|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I realize that, but I'm also telling you it won't magically do anything for you. I'm not saying you shouldn't find "some" metrics though. I'm saying, you're gonna find out yours will most likely be different anyway.
Again, you can have no idea what it'll do for me. I didn't say why I wanted them. Perhaps it was just curiosity or my kids have a project or I have invented the next Farcebook. You have no idea.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And it's not cheesy,
Oh yes it was: cheesy and lecturing and vomitus and I didn't ask you for advice. If I wanted life coaching I would have asked for it. I didn't, so why did you feel the need to offer it? Arrogance, perhaps?
Jeremy Falcon wrote: the millionaires I've met
Jeremy Falcon wrote: May not wanna start by dissing someone with some experience in that arena who's trying to help.
LOL. That was hilarious. I have no idea who or what you think you are but it is of little or no consequence to me and, as far as "dissing" you goes, home boy, take it that you have been mightily dissed.
|
|
|
|
|
You just like to argue and get pissy over nothing. I'm not wasting my time talking to a child (that's you) like this. Have a nice day and good luck with whatever you're doing.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You just like to argue and get pissy over nothing.
No, I just don't want to be lectured on life by someone who does not know me. It's like being accosted in the street by an evangelist. It's arrogant and pompous and never ends well.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Have a nice day and good luck with whatever you're doing.
Thanks. Mind if I give you some life tips? For instance, pissing someone off because you think you know better than everyone else. Don't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
You're way too sensitive.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it this way. I asked if anyone knew where I could possibly find some info. There are 3 possible answers to this question: No: which means you won't answer anyway; Yes: which means you give me a link to some information that might be helpful or Jokey: you take the piss out of my question (very acceptable).
What you don't do is answer the question with a lecture on how to live life. Why would you expect anyone to react with anything less than disdain if you are arrogant enough to think you know the person well enough to a) believe they need the lecture or b) to have the gall to deliver it.
The sensitivity appears to be all you not seeing that your behavior is arrogant, pompous and unwanted. But, since you are like that, I suspect you won't change.
So, have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not reading this. I've lost interest. You can have the last word in all the replies you want after this if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. See ya.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: Jeremy Falcon wrote: There's way too many variables involved.
Really? I never knew that. Surprised you didn't ask how many variables there are.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: 42 Although that is true, my comment was actually an inside "joke" with Mark.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
He'd have to prove the existence of the variables.
|
|
|
|
|
Extrapolation will be required, however, publicly traded companies file periodic reports from which ballpark data can be obtained. If you're lucky, privately held companies have one or more publicly held competitors and those competitors usually mention some of their competition's numbers in their filings. See here:
SEC.gov | EDGAR | Search Tools:
http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm
Once you know when the company started, for example, you might still be able to find old business articles about them on the Internet.
Good luck!
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
Perfect: thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not interested in submitting a tip, just felt a need to share. This code is nothing really special, but is kind of cool.
I'm working on an app at work that requires me to sum and average certain properies of objects in a list, one property at a time. These values can be either int or double. I wasn't looking forward to writing a method for each possible property, so I decided to use reflection to help.
In order to black-box as much of the code as possible and minimize the apparent exposed footprint of the list, I implemented a series of overloaded methods which the programmer can call without being concerned (beyond catching/ignoring an exception regarding the type of the property being summed.
Once case where an exception might be thrown is if the specified property does not exist in the target class. For this, I implemented a simple InvalidType class.
public class InvalidType
{
}
Next, I created a method that retreives the named propertys type:
private Type GetPropertyType(string propertyName)
{
Type type = typeof(InvalidType);
try
{
type = typeof(MyItemClass).GetProperty(propertyName).PropertyType;
}
catch (Exception)
{
}
return type;
}
Then I created the overloaded methods. The gist is that I want to sum a property in bunch of items in a list, and then (optionally) average the total. This called for four public overloads that look something like this:
public int GetMonthValues(string column, int year, int month, out int total)
{
double average;
double dblTotal;
int count = 0;
total = 0;
count = GetMonthValues(column, year, month, out total, out dblTotal, out average);
return count;
}
These public overloads take care of validating the that the property type matches the intended total parameter's type. The three remaining overloads have the following prototypes:
public int GetMonthValues(string column, int year, int month, out double total)
public int GetMonthValues(string column, int year, int month, out int total, out double average)
public int GetMonthValues(string column, int year, int month, out double total, out double average)
Since most of you are honest-to-god programmers, I don't feel a need to show you the bodies of those methods and assume you can interpolate their contents.
Finally, I have a private overload of GetMonthValues that does all of the heavy lifting. I made it private because I could think of no valid reason that the programmer would need both an integer and a double version of the same totalled property.
private int GetMonthValues(string column, int year, int month, out int intTotal, out double dblTotal, out double average)
{
int count = 0;
intTotal = 0;
dblTotal = 0d;
average = 0d;
List<MyItemClass> itemList = GetItems(month, year);
count = itemList.Count;
Type propertyType = GetPropertyType(column);
if (propertyType == typeof(int))
{
intTotal = itemList.Sum(x => (int)(x.GetType().GetProperty(column).GetValue(x, null)));
average = ((double)intTotal / count);
}
else if (propertyType == typeof(double))
{
dblTotal = itemList.Sum(x => (double)(x.GetType().GetProperty(column).GetValue(x, null)));
average = (dblTotal / count);
}
else
{
throw new Exception("Specified property name either does not exist or of an unsupported type.");
}
return count;
}
Caveat: I have not yet tested this code, but it does compile, and I would be kinda surprised if it didn't work the first time.
I could abstract this out even more and make a method or two static, but I am essentially pretty lazy (which is also why this wasn't submitted as a tip) and won't do it unless it becomes obvious that it would be "better" to do it that way.
Maybe later, I'll share my simple WPF Wizard control...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
modified 10-Oct-14 10:58am.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: just felt a need to share
That's the lot of us programmers : we sometimes do miracles, and there is nobody around who could even start to understand why that piece of code is a treasure.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, after looking at the code, I relealized I don't need to validate the property type in the public methods, and can simply handle it in the private method...
EDIT============
Fixed the original message to reflect this change.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I have not yet tested this code, but it does compile
Ship it!
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Ship it! ...to a mission critical process... located on the other side of the world... run by people who do not speak your language.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
Implement the go live on a Friday afternoon at 1 minute to leaving time......then run quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
..again?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not a common question to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
This campaign[^] is to get students pissing in the shower each morning to save water.
Something I've been doing for years.
But I can't help but think the final image they used in the story is somewhat unfortunate.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
I have no clue about the answer to this, but wouldn't running the shower for an extra 20 seconds (or however long it takes one to relieve) waste more water than a low-flow toilet flush? Or are they actually expecting students of all people - especially in the morning - to multitask?
|
|
|
|
|