicago, with Hispanics not far behind?
I've never encountered such regulation except occasionally at the exchange level, most often due to bandwidth concerns. Normal regulation is of course appicable, but then it always is and algorithms can be built with knowledge of such rules. Which jurisiction (country/instrument type/governing body) are you refering to? Can you cite?
Not so. If the president does not sign the bill, it becomes a law within 10 days as long as Congress does not adjourn. Signing it will make it a law immediately, but not doing so will not necessarily prevent it from becoming a law.
Sorry. I meant any competent risk management system would not have *allowed* this. But it does go to show how easy it is to have a typo alter your meaning drastically.
Not necessarily. Professional trading systems often enter in order based on a lot size. You don't generally enter into a system how many shares you want, but how many lots you want. And lot sizes can vary and are often configurable for each terminal or even on a per stock basis. So for instance if you key in 250, if the lot size is 1000, you are actually buying 250x1000, or 250,000 shares.
Who knows how the system was configured and if the lot size was displayed prominently in the UI (there are a lot of really bad trading UIs). One thing is for sure. Any competent risk management system would not have caught this.
Cool. Now try reading the first paragraph of the article.
"You need three things to create a successful startup: to start with good people, to make something customers actually want, and to spend as little money as possible."
And in fact the core technology was developed in conjunction with Israel, so rest assured they already have it.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00g.html
This is what I do now. I created a wiki page for our FAQ and didn't bother to copy the questions from the previous traditional FAQ. This way out of date questions are removed and only ones that are relevant get added. So far I like it better than the other way, and it is way easier to keep up to date.
Re:Summary of article...
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Well, according to the Bank of Canada, 36 billion was in circulation in 2001, and 19 cents per person in circulation was counterfeit. Canada has a population of about 32,000,000, so 32,000,000 * 0.19 =~ 6,000,000. 6,000,000 / 36,000,000,000 = 1.67e-4. 40% of this value was accounted for by $100 counterfeits.
Now, the bank says there are about 1.1 billion notes in circulation, or 35 per person. If there is one counterfiet bill per 290 people, that comes to 32,000,000 / 290 = 110,000 counterfiet bills in circulation. So again 110,000 / 1,100,000,000 = 0.0001, or 1 bill per 10,000.
Obviously these places run around distribution rings and some places will see a much higher frequency than others. And one currency, the $20, accounts for 50% of counterfeits. So in comparison, those will be relatively frequent, while the others will be much less so.
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/review/summer04/ch an t.htm
"It's not as small or light as Apple's iPod mini, but the mini is in a different category, with much lower capacity."
He doesn't say it is inferior. He says it is in a different category. How is that different from what you are saying?
If you read his past articles you would see he very much likes the iPod mini and definately gets it.
http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20040211.htm l
Ugh. It is well known that Israel is often ahead of the U.S. in developing new military technology. I think you should be asking whether the planes you saw employed by the U.S. army were bought from Israel.
Although the U.S. was the first to experiment with drones during Vietnam, it is Israel that created the first incredibly succesfull drones which inspired the united states UAV program. At the time it was embarassing to the DOD that Israel's tiny budget could accomplish what they had spent billions on and failed. This is what is meant when people say that the money pumped into Israel more than pays for itself with the intelligence and technology they provide.
Huh? The primary engineers in the early days were Germans, including former Nazis, many of whom built rockets for V-2 missle program. After the war just as many went to Russia as came here. They went to any country that had the resources to pursue a space program.
And there is no way you are going to tell me the space program was anything but politically motivated. It was a platform for Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon to show up the Russians. Johnson particularly used it to keep the nations mind off Vietnam.
If anything, the lackluster movement of our space program can be attributed to a LACK of political motivation.
Failure is part of the process. The success of Pioneer's 3-11 came as a result of the failures of pioneer 0-2. The ones where they didn't "get it right"
It's also not like those engineers in the good old days never killed anybody. We've had three major disasters exploring space in 67, 86, and 03. All about 15 years apart or so. Not bad considering this is easily the toughest and most dangerous job in the world.
Financial Industry ( focusing on real-time trading application in the options, futures, and equity industries )
* the kind of project
Mostly applications that either provide infrastructure for doing electronic trading, or applications that implement particular trading strategies.
* how it was done before
The sorts of applications I would work on were often quick prototypes that were meant to exploit an opportunity in the market. This would often mean lots of shortcuts were taken because chances are the code would be thrown away anyway. Problem is that once in a while an application will become become succesful and grow out of one of these prototypes. Since little time was available for proper design, such applications generally became a maintenance nightmare as they kept growing. XP solved this problem by provideing a framework that allowed me to only design what I need when I need it, but enabled me to radically alter the design if ever necessary.
* what prompted you to make the switch to XP
I was exposed to it by some people who were working on a project at my company. I found many of the practices allowed me to create "prototypes" just as quickly as before, but with a higher degree of reliability and a framework that allowed them to grow as requirements changed. I was really sold on it when I saw how simply I was able to implement pieces of functionality that had previously just seemed more complicated.
Pair Programming gets a lot of flak. But really I fully credit it for getting me interested in these techniques. Because I generally paired with someone who knew these practices better than me, I was able to actively see the value of these practices while writing production code. It was far more of an eye opener than reading any book or article.
A lot has been said about Pair Programming that is just not true. It does NOT mean that there is one computer for every two people. Everybody has a machine. Just because you try to write all production code in pairs doesn't mean that everything is done in pairs. Also, you do not get paired up with someone like a ball an chain. Pairs switch, sometimes several times a day. Pairs are NOT assigned. If I need to write an ordermatching algorithm and I've never done it before, I'm going to try to pair with someone who has. By the time we are done with the task, we now have two people who know how to write an ordermatching algorithm. It's also untrue that one person is the designated typer while the other one just sits back and criticizes. Both people type, switching sometimes several times a minute while designing a class or method. Code is typed as a way to communicate concepts. If I want to convey the direction I think something should go, I write a little code. If the pair has another idea, he'll start tapping his ideas in the keyboard. It's a very actively collaborative process.
* how that switch work and how long it took
I haven't yet seen a project switch to an XP style process without problems, and from what I understand is that it is possible but slow. Part of the problem is that people who switch often do so from a less test-centric approach. This makes it difficult as XP is so reliant on aggressive testing to be succesful. It is also a new concept for many developers to take responsibility of some of the testing that has traditionally been soley in the domain of QA.
* and how things have been since moving to XP
Like I said, I have not been involved in a switch, but can speak about the difference I've seen between similar projects. One problem that I've solved in both a non-XP approach and an XP approach is in implementing the FIX protocol.
This protocol is relatively simple, but it is rife with various possibilities for boundry errors, off by one errors, and complicated resend logic. The big difference I found is that I never broke old logic when modifying the code. Generally when doing development, you are only testing the piece of functionality you are working on, so you get that working, but you break something else. This might not be discovered for quite some time. With an XP approach, while developing, you test everything you've ever tested. You find out immediately if your changes break old code.
Not only this, but despite the overhead of writing tests, I found functionality was implemented quicker, more reliably, and far simpler. Some of this was because I learned from previous mistakes, but primarily it was due to a different way to approach a problem.
* do you know others doing XP, if so how many
Yes. But they all do it a little differently. I have not seen two XP projects that look exactly the same. The core value I always see is the emphasis on repeatable tests.
Case in point;
In google, my open source application comes up first in a search, in
SearchKing, the same search bring me up number 10, after all the commercial vendors.
If SearchKing had its way, I would be pushed down in google as well.
---snip--- Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
---snip---
You are suggesting that MS taking code and using it as their own without granting credit is equivalent to that?
It also doesn't give everybody these rights, just MS. So if I were to release something as GPL, it would be GPL for everyone except MS, who can do with it what they please. No thanks.
You are correct. None of my Visual C++ projects broke under the new.NET version. The only significant factor I have seen in my projects are some additional warnings, but nothing that has stopped compilation.
When people say that MS changed C++ they are usually refering to Managed C++. Managed C++ does not replace C++ by any means. It is ideal for creating.NET wrappers for legacy C++ code.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for those, but when I flew throw Madrid last summer (just a layover), they made everybody take everything out. iPods, electronic games, phones. The second time I didn't bother to remove them though, nothing happened.
>> If you read his history, you will see he was defeated in a House run.
Yeah. To Bobby Rush. Another popular black Chicago politician. Not just black, a former Black Panther. Seriously, we have tons of black politicians. You do realize blacks outnumber whites in Chicago, with Hispanics not far behind?
I've never encountered such regulation except occasionally at the exchange level, most often due to bandwidth concerns. Normal regulation is of course appicable, but then it always is and algorithms can be built with knowledge of such rules. Which jurisiction (country/instrument type/governing body) are you refering to? Can you cite?
Not so. If the president does not sign the bill, it becomes a law within 10 days as long as Congress does not adjourn. Signing it will make it a law immediately, but not doing so will not necessarily prevent it from becoming a law.
Sorry. I meant any competent risk management system would not have *allowed* this. But it does go to show how easy it is to have a typo alter your meaning drastically.
Not necessarily. Professional trading systems often enter in order based on a lot size. You don't generally enter into a system how many shares you want, but how many lots you want. And lot sizes can vary and are often configurable for each terminal or even on a per stock basis. So for instance if you key in 250, if the lot size is 1000, you are actually buying 250x1000, or 250,000 shares. Who knows how the system was configured and if the lot size was displayed prominently in the UI (there are a lot of really bad trading UIs). One thing is for sure. Any competent risk management system would not have caught this.
Cool. Now try reading the first paragraph of the article.
"You need three things to create a successful startup: to start with good people, to make something customers actually want, and to spend as little money as possible."
Makes a difference!
And in fact the core technology was developed in conjunction with Israel, so rest assured they already have it. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00g.html
This is what I do now. I created a wiki page for our FAQ and didn't bother to copy the questions from the previous traditional FAQ. This way out of date questions are removed and only ones that are relevant get added. So far I like it better than the other way, and it is way easier to keep up to date.
Oh yeah, and directly from the Tivo site: DVD Recorder with Tivo
Pioneer Burner
Well, according to the Bank of Canada, 36 billion was in circulation in 2001, and 19 cents per person in circulation was counterfeit. Canada has a population of about 32,000,000, so 32,000,000 * 0.19 =~ 6,000,000. 6,000,000 / 36,000,000,000 = 1.67e-4. 40% of this value was accounted for by $100 counterfeits.
h an t.htm
Now, the bank says there are about 1.1 billion notes in circulation, or 35 per person. If there is one counterfiet bill per 290 people, that comes to 32,000,000 / 290 = 110,000 counterfiet bills in circulation. So again 110,000 / 1,100,000,000 = 0.0001, or 1 bill per 10,000.
Obviously these places run around distribution rings and some places will see a much higher frequency than others. And one currency, the $20, accounts for 50% of counterfeits. So in comparison, those will be relatively frequent, while the others will be much less so.
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/review/summer04/c
No. You are thinking of the float. Market capitilization includes all outstanding shares.
Buy yes, they did only raise 1.67 billion with this offering.
Huh? Seems he gets it just fine.
m l
"It's not as small or light as Apple's iPod mini, but the mini is in a different category, with much lower capacity."
He doesn't say it is inferior. He says it is in a different category. How is that different from what you are saying? If you read his past articles you would see he very much likes the iPod mini and definately gets it. http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20040211.ht
Harvard Business, Kellogg (Northwestern), MIT Sloan, Stanford GSB, and Wharton
That's the list I've heard.
They have an implementation based on XFree86 4.3.0. Here is the text from the about box
The X Window System
X11 1.0 - XFree86 4.3.0
Copyright © 2003, Apple Computer, Inc.
Copyright © 2003, XFree86 Project, Inc.
Ugh. It is well known that Israel is often ahead of the U.S. in developing new military technology. I think you should be asking whether the planes you saw employed by the U.S. army were bought from Israel. Although the U.S. was the first to experiment with drones during Vietnam, it is Israel that created the first incredibly succesfull drones which inspired the united states UAV program. At the time it was embarassing to the DOD that Israel's tiny budget could accomplish what they had spent billions on and failed. This is what is meant when people say that the money pumped into Israel more than pays for itself with the intelligence and technology they provide.
ummm... ok
SEGA began as an american company.
History of SEGA
Although you are right in that Sonic himself was conceived after well after SEGA was bought by a Japanese company.
Huh? The primary engineers in the early days were Germans, including former Nazis, many of whom built rockets for V-2 missle program. After the war just as many went to Russia as came here. They went to any country that had the resources to pursue a space program.
And there is no way you are going to tell me the space program was anything but politically motivated. It was a platform for Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon to show up the Russians. Johnson particularly used it to keep the nations mind off Vietnam.
If anything, the lackluster movement of our space program can be attributed to a LACK of political motivation.
Failure is part of the process. The success of Pioneer's 3-11 came as a result of the failures of pioneer 0-2. The ones where they didn't "get it right"
It's also not like those engineers in the good old days never killed anybody. We've had three major disasters exploring space in 67, 86, and 03. All about 15 years apart or so. Not bad considering this is easily the toughest and most dangerous job in the world.
About two years ago I bagan using an XP style approach, or at least adopted many of the practices. Most notably Unit Tests with a Test First approach. Coded Functional Tests and Continuous Integration
To answer your questions one by one:
* the industry you are in
Financial Industry ( focusing on real-time trading application in the options, futures, and equity industries )
* the kind of project
Mostly applications that either provide infrastructure for doing electronic trading, or applications that implement particular trading strategies.
* how it was done before
The sorts of applications I would work on were often quick prototypes that were meant to exploit an opportunity in the market. This would often mean lots of shortcuts were taken because chances are the code would be thrown away anyway. Problem is that once in a while an application will become become succesful and grow out of one of these prototypes. Since little time was available for proper design, such applications generally became a maintenance nightmare as they kept growing. XP solved this problem by provideing a framework that allowed me to only design what I need when I need it, but enabled me to radically alter the design if ever necessary.
* what prompted you to make the switch to XP
I was exposed to it by some people who were working on a project at my company. I found many of the practices allowed me to create "prototypes" just as quickly as before, but with a higher degree of reliability and a framework that allowed them to grow as requirements changed. I was really sold on it when I saw how simply I was able to implement pieces of functionality that had previously just seemed more complicated.
Pair Programming gets a lot of flak. But really I fully credit it for getting me interested in these techniques. Because I generally paired with someone who knew these practices better than me, I was able to actively see the value of these practices while writing production code. It was far more of an eye opener than reading any book or article.
A lot has been said about Pair Programming that is just not true. It does NOT mean that there is one computer for every two people. Everybody has a machine. Just because you try to write all production code in pairs doesn't mean that everything is done in pairs. Also, you do not get paired up with someone like a ball an chain. Pairs switch, sometimes several times a day. Pairs are NOT assigned. If I need to write an ordermatching algorithm and I've never done it before, I'm going to try to pair with someone who has. By the time we are done with the task, we now have two people who know how to write an ordermatching algorithm. It's also untrue that one person is the designated typer while the other one just sits back and criticizes. Both people type, switching sometimes several times a minute while designing a class or method. Code is typed as a way to communicate concepts. If I want to convey the direction I think something should go, I write a little code. If the pair has another idea, he'll start tapping his ideas in the keyboard. It's a very actively collaborative process.
* how that switch work and how long it took
I haven't yet seen a project switch to an XP style process without problems, and from what I understand is that it is possible but slow. Part of the problem is that people who switch often do so from a less test-centric approach. This makes it difficult as XP is so reliant on aggressive testing to be succesful. It is also a new concept for many developers to take responsibility of some of the testing that has traditionally been soley in the domain of QA.
* and how things have been since moving to XP
Like I said, I have not been involved in a switch, but can speak about the difference I've seen between similar projects. One problem that I've solved in both a non-XP approach and an XP approach is in implementing the FIX protocol.
This protocol is relatively simple, but it is rife with various possibilities for boundry errors, off by one errors, and complicated resend logic. The big difference I found is that I never broke old logic when modifying the code. Generally when doing development, you are only testing the piece of functionality you are working on, so you get that working, but you break something else. This might not be discovered for quite some time. With an XP approach, while developing, you test everything you've ever tested. You find out immediately if your changes break old code.
Not only this, but despite the overhead of writing tests, I found functionality was implemented quicker, more reliably, and far simpler. Some of this was because I learned from previous mistakes, but primarily it was due to a different way to approach a problem.
* do you know others doing XP, if so how many
Yes. But they all do it a little differently. I have not seen two XP projects that look exactly the same. The core value I always see is the emphasis on repeatable tests.
Case in point; In google, my open source application comes up first in a search, in SearchKing, the same search bring me up number 10, after all the commercial vendors. If SearchKing had its way, I would be pushed down in google as well.
---snip---
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
- Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
---snip---You are suggesting that MS taking code and using it as their own without granting credit is equivalent to that?
It also doesn't give everybody these rights, just MS. So if I were to release something as GPL, it would be GPL for everyone except MS, who can do with it what they please. No thanks.
You are correct. None of my Visual C++ projects broke under the new .NET version. The only significant factor I have seen in my projects are some additional warnings, but nothing that has stopped compilation.
When people say that MS changed C++ they are usually refering to Managed C++. Managed C++ does not replace C++ by any means. It is ideal for creating .NET wrappers for legacy C++ code.
whoops, I mean, http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=pirating http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=bootlegging