Java 7 features

[John W. Kennedy]

I was thinking that compound interest could be calculated by simple
multiplication and fixed-point multiplication.

Yes, the direct calculation can be done that way. But what if you want
to do it backwards? How much is the payment to pay off a loan of x in y
years at z percent? If a loan of x is paid off in y years with payments
of z, what is the interest rate? And so on....

 

[Mike Schilling]

Yes, the direct calculation can be done that way. But what if you want
to do it backwards? How much is the payment to pay off a loan of x in
y years at z percent? If a loan of x is paid off in y years with
payments of z, what is the interest rate? And so on....

It can still be done, though less efficiently than if high-powered
mathematics is available.

1. Start with a too-high estimate (H) and a too-low estimate (L).
2. Run the calculation forward with an estimate based on the average of the
two (M = (H + L) / 2)..
3. If the result shows that M was close enough to correct (or H-L is
sufficiently small) , you've got your answer.
4. Otherwise, if M is too low, let L = M. If M is too high, let H = M. Go
back to step 2.

 

[Twisted]

I prefer STFW.

- Kurt

This also responds to Kaldrenon's useless response to my post.

a) The acronym in question appears to be completely novel, invented
right then and there. As such it's unlikely to be a useful search
query.
b) Regardless, if I'd ignored it or if I'd googled it (successfully or
otherwise) I would not have called attention to the problem that the
OP's post is not easily understood plain English, and not because of
necessary technical complexity but purely gratuitously.

 

[blmblm]

This also responds to Kaldrenon's useless response to my post.

a) The acronym in question appears to be completely novel, invented
right then and there. As such it's unlikely to be a useful search
query.

If you mean the one I originally used (NTTAWWT), it's not novel:
I'm fairly sure I've encountered it in other people's posts and
assumed it was sufficiently well-known not to need explanation.
Perhaps I was wrong about that. Since we are not allowed to
say anything negative about you, I won't comment on whether a
reasonable person could guess the results of a Google search
for this particular acronym (or initialism, for the pedantic),
but in fact such a search produces a definition in the first hit.

If you mean GWBYFIYGIAC, yes, that *is*, as far as I know, novel,
but I included an expansion.

b) Regardless, if I'd ignored it or if I'd googled it (successfully or
otherwise) I would not have called attention to the problem that the
OP's post is not easily understood plain English, and not because of
necessary technical complexity but purely gratuitously.

Responded to above. I suppose I've been mostly-lurking in
Usenetland for long enough to find some initialisms appealing in
an inside-joke sort of way ("AFAIK", e.g.), and I thought this
was one of them. Some groups frown on any use of such shorthand,
and in those groups, I don't use it. Maybe it would be as well
to adopt that standard everywhere.

 

[blmblm]

Yes, the direct calculation can be done that way. But what if you want
to do it backwards? How much is the payment to pay off a loan of x in y
years at z percent? If a loan of x is paid off in y years with payments
of z, what is the interest rate? And so on....

Ah. Yes, this is a good example of the kind of thing I was asking
about -- something that can't easily be done without a log function.
Got it.

 

[Roedy Green]

This also responds to Kaldrenon's useless response to my post.

Does anyone remember what the original disagreement was about?

 

[Roedy Green]

If a loan of x is paid off in y years with payments
of z, what is the interest rate? And so on...

just do some algebra. You might have to take the log or exp of both
sides of the equation.

 

[John W. Kennedy]

just do some algebra. You might have to take the log or exp of both
sides of the equation.

This subthread has now gone full circle.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface

 

[nebulous99]

If you mean the one I originally used (NTTAWWT), it's not novel:
I'm fairly sure I've encountered it in other people's posts and
assumed it was sufficiently well-known not to need explanation.

Well, you know what they say about "assume" ...

but in fact such a search produces a definition in the first hit.

"A" definition. I note that you didn't imply it would be one that was
applicable to any given specific instance of encountering it. Perhaps
the same acronym arises from two or more very different phrases.

Responded to above. I suppose I've been mostly-lurking in
Usenetland for long enough to find some initialisms appealing in
an inside-joke sort of way ("AFAIK", e.g.), and I thought this
was one of them. Some groups frown on any use of such shorthand,
and in those groups, I don't use it. Maybe it would be as well
to adopt that standard everywhere.

Stuff like "AFAIK" with widespread use and recognition is OK in my
book. Stuff that is either completely new or at least obscure deserves
expansion or avoidance, depending. Certainly, expansion upon request
without any snarkiness involving "STFW" or "GIYF" or similarly; a
posted expansion saves everyone else who comes along from making the
same web search, a wasteful duplication of unnecessary effort if ever
there was one. In any event, as soon as you have a request for
clarification to which you respond with anything that includes or
implies the word "google" you've already failed at your original goal,
that of communicating clearly. If you ended up communicating in such a
way that it cannot be interpreted without resort to a web search and
accompanying task switching and other headaches (except, of course,
for us poor saps stuck using google groups for whom there's no task
switching involved), then you've failed to communicate clearly.

Of course, some things necessitate arcane terminology to communicate
precisely, and if precision is needed then arcane and obscure words
cannot be avoided. Using such gratuitously where you can communicate
just as clearly without them is, on the other hand, just plain
rude.

In case you feel the temptation to use some form of obscurity again,
you may want to consider the section below.

Some specific and relevant advice from
http://www.bouldertherapist.com/html/humor/WordPlays/tips_for_proper_english.htm:

2. Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
5. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
9. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
36. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.

and from http://www.astro.umd.edu/~avondale/extra/Humor/SchoolHumor/WritingRules.html:

7. Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity or prolixity.
* Don't obfuscate your theses with extraneous verbiage.
* Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
and, of course,
* People who insult others are jerks.

'Nuff said?

 

[nebulous99]

Does anyone remember what the original disagreement was about?

Of course not! This is a usenet flamewar! The original disagreement
was probably actually about something that's on-topic for this
newsgroup, and therefore is completely irrelevant anyway!

 

[~kurt]

a) The acronym in question appears to be completely novel, invented
right then and there. As such it's unlikely to be a useful search
query.

It has been around for at least 5 years. A google search gives you
the definition with the first return.

I'm not all that big on acronyms myself though. The first time I saw
"LOL", I thought to myself, WTF?

- Kurt

 

[blmblm]

Well, you know what they say about "assume" ...

I do -- and I find that particular old adage moderately annoying,
because I can't imagine how anyone can function at all without
making *some* assumptions. The trick, of course, is to know
which ones might be faulty.

"A" definition. I note that you didn't imply it would be one that was
applicable to any given specific instance of encountering it. Perhaps
the same acronym arises from two or more very different phrases.

Could be. I'm only aware of one expansion, and it's the one in
the first hit my Google search found. If it had occurred to me
that someone might interpret my words as you apparently did --
*a* definition, but not one that's applicable -- I'd have tried
to express my thoughts more precisely, perhaps as "the definition
I had in mind."

Stuff like "AFAIK" with widespread use and recognition is OK in my
book. Stuff that is either completely new or at least obscure deserves
expansion or avoidance, depending.

Yeah. The trick is to know which initialisms do in fact enjoy
widespread use and recognition. Your mileage in that respect
appears to differ from mine, and from that of another poster.

Certainly, expansion upon request
without any snarkiness involving "STFW" or "GIYF" or similarly; a
posted expansion saves everyone else who comes along from making the
same web search, a wasteful duplication of unnecessary effort if ever
there was one. In any event, as soon as you have a request for
clarification to which you respond with anything that includes or
implies the word "google" you've already failed at your original goal,
that of communicating clearly. If you ended up communicating in such a
way that it cannot be interpreted without resort to a web search and
accompanying task switching and other headaches (except, of course,
for us poor saps stuck using google groups for whom there's no task
switching involved), then you've failed to communicate clearly.

You have a point here -- that it's useful to point out to someone
using a particular initialism that it might not be as well-known
as he/she thought. I dunno. I think in most situations, when
I run across a term I don't understand I try to look it up rather
than posting "what did you mean?" Your mileage apparently varies.

Of course, some things necessitate arcane terminology to communicate
precisely, and if precision is needed then arcane and obscure words
cannot be avoided. Using such gratuitously where you can communicate
just as clearly without them is, on the other hand, just plain
rude.

Good that you put in that "", or this would be an insult to which
I would have to reply .... Nah, I don't really play by those rules.

If I were playing by those rules, though ....

In case you feel the temptation to use some form of obscurity again,
you may want to consider the section below.

[ snip more condescending advice implying that I can't write ]

* People who insult others are jerks.

'Nuff said?

More than enough, in this newsgroups, I'd say.

All this for a use of an initialism I don't even use very often,
or particularly like. As I understand it, it's a reference to
a TV show I was never a fan of [1]. To bring it full circle:
NTTAWWT [2].

[1] "Seinfeld".

[2] "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That". In case anyone
missed it upthread. Here the "That" refers to being a fan, or
not, of the TV show.

 

[blmblm]

[ snip ]

If I were playing by those rules, though ....

In case you feel the temptation to use some form of obscurity again,
you may want to consider the section below.

[ snip more condescending advice implying that I can't write ]

[ snip ]

More than enough, in this newsgroups, I'd say.

Aarrggh .... "Newsgroup", of course.

Skitt's law in action? Sort of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skitt's_law

Amazing how this kind of thing makes it through a cursory
proofreading and then jumps out at me when I look one more time
at the post as delivered by my news server.

 

[Twisted]

I do -- and I find that particular old adage moderately annoying,
because I can't imagine how anyone can function at all without
making *some* assumptions. The trick, of course, is to know
which ones might be faulty.

True enough.

Could be. I'm only aware of one expansion, and it's the one in
the first hit my Google search found. If it had occurred to me
that someone might interpret my words as you apparently did --
*a* definition, but not one that's applicable -- I'd have tried
to express my thoughts more precisely, perhaps as "the definition
I had in mind."

And a user who finds multiple possible expansions and lacks the power
of telepathy will have some difficulty knowing which of the expansions
is actually the one you had in mind.

Admittedly this is more likely to be the case the shorter the acronym.

Yeah. The trick is to know which initialisms do in fact enjoy
widespread use and recognition. Your mileage in that respect
appears to differ from mine, and from that of another poster.

There's no trick; it's simply a matter of what's in the FAQs -- a) the
original news.admin.newusers FAQ with the "classics" (LOL, AFAIK,
etc.); and b) the FAQ for the specific newsgroup. If it's not in
either, or in constant use in the group, it's safe to assume a
substantial fraction of your audience don't know what it is and, more
to the point, *un*safe to assume otherwise. Here for example LOL
(n.a.n FAQ), cljp (local vernacular), and JSP (domain knowledge) ought
to be safe.

You have a point here -- that it's useful to point out to someone
using a particular initialism that it might not be as well-known
as he/she thought. I dunno. I think in most situations, when
I run across a term I don't understand I try to look it up rather
than posting "what did you mean?" Your mileage apparently varies.
<shrug>

There's also the wasteful duplication of effort angle. Lots of people
separately looking the thing up versus one clarifying post by the
original author, who already knows what the answer is and does not
need to look anything up at all. It's clear which is the more
efficient use of person-hours.

[ snip more condescending advice implying that I can't write ]

Actually, it was intended as humor, which should have been apparent as
they all violate the same rule they state (and so do all of their
brethren at the linked sites).

All this for a use of an initialism I don't even use very often,
or particularly like. As I understand it, it's a reference to
a TV show I was never a fan of [1]. To bring it full circle:
NTTAWWT [2].

[1] "Seinfeld".

[2] "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That". In case anyone
missed it upthread. Here the "That" refers to being a fan, or
not, of the TV show.

So the likely cause was using newsgroup-local jargon (from
rec.fan.something I suppose) in the wrong newsgroup. I doubt the other
newsgroup would find a post mentioning but not explaining JSP to be
very clear and understandable either -- it cuts both ways.

 

[Twisted]

I'm not all that big on acronyms myself though. The first time I saw
"LOL", I thought to myself, WTF?

Cute.

 

[blmblm]

On Aug 24, 6:35 am, (e-mail address removed) <[email protected]> wrote:

[ snip]

And a user who finds multiple possible expansions and lacks the power
of telepathy will have some difficulty knowing which of the expansions
is actually the one you had in mind.

Admittedly this is more likely to be the case the shorter the acronym.

I lack the patience to look through more than about the first
half dozen search results, but they at least are all the meaning
I had in mind. So I think in this particular case the risk of
multiple meanings and ambiguity is quite small. Your point stands

There's no trick; it's simply a matter of what's in the FAQs -- a) the
original news.admin.newusers FAQ with the "classics" (LOL, AFAIK,
etc.); and b) the FAQ for the specific newsgroup. If it's not in
either, or in constant use in the group, it's safe to assume a
substantial fraction of your audience don't know what it is and, more
to the point, *un*safe to assume otherwise. Here for example LOL
(n.a.n FAQ), cljp (local vernacular), and JSP (domain knowledge) ought
to be safe.

I don't know how many people would think to look at the n.a.n. FAQ
for an authoritative list of "everyone should recognize this"
initialisms. It didn't occur to me, anyway. Maybe it should have.
I probably did read that FAQ at some point, but much too long
ago to have much memory of it.

You have a point here -- that it's useful to point out to someone
using a particular initialism that it might not be as well-known
as he/she thought. I dunno. I think in most situations, when
I run across a term I don't understand I try to look it up rather
than posting "what did you mean?" Your mileage apparently varies.
<shrug>

There's also the wasteful duplication of effort angle. Lots of people
separately looking the thing up versus one clarifying post by the
original author, who already knows what the answer is and does not
need to look anything up at all. It's clear which is the more
efficient use of person-hours.

[ snip more condescending advice implying that I can't write ]

Actually, it was intended as humor, which should have been apparent as
they all violate the same rule they state (and so do all of their
brethren at the linked sites).

Well, you did put a "" at the end. And my "snip more condescending
advice" remark was -- well, not meant as humor, exactly, but as a
hypothetical "what I would say if [ something not true ]."

Someone else, in some other thread, mentioned appreciating your
humor. I'm wondering now whether some of what seems to me to be
angry shouting might really be humor I didn't get. Hm.

All this for a use of an initialism I don't even use very often,
or particularly like. As I understand it, it's a reference to
a TV show I was never a fan of [1]. To bring it full circle:
NTTAWWT [2].

[1] "Seinfeld".

[2] "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That". In case anyone
missed it upthread. Here the "That" refers to being a fan, or
not, of the TV show.

So the likely cause was using newsgroup-local jargon (from
rec.fan.something I suppose) in the wrong newsgroup. I doubt the other
newsgroup would find a post mentioning but not explaining JSP to be
very clear and understandable either -- it cuts both ways.

Well, *NOW* you're impugning my honor -- suggesting that I read
rec.fan.something?! Sort of a . I don't remember where I
picked up this particular now-starting-to-irritate-me initialism,
but I'm pretty sure it can't have been rec.fan.anything, because
aside from a couple of possible "let's see what this is" forays,
I've never followed any of those groups.

Sometimes the cause you find likely isn't the actual cause. Hm.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

Cute.

It reminds me of the biggest laugh I ever had from an API. Let's face it,
there's usually not a lot of comedy potential there. It was a simple ISAM
library for C, and all of the error functions had a wtf_ prefix.

I didn't get the joke until the first error popped up, at which point I
spoke the three magic words aloud, and the meaning of those wtf_ prefixes
became crystal clear.

sherm--

 

[Mike Schilling]

It reminds me of the biggest laugh I ever had from an API. Let's face it,
there's usually not a lot of comedy potential there. It was a simple ISAM
library for C, and all of the error functions had a wtf_ prefix.

I didn't get the joke until the first error popped up, at which point I
spoke the three magic words aloud, and the meaning of those wtf_ prefixes
became crystal clear.

RSX-11M (a real-time OS for PDP-11s) had standard error codes for OS and IO
failures, all of which were small negative integers with symbolic names
IE.xxx and common short descriptions . One of the networking errors was

-69 IE.NFW Path lost to partner

 

[Twisted]

I lack the patience to look through more than about the first
half dozen search results, but they at least are all the meaning
I had in mind. So I think in this particular case the risk of
multiple meanings and ambiguity is quite small. Your point stands
in general, though. <shrug>

Fair enough.

I don't know how many people would think to look at the n.a.n. FAQ
for an authoritative list of "everyone should recognize this"
initialisms. It didn't occur to me, anyway. Maybe it should have.
I probably did read that FAQ at some point, but much too long
ago to have much memory of it.

I think it *was* considered recommended reading by all usenet newbies
once. All evidence suggests that that is no longer the case
however. (Not directed at you so much as at a vast number of other
usenet posters)

Someone else, in some other thread, mentioned appreciating your
humor. I'm wondering now whether some of what seems to me to be
angry shouting might really be humor I didn't get. Hm.

Perhaps. It seems some stuff is misinterpreted as being angrier than
it is. But as a rule, if I appear to be attacking some jerk like Joe
Attacki, while I may be employing humor it is generally true that I'm
also indeed attacking. I tend not to pull my punches when
sufficiently provoked by someone whose behavior is clearly malicious
and destructive.

All this for a use of an initialism I don't even use very often,
or particularly like. As I understand it, it's a reference to
a TV show I was never a fan of [1]. To bring it full circle:
NTTAWWT [2].
[1] "Seinfeld".
[2] "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That". In case anyone
missed it upthread. Here the "That" refers to being a fan, or
not, of the TV show.

So the likely cause was using newsgroup-local jargon (from
rec.fan.something I suppose) in the wrong newsgroup. I doubt the other
newsgroup would find a post mentioning but not explaining JSP to be
very clear and understandable either -- it cuts both ways.

Well, *NOW* you're impugning my honor -- suggesting that I read
rec.fan.something?! Sort of a . I don't remember where I
picked up this particular now-starting-to-irritate-me initialism,
but I'm pretty sure it can't have been rec.fan.anything, because
aside from a couple of possible "let's see what this is" forays,
I've never followed any of those groups.

This is odd. What newsgroup would it have been, if not
rec.fan.sinefeld or whatever the name was? You implied that you ran
across the wacky acronym in a pop culture newsgroup after all; most of
those are rec.fan groups.

And it still stands that you apparently thought it had more widespread
Usenet currency, when as it turns out it doesn't...

Sometimes the cause you find likely isn't the actual cause. Hm.

Is this a veiled insult? Or just something meant to be innocuous that
can be interpreted less charitably?

 

[blmblm]

So, you're back from wherever ...

On Aug 24, 11:11 am, (e-mail address removed) <[email protected]>
wrote:

[ snip ]

All this for a use of an initialism I don't even use very often,
or particularly like. As I understand it, it's a reference to
a TV show I was never a fan of [1]. To bring it full circle:
NTTAWWT [2].

[1] "Seinfeld".

[2] "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That". In case anyone
missed it upthread. Here the "That" refers to being a fan, or
not, of the TV show.

So the likely cause was using newsgroup-local jargon (from
rec.fan.something I suppose) in the wrong newsgroup. I doubt the other
newsgroup would find a post mentioning but not explaining JSP to be
very clear and understandable either -- it cuts both ways.

Well, *NOW* you're impugning my honor -- suggesting that I read
rec.fan.something?! Sort of a . I don't remember where I
picked up this particular now-starting-to-irritate-me initialism,
but I'm pretty sure it can't have been rec.fan.anything, because
aside from a couple of possible "let's see what this is" forays,
I've never followed any of those groups.

This is odd. What newsgroup would it have been, if not
rec.fan.sinefeld or whatever the name was? You implied that you ran
across the wacky acronym in a pop culture newsgroup after all; most of
those are rec.fan groups.

I said that I had run across this usage in other people's posts.
No mention of where. I'm not sure how you'd get from that an
implication that it was in a pop-culture newsgroup. I don't
really follow any of those either, at least by my definition of
pop culture.

But rather than speculate about where this silly thing is used,
how about some data .... Doing a search in Google Groups for
NTTAWWT, sorting by date, choosing the first 100 hits, and
listing newsgroups in alphabetical order, I get this:

alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
alt.fan.kieran-snyder
alt.fan.letterman
alt.religion.kibology
alt.sports.baseball.atlanta-braves
alt.sports.baseball.ny-mets
alt.sports.football.nfl.chicago-bears
alt.sports.hockey.nhl.vanc-canucks
alt.usage.english
comp.lang.java.programmer
rec.motorcycles.dirt
rec.music.gdead
rec.skiing.alpine
rec.skiing.backcountry
rec.sport.football.college
The Free Speech Political Forum

Seems like kind of a range to me, with some pop-culture groups,
some not.

cljp, of course, appears in the list because of this thread.
The only other one I follow is alt.usage.english.

For what it's worth.

And it still stands that you apparently thought it had more widespread
Usenet currency, when as it turns out it doesn't...

I don't know how you get that. *You* don't recognize it, but another
poster in this thread did (Kurt).

Is this a veiled insult? Or just something meant to be innocuous that
can be interpreted less charitably?

The latter -- well, using my definition of "insult" anyway.

Sometimes when you (and that's a generic you) make a guess about
something, even a very logical guess, it turns out to be wrong.
I could make a guess, for example, that you (Twisted) are male,
based on the fact that everyone refers to you as "he" and you
don't correct them. But I don't have any way to know for sure,
and I recognize that there's some possibility that I'm wrong, and
if that turned out to be the case, I'd probably just say "well,
that's interesting" and try to remember the information for future
reference, without thinking that the person who pointed out my
error had insulted me. Perhaps your mileage varies, as they say.