|
February 01, 2005
URL:http://www.drdobbs.com/letters/184405979
Dear DDJ,
I'd like to offer a different perspective on Ed Nisley's "Shibboleth" column in the April 2004 issue. I've been working in the tech industry, first as a UNIX (mostly SunOS/Solaris) system administrator and later as a web application programmer, for 11 years, in the Silicon Valley.
It seems to me that there are some shibboleths that distinguish between east coast and west coast techies, because my experience differs somewhat from Ed's in a few respects:
And a few things Ed's column made me think of:
William R. Ward
Database Systems
Dear DDJ,
The "Database Systems" article by Shasha and Bonnet (DDJ, December 2004) was an excellent description of some of the pitfalls of databases and their use. Although it has probably already been pointed out, Listing One, as is, would mean that Bob and Alice are surely headed to divorce court. However, if we change the second executeUpdate statement to read nbrows = stmt.executeUpdate(tosavings), we may well save their marriage.
George B. Durham
Dough, Ray, Me
Dear DDJ,
In a letter to the editor December 2004, Remi Ricard complains that si rather than ti is the seventh solfege note of the scale. Here is an excellent page on the subject—http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/ encyclopedia/s/so/solfege.html. I think ti has precedence and comes from the original Italian.
Galt Barber
Do Re Mi II
Dear DDJ,
Who cares what the French say (Do Re Mi was invented by an Italian, to start with), when the correct American way of saying is: fa-so-la-ti-do. And Rodgers and Hammerstein are not to blame for this: That honor goes to one John Curwen of Heckmondwike, West Yorkshire (1816-1880), who modified the solfege so that every note would start with a different letter. The lesson to be learned from this: Why listen to your teacher, when you can look it up in the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfege/).
Jost Riedel
The Numbers Game
Dear DDJ,
Jonathan Erickson's characterization of the Bureau of Labor Statistics employees who produce employment statistics as "crooked" is outrageous and totally unfounded ("Editorial," DDJ, November 2004). I work as a consultant with employees of federal statistical agencies including the BLS. I know of no instance of fabrication or illegality in creation of employment statistics that would support his slur. Integrity requires you either substantiate your allegation or retract it and apologize in print.
Seth Grimes
Jonathan responds: Thanks for your note Seth, and I appreciate your taking the time to write. It sounds like that you're clearly more an expert in statistical analysis than I, but I'll do the best I can here. In particular, I'd point to two recent reports out of the BLS: In the July "birth/death" adjustment, the BLS added 182,000 jobs to avoid reporting a net job loss of more than 100,000 for June. Moreover, in its "payroll" surveys, the BLS excludes proprietors, self-employed, farm workers, and domestic workers. Considering the ever increasing number of freelancers and consultants due to full-time employment loss, this seems disingenuous and designed to spread erroneous information. And as I mentioned in my editorial, the difference between either 23,200 or 51,800 lost jobs in Missouri is significant, particularly since the "adjustment" was made so quickly. It is interesting how the changes are always down in numbers when it comes to reporting job losses in an election year. They're never adjusted upwards. I'm sure there are similar scenarios. So yes, the pattern does suggest that something is going on—that the numbers are being tweaked for whatever reasons. In no way did I imply—nor do I believe—that all of the hard-working employees of the BLS are crooked. I respect their work and the effort they put forward. That said, someone, somewhere, somehow does seem to be adjusting the numbers for whatever purposes. Thanks again and I hope I have addressed some of your concerns.
DDJ
Terms of Service | Privacy Statement | Copyright © 2024 UBM Tech, All rights reserved.