I think the best programming manual out there is "The Elements of Style". No, not "The Elements of Programming Style" or "C Style" or whatever, but the original Strunk and White book on
composition and grammar.
The attributes of good writing - elegance, clarity, brevity, precision, sound organization, and so forth - are precisely those of good programming. I suspect that by learning one you are learning the other.
If we want better programmers and engineers, perhaps we can begin by producing better writers.
William Strunk had attitude. He would have made a hell of a programmer.
Einstein fled Germany in 1933 when fascism and anti-semitism become intolerable. Indeed, Einstein may have died in a concentration camp had he stayed. Thus Germany's handling of one of the great scientists of all time is not a proud one.
Perhaps that is why they are hesitant. Brings up bad memories.
That Jamie is a lab is no more surprizing, I suppose, than the fact that he or she is a Jedi knight. Maybe less, since labs actually exist. Better than being a socialist, I guess.
Being a paid spokesperson for industry is not, in itself, a bad thing, provided you conduct yourself with integrity - that is, you give honest opinions based on the best science.
This is entirely possible. After all, many people are paid for their opinions one way or the other - even, I suppose, some GreenPeace representatives. Whether Patrick Moore has maintained his integrity I cannot say, but the few writings of his I've seen read rather well.
Patrick Moore is no longer with GreenPeace, and in fact is one if its harshest critiques. He runs a site called
GreenSpirit, which at first glance appears to be "environmentalism for those who aren't brain dead".
They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
Actually, even this argument would not be good enough in some towns, since they have defined "blighted area" so broadly that almost any older home qualifies. For instance, some have legislated that a home without an attached garage is "blighted".
If the price was right, I'd sell out faster than a Philadelphia lawyer.
First, selling out to MS is not unethical cause MS is not an evil company. I don't think they're a bunch of saints (by a long shot), but they're not evil. Remember, IBM used to be thought of in the same light (and had many of the same legal problems) as MS now.
Second, resistance is futile. MS can work with you or around you, giving you far more competition than you ever bargained for. Which would you prefer?
Third, I would take the money and start a new company, maybe one more interesting than the last - e.g., a company that focuses solely on Linux security.
Fourth, if MS wants to pay too much for my company, who am I to say no.
I, like most other software developers, have worked with both kinds, as a fellow employee and a manager.
In general, degrees, and specifically computer science degrees, are better.
I find such people are more serious about advancing their programming skills. When new programming technologies come up (eg, object-oriented design patterns a few years back), the computer science degrees are more likely to dive in, perhaps because they take pride in their knowledge of such things. They are simply more likely to approach their job in a professional manner, having invested more of themselves in the field.
Also, a knowledge of algorithms, data structures, and (of course) software engineering is definitely an asset to a software developer. Only people without such knowledge think otherwise.
Regarding Master's degrees in particular, I find that they don't bring much extra knowledge to the job. It does, however, tend to indicate that they have some smarts, and are not afraid to read technical papers. Also, their thesis advisors are often quite candid about how capable they are. Such information is not usually available for new B.Sc's.
Of course there are good software developers without computer science degrees - I've worked with and hired many - but the computer science degrees should be thick on the ground in any software development department.
Actually I suspect that there are many experienced investors without a clear understanding of how market works - which is too bad, because it's decidedly not nuclear physics.
The main point is that at least some of this confusion could be cleared up if the wording were improved. News people are addressing the general public, not a physics association, and have an obligation to be clear and accurate. They are falling short here.
In any market, there's always a surplus of buyers or sellers.
Wrong. Buyers and sellers are in equilibrium by necessity. This is a palpable fact - every transaction has two sides. The fact that you would suggest otherwise is bizarre.
What you mean is, there is always a surplus of prospective buyers or sellers. When this happens, it generally means the price is wrong, and so the price changes to bring things into balance.
Yet even this is not quite right, for a prospective buyer is someone who would buy if the
price were lower. But that includes virtually
everyone, for who wouldn't buy if the price was low enough.
There's a lot of sloppy thinking going on about markets. What Lou Dobbs should do is simply say the markets fell, and then state any actual news that have caused that. Referring to a drop in price as as a "sell-off" is inaccurate and dumb.
I understand perfectly what they are trying to say. I also understand that it's just an expression. It just happens to be a very poor one that is both deceiving and uninformative.
I am well aware of elasticity in the market, but a buyer is someone who pays money for something, not someone who might pay if only the price were right. After all, most of us would be buyers if the price was cheap enough, or sellers if the price were high enough.
As an example, I would buy Google at $1 per share, although I have not made a formal bid to do so. Does that make me a buyer? Nope, just a wannabe buyer.
When everyone is selling you are buying and when everyone is buying you are selling.
Actually, for every seller there is a buyer. Thus when Lou Dobbs says "the market was down on heavy selling", he could just as easily say "the market was down on heavy buying". Shows you the quality of thinking in the financial industry.
If you can afford 21-year-old Balvenie then you must have sold your technology stocks before March 2000.
Good luck. And remember - scotch and./'ing don't mix. There might not be a moderation category for "Drunken blathering" but there oughta be. I could have used one a couple times myself.
The trouble with the precautionary principal is that it can be applied to anything at all.
I bet there's a great deal about malt scotch that we don't understand at the molecular level. Does this mean we should be purging Balvenie from the shelves? Saints preserve us!
This does not mean we blindly rush into things, but to say "we don't understand everything about it" or "there's a possibility that it gives cancer" is just stating the blindingly obvious. We need a better assessment of the risks than that.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
But if you are serious, well...
Google Price/Earnings ~ 50 Google Price/Sales ~ 10
For a value investor, 15 and 1 are considered
good numbers. Anyone buying this stock is praying for growth, and not just a little.
Not only do you need earnings and sales growth, you need it on a per share basis.
Growth for growth's sake does the shareholder little good. Historically, toothpaste has been far more lucrative than technology for the investor.
Often I see people equating non-physical "attacks" with actual violence, and it's complete B.S. In some universities, for example, aggressively criticizing someone's point of view is considered an actual attack on that person, creating "harm" and "pain" as real as a physical assault. They say it contributes a "hostile environment", and gives them an excuse to limit freedom of expression to what they find acceptable.
When someone sends you a letter telling you to cease-and-desist from infinging their patent, it's annoying and maybe expensive, but at the end of the day you go home to your family.
A bullet, on the other hand, can put your internal organs through a meat grinder.
See the difference?
A big problem with equating everything to physical assault is that it justifies responding to a legal or verbal attack with actual aggression since, after all, what's the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
Note to self: (1) Don't make jokes on /., or (2) make better jokes.
The attributes of good writing - elegance, clarity, brevity, precision, sound organization, and so forth - are precisely those of good programming. I suspect that by learning one you are learning the other.
If we want better programmers and engineers, perhaps we can begin by producing better writers.
William Strunk had attitude. He would have made a hell of a programmer.
Perhaps that is why they are hesitant. Brings up bad memories.
That Jamie is a lab is no more surprizing, I suppose, than the fact that he or she is a Jedi knight. Maybe less, since labs actually exist. Better than being a socialist, I guess.
One question: Yellow, black, or chocolate?
This is entirely possible. After all, many people are paid for their opinions one way or the other - even, I suppose, some GreenPeace representatives. Whether Patrick Moore has maintained his integrity I cannot say, but the few writings of his I've seen read rather well.
Sorry, Lynch didn't mention the company or the broker. It was probably in the 1980's.
I bet you think that sig is made up. Actually, investment guru Peter Lynch read it in a brokerage report (I reworded it slightly).
Patrick Moore is no longer with GreenPeace, and in fact is one if its harshest critiques. He runs a site called GreenSpirit, which at first glance appears to be "environmentalism for those who aren't brain dead".
Actually, even this argument would not be good enough in some towns, since they have defined "blighted area" so broadly that almost any older home qualifies. For instance, some have legislated that a home without an attached garage is "blighted".
First, selling out to MS is not unethical cause MS is not an evil company. I don't think they're a bunch of saints (by a long shot), but they're not evil. Remember, IBM used to be thought of in the same light (and had many of the same legal problems) as MS now.
Second, resistance is futile. MS can work with you or around you, giving you far more competition than you ever bargained for. Which would you prefer?
Third, I would take the money and start a new company, maybe one more interesting than the last - e.g., a company that focuses solely on Linux security.
Fourth, if MS wants to pay too much for my company, who am I to say no.
In general, degrees, and specifically computer science degrees, are better.
I find such people are more serious about advancing their programming skills. When new programming technologies come up (eg, object-oriented design patterns a few years back), the computer science degrees are more likely to dive in, perhaps because they take pride in their knowledge of such things. They are simply more likely to approach their job in a professional manner, having invested more of themselves in the field.
Also, a knowledge of algorithms, data structures, and (of course) software engineering is definitely an asset to a software developer. Only people without such knowledge think otherwise.
Regarding Master's degrees in particular, I find that they don't bring much extra knowledge to the job. It does, however, tend to indicate that they have some smarts, and are not afraid to read technical papers. Also, their thesis advisors are often quite candid about how capable they are. Such information is not usually available for new B.Sc's.
Of course there are good software developers without computer science degrees - I've worked with and hired many - but the computer science degrees should be thick on the ground in any software development department.
The main point is that at least some of this confusion could be cleared up if the wording were improved. News people are addressing the general public, not a physics association, and have an obligation to be clear and accurate. They are falling short here.
Wrong. Buyers and sellers are in equilibrium by necessity. This is a palpable fact - every transaction has two sides. The fact that you would suggest otherwise is bizarre.
What you mean is, there is always a surplus of prospective buyers or sellers. When this happens, it generally means the price is wrong, and so the price changes to bring things into balance.
Yet even this is not quite right, for a prospective buyer is someone who would buy if the price were lower. But that includes virtually everyone, for who wouldn't buy if the price was low enough.
There's a lot of sloppy thinking going on about markets. What Lou Dobbs should do is simply say the markets fell, and then state any actual news that have caused that. Referring to a drop in price as as a "sell-off" is inaccurate and dumb.
I understand perfectly what they are trying to say. I also understand that it's just an expression. It just happens to be a very poor one that is both deceiving and uninformative.
As an example, I would buy Google at $1 per share, although I have not made a formal bid to do so. Does that make me a buyer? Nope, just a wannabe buyer.
Actually, for every seller there is a buyer. Thus when Lou Dobbs says "the market was down on heavy selling", he could just as easily say "the market was down on heavy buying". Shows you the quality of thinking in the financial industry.
Good luck. And remember - scotch and ./'ing don't mix. There might not be a moderation category for "Drunken blathering" but there oughta be. I could have used one a couple times myself.
Of course, it might allow some people to put off washing a little too long.
You can't prove anything is not dangerous. You can only prove that the more obvious risks are too low to be easily detected.
My guess is that tests have been done on these types of fabrics. Does anyone know of such tests?
I bet there's a great deal about malt scotch that we don't understand at the molecular level. Does this mean we should be purging Balvenie from the shelves? Saints preserve us!
This does not mean we blindly rush into things, but to say "we don't understand everything about it" or "there's a possibility that it gives cancer" is just stating the blindingly obvious. We need a better assessment of the risks than that.
I really don't think advancing the characters has ever been a big goal of the writers.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. But if you are serious, well...
For a value investor, 15 and 1 are considered good numbers. Anyone buying this stock is praying for growth, and not just a little.
Not only do you need earnings and sales growth, you need it on a per share basis. Growth for growth's sake does the shareholder little good. Historically, toothpaste has been far more lucrative than technology for the investor.
When someone sends you a letter telling you to cease-and-desist from infinging their patent, it's annoying and maybe expensive, but at the end of the day you go home to your family.
A bullet, on the other hand, can put your internal organs through a meat grinder.
See the difference?
A big problem with equating everything to physical assault is that it justifies responding to a legal or verbal attack with actual aggression since, after all, what's the difference?