Matt's Book Reviews

Emergent Design - Scott L. Bain

Matt — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:36:34 GMT

Copyright: 2008

Publisher: Addison-Wesley

ISBN: 978-0-321-50936-9

"Emergent Design: The Evolutionary Nature of Professional Software Development" is a must read for anyone in the software development field. Whether you are a manager, a developer or a consultant, this book will help you view the profession differently. Scott does an incredible job of being a down-to-earth visionary... someone who can see things clearly from 50,000 feet, but has the technical legs to stand on the ground and look the code in the eye. What follows here does the book no justice but is a limited compilation of nuggets gathered from the book.

What is is all about?

What is software development all about? What is this profession that I work in really trying to do? Where did we come from to get where we are at? Scott manages to supply answers to these questions without seeing to struggle with platitudes and lofty language. At it's core, software development is a profession but so far it has not seen itself as one nor has it behaved as one. Scott argues convincingly that we need to get our act together and start acting more professionally.

Scott points out that software projects fail far too often. But in order to understand what failure is, we must first know what it means to succeed. He offers these benchmarks for success:

Software is ready on time
Software costs what it is supposed to cost
Software does what it needs to do
Software is not crippled by bugs
Software gets used and makes a positive impact

Some Notes

Business communication is about human interaction and this is inherently lossy
The lesson of Pandora's box is not that Hope is good.. but that it is the greatest of evils
Object Oriented principles came out of some of the best principles of procedural design
- Small methods
- Encapsulate / protect the data
Patterns themselves should be flexible
- Need to understand them well
- Need to know forces and constraints

The Great Coupling Debate

Take any two object oriented programmers at random and chances are they disagree on some aspect of coupling. What constitutes coupling, how much coupling is bad, the best way to decouple your code... just forming a list like this would be cause for debate among some programmers.

Scott has a different take on coupling. He points out that while most developers talk about "loose" and "tight" coupling when they debate, these terms aren't very useful. More useful terminology would be "intentional" vs. "unintentional" coupling. His point is that you cannot avoid coupling entirely. So when you have coupling in your software, it should be there on purpose.

Unfortunately this part of the book is one where I had to wonder where Scott's editors were at when they read this chapter. Don't get me wrong, he was right on with his notions of coupling in software... but his entire example of "Driveway Coupling" made me cringe.

In short, Scott talks about buying a car and finding out that he couldn't put the car in reverse. When he called the dealer he found out that there was an interlock that kept you from putting the car in gear unless your foot was on the brake. Scott wrongly interprets this as "poor coupling". He reasoned that "the brake system and the transmission do not, logically, interconnect." His thought is that what the engineers really wanted was to keep people from having the gas pressed when they put the car in gear so they should have put a sensor on the gas pedal, not the brake pedal.

In reality, what the engineers wanted to ensure was that the car would not start moving unexpectedly when the transmission was disengaged from "park". If you put your car in neutral by accidentally bumping the lever, your car could roll down a hill without ever touching the gas pedal. Since small children can't reach the shift lever and the brake pedal at the same time, they can't accidentally start a car rolling down the driveway.

Why the editors let this get printed is beyond me... surely editors aren't just glorified spell checkers are they? :)

More Notes

Difficulty in testing is indicative of problems in your design
Perspectives in OO
- Conceptual - What am I responsible for?
- Specification - How am I used by others?
- Implementation - How do I fulfill my responsibilities?
If your sub-class adds public methods, you are no longer polymorphic
Separate creation from use.
- If an interface changes, you should change either the factory or the client, but not both
Encapsulate by Policy, Reveal by Need

Conclusion

Quite honestly, most of the books I review on this site I do not own. This is one of the ones that I have access to, in fact because of my generous boss we have two copies of this book in our office. I believe every software shop, whether you are an Agile shop or not, should have at least one copy of this book around. If you have developers who are struggling with the switch from procedural to object oriented, get them this book. If you have developers who are struggling with wanting to "do their own thing" and prove their worth as a programmer, get them this book. If you have developers who simply want to be better at what they do, get them this book. Ok... enough said, I liked the book!

Geekonomics - David Rice

Matt — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:27:42 GMT

Published: 2008

Publisher: Addison-Wesly

ISBN: 0-321-47789-8

Full disclosure: I am a software developer that is generally a free-market conservative. David Rice writes as though software developers are incompetantly nefarious drolls who have created a market failure that requires heavy government intervention to protect the masses. If that sounds like "over the top" rhetoric, wait until you read his book. Peppering his prose with emotionally charged language like "sad irony", "public ignorance" and "shockingly", and of course his most quoted phrase "six billion crash test dummies", David Rice leaves the reader with the feeling they have just read the latest in best selling "pop-business".

The Foundation of Civilization

The book starts with a captivating look at the beginnings of the use of Portland cement. In the mid-1800's an engineer named Joseph Bazalgette, was commissioned to rebuild the London sewer system. He selected the relatively new Portland cement formula as his primary building material. In order to ensure quality construction, Bazalgette instituted a regimen of testing and rigorous quality controls that helped ensure that his project was a long-lasting success.

From here, Rice draws an analogy between the pervasiveness of Portland cement in today's physical world, and the pervasiveness of software in today's virtual world. The major premise of Rice's book is that software is the underpinning of modern society and that it is inherently weak. He believes that this weakness is detrimental to humanity and that the market has failed to correct the problem.

To be fair, I agree with Rice that software development as a profession has some very serious problems. At the same time, it is an incredibly young profession and to claim that it is in as poor a state as Rice claims is a bit presumptious and premature. I believe the market should be given a chance to calm some of the troubled waters before taking some of the more drastic measures proposed in this book.

Cost of Switching

One of the problems that the software market faces is the consumers choice of features over quality. This choice is, I believe, due to assymetric information. Consumers believe that higher prices in software are due primarily to adding new features. This leads to the assumption that if you are going to pay a lot for something, you better get a lot of features! Software developers however realize that adding new features is not as costly as increasing the overall quality of the application.

On this much, I believe, Rice and I agree. Rice's solution however is to call this a market failure. He believes that people would not pay for quality even if they knew how much it cost. I tend to trust people more than that. I believe that if the average consumer understood that the higher quality software with a smaller feature set really was a good value, they would make the appropriate choice for their situation.

This is an important distinction. I believe consumers should be able to choose poor quality if they want, as long as they understand what is meant by quality. To draw an analogy (one that Rice uses in his book), look at automobiles. There is a broad continuum of quality when it comes time to purchase a new car. Quality in vehicles can mean anything from softer seats to a higher crash test rating. It is up to the consumer to decide what kind of quality is important if any.

Rice argues that if the government had not stepped in back in the 60's, automobile manufacturers would still be creating the same quality vehicles with regard to crash safety. I am not entirely certain this is true. He points to the 5 star Safety Rating System as being a shining example of government intervention to induce better safety. Truthfully I don't know that I have ever actually known the Safety Rating of any of the vehicles I have bought and of the dozens of car commercials I have seen that claimed one, I couldn't tell you which ones had what ratings. I don't believe the 5 Star Rating System communicates anything to consumes about the quality of the vehicles.

I can tell you however that I have the perception that certain vehicles are "safer". For instance my personal feeling (without doing any research) is that probably Volvo and Mercedes are some of the safer vehicles to buy. However, I don't own either of these vehicles, nor have I ever. Because I don't value "crash safety" as much as I do other kinds of quality.

The same situation will apply eventually in the software world. At some point, consumers are going to realize that while Software A might have pretty charts and graphs, they really don't need them. Instead what they need is Software B, which while lacking the needless charts and graphs, does include built-in encryption of sensitive business data.

David Rice would like for all software to have all the highest quality. I would like for consumers to be able to tell the difference and be educated to make the correct choice for their situation. I trust the consumer, Rice doesn't trust the market.

National Security

Not to belabor the point, but an example of David Rice's wild rhetoric was in his section on Information Warfare. He talks in some detail about the efforts of nation-states to infiltrate each other's information systems in order to gain strategic, and possibly tactical advantages in the event of a more traditional war breaking out. He makes the following statement:

"This is what makes the growth of Information Warfare so disturbing-- nations sanctioning activities its own laws clearly criminalize."

My response to this was "duh!" What do you think spying as an entire class of activities is? If you conscientiously object to the art of spying, I can sympathize if not agree with you. But to act as though Information Warfare is a brand new set of sanctioned "activities [that we] criminalize" is a bit naive.

Government Is the Answer

If we were to agree that software as a market has failed, then what is the solution? A large portion of Rice's solution seems to lie in the seeking of relief in the courts. Given the apparently liberal bias of the author, it is not surprising that he argues against contractual protection for both consumers and producers, but argues instead for relief in tort. I personally find it absurd to think that the tort system is a more efficient leveler than the market, but the author seems to think it is plausible.

Towards the end of the book Rice draws a relation between regulating software development and regulating carbon emissions. I found it somewhat ironic that he would choose such a controversial model. There is considerable disagreement in the science world about the exact nature of the problem with carbon emissions, much less what the right solution is. Similarly, there is quite a bit of skepticism about the nature of the problem in software development. I am not sure it is a good idea to throw solutions against the wall to see which one sticks.

Sloppy Programmers are the Problem

I was not a software developer by profession prior to 2000 so I did not personally take offense to Rice's characterization of the Y2K problem, but I found it lacking insight. Rice blames the Y2K problem on "sloppy programmers" who "forgot" 2 decimal on their dates. This shows either a blatant disregard for reality or a serious lack of understanding of the history of the software profession. Rice is supposed to be an expert in the field so I will chalk this up to a blatant disregard for reality in order to prove his point.

Programmers did not "forget" to put the first 2 digits on the year. The practice of using 2 digit years actually predates computer programming by quite a bit. But using only 2 digits was very important in the 60's and even into the 80's. Storage space, both memory and long term disk storage was extremely expensive. With today's technology it is difficult to imagine a time when saving 2 digits was important, however the fact remains, prior to the 80's it was incredibly important.

The Real Cost of Insecure Software

The sub-title of Rice's book is "The Real Cost of Insecure Software". He labors throughout the book to argue that the cost has been passed on to the consumer but should be assumed by the producers of software. Of course he understands that in doing so, the producers will pass the cost of writing "secure" software on to the consumer. He is correct in pointing out that this is not a zero-sum game. Placing the cost in the right place is an important thing for the efficiency of both the market and the consumers who run their business with the software.

What alarms me is one of Rice's arguments. He explores the possibility of two software companies, one a "socially responsible one" that writes good software that costs $100. Another one is apparently socially irresponsible and creates bad software for only $50. How, Rice asks, is the socially responsible company supposed to compete?

My immediate response would be to let the market decide. Consumers will eventually figure out which one delivers the most value.

The bigger question I have is this: Does Rice really think that the world can afford a doubling of the cost of software? Imagine every piece of software you own, from your operating system down to your photo editing software, doubling in price. Now imagine every business that is running software doubling their cost of software. Now imagine if those costs are passed on to you the consumer. In spite of Rice's alarmist rhetoric, I don't believe the world needs to spend twice as much on software in order to fix the problem.

Conclusion

Obviously I am not a big fan of David Rice after reading this book. He is a reasonably good writer who did quite a bit of research. Unfortunately he allowed his research to be tainted by a bias toward the extraordinary. I am sure this bias helped sell books... after all people would rather read about the world ending than about the slow and steady progress of humanity. That said, I think anyone in the software professions needs to read this book.

The Psychology of Everyday Things - Donald Norman

Matt — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:24:40 GMT

Published: 1988

Publisher: Basic Books Inc. New York

ISBN: 0-465-06709-3

Donald Norman provides an excellent treatise in the design issues surrounding usability. He focuses most of his effort on the design of physical products such as automobiles, home appliances and building components, however his attention to computer interaction design is very prescient considering the year of this book’s publishing.

VISIBILITY

One of the primary themes of the book is “visibility”… making known to users what actions are available as well as what effect those actions have. One side of visibility is the mapping of intended actions to actual operations. Designers need to keep in mind that users of their products are generally not intending to use their product. Instead, users are intending to perform some task and are using the product to accomplish this task. Thus the user has an image in their mind of what they are trying to accomplish. When they approach a product or computer program, the designer should present them with visual and / or audible cues to suggest which actions can be taken to accomplish the desired task.
On the flip side of the visibility spectrum is what is commonly known as feedback. When a user takes an action, either on a physical product or on a computer program, immediate and visible feedback should occur. This feedback should map back to the users intended action, not necessarily the designers view of the world.

PRINCIPLES

Some principles of good design that Donald Norman offers are:
1) Provide a good conceptual model
2) Make things visible
3) Good mappings between the model and what is visible
4) Feedback to the user
Some other general ideas offered are:
- It takes 6 tries to get a design right. (Don’t get emotionally attached to your first design)
- You should removed unused or unnecessary functions to simplify the interface
- Asking users for feedback is not enough. Users tend to blame themselves for problems rather than the product. You must OBSERVE them using the product.

ERRORS

Handling errors is an important matter in product design. There is an entire psychology of error that Norman explores. For many errors that occur during product or program usage, the user will tend to blame themselves, leading to the need for observation noted above. On the flip side, users who end up with many errors while using a product will blame the product quickly and it will be difficult to overcome this aversion to the technology later on.
For these reasons, Donald Norman believes that errors should be:
1) Easy to detect
2) Have minimal consequences
3) Effects should be reversible
One type of error that humans commit is called the “slip”. A “mistake” is when someone chooses the wrong goal. A slip on the other hand is when someone chooses the right goal, but chooses the wrong action to get there. These are the type of errors that designers can help with. Some types of slips are:
1) Capture errors (something else captures your attention)
2) Description errors (you mistake one thing for another)
3) Data driven errors (you are looking at something green and tell someone you have green eyes even though you don’t)
4) Associative activation (think Freud)
5) Loss of activation (forgetfulness)
6) Mode errors (you thought the program was in “edit” mode but it was in “play” mode)
To design for errors you should think of user errors as an attempt to do a task via actions that approximate the desired results.

FORCING FUNCTIONS

Forcing functions are times where you force the user to take an action or sequence of actions in order to keep them from making an error. Often users will find these annoying and will disable them because they don’t think they need them (I tend to disable UAC on Vista!) Forcing actions have a cost to the user that should be taken into account but they can be very useful in the right situation. Forcing actions take the following forms:
1) Interlock (force correct sequence)
2) Lock in (keep an operation going)
3) Lock out (keep a user from performing an action)

EASIER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER

Keyboard layouts have an interesting history. Norman goes into detail about this history but the highlights are that the QWERTY keyboard layout was originally derived from the mechanical limitations of the typewriter. It was necessary to keep the bars that lifted the typefaces to the paper from interfering with common letter combinations being typed too quickly. Interestingly, even though the physical limitations no longer apply, the QWERTY layout has proven to be one of the best for touch typists since the same letter combinations make it possible for one hand to prepare to type a letter even while the other hand is still typing the last one.
There is a keyboard layout that has been discovered to be better for touch typists than the QWERTY layout. The Dvorak keyboard layout is better (by about 10% for expert users) for speed and accuracy. Unfortunately, for behavior that must be learned (such as touch typing) easier is not always better. There is not enough benefit in switching to the new layout to justify the enormous amount of relearning that must be done by the millions of touch typists who are already familiar with the QWERTY keyboard.

DESIGNERS ARE NOT TYPICAL USERS

One thing that Norman stresses very strongly is that designers are NOT typical users. Designers should remember that just because something makes sense to them, it may not make sense to the typical user. One way to look at this dichotomy is as follows:
- Designers are experts at the device (knowledge of the product is in their head)
- Users are experts at the task (knowledge of the product is in the world)

7 STAGES OF ACTION

An interesting diagram that Norman uses to explain the cycle of user interaction starts with the user choosing a Goal. The goal is then translated into Intentions. These Intentions must be mapped onto possible Actions which are then Executed. After Execution, the nebulous concept of the The World (which represents the system the user is operating on) takes over and the user tries to get feedback. This feedback starts with the users Perception of the system state which is then Interpreted by the user. After Interpreting their Perception of the system state, the user Evaluates the feedback to see if what they did, got them closer to their Goal or not.
This leads to two Gulfs that designers need to bridge:
Gulf of Execution – is there an action available that maps to my intentions?
Gulf of Evaluation – Does the system provide mapping from the feedback to my intentions?

EASE OF USE

Answering these questions can lead towards better ease of use:
How easily can you…
- Determine functions
- Tell possible actions
- Map intentions to actions
- Perform an action
- Tell if the system is in the right state
- Map system state to the interpretation
- Tell the system state
Easy looking interfaces can make programs easier to use.
- Too many controls make it look complex
- Too few controls increase the mapping problem (what are the available actions?)
Solution: Group related controls and hide unused controls.

LEVERAGE

Designers can leverage several concepts to create better usability. One such concept is the notion of Power of Constraint. Norman uses and interesting exercise to demonstrate this one. Think of a word that describes a building material. You might come up with any number of words that match this one. Now come up with a word that rhymes with “eel”. You might think of a large number of words here as well. But if I ask you to think of a building material that rhymes with “eel” you will almost certainly think of the word “steel”. By constraining the available options on a two dimensional scale, you can greatly improve the mapping of a users intentions to available actions.
Another concept that Norman refers to is the Power of Knowledge in the world. There are two places that usable knowledge can live. It can live in your memory (either short term or long term) or it can live “in the world” (i.e. in a help manual, the user interface, a sign or on a label.) Putting the knowledge necessary to use your product in the right place is critical to making it easy to use. A general rule that Norman points out is that if a design relies on labels, it may well be a faulty design.
Ultimately, relying on memory, particularly for complex operations is not a good choice. In these cases, designing systems that can be logically figured out is the way to go. Even here though, you need to design systems with either a narrow or a shallow decision tree. If you have a decision tree that is both wide and deep, it will be very difficult for the average user to figure it out.
Making computer systems explorable is a key concept. In order to do this:
1) Each states available actions should be visible
2) Effects of actions should be immediate and visible
3) Actions should be reversible

CREEPING FEATURISM

In order to keep products and programs from being too complex to be usable, Norman guards against what he calls “creeping featurism”. Just because you CAN do something with a product or program doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. Just because a user asks for a feature doesn’t mean it should be added. Adding too many features adds complexity to a product that may or may not need to be there.
Many programmers try to use program settings to make their program be “all things to all people.” Unfortunately this bypasses the power of using affordances (signals of available actions) and constraints (signals of what is possible to do) to limit the complexity of a program.

7 PRINCIPLES OF SIMPLIFYING TASKS

1) Use knowledge both in the world and in the head (in the right place!)
2) Simplify structure
3) Visibility!
4) Get mapping right
5) Exploit constraints
6) Design for error
7) Standardize (as a last resort!)

The Fountainhead -- Ayn Rand

Matt — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:26:12 GMT

Originally Published: 1943

Publisher: Plume (Centennial Edition)

ISBN: 0452286751

I tend to not read much fiction so when I do it is either a handful of authors that I know I like, or like this book, a recommended one. Recently I asked my boss, who I respect greatly, for some ideas on reading and research. He is a follower of Objectivism and recommended I read some of Ayn Rand's books. This was the first of the series he suggested I read.

The Book

If you are looking for true review of this work, I apologize that this will be brief. Rand tells a story that manages to be interesting even though, were you to read a short description of the plot, you likely wouldn't be interested. There are a few fascinating details here and there but mostly the novel revolves around the characters and their interaction. She is slow to develop the personalities and characters and she detracts from her purpose with some fitful dialogue in the beginning that is jarring for anyone wishing for a nice easy fiction read.

The saving grace of the book is the hidden pearls of exquisite prose that lie scattered throughout the pages of the book. Rand manages to evoke some incredible imagery from time to time which is something I always enjoy. Unfortunately these are highlights rather than the main fare of the book and neither the characters nor the plot really carry the book.

If you are simply looking for a novel to enjoy, I would suggest skipping this one. If you are looking for some insight into Ayn Rand and her philosophy then this is a good place to jump in.

The Philosophy

I have not studied any of Rand's other works nor do I know much about Objectivism so what I say here is truly the first impressions of someone being introduced to the ideas. About two-thirds of the way through the book, I wrote down a list of conflicts that I saw being developed in the novel.

Humanism vs. Theism
Invidiualism vs. Collectivism
Originalism vs. "Second handedness"
Self-sufficiency vs. Communism

Humanism vs. Theism

When my boss recommended the book to me, he mentioned that Ayn was an atheist. Knowing that I have a strong belief in God he felt he should warn me beforehand! I was surprised to note that Ayn wasn't truly an atheist in my opinion. Ayn is more of a humanist, the difference being that while atheists believe there is no God (or god), humanists believe that man (or mankind) is his own god (or God).

I always find it interesting when people like Rand devote such an intense energy to proving that Humanism makes more sense than Theism. She tries to contrast the two by saying that Theism requires its advocates to debase themselves and seek forgiveness from others for everything that they do. She fails to note that while many religions do strongly suggest that we should subject ourselves to a Higher Power, many teach that Man is made in the Image of God. If that is the case, then self-deprecation would actually be a negative reflection on God.

It is not that Mankind is a horrible Creation that reveals the depravity of Man but rather that God is so much greater as to reveal Man's shortcomings.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Throughout the Fountainhead, Rand points out that what we should truly admire is the accomplishment of the Individual rather than that of the Collective. I think that our society has gone too far toward admiration of the Collective, although I don't think you should ignore it. Individual accomplishment in our schools seems to have become a bad thing in the name of preserving self-esteem.

Self-esteem however seems like it should be a by-product of not just "being part of something greater" but it should also stem from your contribution. If that contribution stands above those around you, then there is nothing wrong with it being recognized as such.

On the flip side however, there are a great many "star athletes" whose arrogance seems to suggest that they alone are the reason for their team's success. There needs to be a healthy balance between the two extremes of invididualism and collectivism.

Originalism vs. Second Handedness

Another strong theme, perhaps even the one that Rand wanted most strongly to come across, was the idea that we shouldn't take all of our ideas from others. Throughout the plot she mocks those who like certain books or plays or architecture, only because others have praised it. She makes a hero out of those who stick by their ideas.

At one point one of the characters, Kent Lansing, says "Integrity is the ability to stand by an idea." On the surface I like that, although I think the definition falls a bit short of describing integrity fully. The idea that a person has an idea and they stick by it regardless of what others think is one that lends itself to creativity because you are willing to step out from the crowd and try something different.

It is foolish however to ignore the biblical premise that "there is nothing new under the sun." Whenever people talk about creative genius I wonder if perhaps they are missing something. What if the Wright brothers had not invented the airplane... would not someone soon after have figured it out? If Einstein hadn't developed his theories, wouldn't someone else have eventually come up with them?

I believe that creative genius is not the sign of someone who comes up with things all on their own that no one else ever could do. Rather I think creative genius is someone who makes a leap that others aren't ready for yet. They are people who discover, codify, theorize or otherwise synthesize information in such a way that it is "ahead of its time."

Self-sufficiency vs. Communism

Much has been written about the ideas of personal and societal motivation with regard to self-sufficiency and communism so I won't delve into it greatly here. I do however think it is interesting that in general, those nations with a greater inequality of distribution of wealth, tend to be better off as a whole than those nations with greater equality.

On a micro-scale I think this notion should be noted by businesses. Rewarding creative genius within an organization can create an atmosphere of self-sufficiency such that the entire business can be better off even though some individuals may feel slighted by the policies. One of the crushing weights on large businesses in America is the notion of "equality"... that all workers must be treated equally. Fair treatment is imperative, equal treatment is silly. Not all workers are equal.

Conclusion

These are just some general thoughts I had after reading Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead. Overall I thought the book was mediocre in quality. Some of the ideas and concepts expressed were outside the realm of what I would consider acceptable so I would have a difficult time recommending that anyone read this book.

Style - Joseph Williams

Matt — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:27:00 GMT

Copyright: 1995

Publisher: The University of Chicago Press

ISBN: 0-226-89915-2

Joseph Williams manages to present this textbook information in a very non-textbook-like manner. In Style: Towards Clarity and Grace he quickly covers the complex topic of writing with the ease of someone with a mastery of the subject. Using common sense, plenty of examples and a good sense of humor, Williams conveys his ideas with a delightful variety that makes the book a pleasure to read.

Clarity

Starting with some of the nitty-gritty, nuts and bolts of writing, Williams explains how clarity can come from sentence construction. He gives two principles of clarity:

Subjects of sentences should name the cast of characters
The verbs that go with those subjects should name the crucial actions of those characters

These simple principles are easy enough to remember and upon first reading might seem trivial. Simple yes. Trivial no. These principles are some of the foundation blocks that Williams uses throughout the book.

Cohesion

Writing clear sentences leads you to the beginning of the path of good writing. From there you must learn to string together well-formed sentences into a cohesive body of thoughts. Again, two principles apply for cohesion:

Put at the beginning of sentences the ideas with which the reader is most familiar
Put at the end of the senstences the newest or most surprising or most significant information

Organizing your thoughts in this fashion enables the reader to easily get in the flow of reading without too many pauses to figure out what you are trying to say. Williams speaks of "thematic signposts" that show up throughout a paragraph. These thematic signposts are what point a reader from one thought to the next as you progress through a paragraph of cohesive writing.

Stress

Related to the principles of cohesion are the principles of stress. By stress, Williams is referring to the emphasis that usually is "felt" at the end of a sentence. By making sure that you keep the stress of a sentence at the end, you give your reader a better rhythm. By placing your topics in the stress position, you make it plain what is most important in the paragraph.

Coherence

At the paragraph, document or book level, you should make sure that the topic is focused and coherent. Some principles around this are:

Consistent topic strings
Consistent thematic strings
Introduce a new topic or theme at the end of the introduction
There should usually be a single sentence that summarizes or articulates the point
The point should be located either at the end of the issue declaration or at the end of the discussion

Topics are what you are talking about in the sentences. Themes on the other hand are groups of conceptually related words that are typically used to describe or talk about your topic. These should be introduced at the end of the introduction, whether it is the introduction of a paragraph or a paper. The first part of your introduction should pull the reader in... get them started on the path. The introduction of the topic and theme put them at the beginning of the path. This constitutes the "issue".

Once you have introduced the issue, the rest of the paragraph is "discussion" about the issue. The "point" of the issue is the reason the writer is writing the paragraph. What is it you are writing for? That point represents the writers view of the issue and the discussion.

Concision

The most valuable section in the book for me was the chapter on Concision. Williams presents a number of strategies for reducing wordiness without losing meaning. He also points out that using too many words can actually reduce the meaning conveyed. Once again, two principles:

Compress what you mean
Don't state what the reader can easily infer

Conclusion

This book is a must-read for anyone that is interested in improving their written communication skills. I am not an accomplished writer by any means, however daily I use email and other written forms of communication to present ideas. Honing my ability to communicate via the written word is something I value strongly and this book was well worth the time spent reading.

The Google Story - David Vise

Matt — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:42:29 GMT

Copyright: 2005

Publisher: Delacorte Press

ISBN-10: 0-553-80457-X

ISBN-13: 978-0-553-80457-7

The Google Guys are fascinating to a lot of people and of course since I am a software developer they are intriguing to me on many levels. David Vise does a very good job of unveiling the facts and providing some insight into the world of Google. There is a touch of sycophancy in the tone of the book so I read it with the proverbial grain of salt, however true to his journalistic roots, Mr. Vise did portray at least some of the darker side of Google. While I use Google on a daily basis and still respect the work they have done, I think much of the praise and adulation heaped upon them is a little overdone.

Regular Guys

One of the myths that seems to persist with the Google Guys (Larry Page and Sergey Brin) is that they were just a couple of regular guys who made it big by working hard. The truth is that these two men were raised with extraordinary opportunities. I respect all that they have done and I truly believe that they have worked incredibly hard to get where they are today so I do not want to belittle their accomplishments in any way. The fact remains however that Larry's dad held one of the first Computer Science degrees ever granted by the University of Michigan along with a Ph.D. Sergey's parents were also highly educated with his father teaching mat at the University of Maryland and his mother working as a scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Both Larry and Sergey attended Montessori schools while young and both had conscientious parents who valued education which no doubt left an indelible impression on both young men.

The biographical background that David Vise explores in this book is very well written and very well researched. There are quotes from people such as Cub Scout leaders and other family members about their early lives. Some of this information is interesting while some of it is obviously geared at "getting quoted." It's always amazing how people look back and fix on the one thing that was a "true sign" of a childs gifts when at the time it was just another day in a kids life. For instance the account of Larry taking apart power tools with a screwdriver set might now seem to be an indication of his fascination for how things work... but in reality there are a lot of kids who do that, including my brothers and me. My own son took apart a hard drive when he was 9 or 10 just to "see where stuff got saved". I think most kids are naturally curious and fortunately for searchers everywhere, Larry and Sergey kept their curiosity going even after they got to school.

Brilliant Students

No one questions that Larry Page and Sergey Brin are smart guys. The account of their days at Standford is very interesting and Vise did a great job of keeping the narrative going while providing solid information to give insight into the minds and character of the Google Guys. Especially interesting was how the seed of the search engine idea grew out of their desire to "download the entire internet" and make it searchable. Larry Page came up with the concept of PageRank (with the help of course of others around him) and the name is a play on his name and the concept of "ranking" search results. The notion of ranking pages based on the number of links to them is a direct result of their strong educational background. Anyone who has done any research knows that the quality of a source for a research paper is determined largely by how often a particular author or paper is referenced or quoted elsewhere.

Do No Evil

One of the biggest PR coups in recent history has been Google's ability to convince the world that "Do No Evil" isn't just some corporate value statement mantra. (Let's be honest, how many corporations truly value the values in their "Values Statement"?) This is an important image for Google to maintain because in their fight against Microsoft, it is very easy to paint Microsoft as "The Bad Guys". As a software developer I am not a huge Microsoft fan but I am also pragmatic in acknowledging that most of the people who use computers in their homes today would not be if it weren't for the Windows operating system. Say what you want, Linux is free...and yet people still buy Windows. But regardless of their success, Microsoft is still easy to paint as the bad guy because of their legal troubles. Over and again we have seen the folks in Redmond show up on the evening news as the subject of this or that lawsuit or being investigated for this or that infraction of the law.

But the big question remains, Google claims to "do no evil" but do they? Well that depends. David Vise in this book gives a very compelling argument that most of the negativity around Google surrounded their IPO and he even makes it sound like mostly sour grapes from the Wall Street elite. However I think if any part of the book comes close to pandering, this part is the one. Larry and Sergey are undoubtedly very smart guys who know a lot about science, computers and search. What they don't know is business. Fortunately for them, if you have the right idea at the right time in the right place, you don't need to know business to make money. Not knowing business does not make them evil, however I believe in some cases they have inadvertantly "done evil" by not admitting they don't know business and letting the experts take care of it for them.

The IPO was a good example. Google wanted to "shake things up" and "do things their own way". According to Vise they didn't think that the way Wall Street did things made sense. So they came up with their own way of doing things and did everything they could to spite Wall Street and the SEC. The fact that they refused to change some things in their public filings smacks of hubris especially in light of the fact that the SEC is the "consumer advocate" of the investing world. By spiting the SEC they might as well have said "we don't care about the people who are investing in us." Admittedly they may see the SEC as being in the "back pocket" of Wall Street and therefore not worthy of protecting the investor.

The biggest evil I believe manifested itself in the fact that because of their bungles of the business end of the IPO, the initial stock price was lowered from the $130 range to the $85 range. Now as a stock market investor, that's a good thing considering what subsequently happened to the price of Google's stock. Think back however to the angel investors and family and friends that gave Sergey and Brin money to get started. The first computers had to be bought with someone's money, the first rent checks had to come from somewhere. Nowhere did I find in Vise's book that Sergey and Larry were waiting tables to make ends meet. That means someone, somewhere was paying their bills so they could chase their dreams. Those are the people who lost money when Larry and Sergey muffed the IPO...their shares weren't worth as much when they could finally get in the market.

Granted, no one is going to feel sorry for John Doerr and Michael Moritz who bought 23.89 million shares each for 49.5 cents each or even for Paul Ottelini who got his 65,000 shares for $35 each. They still make plenty of money on their options. In hindsight however, does it take very much business acumen to know that you should NOT do an interview for Playboy in the same year you are taking a company public? Was it worth it, or more to the point, was it not evil to take money out of the pockets of loyal employees like Charlie the cook who had to buy his stock options? Certainly no one feels sorry for all the millionaires that came out of the Google IPO but just because someone made a lot of money doesn't make it less evil that Larry and Sergey took money out of their pockets due to their personal hubris.

Then too there are the multiple investigations by the SEC into the options granting practices of Google. In some cases it was simple lack of good (or any) business practices that got them into trouble. In most cases however the irony of their woes is that the search engine company that hopes to make all the information in the world available to you on your desktop... didn't give out enough information about their own company. To this day, Google is often incredibly tight lipped about what they are doing and how they are going about it. In that sense, they are no different than their neighbors to the north in Redmond, they are ruthless in the business of shutting out the competition wherever it may be found.

Conclusion

This book is a "must read" for people who want to understand a little more about the Google Guys. I found it to be a very good and easy read. While I think the author is slightly too enamored with the Google Guys to really give them a truly fair treatment, the book still comes across as genuine enough to be on my book shelf.

"Money Mischief | Episodes in Monetary History" - Milton Friedman

Matt — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:12:44 GMT

Publisher: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

ISBN: 0-15-162042-3

From Stone Money to the "Cross of Gold", Friedman does his best to keep the reader interested in exchange rates, inflation and monetary policy in this excellent book. While injecting plenty of his own theory, philosophy and conjecture into the text, Friedman does a marvelous job of documenting the history of money as it relates to the supply of money. Beginning with a brief and yet solid background into what money really is he moves quickly into a primer of the supply and demand dynamics of money. From there he launches into several comprehensive historical accounts in which he explores what happens when the supply and demand of money get out of sync with the monetary policies of the various government.

Stone Money

Like me, you may have already heard the story of the island with stone money. The Caroline Islands in Micronesia have an island call Uap or Yap. In 1903 the American anthropologist, William Henry Furness III spent some time on this island and discovered their peculiar monetary system. The stone money called fei consisted of round stones, anywhere from one foot to twelve feet in diameter, with holes in the center to accommodate carrying poles for transportation. The size of these stones often meant that it was inconvenient to actually possess the stones so owners often would simply accept the knowledge of the transfer of "funds" rather than take the steps to actually take the stone into his possession. In one interesting episode, the German Government, on purchasing the islands, attempted to get the chiefs of the districts to repair the roads. The locals, quite comfortable with the state of the roads were loathe to attempt the repairs. The Germans finally levied a fine which was extracted by marking a number of the most valuable fei with a black cross. This act impoverished a number of the locals who then dutifully fixed up the roads. The fine was "paid" when the officials washed the black mark from the stones and the people were restored in full of their wealth.

Lest we be too absorbed in our ethnocentric view of this episode, Mr. Friedman reminds us that Western cultures (and others of course) expend considerable time and energy extracting gold and silver ore from the ground, only to process it, mint it, ship it across the country and re-bury it in underground vaults. Sounds silly when you think about it doesn't it?

The Money Helicopters

One of the fascinating stories that Milton Friedman shares in this book is actually pure fiction. By way of illustrating the cause of inflation, he tells the story of an isolated community that has a fixed share of money. This community is disrupted one day by a helicopter dropping large piles of money randomly throughout. After examining the effect of this influx of money, we discover that without any change in output, the effect of an increase in money supply is simply higher prices.

Several variations of this story are used to illustrate the effect of continuous increases in the money supply (in excess of production) and how they come to be calculated into the cost of transactions. These stories, while simple fiction, are illustrative of the real world effects of the California and Australian Gold Rushes. In more complex terms, this is also what has historically happened when, as America did during the Civil War, a nation adopts a fiat money standard in order to finance a war. Prices go up all around and the only ones enriched in any sense of the word are the ones who are closest to the source of the new money.

"The Crime of 1873"

A considerable portion of the book is given to the discussion of the bi-metallic standard vs. a gold or silver mono-metallic standard of money. In 1796 Alexander Hamilton urged Congress to adopt a bi-metallic (gold AND silver) standard with the ratio of silver to gold being pegged at 15:1. Shortly thereafter, the market rates for gold increased to 15.5 to 1 (15.5 units of silver to purchase 1 unit of gold) meaning that gold was more expensive on the market than it was at the mint. Put another way, gold was worth more as bullion than as coin, so the United States effectively went on a silver standard. This state existed until 1834 when the official ratio of silver to gold was put at 16:1. With the market rate still effectively 15.5:1, the U.S. now was on an effective gold standard, even though the free coinage of silver was still available.

As mentioned above, during the Civil War the U.S. went off the metal standard and began printing money that was not backed by any metal. This of course resulted in a great deal of inflation but enabled the funding of the war effort. After the war, prices were very high and the men of Congress recognized the need to resume a specie standard. In 1873 the ground work had been laid and Congress passed the "Coinage Act of 1873" which resumed the free coinage of gold but failed to include silver. This meant that the U.S. was no longer just on an "effective" gold standard but had now joined with Britain in being on a "true" gold standard.

The consequences were far reaching for this simple omission. Ultimately the political fallout gave rise to William Jennings Bryan's rise to political fame. His famous "Cross of Gold" speech delivered on July 8, 1896 at 63rd and Cottage Grove in Chicago was a battle cry for the "silver" movement. This speech, given at his nomination for Presidency at the Democratic National Convention is considered by many to be one of the most influential and powerful political speeches of all time. Of course Bryan went on to lose the election to McKinley and even though he ran again in 1904 and 1908 he never managed to win the White House. The fact that natural forces were in play to "do something for silver" and create the inflation that so many people desperately wanted was most certainly his downfall.

Inflation is Good?

If you are like most people in my generation, inflation is a bad word. So why would anyone ever run a political campaign on the platform of creating inflation? To understand this, you have to understand what inflation means to the consumer. Inflation is a broad rising of prices without a corresponding rise in output. From the perspective of a producer this means he or she can charge more for his or her goods. Put another way, this means you and I can charge more per hour for our labor.. we get a raise without having to do more work.

The other side of this coin however tells the real story. Since we spend our money on a broad basket of goods and services, we aren't as conscious of the movements of overall prices as we are of the movement of our wages. We know immediately if our wages are cut or raised, but overall prices can move quite a bit before we are aware simply because they are disparate in nature. Most of us in 2005 knew that gas prices were soaring, but how many of us could give an accurate account of the price of milk for the last 12 months? Or of bread? Or of toothpaste? Today we rely on CNN and MSNBC to tell us about inflation via the Consumer Price Index but in our day to day life we are rarely cognizant of inflation, much less it's effects.

If inflation is "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" as Milton Friedman exclaims, then why would the government allow the money supply to grow faster than output if the end result is simply turmoil in the markets? Inflation is good for government in three basic ways:

Increased implicit inflation tax on base money holding
Unvoted increase in explicit taxes as a result of "tax bracket" creep
Reduction in real value of outstanding government debt

To understand these more you should read Friedman's book, especially his chapter on Monetary Policy in a Fiat World.

Conclusion

This book for me was a fascinating read. I would urge anyone who has ever wondered about inflation or the money supply to pick this book up and read it with interest.

"Noise" - Bart Kosko

Matt — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:01:42 GMT

Publisher: Viking Penguin

A fascinating look at the many facets of noise. This book has plenty of information for even the casually interested reader in the first half of the book. Topics covered include the legal issues of noise, the harmful effects of audible noise and the impact of new types of noise such as email spam. In the second half, the "professor" in Kosko comes out and he delves into some of the equally fascinating, if not technically more difficult aspects of noise. If you have a layman's interest in topics such as chaos theory and quantum physics then you will be pleasantly surprised that Professor Kosko can bring noise theory down to a level that mere mortals such as myself can grasp if not fully understand.

[Notes]

Following are some major concepts and their approximate location in the book. These are some of the topics that caught my interest and do not by any means encompass the full breadth of material covered in this wide ranging book.

The Noise-Signal Duality

This is a recurring theme throughout the book but is discussed in detail in the first chapter. Noise isn't alway noise, or rather, what is noise to you, might be music to your neighbor. To illustrate, if a noisy neighbor plays his or her music too loud, you consider that noise. Yet if you pull your neighbor aside and ask them how they can stand that "noise" they will likely explain that they LIKE their music that loud. So noise is simply an unwanted signal... unwanted at least by the person who considers it to be noise.

Consider this concept in the light of your office layout. Some office managers insist that high cubicle walls cut down on noise and increase productivity. But what if the walls of your cubicle farm are blocking out important information that needs to be flowing throughout your organization? What if your sales associates don't hear the buzz about new product development that might energize them and give them incentive to hit the phones or streets even harder? What if your customer support reps stare blankly at a screen looking for answers to a question that the person 3 feet away has already answered five times today? These are information flows that are difficult to formalize and yet are vital to creating a competitive edge for your business.

So why don't we knock down all the walls like Capital One did then information can flow as free as it wants? Well, in many (if not most) environments, that's not an option due to the noise-signal duality problem. I want my sales people to know about the latest and greatest coming out of product development but I don't want my sales people hunkering under their desks in order to hear the customer who is trying to place an order.

What is the solution then? How do we deal with this noise signal-duality in an office environment. The Capital One solution seems to be to have open offices but make it possible for their people to work anywhere using wireless technology. In designing our new office space for Eclipse Software Systems Inc. where I am a programmer, we have taken this concept into consideration by developing an open space for developers that is separate from the other spaces and yet very accessible. In addition we have carefully considered the placement of the Sales and Support departments so they are near each other, with open enough spaces to allow for communication, but enough separation to keep the noise down. Other concepts we are looking at are full headsets for phone conversations and white noise generators to help cut down on unwanted signals.

Using "noise" to cut down on "noise"? Yes, Professor Kosko also covers that topic in his book!

Stochastic Resonance

How can noise be a good thing? One of the more interesting topics in this book is how noise can be used to benefit certain processes. For instance background noise matching a mother's heartbeat can be added during a sonogram to allow a doctor to hear a baby's heartbeat.

The term "stochastic resonance" refers to this helpful benefit from certain types of noise in certain systems. Dynamic, non-linear systems are the ones that typically gain the most from added noise. The chapters on Stochastic resonance are pretty heavy with technical information but are worth wading through if you want to read some interesting concepts. Specifically pay attention to the discussion of thresholds and how information is conveyed using them.

Random Thoughts

Did you know that white noise really isn't white? Because technically white noise is noise that contains frequencies from an infinite range of frequencies, white noise with any amplitude would require an infinite energy source. So what we call white noise is really "pink noise".
There are a countable infinity of infinities according to most mathematicians.
CD's sample at 44.1Khz sampling rate because the ear tends not to hear frequencies above 20Khz. Sampling rates that are twice the frequency value ensures that all of the frequency content of the original signal will be captured after passing through ideal low-pass filters.

"The Essential Galbraith" - John Kenneth Galbraith

Matt — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 07:37:50 GMT

Publisher: Houghton Mifflin

This is a collection of Galbraith's works that, according to the author in the preface, were chosen by his associates, his publisher and the reading public. This books serves as a quick primer on the economics of this renowned economist as well as a fascinating overview of his literary life. Most of the chapters of this book have appeared as chapters in other of his books but each of these in turn grew out of other published essays or lectures that he had previously prepared. Having been so finely tuned for the first publishing and then aged so well over his lifetime, the selection here contains the quintessential Galbraith.

[Notes]

Countervailing Power

In this excellent piece from American Capitalism, Galbraith introduces the concept he named the chapter after. The concept of power in the market is a recurring theme in much of Galbraith's writing and it is studied here as it relates to counter-balancing power in the market-place. Classical economic theory removes power from the market by asserting that competition will neutralize any position of power that might be gained on either side of the transaction. Competition keeps both buyers and sellers "in line". Since Galbraith argues that true competition among producers has disappeared, there are other forces which keep the market in check... forces which Galbraith calls "Countervailing Power". Any time one side or the other gains an edge in the power market, a countervailing force will arise on the other side. Thus when Producers collude to lower the cost of labor, unions arise in response to the power vacuum on the laborer side of the table and the power equation is stabilized once again.

The Concept of the Conventional Wisdom

Galbraith coined the term "Conventional Wisdom" in this essay from The Affluent Society. He deftly explains why academic and political leaders are so quick to repeat what they have been told and scoff at the new. His piercing look at the tendency of academics in particular to make "vigorous advocacy of originality a substitute for originality itself." is quite compelling. His observations are intriguing given the recent advancement of "Global Warming" as the next crisis which everyone who is smart believes is right around the corner and those who don't believe it is a crisis are scoffed by the learned men among us.

The Case for Social Balance

Here Galbraith makes his strongest case for utilizing economic policy to engender social good. His vignette describing the American suburban family going on a trip to the country is a classic description of the juxtaposition of what American's THINK is important and what we LIVE as important.

The Imperatives of Technology

Even though this essay was written and published before the computer revolution, the insight into the impact of technology on the modern corporation is stunning. While most economists look at how technology impacts production directly (think Solow), Galbraith goes a step beyond and looks at how technology changes the PROCESS of production. His analysis of the impact of the specialization of knowledge in lengthening the production process through planning is very insightful, especially given some of the schools of thought surrounding software development today. Agile Development grew out of the Lean school of production management, a Deming ideology, but looking at Galbraith's work here, we can learn some vital lessons.
The diffusion of power via the specialization of knowledge is an important concept in any organization. Software development methodologies often stumble over themselves because developers tend to think they are "cutting edge" in every aspect of their work. In reality, while the particular clay we are modeling with is fresh and clean, the tools of the art haven't really changed all that much since the first earthen pots were thrown centuries ago. For instance, Research and Development for most Agile Developers is a nice bucket for "pet projects" that we would like to work on but can't get the management to agree to. Galbraith reminds us in this chapter that the R & D bucket grew out of the need for more information as technology became crucial to business needs. The assumption is that for any given problem, a solution does exist whether or not the knowledge yet exists to develop that solution. Since we know that the solution exists, but we don't have the knowledge yet, we must expend time and energy gaining the knowledge that will allow us to develop the solution. It is this uncertain period of "gaining new knowledge" that appears under the catchet of "Research and Development" in economic terms. Solow figured out how to account for the gains of technology and R & D is the tool we used to account for the cost of technology. It seems that in the Agile world, we would be better off using our R & D allocation for developing knowledge to apply to business problems for which there is no known solution and for which the knowledge does not yet exist than we would in using that allocation for solving known problem with known solutions.

The Technostructure

Galbraith here unveils his most unwieldy terms which refers to the modern day planning and organizational structure in firms. He chose this term to reflect the need for firms to "structure" the information and knowledge necessary to modern success due to technological innovation. There is an interesting discussion of the effectiveness of group decision making and the process whereby this takes place. The need for information to flow freely within an organization is very evident since it is only by assimilating all of this information that a group can make accurate and wise decisions.

The General Theory of Motivation

In keeping with the tradition of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Galbraith explores what motivates a person to take a particular course of action. Using the framework of goals there are 4 ways to being an individual into acceptance of another's goals:

Compulsion - Negative reward
Pecuniary motivation - Payment, either monetary remuneration or in kind
Identification - You identify with the group and make their goals your own
Adaptation - Believing that the goals are close enough to your own that you can influence the group in your favor (think politicians and political parties)

Compulsion cannot co-exist with identification or adaptation, however the corporate world is rife with examples of compulsion and pecuniary motivation living side-by-side in perfect harmony. Above a certain level of income, identification and adaptation become more important than pecuniary motivation.

Economics and The Quality of Life
&
The Proper Purpose of Economic Development

These chapters are primarily a discourse in the direction of economic study with regard to its purpose. Many economists believe that focusing on the growth of aggregate output is analogous to focusing on improving the human condition. Here is an effective argument that beyond subsistence levels, the quality of human life may not be improved by over-all increases in output but rather by balancing the areas of output between private and public consumption.

The Valid Image of the Modern Economy

If you ever want a succinct outline of Galbraithian economics, read this chapter. In as tight of a nutshell as you can fit his general theories, he clearly outlines and defines his positions on various aspects of economic thought.

Power and the Useful Economist

I expected this chapter to reflect more of Galbraith's thoughts from his book The Anatomy of Power, however he chooses here instead to focus on the role of power in the economy. He explains in detail how power is wielded in the economy, by whom it is wielded and for whose purpose it is wielded. He argues quite effectively that for an economist to ignore power in the economy is to ignore a basic formative feature of any economy. The traditional view that economies passively settle to equilibrium states, guided by the invisible hand is dangerous in Galbraith's mind because it ignores the power of the corporate to manipulate markets. If markets can be manipulated than then free market is a myth and can no longer serve as a foundational pillar of economic thought.

The "Biographical" Chapters

Galbraith was somewhat of a historian, particularly a student of economic history. He gives excellent biographical sketches of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen and of course Sir Keynes. These men are interesting characters in their own right and Galbraith gives succinct and interesting views of the men and their influence.

The "Crash" Chapters.

Galbraith wrote "The Great Crash of 1929" which is considered by many to be not only an authoritative account of the history of this era but also an excellent economic dissection of the causes and effects of the Crash and the Depression. These chapters are great primers for anyone interested in the Crash and have certainly sparked an interest in me that will probably result in me reading the full book soon!

The Unfinished Business of the Century

An incredibly prescient foretelling of the Bubble Burst, this lecture was given in June of 1999, at the height of the Bubble itself. In addition this is a very eloquent dissertation on the liberal view of the world. If more liberals were this capable in expressing their views and opinions, there would be more people willing to listen to them. Unfortunately the sheer dryness of this lecture would assuredly keep it from getting on "Air America" and I suppose even if it did, the average listener of that network would not understand the portent of the message. Of course Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's listeners wouldn't recognize Smith or Ricardo either so no slight intended.