text:
One day I had to do some checking on a product someone was interested in. I went to the website of the manufacturer looking for information. The user guide was in PDF, and the first page read; "Only smart people read the manual."
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
error C2181: illegal else without matching if
(Another Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition related post.)
If something is wrong within the if expression, you may wrongly receive the indication "error C2181: illegal else without matching if".
class primary_thread_tThis is my typical copy-paste scenario. I copy code from one source which uses another name for a class, namely old_t, to a new project which uses another name for a class of the same function, namely primary_thread_t. Although the error lies with the expression within the if statement (the identifier is not known), the compiler claims that the error lies with the structure of the if--else if--else structure.
LRESULT message (HWND const & window, UINT const & message, WPARAM const & W, LPARAM const & L)
LRESULT result;
switch (message)
case WM_PAINT:
HDC const DC (BeginPaint (window, &PS));
if (DC)
BOOL (EndPaint (window, &PS)); // Just to show there's a return value.
result = 0;
case WM_DESTROY:
PostQuitMessage (0);
result = 0;
case WM_CREATE:
result = 0;
result = DefWindowProc (window, message, W, L);
return result;
static LRESULT CALLBACK window_procedure (HWND const window, UINT const message, WPARAM const W, LPARAM const L)
LRESULT result; // Initialized before return statement.
if (old_t* const old = reinterpret_cast <old_t*> (GetWindowLongPtr (window, GWLP_USERDATA)))
result = old->message (window, message, W, L);
else if (message == WM_NCCREATE)
SetWindowLongPtr (window, GWLP_USERDATA, reinterpret_cast <LONG_PTR> (reinterpret_cast <CREATESTRUCT*> (L)->lpCreateParams));
result = DefWindowProc (window, message, W, L);
result = DefWindowProc (window, message, W, L);
return result;
To resolve this problem, do a search for 'old' and replace it with 'primary_thread'.
Moryton 03:03 0 comments
OIC_SAMPLE, OCR_NORMAL, and other OEM resources
To get rid of errors such as these..
// - error C2065: 'OIC_SAMPLE' : undeclared identifier
// - error C2065: 'OCR_NORMAL' : undeclared identifier
..one may have to #define OEMRESOURCE before #include <windows.h>.
(I am testing Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition.)
Moryton 02:55 0 comments
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Windows Home Server is based on NT technology (a warning in itself)
Windows Home Server is a product from MicroSoft which is based on "NT technology"; NT meaning not tested.
The primary purpose of this concept is to store user data, and this is where it fails, with MicroSoft yet to have produced any solution, since 2007-12-21 actually. This is MicroSoft, not some person sitting at home, tired after work, trying to do some programming. This is MicroSoft! So what is MicroSoft testing, if not processes related to user data, and the primary feature of this system; storage? I have no idea.
Note: Other MicroSoft products "Based on NT [Not Tested] technology" are Windows NT (of course), Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2008, and more to come.
(MicroSoft will claim that NT is short for "New Technology", but how silly is that? Let me explain it to you; try expanding NT to new technology in light of this revelation when reading their own phrase "Based on NT technology."--Right. New Technology technology. Say no more, continue rowing, MicroSoft.)
Moryton 19:50 0 comments
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The three-dimensional binary mind
There are three dimensions at work in conscious beings.
In any given context, they can have one of three choices.
1) False/Reject.*
2) True/Accept.*
3) Change the context.
Some contexts may only have one choice, and that is to change the context after some time has passed.
*Both False and True lead to another context with a conclusion within the context, but a change in context alone simply disregards the premise or situation.
Moryton 10:59 0 comments
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet, OOPSLA 1997
Title: The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Talk by: Alan C. Kay
Date: [1997-10-05, 1997-10-09]
Transcript by: A. R. Svendsen (started 2007-09-30)
Transcript release: 1 (published 2007-12-30)
The Computer Revolution
Hasn't Happened Yet
The following video representation was videotaped at OOPSLA '97:
The 12th annual ACM SIGPLAN
Conference on Object-Oriented
Programming Systems,
Languages, and Applications
October 5-9, 1997
Atlanta, Georgia
[Alan C. Kay] Thank you. Well, I presume most of you have been up all night. I can't imagine ever seeing this many programmers at eight o'clock in the morning. [Laughter] I guess this is the largest bathroom I've ever given a talk in. [Smiles] [Laughter] That was just a test to see if you could understand me. I can't actually understand myself up here. I actually haven't been to OOPSLA since the first one and, when I got invited to give this talk, while I was thinking—well, should I go, or should I not, or what should I do, it occured to me that this conference, on this day, is pretty much in the epicenter of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Smalltalk. The one page interpreter scheme that I wrote out was done just a few weeks ago twenty-five years ago. [Applause] The first working version of it was done in a few weeks from now, twenty-five years ago, so this is about in the center and—let me see if I can get our motto up on—could I have that first slide, please?
I'm not gonna give a historical talk, as I finally discharged those obligations in the History of Programming Languages Conference a couple of years ago, but I thought it might be interesting for some of you, who might not have been computing for the last twenty-five or thirty years, to take a two-minute trip. I believe that this set of images basically goes back to 1973 and 1974 at Xerox PARC—[they] show some of the first children that we worked with. The music that you'll hear on this clip was composed by one of the members of our group, Chris Jeffers. It's called "The Happy Hacker", in case you want a theme song. It's played in real time FM synthesis that we developed for the Alto computer. This is the forerunner of the workstations and the Macintosh without any additional sound synthesis hardware at all, because why should you have that if your computer is designed well. I think you'll get a little picture of it, but before I turn on that clip, let's just for the heck of it see how many people are in this room today, who participated in the Xerox PARC Smalltalk experience, between roughly 1971 and 1983. Could you stand up? Let's see if we—how many people are actually here. Anybody without gray hair? [Smiles] [Laughter] Thank you. Okay, let's roll that, that clip.
Well, that was things as they existed about twenty-five years ago. The other thing I wanted to do in the beginning part of this talk—I tried to figure out how to work my way into it, and I finally remembered a paper that Dijkstra—I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano Dijkstras. [Laughter] He once wrote a paper—of the kind that he liked to write a lot of—which had the title On the fact that the Atlantic has two sides. It was basically all about how different the approaches to computing science were in Europe, especially in Holland and in the United States. In the US, here, we were not mathematical enough, and gee, in Holland, if you're a full professor, you're actually appointed by the Queen, and there are many other uh important distinctions made between the two cultures. So, uhm, I wrote a rebuttal paper, just called On the fact that most of the software in the world is written on one side of the Atlantic. [Laughter] It was basically about that, computers form a new kind of math. You can't judge them. They don't really fit well in classical math, and people who tried to do that are basically indulging in a form of masturbation.—Maybe even realizing it. [Laughter] It was kind of a practical math, that was. The balance was between making structures that were supposed to be consistent of a much larger kind than classical math had ever come close to dreaming of attempting, and having to deal with the exact same problems that classical math of any size has to deal with, which is being able to be convincing about having covered all of the cases.
There's a mathematician by the name of Euler, whose speculations about what might be true formed twenty large books, and most of them were true. Most of them were right. Almost all of his proofs were wrong, and many PhDs in mathematics in the last and this century have been formed by mathematicians going to Euler's books, finding one of his proofs, showing it was a bad proof, and then guessing that his insight was probably correct, and finding a much more convincing proof. So debugging actually goes on in mathematics as well.
I think the main thing about doing OOP work, or any kind of programming work, is that there has to be some exquisite blend between beauty and practicality. There's no reason to sacrifice either one of those, and people who are willing to sacrifice either one of those, I don't think really get what computing is all about. It's like saying I have really great ideas for paintings, but I'm just gonna use a brush but no paint. So my ideas will be represented by the gestures I make over the paper—and don't tell any 20th century artist that, or they might decide to make a videotape of them doing that and put it in a museum. [Laughter]
I had this problem figuring out what to talk about. It's always difficult because technical people always seem to know so much, but it's interesting, again, to look at what is actually being done in the world under the name of OOP. I've been shown some very, very strange-looking pieces of code over the years by various people, including people in universities, that they have said is OOP code, and written in an OOP language—and actually, I made up the term object-oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind. [Laughter and applause] An important thing here is—I have many of the same feelings about Smalltalk—and I'm not going to try and do Smalltalk in here, because I think there is one really important thing about Smalltalk, and some of the languages like it that we should pay really, really close attention to—but it has almost nothing to do with either the syntax or the accumulated superclass library. Both of these are taken as being the language, as though it was issued from some gods on Olympus. So I want to talk a little bit more about my personal reaction to OOP when I started thinking about it in the sixties, and instead of making it a historical talk, to try and think about whether these reactions and insights have any place today.
In the sixties things were quite mechanical. There's a sense of simple mechanism because computers were as large as this room. The one that Ivan Sutherland did Sketchpad on was the size of this room. It was one of the last computers in the US large enough to have its own roof. It was the building it was in. But the programs were quite small and they had a lot in common with their mathematical antecedents. One way of thinking about the semantics of math that was based on logic, is as interlocking gears. Everything kind of has to fit together, and if it does, and everything is compatible at the end, you get the final turning of the shaft that you want.
An analogy to these programs of the sixties is a dog house. If you take any random boards, nail, and hammer; pound them together and you've got a structure that will stay up. You don't have to know anything, except how to pound a nail to do that. Now, somebody could come along and look at this dog house and say, Wow! If we could just expand that by a factor of a hundred we could make ourselves a cathedral. It's about three feet high. That would give us something thirty stories high, and that would be really impressive. We could get a lot of people in there. The carpenters would set to work blowing this thing up by a factor of a hundred. Now, we all know, being engineers and scientists, that when you blow something up by a factor of a hundred, its mass goes up by a factor of a million, and its strength, which is mostly due to cross sections of things, only goes up by a factor of ten thousand. When you blow something up [by] a factor of a hundred, it gets by a factor of hundred weaker in its ability, and in fact, what will happen to this dog house; it would just collapse into a pile of rubble. Then there are two choices you can have when that happens. The most popular one is to say, Well, that was what we were trying to do all along. [Laughter] Put more garbage on it, plaster it over with limestone, and say, Yes, we were really trying to do pyramids, not gothic cathedrals. That, in fact accounts for much of the structure of modern operating systems today. [Laughter and applause]
Or, you can come up with a new concept, which the people who started getting interested in complex structures many years ago did. They called it architecture. Literally, the designing and building of successful arches. A non-obvious, a non-linear interaction between simple materials to give you non-obvious sinergies, and a fast multiplication of materials. It's quite remarkable to people when I tell them that the amount of material in [unintelligible] cathedral, which is an enormous, physical structure, is less than the amount of material that was put into the Parthenon. The reason is that it's almost all air, and almost all glass. Everything is cunningly organized in a beautiful structure to make the whole [hole/whole] have much more integrity than any of its parts. That's the other way you can go, and part of the message of OOP was, that, as complexity starts becoming more and more important, architecture's always going to dominate material, and in fact, the sad fact, I think, about OOP, is [that] people didn't get interested in architecture because of the beauty of it. They're only starting to get interested in architecture now, when the Internet is forcing everybody to do it. That's pretty pathetic.
I'm going to use a metaphor for this talk which is drawn from a wonderful book called The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler. Koestler was a novelist who became a cognitive scientist in his later years. One of the great books he wrote was about what might creativity be.—Learning.—He realized that learning, of course, is an act of creation itself, because something happens in you that wasn't there before. He used a metaphor of thoughts as ants crawling on a plane. In this case it's a pink plane, and there's a lot of things you can do on a pink plane. You can have goals. You can choose directions. You can move along. But you're basically in the pink context. It means that progress, in a fixed context, is almost always a form of optimization, because if you're actually coming up with something new, it wouldn't have been part of the rules or the context for what the pink plane is all about. Creative acts, generally, are ones that don't stay in the same context that they're in. He says, every once in a while, even though you have been taught carefully by parents and by school for many years, you have a blue idea. Maybe when you're taking a shower. Maybe when you're out jogging. Maybe when you're resting in an unguarded moment, suddenly, that thing that you were puzzling about, wondering about, looking at, appears to you in a completely different light, as though it were something else.
Koestler said that the emotional reaction to this comes basically in three forms. If you're telling a joke, it's HA HA! If you're doing science, it's A HA!, and if you're doing art it's AHHH! He says, because in each case, something very similar is happening. A joke takes you down the garden path, and suddenly reveals it's about something else, and you get a very aggressive explosion. Science has much of the same feeling to it, and often, when you see something in science, you start laughing because it was right there in front you, and it is a kind of a joke. Art is there to remind us—Great art is there to remind us that whatever context we think we're in, there are other contexts. Art is always there to take us out of the context that we are in and make us aware of other contexts. This is a very simple—you can even call it a simple minded metaphor—but it will certainly serve for this talk today. He also pointed out that you have to have something blue to have blue thoughts with. I think this is generally missed in people who specialize to the extent of anything else. When you specialize, you are basically putting yourself into a mental state where optimization is pretty much all you can do. You have to learn lots of different kinds of things in order to have the start of these other contexts.
So here's a couple of knocks on the head I had over the years. I just want to tell them to you quickly. This one I think you'll find interesting because it is the earliest known form of what we call data abstraction. I was in the Air Force in 1961, and I saw it in 1961, and it probably goes back one year before. Back then, they really didn't have operating systems. Air training command had to send tapes of many kinds of records around from Air Force base to Air Force base. There was a question on how can you deal with all of these things that used to be card images, because tape had come in, [there] were starting to be more and more complicated formats, and somebody—almost certainly an enlisted man, because officers didn't program back then—came up with the following idea. This person said, on the third part of the record on this tape we'll put all of the records of this particular type. On the second part—the middle part—we'll put all of the procedures that know how to deal with the formats on this third part of the tape. In the first part we'll put pointers into the procedures, and in fact, let's make the first ten or so pointers standard, like reading and writing fields, and trying to print; let's have a standard vocabulary for the first ten of these, and then we can have idiosyncratic ones later on. All you had to do [to] read a tape back in 1961, was to read the front part of a record—one of these big records—into core storage, and start jumping indirect through the pointers, and the procedures were there.
I really would like you to contrast that with what you have to do with HTML on the Internet. Think about it. HTML on the Internet has gone back to the dark ages because it presupposes that there should be a browser that should understand its formats. This has to be one of the worst ideas since MS-DOS. [Laughter] This is really a shame. It's maybe what happens when physicists decide to play with computers, I'm not sure. [Laughter] In fact, we can see what's happend to the Internet now, is that it is gradually getting—There are two wars going on. There's a set of browser wars which are 100 percent irrelevant. They're basically an attempt, either at demonstrating a non-understanding of how to build complex systems, or an even cruder attempt simply to gather territory. I suspect Microsoft is in the latter camp here. You don't need a browser, if you followed what this Staff Sergeant in the Air Force knew how to do in 1961. You just read it in. It should travel with all the things that it needs, and you don't need anything more complex than something like X Windows. Hopefully better. But basically, you want to be able to distribute all of the knowledge of all the things that are there, and in fact, the Internet is starting to move in that direction as people discover ever more complex HTML formats, ever more intractable. This is one of these mistakes that has been recapitulated every generation. It's just simply not the way to do it.
So here's a great idea—and by the way, this kind of programming was done before there were higher level languages in the Air Force. This approach to things was forced out of the Air Force when they standardized on COBOL.—Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad. I've usually shown a movie of what it was like. I won't today. Immensely sophisticated. Almost staggering in its conception on what it was able to do. Very much an object-oriented system. It had an actual notion of classes and sub-classes. It had a notion of polymorphism, even stronger than the air training command version. Next slide, please.
I had seen the idea three or four times, but it wasn't till I had to figure out Simula—we thought it was supposed to be an ALGOL. It turned out this pile of tapes was the first Simula, and ALGOL that had been doctored by Case Western Reserve, and the inventors of Simula, Nygaard and Dahl in Norway, and distributed along with some incomprehensible documentation in 1966.—It was through trying to understand what Simula was that, finally—I'm not sure exactly why, it's just—I think it's maybe if you see a good idea that's odd, four times, in four different costumes, it finally starts to make an impression, and here's the choice you have when you're faced with something new.
You can take this technological advance and you could decide this is a better way of doing the stuff I'm doing now, and I can use this to continue on the path that I'm going. That's staying in the pink plane. Or, you can say this is not a better old thing, this is almost a new thing, and I wonder what that new thing is trying to be. If you do that, there's a chance of actually, perhaps gaining some incredible leverage over simply optimizing something that can't be optimized very much. Simula came out of the world of data structures and procedures, and had much of that flavour, if you wanted to look at it that way. But it had a way of making relationships of the states of your computation with procedures, that was extremely helpful, and much better, and more general than what were called own variables in ALGOL 60. That was one way to think of it. Then there's this other question; if it was almost a new thing, what kind of a new thing was it? Well, one of my undergraduate majors was in molecular biology, and my particular interest was both in cell physiology and in embryology. Morphogenesis they call it today.
This book, Molecular Biology of the Gene, had just come out in 1965. Wonderful book. Still in print. It has gone through many, many editions. The only words that are common between this book and the one today are the articles, like "the" and "an". Actually, the word gene, I think, is still in there, but it means something completely different now. But one of the things that Watson did in this book was to make an assay. [Pun on essay] The first assay of an entire living creature. That was the E. coli bacterium. Next slide, please.
If you look inside one of these the complexity is staggering. Those popcorn things are protein molecules that have about five thousand atoms in them. As you can see on the slide, when you get rid of the small molecules, like water and calcium ions, and potassium ions, and so forth, which constitute about 70 percent of the mass of this thing, the 30 percent that remains has about a 120 million components that interact with each other in an informational way. Each one of these components carries quite a bit of information. The simple-minded way of thinking of these things is that it works kind of like OOPS 5. There is a pattern matcher, and then there are things that happen if patterns are matched successfully. The state that's involved in that is about a hundred gigs; and you can multiply that out today. It's only a hundred desktops or so, but it's still pretty impressive as an amount of computation. Maybe the most interesting thing about this structure is that the repetity of computation seriously rivals that of computers today. Particularly when you are considering it's done in parallell. For example, one of those popcorn-sized things moves its own length in just two nanoseconds. One way of visualizing that is, if an atom was the size of a tennis ball, then one of these protein molecules would be about the size of a Volkswagen, and it's moving its own length in two nanoseconds. That's about eight feet on our scale of things.—Can anybody do the arithmetic to tell me uh what fraction of the speed of light, moving eight feet in two nanoseconds is? Four times? Yeah. Four times the speed of light.—Scale.—If you've ever wondered why chemistry works, this is why. The thermal agitation down there is so unbelievably violent that we could not imagine it, even with the aid of computers. There's nothing to be seen inside one of these things until you kill it, because it's just a complete blur of activity, and under good conditions, it only takes about fifteen to eighteen minutes for one of these to completely duplicate itself. Okay, so that's a bacterium. Lots more is known today. Another fact to relate this to us, is that these bacteria are about one five hundreth the size of the cells in our bodies, which instead of 120 million informational components have about sixty billion. We have between ten to the twelvth, and ten to the thirteenth, maybe even more of these cells in our body, and yet only fifty cell divisions happen in a nine month pregnancy.—It only takes fifty cell divisions to make a baby.—Actually, if you multiply it out, you realize you only need around fourty, and the extra ten powers of ten are there because, during the embryological process, many of the cells that are not fit in one way or another for the organism as a whole are killed. Things are done by overproliferating, testing, and trimming to this much larger plan. Each one of these structures, us, is embedded in an enormous biomass. So, to a person whose blue context might have been biology, something like a computer could not possibly be regarded as being particularly complex, or large, or fast.
Slow. Small. Stupid. That's what computers are. So the question is, how can we get them to realize their destiny. Next slide, please. [Waiting for slide to appear.] We're using a form of technology that Napoléon used. Do you remember those [unintelligble] across France?
The shift in point of view here is from mechanical.—This is a problem. If you take things like dog houses, they don't scale by a factor of a hundred very well. If you take things like clocks, they don't scale by a factor of a hundred very well. Take things like cells, they not only scale by factors of a hundred, but by factors of a trillion, and the question is, how do they do it, and how might we adapt this idea for building complex systems.—Okay, this is the simple one. This is the one, by the way, that C++ has still not figured out, though. [Laughter] There is no idea so simple and powerful that you can't get zillions of people to misunderstand it.
You must, must not let the interior of any one of these things to be a factor in the computation of the whole. Okay. This is only part of the story. The cell membrane is there to keep most things out, as much at it is there to keep certain things in. I think our confusion with objects is the problem that in our Western culture, we have a language that has very hard nouns and verbs in it. Our process words stink. It's much easier for us when we think of an object—and I have apologized profusely over the last twenty years for making up the term object-oriented, because as soon as it started to be misapplied, I realized that I should have used a much more process-oriented term for it.—The Japanese have an interesting word, which is called ma. Spelled in English, just ma. Ma is the stuff in-between what we call objects. It's the stuff we don't see, because we're focused on the nounness of things rather than the processness of things. Japanese has a more process-feel oriented way of looking at how things relate to each other. You can always tell that by looking at the size of [the] word it takes to express something that is important. Ma is very short. We have to use words like interstitial or worse to approximate what the Japanese are talking about.
The realization here—and it's not possible to assign this realization to any particular person because it was in the seeds of Sketchpad, and in the seeds of [the] air training command file system, and in the seeds of Simula. That is, that once you have encapsulated, in such a way that there is an interface between the inside and the outside, it is possible to make an object act like anything.
The reason is simply this, that what you have encapsulated is a computer. You have done a powerful thing in computer science, which is to take the powerful thing you're working on, and not lose it by partitioning up your design space. This is the bug in data and procedure languages. I think this is the most pernicious thing about languages a lot like C++ and Java, is that they think they're helping the programmer by looking as much like the old thing as possible, but in fact they are hurting the programmer terribly by making it difficult for the programmer to understand what's really powerful about this new metaphor. People who were doing time-sharing systems had already figured this out as well. Butler Lampson's thesis in 1965 was about what you want to give a person on a time-sharing system, is something that is now called a virtual machine, which is not the same as what the Java VM is, but something that is as much like the physical computer as possible, but give one separately to everybody. UNIX had that sense about it. The biggest problem with that scheme is that a UNIX process had an overhead of about two thousand bytes just to have a process, and so it was going to be very difficult in UNIX to let a UNIX process just be the number three. You would be going from three bits to a couple of thousand bytes, and you have this problem with scaling. A lot of the problem here is both deciding that the biological metaphor is the one that is going to win out over the next twenty-five years or so, and then committing to it enough to get it so it can be practical at all the levels of scale we actually need. Then we have one trick we can do that biology doesn't know how to do; which is, we can take the DNA out of the cells, and that allows us to deal with cystic fibrosis much more easily than the way it is done today. Systems do have cystic fibrosis.—Some of you may know [that] cystic fibrosis today, for some people, is treated by infecting them with a virus. A modified cold virus giving them a lung infection, but the defective gene for cystic fibrosis is in this cold virus. The cold virus is too weak to actually destroy the lungs, like pneumonia does, but it is strong enough to insert a copy of that gene in every cell in the lungs. That is what does the trick. That's a very complicated way of re-programming an organism's DNA, once it has gotten started.
Here's one that it is amazing to me that we haven't seen more of. For instance, one of the more amazing things to me, of people who have been trying to put OOP on the Internet, is that I do not—and I am hoping someone will come up afterwards and tell me of an exception to this—but I do not know of anybody yet, who has realized that, at the very least, every object should have a URL, because, what the heck are they if they aren't these things, and I believe that every object on the Internet should have an IP [address], because that represents, much better, what the actual abstractions are of physical hardware to the bits. So this is an early insight that objects basically are like servers. This notion of polymorphism, which used to be called generic procedures is a way of thinking about classes of these servers. Everybody knows about that.
Here's one we haven't faced up to much yet, that, now we have to construct this stuff and soon we'll be required to grow it. It's very easy, for instance, to grow a baby six inches. They do it about ten times in their life and you never have to take it down for maintenance. But if you try and grow a 747, you are faced with an unbelievable problem, because it's in this simple-minded mechanical world, in which the only object has been to make the artifact in the first place. Not to fix it. Not to change it. Not to let it live for a hundred years.
So let me ask a question. I won't take names. But how many people here still use a language that essentially forces you—and the development system forces you to develop outside of the language; compile and reload, and go, even if it's fast, like Virtual Café.—How many here still do that? Let's just see. Come on. Admit it! We can have a Texas tent beating later. [Smiles] [Laughter] That cannot possibly be other than a dead end for building complex systems, where much of the building of complex systems is in part going to go into trying to understand what the possibilities for interoperability is with things that already exist.
I just played a very minor part in the design of the ARPANET. I was one of thirty graduate students who went to systems design meetings to try and formulate design principles for the ARPANET, also about thirty years ago. The ARPNANET, of course, became the Internet, and from the time it started running—just around 1969 or so—to this day, it has expanded by about a factor of a hundred million. That's pretty good. Eight orders of magnitude. I talked to Larry Roberts about this the other day. There is not one physical atom in the Internet today, that was in the original ARPANET. There is not one line of code in the Internet today that was in the original ARPANET. Of course, if we had IBM main frames in the original ARPANET, that wouldn't have been true. This is a system that has expanded by a hundred million, has changed every atom and every bit, and has never had to stop. That is the metaphor we absolutely must apply to what we think are smaller things.
When we think programming is small, that's why your programs are so big. That's why they become pyramids instead of gothic cathedrals. Next. [Slide]
Here's the other big source. Certainly the greatest, single language along with Simula of the sixties, I think. One with as many profound or more profound insights—LISP. On page thirteen of this book that was published in 1962, there's a half page of code which is the reflective model of LISP written in itself. All the important details of LISP semantics and the guidelines for how to make a LISP interpreter are in that half page. It is this aspect—this meta-reflective aspect—that to me, is the saddest thing about what is happening with Java. When Java first happened I thought, Well, it's legitimizing something that most people have not believed in for a long time, which is this byte-code approach of being multi-platform like we had at Xerox PARC.—It's not a new idea. It actually goes back into the sixties. But when I looked at Java, I thought, My goodness, how could they possibly—and of course, we know that the history was more about programming toasters, originally, than being on the Internet—but, my goodness, how do they hope to survive all of the changes, modifications, adaptations, and interoperability requirements without a meta-system. Without even, for instance, being able to load new things in while you're running. The fact that people adopted this as some great hope is probably the most distressing thing to me, personally, as I said, since MS-DOS. I mean, it represents a real failure of people to understand what the larger picture is, and is going to be. Next slide.
This notion of meta-programming. Lots of different ways of looking at it. One of them is that, any particular implementation is making pragmatic choices, and these pragmatic choices are likely not to be able to cover all of the cases, at the level of efficiency, and even at the level of richness required. Of course, this is standard OOP lore. This is why we encapsulate. We need to hide our messes. We need to have different ways of dealing with the same concepts in a way that does not distract the programmer. But in fact, it is also applicable, as the LISP people found, and we at Xerox PARC found; you can also apply it to the building of the language itself. The more the language can see its own structures, the more liberated you can be from the tyranny of a single implementation. I think this is one of the most critical things that very few people are worrying about in a practical form. One of the reasons why this meta stuff is gonna be important, in such a way that nobody will be able to ignore it, is this whole question of, How do we really interoperate on the Internet five and ten years from now. I don't believe Microsoft is going to be able to capture the Internet. I think it's too big. I think there are too many people supplying ideas into it, and I think that people are going to be sophisticated enough to realize that an IBM or a Microsoft type solution is simply neither called for nor possible. What that means is that there's going to be dozens and dozens—there almost already are—dozens and dozens of different object systems, all with very similar semantics, but with very different pragmatic details. If you think about what a URL actually is, and you think of what an HTTP message actually is, and if you think of what an object actually is, and if you think of what an object oriented pointer actually is, I think it should be pretty clear that any object-oriented language can internalize its own local pointers to any object in the world, regardless of where it was made. That's the whole point of not being able to see inside. A semantic interoperability is possible almost immediately by simply taking that stance. This is gonna change, really everything. Things like JavaBeans and CORBA are not gonna suffice, because at some point one is gonna have to start really discovering what objects think they can do. This is going to lead to a universal interface language, which is not a programming language per se. It's more like a prototyping language that allows an interchange of deep information about what objects think they can do. It allows objects to make experiments with other objects in a safe way to see how they respond to various messages. This is going to be a critical thing to automate in the next ten years. Next slide.
[The slide is showing the book cover: The Art of the Metaobject Protocol]
So here's a great book. How many people have read this book? When they wrote this book, I called them up and I said, This is the best book anybody has written in ten years, but why the hell did you write it in such a LISP centric, closed club centric way? This is a hard book for most people to read. If you don't know the LISP culture, it's very hard to read. If you don't know how CLOS [the Common Lisp Object System] is done, it's a very hard book to read, but this book has some of the most profound insights about, and the most pratical insights about OOP, than anybody has done in the last many years. I really commend it to you. If there are any university professors here who would like to get the next [unintelligible] balloon, I will give it to anybody who rewrites that book so that the general object-oriented community can understand it. It would be a great service to mankind.
What happened in most of the world, starting in the seventies, was abstract data types, which is really staying with an assignment centered way of thinking about programming. In fact, when I made this slide, C++ was just sort of a spec on the horizon. It was one of those things, like MS-DOS, that nobody took seriously, because who would ever fall for a joke like that. [Laughter] Next slide, please.
Actually, my favourite C++ story is, at Apple, there is this operating system, remarkably, coincidentally named Pink. [Smiles] [Laughter] It was so great! There are two interesting features of this operating system that they were working on. One was, it was always going to be done in two years. [Laughter] We have known some really great operating system designers over the years, and I do not know of any decent operating system that has ever been done in two years, even by people who had ten times the IQ of the pink people. The other thing about it was, it was gonna be done in C++ for efficiency. [Smiles] [Laughter] Oh, let's not do it in Smalltalk, that's too slow! Let me tell you, there's nothing more inefficient than spending ten years on an operating system that never works. [Laughter and applause] Actually, the worst ones are the ones that appear to work. [Laughter and applause]
Let's take our pink plane, and we can also use this McLuhan quote—my favourite McLuhan quote—"I don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't a fish." He meant us as the fish, and he meant water as our belief structures—as our context. If you had to pick one cause, of both particular difficulty in our field, and also a general difficulty in the human race, it's taking single points of you and committing to them like they're religions. This happend with Smalltalk. There's a wonderful quote by Schopenhauer, a German philosopher of the nineteenth century, who said, "Every idea goes through three stages. First, it is denounced as the work of madmen."—This is what Swift called "A Confederacy of Dunces"—and then later, it's remarked as being totally obvious the whole time, and then the last stage is when the original denouncers claim to have invented it. [Laughter] That's when it gets in its religious stage. To me, the most distressing thing that happened to Smalltalk when it came out of Xerox PARC, was, for many respects and purposes it quit changing. I can tell you, at Xerox PARC there are four major versions—completely different versions of the language—over about a ten year period, and many dozens and dozens of significant releases within those different versions. I think one of the things we liked the most about Smalltalk was not what it could do, but the fact that it was such a good vehicle for bootstrapping the next set of ideas we had about how to do systems building. That, for all intents and purposes—when Smalltalk went commercial—ceased. Even though there is a book—the famous blue book that Adele and Dave wrote, that had the actual code in it for making Smalltalk interpreters and starting this process oneself—almost nobody took advantage of this. Almost no university took advantage of it. Almost no commercial [unintelligible] took advantage of it. What they missed was, to me, the deepest thing I would like to communicate with you today, and that is we don't know how to design systems yet. Let's not make what we don't know into a religion, for God's sake. What we need to do is to constantly think and think and think about what's important. We have to have our systems let us get to the next levels of abstraction as we come to them. The thing I am most proud of about Smalltalk, pretty much the only thing, from my standpoint, that I am proud of, is that it has been so good at getting rid of previous versions of itself, until it came out into this world.
One of the reasons we got involved in doing Smalltalk again, after, for me, it was sixteen years of not working on programming languages. A couple of years ago we started this project called Squeak, which is simply not an attempt to give the world a free Smalltalk, but an attempt to give the world a bootstrapping mechanism for something much better than Smalltalk, and when you fool around with Squeak, please, please, think of it from that standpoint. Think of how you can obsolete the damn thing by using its own mechanisms for getting the next version of itself. So look for the blue thoughts!
I was trying to think of how I could stop this talk—because I'll go on and on—and I remembered a story.—I'm a pipe organist, and most pipe organists have a hero whose name is E. Power Biggs. He kind of revived the interest in the pipe organ, especially as it was played in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and had a tremendous influence on all of us organists. A good friend of mine was E. Power Biggs' assistant for many years back in the fourties and fifties. He's in his eighties now. When we get him for dinner, we always get him to tell us E. Power Biggs stories. The organ E. Power Biggs had in those days for his broadcasts, was a dinky little organ, neither fish nor foul, in a small museum at Harvard, called the Busch-Reisinger Museum. But in fact, all manner of music was played on it, and one day this assistant had to fill in for Biggs, and he asked Biggs, well what is the piece played, and he said, Well I had programmed Caesar Franck's heroic piece—and if you know this piece, it is made for the largest organs that have ever been made. The loudest organs that have ever been made, in the largest cathedrals that had ever been made, because it's a nineteenth century symphonic type organ work, and Biggs was asking my friend to play this on this dinky, little organ.—He said, But how can I play this, on this? Biggs, he said, Just play it grand. Just play it grand. To stay with the future as it moves, is to always play your systems more grand than they seem to be right now. Thank you.
References made by the speaker:
Arthur Schopenhauer - a German philosopher
Busch-Reisinger Museum
Case Western Reserve University
Caesar Franck - artist
Chris Jeffers - music
CLOS (Common Lisp Object System)
Edward George Power Biggs - concert organist
Edsger Wybe Dijkstra - On the fact that the Atlantic has two sides
Alan C. Kay - On the fact that most of the software in the world is written on one side of the Atlantic
Herbert Marshall McLuhan - philosopher, scholar, Canadian educator
Ivan Edward Sutherland - an American computer scientist and Internet pioneer
Leonhard Paul Euler - a mathematician
The Art of the Metaobject Protocol
LISP (List Processing Language)
OOPSLA - Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications
Xerox PARC
Jonathan Swift
ARPANET (The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network)
Lawrence (Larry) G. Roberts - scientist
Virtual Café
Butler W. Lampson - scientist
Napoléon Bonaparte
James Dewey Watson - Molecular Biology of the Gene
E. coli bacterium
Xerox Alto computer
History of Programming Language Conference (HOPL)
Transcript: The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet, OOPSLA 1997 by A. R. Svendsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Moryton 03:53 1 comments
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)—Computers in Entertainment 2006
2006 ACM Computers in Entertainment
Annual Scholarship Awards Reception
[Newton Lee, presenter] And now, please welcome my hero, my mentor, my dear friend Dr. Alan Kay. (applause)
[Alan C. Kay] Thanks a lot.—Newton asked me to actually give a keynote address, but I don't think that makes a lot of sense and—Especially after Quincy showed us how to give a short talk. (laughter)
If I had to give this talk in ten seconds I'd just quote a line from the Talmud, which says, We see things not as they are, but as we are. And I think education is the process that tries to bring those two things together; that we're set up as human beings to survive, to be sociable, to use language to tell stories, to seek revenge, to love music; a whole bunch of things that are common around the world. But many of the things that have lifted us up in civilization have been inventions, not things that are built into us. So while every group in the world, including ours, is interested in revenge, not every group in the world has the idea of equal rights, and equal rights is a much harder idea to learn than revenge. We can certainly see that from looking at the average Hollywood movie or television show. These are all aimed, primarily, at the things that are built into us, and it is a much more difficult task to make a movie about some invention, like science or math, or why having law is better than having revenge, or why having equal rights is better than having a hierarchy. These are very difficult ideas.
So instead of giving a talk about education, I thought I'd just mention a couple of ideas that I think about. One of them is the amazing relationship between marketing and education.
So people who are in the marketing business are very interested in who people are, and what they want, what they're interested in, and so are educators. And the big difference between the two groups is that, by and large, marketing people are trying to give people something that, after the transaction has happened, this person is the same, but they have some new thing; and educators are trying to have something different happen after the transaction, where they would like there to be a different person there than there was before. So one of them is simply additive, and of them is kind of ecological, just like when you throw some rabbits into Australia. You do not get Australian ecology plus rabbits, you get a whole new ecology, and education is a way of stirring up the ecology in our minds.
Another thing I think about a lot, and very apt here today, because here we are in a very dark room, and this room is used for screening, and could be a theater. So one night we might go to a wonderful theater in Hollywood and see very good-looking people, hear great music, hear wonderful words, and be transported by what's going on. And two days later we might go to the very same theater, and we might even see some of the very same people, and we might hear great music, and great words, but the first night might be a theatrical production, and the second time we go might be a political rally. And if we undergo the same psychological processes in both places we are not educated, because on the one hand we are in the presence of a story, for the purpose of entertainment or a kind of enlightenment; we want to give ourselves over to it, because that's what we are as human beings. We are able to participate in the ideas of our species by telling stories. But when we're talking about things that have to do with our political process, or talking about whether we should go to war, it's a very different thing, and we need to be in a very different frame of mind. And I think the difference between educated and uneducated people is that they know this difference. And again, it's kind of what the Talmud said. If we treat everything as it seems, then we're in its power, whereas if we understand that everything that seems is something that we're actually generating in part ourselves, then we have some power over it.
So I think the last thing in media—I guess I'm basically a media inventor along with some of my colleagues and personal computing and the Internet—And the interesting thing about environments is that, environments are the situations where people learn best. So a child is born into an environment, and the child winds up becoming a member of that environment. If we wanna learn French, the best thing to do is to go to France rather than to take a French class over here—To embed ourselves in that. And whenever we create media, we are actually creating an environment, and McLuhan pointed out that an electronic media will become an environment that will start affecting us the way the physical environment that we live in. So he was looking at both what the book has done to us over the last few centuries, and what he thought television was going to do to us. And the most important thing about any environment is that it sets up, in everyone's minds, an unconscious theory of what's normal. The stuff that's repeated over and over again gradually disappears into us. And it's not that, for instance, violence on television is telling us to be violent to anybody, but it is sanctioning it. And this is something to really think about when you are trying to wake up an audience with some idea that; a thousand people trying to wake up an audience the same way with some crash, or violence, is actually creating a normalcy for it. Or a hundred vigilante movies a year is creating something in where vigilanteism seems normal, yet, our entire society is formed against that. A notion of revenge shown over and over again is something that appeals to deep instincts inside of us, actually makes us think that revenge might be okay, when in fact, part of our legal system is set up to exact that kind of legal revenge.
So we have to think about that, because people in the media business have incredible power, not over people's minds directly, but you have incredibly power over what people consider to be normal. So, in many ways, what education is about, I think, is, learning how human beings think about things. How do we think. And especially, trying to understand how we ourselves think.—Thank you.
Marshall McLuhan
The Talmud
Hollywood industry
Moryton 22:59 0 comments
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Aimee Bender on the writing process.
[Aimee Bender] So I am one of the ones with a very set regiment which uhm—And the way it happened for me is that I kind of didn't have, I mean I—I think about this a lot, coz I think it really affects the work—the technique sort of effects the work uhm But basically for a while I was kind of writing whenever I had the time, or whenever I felt inspired, and it had a very kind of serious feel to it, and when I went—I went to grad school, now twelve years ago, and I thought if I'm gonna be in grad school, I should write—I should try writing everyday.
And so I started with an hour and a half, and the rule I made myself was; I have to sit here for an hour and a half.—It was just the beginning of e-mail, for like, you know, many people like me, who were not on the cutting edge. So it was like telnet for the world of graduate school. So I would check e-mail first, but I would have maybe one e-mail from some other person that had e-mail. So it was very easy to check e-mail and then do the work.—And the rule was, I just have to sit there, and I could go to the bathroom. But other than that, you know, maybe get a little food, but no phone calls, no anything else uhm and it totally changed the way that I wrote because I got really bored, and suddenly instead of leaving when I was bored and doing something else, I had to kind of sit through the boredom, and on the other side of the boredom something would happen, and I would have to entertain myself coz I'm just stuck there. And so the writing got a lot weirder and it got funnier, which surprised me too. And it had more of a push to it? It just really helped it. It kind of charged it up in some way.
And then I've now extended it to two hours, but it—That's about my limit. I can sometimes do two hours fifteen, but basically I write down the time when I sit down. It's very anal, but it works for me. And then I get to stop then. And something about the steadiness has really helped. So sometimes people will say, Well, if you're on a roll, do you stop? But I stop. Somehow my sense of the steadiness is more important than if I'm on a given roll on a given day.
Authors@Google: Aimee Bender [0h:28m:50s]
June 22, 2007 at Google Headquarters in Mountain View, CA.
[Added 2007-11-26] An interview where she adds a couple of other details about the writing process.
Moryton 12:17 0 comments


text:
If the Purdue basketball team has any chance of finishing non-conference play with a winning record, the Boilermakers' margin for error is now zero.
Including Saturday's 81-68 loss to 22nd-ranked Notre Dame in the Crossroads Classic, Purdue is 4-6 with three non-league games left – Tuesday vs. Ball State, Dec. 29 vs. William & Mary and Jan. 19 vs. West Virginia, each in Mackey Arena.
Each of those three is beatable, but at some point, this inconsistent team is going to have to start stringing victories together. While the Boilermakers have not lost more than two in a row, they also haven't won more than two in a row.
And with Illinois, Michigan State and Ohio State to begin Big Ten Conference play in early January, it's going to be tough for Purdue to get close to or get over .500 any time soon.
When the Boilermakers missed 14 of their first 15 shots to begin the second half Saturday in Banker's Life Fieldhouse, Notre Dame extended its eight-point halftime lead to 23, and yet another loss was in the books.
It's a reality that this Purdue team lacks consistent perimeter shooting. DJ Byrd has his moments, but he also has suffered through a recent 1 of 20 stretch from beyond the arc. The glimmer of hope that surfaced from Saturday's game was the final 10:22 stretch in which freshman guard Rapheal Davis scored 21 points.
And those points were not scored against those who sit at the end of the Irish bench. Notre Dame used only seven players in beating Purdue. Davis came to Purdue with the reputation of being a scorer, and he certainly showed he can do that in a memorable late-game sequence that cut the lead to nine at one point.
You can bet Davis and fellow freshmen Ronnie Johnson and AJ Hammons are going to continue to see more playing time. Painter always tries to make it a special season for his seniors, but if the Boilermakers continue to lose games, he might as well play this recruiting class, which is his best since the 2007 group of Baby Boilers.
Purdue has Ball State on Tuesday night and then has 11 days before playing again. You can bet Painter will be doing lots of thinking and contemplating during that break. And so should his turnover-prone players, who must begin making better decisions, or this team will be destined to have a losing season.
Powered by Facebook Comments

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Oracle recognizes those who have served in the United States Armed Forces and thanks them for their service. We are especially proud to acknowledge and support our own employees and their family members who have served or are serving in the military.
Oracle has a long history of helping veterans, especially those injured during their service, find employment. Our efforts include:


text:
People take part in a 2014 New Year's Day hike at Beechwood Park in Sodus, part of the national First Day Hike program. Nature charges no admission to enjoy its beauty in winter, spring, summer or fall.
- Filed Under
January 2014 marks the seventh anniversary of the Do It! page, our weekly quest at exploring ways to get busy in the outdoors - and sometimes the indoors.
That adds up to 364 stories of can do and how to, covering topics and individuals as varied as the birds in the sky and fish in the sea. In gathering these stories, I've been guided by one compass, OK, two compasses: an inquisitive mind and a deadline.
The mission is simple: to inspire folks to get off the couch and get moving by celebrating the adventures of interesting folks doing interesting things. ...


text:
A recent article in the New York Times highlighted the fact that you are likely to find musicians at the top of almost any industry, citing filmmaker Woody Allen, broadcaster Paula Zahn, NBC chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd, Condoleezza Rice, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, and co-founder of Microsoft Paul Alan as successful individuals who share a rigorous engagement in the study of music. Whether you pursue a career within the music industry, or transfer your skills to a non-music profession, UST Music can help you reach your goals.
If you're considering a music major, you may have already identified your dream music career. Performer? Educator? Entrepreneur? Or maybe you're not sure what you can do with a music degree. The Future of Music Coalition, an education, research and advocacy organization for musicians, identified forty two common and lesser known revenue streams for musicans. The Career Development Center at Berklee College of Music offers insight into positions in the performance, writing, business, audio technology, education, music therapy, and emerging career sectors in its Music Careers In Dollars and Cents, 2012 edition.
Have you ever wondered how much money you'll make in a music career? The Music Careers In Dollars and Cents provides a comprehensive guide of salary ranges for the full spectrum of music careers.
What Can You Do with a Music Degree? 70+ Careers & Salaries Revealed, compiled by Music School Central, offers additional insight.
The Future of Music Coalition published financial case studies profiling the artist revenues of jazz bandleader-composer, indie rock composer-performer, jazz sideman-bandleader, professional orchestra player, and contemporary chamber ensemble.
Music Education, Vocal or Instrumental


text:
Okay, devil's advocate then: Bush got into office with the intention of using a war get SH out. So he goes to the intelligence community and sexes up/hard-sells what American intelligence has. So now we have SH dragging his feet on inspections, and the sexed up intel. Then America (and several other countries) invade and install, let's face it, a VERY favorable governing body. Oil starts flowing (is this new contry a member of OPEC? hmmmmm....).
So both Blair, Bush and the late great ruling party of Spain, among others, have gone out on a huge limb on presumably (for the sake of argument) false intelligence.
What is the payoff here? Why expose yourself politically without a major payoff that is either strategic or monetary?
Its a question of ideology. Richard Perle and company have been hot to trot for this since Bush I. They felt it would domino the entire middle east into some form utopia where cats and dogs play together. The post war planning indicates that these guys truely believed we, the coalition, would be welcomed with open arms by all. Its apparent the powers that be thought once SH was toppled life would instantly improve. Most middle east analysts disagreed with these ideas and said "hey your gonna need move than 100,00 trops there for at least 5 years". In fact an administration official was canned for saying as much (I can't recall his name and I'm too lazy to look it up. It was White I believe), but the administration was blinded by ideology and visions of grandeur. BushCo firmly believed, IMO, that this conflict would takes days, and the cleanup would take a couple of months. They were wrong.
The domino theory was applied to Afganastan also. Its been two years there and there isn't much governmental control outside Kandahar.
Joseph Cirincione at the Carnagie Institute for International peace said "You can't bring democracy at the tip of a bayonette." I don't know if he originated that but He's said it quite a few times and its true. Democracy only comes when the people being ruled decide they want a change. Or in the case of Post WWII Japan democracy come when 40% of the male population is killed, two atomic bombs are dropped and the US amintans a 15 year controlling presence.
Now the question becomes do the ends justify the means? In 99.99% of the case no. We learned a lot from the Jewish internments and the experiments performed by German doctors at that time. Was it worth it? NO. We destabilized a country in order to extract oil. We're breeding more and more terrorists instead of addressing the fundamental issues. We've diverted our attention from disrupting terrorist organizations to toppling two bit dictators. Was it worth it? Time will tell, but my hunch is no. Who knows, maybe after 20 years of sanctions SH might have changed his tune and decided to reenter the world society as a "good leader" ala Libya. We'll never find out now.
We squandered world positive opinion for an ideological turnaround in the middle east instead of using diplomacy to change minds. We could have given Sauid Arabia an ultamatium but we didn't. We could have said "All you dictators out there look out because here we come!" We didn't. We didn't. We relied on force which the only thing force ever beget was force.


text:
Posted by Josh Katzowitz
- An interesting look at what it's like to work on a book with Chad Ochocinco (full disclosure: the first book I wrote was with Orange Frazer Press. It was not on Ochocinco. Or Chad Johnson, for that matter).
- Eagles WR Jeremy Maclin was dealing with a mono-like sickness that he battled from mid-February to late March. It caused him to lose about 15 pounds.
- We don't normally think of Bengals coach Marvin Lewis as a stand-up comic, but in a recent roast of Cincinnati restaurant legend Jeff Ruby, Lewis summoned his inner-Jeff Ross. Naturally, that includes a joke at Ochocinco's expense. Also, Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly just kills Lewis and Bearcats coach Butch Jones.
- CBSSports.com's own Mike Freeman thinks there's a 30-40 percent chance mediation this time around will work.
- The three finalists for the Patriots 2011 HOF induction class are coach Bill Parcells, QB Drew Bledsoe and DL Houston Antwine. Fans can vote at patriots.com through May 15.
- Joe Henderson of the Tampa Tribune doesn't think that agreeing to a home game in London vs. the Bears is such a good idea for the Buccaneers.
- RB Ricky Williams hasn't closed the door on possibly returning to Miami (if, of course, the Dolphins really want him).
- Patriots director of player personnel Nick Caserio gave an interesting look into how New England preps for the draft and what happens in the war room during draft day.
- The Ravens' record on drafting first-round picks? Pretty good. Their record on drafting second-round picks? Not quite as impressive.
- Lions DT Ndamukong Suh will try to set the world record for the largest tweet-up ever. The record is 1,149 – which, frankly, is lower than I would have expected.
For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed .


text:
guitar tabs, guitar chords and lyrics
Public books
My songbook
you rated this:
Currently 1/5 Stars.
Currently 1/5 Stars.
average: 1
Try these songs in G on a guitar in open G (GGDGBD) or 5-string banjo. ZEITGEISTMOVIE(DOT)COM
Against The Wind (Bob Seger)
And She Was (Talking Heads)
Baby i love your way (Peter Frampton)
Bad Moon Rising (Creedence Clearwater Revival)
Born to run (Bruce Springsteen)
Brian wilson (Barenaked Ladies)
Bright Smile (Josh Ritter)
Brimful Of Asha (Cornershop)
Carry Me Carrie (Dr. Hook)
Champagne Supernova (Oasis)
Clam Crab Cockle Cowrie (Joanna Newsom)
Country roads (John Denver)
Crazy (Patsy Cline)
crazy (Seal)
Creep (Unknown)
dark as a dungeon (Tennessee Ernie Ford)
Dont Stop Believin Acoustic (Journey)
Every rose has its thorn (Poison)
Everything Is Wonderful (Everclear)
Faithfully (Journey)
Fat Bottomed Girls (Queen)
Fields Of Gold (Sting)
Free fallin (Tom Petty)
Girl In The War (Josh Ritter)
good hearted woman (Waylon Jennings)
Good Man (Josh Ritter)
Heart of gold (Neil Young)
Hey Ya (Outkast)
Hide Your Love Away (John Lennon/Paul McCartney)
Hold On (Tom Waits)
Hold On Loosely (38 Special)
Hold on loosly (38 Special)
Im Yours (Jason Mraz)
Imagine (Beatles)
Kathleen (Josh Ritter)
Kids (Mgmt)
Lay Down Sally (Clapton/ Levy/ Terry)
Lay Lady Lay (Bob Dylan)
Lets Get It On (Marvin Gaye)
Light Up My Room (Barenaked Ladies)
Lillian, Egypt (Josh Ritter)
Little Lion Man (Mumford & Sons)
man of constant sorrow (Soggy Bottom Boys)
Man Of Constant Sorrow (Soggy Bottom Boys)
Mercy Mercy Me (Marvin Gaye)
Modern Love (David Bowie)
Monster Ballads (Josh Ritter)
Monster Ballads (Josh Ritter)
Moon River (Misc. Soundtrack)
My Life Will Suck Without You (Kelly Clarkson)
My Way (Frank Sinatra)
Nightswimming (R.E.M)
Peace Train (Cat Stevens)
People Get Ready (Misc. Gospel)
Ring Of Fire (Johnny Cash)
Rocket Man (Elton John)
Sail Away (Randy Newman)
Sex on fire (Kings Of Leon)
Sharing The Night Together (Dr. Hook)
Sweet Home Alabama (Lynyrd Skynyrd)
The Biggest Lie (Elliott Smith)
Truth No 2 (Dixie Chicks)
Turn the Page (Bob Seger)
Voodoo Lady (Ween)
Wabash cannonball (Traditional)
Wagon Wheel (Bob Dylan)
Walk Of Life (Dire Straits)
Walking In Memphis (Marc Cohn)
WHEN WILL I BE LOVED (Linda Ronstadt)
Where Do I Begin (Chemical Brothers)
Who Loves You (Four Seasons)
Wolves (Josh Ritter)
Wont get fooled again (Who)
Note: If you log in, you can add this book to
your private collection and edit the content.
Return to main list
play their songs - buy their music - support the artists
copyright © 2011
guitar chords
5 popular songs
Man On The Moon
Mr Tambourine Man
Lay Lady Lay
Bob Dylan
You Were Meant For Me
The Lion Sleeps Tonight


text:
What causes joint pain and leg pain? 3 possible conditions
See a list of possible causes in order from the most common to the least.
Sprains and strains are injuries to the body, often resulting from physical activity. These injuries are common and can range from minor to severe, depending on the incident. Most don't require medical attention.
This condition is considered a medical emergency. Urgent care may be required.
Necrotizing vasculitis is the inflammation of blood vessel walls. It can interrupt blood flow, causing skin, muscle, and blood vessel damage, and death of tissues and organs. Its symptoms can affect the entire body.
Please consult a healthcare professional if you have health concerns.
Click to add a symptom to your list
- Top Symptoms
Copyright © 2005 - 2015 Healthline Networks, Inc. All rights reserved for Healthline. Healthline is for informational purposes and should not be considered medical advice, diagnosis or treatment recommendations. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy


text:
RICK SMITH: There's more to the rodeo than rodeo
SAN ANGELO, Texas - What: Rodeo performances
When: Thursday through Feb. 23 except for Monday and Tuesday
Where: Foster Communications Coliseum, 50 E. 43rd St.
Contact: 325-653-7785 or sanangelorodeo.com
What: Fairgrounds
When: Now through Feb. 24
Where: West of the coliseum, 50 E. 43rd St.
Cost: Free for holders of rodeo tickets or Carnival Super Passes. Otherwise, $5 for adults and $2 for children younger than 12
Contact: 325-653-7785 or sanangelorodeo.com
What: Carnival midway
When: 5-11 p.m. weekdays; noon to 11 p.m. Saturdays; noon to 7 p.m. Sundays, now through Feb. 24
Where: Northwest of the coliseum, 50 E. 43rd St.
Cost: A one-day ride pass is $28. Individual tickets are available.
Contact: 325-653-7785 or sanangelorodeo.com
With Monday came the calm before the storm, a quiet lull before the main event begins.
But by 7 p.m. Thursday — the first rodeo performance — the Foster Communications Coliseum's parking lot will be packed.
Rodeo performances continue over the weekend, take a break Monday and Tuesday, begin again Feb. 20 and don't stop until the final performance Feb. 23.
The fairgrounds and midway already are open for visitors, but during my Monday afternoon visit, I felt like a guest who showed up for a party a little too early.
Fairground merchants took advantage of the slow early afternoon to put finishing touches on their portable shops, games, rides and displays.
The Bill Hames carnival, always a crowd pleaser, looked empty with all the game booths and colorful rides in place but shuttered, awaiting a 5 p.m. opening.
The only sign of life was a carnival crew struggling to maneuver a game booth on wheels into a tight spot. With the chief shouting instructions to the truck driver and crew, they eventually inched the small building into exactly the right spot.
I got a sneak peek into the new livestock building south of the Wells Fargo Pavilion while workmen finished up a job.
It's a huge building that still has its "new building" smell.
A couple of longtime favorite exhibits, the petting zoo and pony rides, fit into a small corner of the building. The only other livestock I saw in the building Monday was an exhibit of parakeets that allows visitors to walk into the cage.
The Commercial Exhibitors in the Wells Fargo Pavilion, always a favorite, were up and running, selling everything from fancy cowhides and leather saddles to cowgirl clothing.
Touring the midway on a slow Monday afternoon feels nothing like being a part of the crowd that comes later in the day. With crowds, you're swept along as if in a river. With no crowds, you're free to take your time and see the sights at a slower pace.
The Beer Barn was empty except for one employee behind the bar who was wiping down the counter.
"Busy day?" I asked. She just smiled and kept wiping.
Outside, a salesman for a farm and ranch equipment company tried to sell me a huge machine that must cost more than my house.
I just smiled and kept walking.
I learn something new every year I visit the fairgrounds, especially in the livestock barns.
The livestock buildings have a different feel — and smell — without the animals.
I stepped into one building expecting to see judges studying sheep or goats.
Instead I found a young student standing confident and alone in the show ring. Looking straight ahead, arms by her sides. She was speaking to a panel of judges and a bleacher of onlookers as part of the Ag Speaking Contest. The winners can receive thousands of dollars in scholarship money.
For some of us, a favorite part of the fairgrounds is the food. This year food vendors line both sides of the walkway. The heavenly smells from the cooking shout out at you: "Frog legs!" "Chicken on a stick!" "Corn in a cup!"
For those on a diet, quickly go inside the Creative Arts Building where the food judging takes place.
The best part is that the "Popcorn Cake" and "Chunk Double Chocolate Cookies" are safely stashed out of reach in glass showcases.
Lost dog
A red and black female miniature pinscher with large ears is missing. She is pregnant and has tags that read "Sur Luv."
If you can help get her home, please call 325-227-1341.
Subscribe to the San Angelo Standard-Times
Need Help? Call us at 1-877-304-7763.
Monday-Friday: 6am-8pm / Saturday: 6am-12pm / Sunday: 6am-1pm


text:
Marcel can refer to:
*A novel by Erwin Mortier. *Gabriel Marcel. *The Belgian socio-artistic collective Marcel set up by some young artists whose work is presented on Marcelnet. *Marriage celibacy. *A world renowned mime artist Marcel Marceau *A style of potato chip. The Ballreich Brothers' potato chip, introduced in 1920, was cut with a corrugated blade. Because it resembled the "marcelled" look then popular in hair fashion, the term was used to describe their chips. Although the term has been trademarked by the Tiffin, Ohio company, the term has been used by other companies, including Jones Potato Chips.


text:
So it's Yule again in our house! Our bell rang and a package of unknown origin was delivered to me. I was completely confused and had no idea where it came from. I opened the box and inside was a stack of Pagan books! Then it hit me. A few months ago, while visiting friends in Connecticut, my old friend Agnes (She's not old, in fact she's younger than I. I've known her for over 10 years.) told me she'd found some books that might interest me while she was cleaning out her basement. Agnes had no idea who the books belonged to or where they came from. Since she isn't Pagan and no one in her home is she decided to pass them along to me, knowing I'd get some use out of them. She said she would send them to me when she had a chance and I'd forgotten all about that conversation until the package arrived in the mail today. Atreya and I are beyond excited to read them because they are not only books we've never seen before but authors we aren't familiar with! Loving the opportunity to read and learn something new.
The books are:
- Celestial Goddess:An Illustrated Meditation Guide by: Lisa Hunt
- Tarot Spells by: Janina Renee
- The Sacred Circle Tarot:A Celtic Pagan Journey by: Anna Franklin illustrated by: Paul Mason
- Celtic Myth and Legend by: Charles Squire
- Celtic Astrology: How The Mystical Power of the Druid Tree Signs Can Transform Your Life by: Phyllis Vega
- The Pictorial Key to the Tarot by: Edward Waite
- The Little Giant Encyclopedia of Spells and Magic by: The Diagram Group
I told you about these books for a couple of reasons. First, Atreya and I are excited to dive into the new knowledge brought to us in these books. One of the goals of a witch is to never stop learning, so getting a stack of new books is a great opportunity to further our witchy education. Also, opening a big box filled with books is like opening presents on Yule to us. Anyone that is in love with books and has an over stuffed bookcase knows what I'm talking about.
Second, I'm a lucky witch. I've been lucky enough to find wonderful, caring and accepting people to be friends with. Many of them I met years ago during my time away at college well before I began inching my way out of the broom closet. Now, over ten years later, I've kicked the broom closet door completely open only to find that my friends love me anyway. They treat me the same, openly ask me questions about my beliefs and when they come across something they think I'd find interesting (like a stack of basically new Pagan books) they send it my way without hesitation. I'm a lucky witch because my friends and family (for the most part) accept me, warts and all, and I get wonderful surprises like books from my old friend Agnes. I wish all witches and Pagans experienced the same level of acceptance from those closest to them.
Bright Blessings and Blessed Yule.... Again,


text:
Accountants in Ridgefield, NJ
Home > NJ > Ridgefield
|Mayfair Mortgage Group
498 Bergen Blvd
Ridgefield, NJ 07657
|Kop Associates
553 Bergen Blvd Ste 1D
Ridgefield, NJ 07657
Results were generated in 0.080679 seconds.
AccountantFast.com offers the largest selections of Ridgefield Tax Accountants, Book keepers and CPAs in Ridgefield, NJ. Use our elite database search to find all of the best accountants in Ridgefield for taxes or book keeping. We add listings to our site daily, and we are known for being the largest accounting directory listing on the internet. So begin your search now to find your tax accoutant or your CPA in Ridgefield.


text:
November 30, 2015
Tyrann Mathieu's adoptive father says the former LSU star plans to enroll in classes at LSU, even though he cannot play football there this season.
Tyrone Mathieu tells WVUE-TV in New Orleans that his son plans to enroll at the Baton Rouge campus Tuesday, the deadline for the fall semester.
The football star known as the Honey Badger has been working out personal problems with former NBA coach and player John Lucas in Houston. Lucas battled drug and alcohol problems during his career and now counsels others.
The 2011 Heisman Trophy finalist was kicked off the team at LSU Aug. 10 for failing drug tests.
LSU has declined to speculate about whether Mathieu could play for the Tigers in 2013.
Mathieu also will be eligible for the 2013 NFL draft.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2013-31
July 29, 2013
Table of Contents
This notice proposes a revenue procedure describing circumstances in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will not treat a redemption of shares in a money market fund as part of a wash sale under § 1091 of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed revenue procedure provides that if a taxpayer realizes a loss upon a redemption of certain money market fund shares and the amount of the loss is not more than a specified percentage of the taxpayer's basis in such shares, the IRS will treat such loss as not realized in a wash sale.
This proposed guidance is intended to mitigate tax compliance burdens that may result from proposed changes in the rules that govern the prices at which certain money market fund shares are issued and redeemed. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued proposed regulations to effect these changes. See Money Market Fund Reform, Securities Act Release No. 9408, Investment Advisors Act Release No. 3616, Investment Company Act Release No. 30,551, 78 Fed. Reg. 36834 (proposed June 5, 2013). The proposed revenue procedure is drafted as if the SEC had already adopted final rules addressing floating net asset value in substantially the same form as the proposed rules. If those rules are not adopted in substantially the same form as they have been proposed, the revenue procedure proposed by this notice may not be adopted or may be adopted in materially modified form.
The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed revenue procedure. Consideration will be given to any written public comments that are submitted on or before October 28, 2013. A signed original and eight (8) copies of public comments should be sent by mail to Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (IRS Notice 2013-48), Room 5203, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Public comments also may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to the Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20224, Attn: CC:PA:LPD:PR (IRS Notice 2013-48). Comments also may be transmitted electronically to the following e-mail address: email@example.com. Please include "Notice 2013-48" in both the subject line of the e-mail and the body of the comment. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.
The principal author of this notice is Steven Harrison of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions & Products). For further information regarding this notice, contact Mr. Harrison at (202) 622-3930 (not a toll-free call).
This revenue procedure describes circumstances in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will not treat a redemption of shares in a money market fund (MMF) as part of a wash sale for purposes of § 1091 of the Internal Revenue Code.
.01 Money Market Funds
(1) An MMF is a type of investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act) and regulated as a money market fund under Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act (17 C.F.R. § 270.2a-7). Unlike other types of mutual funds, MMFs have historically sought to keep stable (typically at $1.00) the prices at which their shares are issued and redeemed. The types of securities that MMFs are permitted to hold and the share-pricing and valuation methods specific to MMFs have made stable prices possible.
(2) To be treated as an MMF, an investment company must meet the requirements specified in Rule 2a-7, which, among other things, establishes limitations as to the maturity, quality, diversification, and liquidity of an MMF's investments. Generally, an MMF must hold a diversified portfolio of short-term, low-risk securities. The securities that an MMF holds generally result in no more than minimal fluctuations in the MMF's net asset value.
(3) Previously, an MMF meeting the requirements of Rule 2a-7(c) was permitted by that provision to compute its price per share for purposes of issuance and redemption by using either or both of (a) the amortized cost method of valuation and (b) the penny-rounding method of pricing. Under the amortized cost method, an MMF's net asset value is determined by treating the fund's portfolio securities as having a value equal not to their then-current fair market value but rather to their acquisition cost, adjusted for amortization of premium or accretion of discount. Under the penny-rounding method, an MMF's net asset value per share is rounded to the nearest one percent. These methods generally enabled MMFs to maintain constant share prices except in situations in which the amortized cost method or penny-rounding method resulted in a variation in share price that exceeded one-half of one percent (commonly called "breaking the buck").
(4) The perceived safety and simplicity of MMFs have led to their widespread use as cash management vehicles. It is therefore common for investors to purchase and redeem MMF shares frequently. An MMF is often used as a sweep account into which cash is automatically deposited on a daily basis. MMFs generally declare dividends daily and distribute them monthly. MMF shareholders typically reinvest these distributions automatically in the MMF.
(5) The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has limited the situations in which an MMF is permitted to use the amortized cost method to those in which other mutual funds are permitted to use this method. [Cite final SEC rules.] In addition, the SEC has restricted the use of the penny-rounding method to government MMFs and retail MMFs.[55] In the case of an MMF that is neither a government MMF nor a retail MMF, Rule 2a-7 now requires the MMF to value its portfolio securities using market-based factors and to issue and redeem shares at a price that is rounded to the nearest basis point, or one one-hundredth of one percent (basis point rounding).[56]
(6) An MMF that uses market factors to value its securities and uses basis point rounding to price its shares for issuance and redemption will have a share price that changes frequently, or "floats" (a floating-NAV MMF). A floating-NAV MMF will therefore resemble other mutual funds that are not MMFs, except for the restrictions on the assets that an MMF is permitted to hold and the unique role that MMFs have historically occupied.
(7) Constant share prices have simplified the taxation of MMF share transactions because a shareholder does not realize gain or loss when a share is redeemed for an amount equal to its basis. Shareholders will typically realize gain or loss, however, on redemptions of floating-NAV MMF shares. In certain circumstances, a loss realized on the redemption of an MMF share may implicate the wash sale rules of § 1091, as discussed in section 2.02 of this revenue procedure.
(8) Sections 6045, 6045A, and 6045B establish certain reporting requirements relating to securities. Each of those sections has an exception for an MMF that stabilizes its share price at a constant amount that approximates its issue price or the price at which it was originally sold to the public. See §§ 1.6045-1(c)(3)(vi), 1.6045A-1(a)(1)(v), and 1.6045B-1(a)(5) of the Income Tax Regulations. A floating-NAV MMF that does not stabilize its share price at a constant amount is not eligible for those exceptions. Sections 6045, 6045A, and 6045B, however, also contain exceptions for certain transactions involving exempt recipients, which include subchapter C corporations and certain other entities. See §§ 1.6045-1(c)(3)(i), 1.6045A-1(a)(1)(iii), and 1.6045B-1(a)(4). Most shareholders of floating-NAV MMFs are expected to be exempt recipients, which will reduce reporting obligations for transactions in floating-NAV MMF shares.
.02 Wash Sale Rules
(1) Section 1091(a) disallows a loss realized by a taxpayer on a sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities if, within a period beginning 30 days before and ending 30 days after the date of such sale or disposition, the taxpayer acquires (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss is recognized by law), or enters into a contract or option to so acquire, substantially identical stock or securities (unless the taxpayer is a dealer in stock or securities and the loss is sustained in a transaction made in the ordinary course of such business).
(2) Under § 1091(d), a taxpayer's basis in the property the acquisition of which resulted in the nondeductibility of a loss under § 1091(a) equals the basis of the stock or securities disposed of, increased or decreased to take into account any difference between the price at which the replacement property was acquired and the price at which the original stock or securities were disposed of.
(3) A shareholder that redeems shares in a floating-NAV MMF may realize a loss on the redemption. Moreover, because many MMF shareholders engage in frequent purchases of MMF shares (including purchases made as a result of sweep arrangements and reinvestments of distributions), a shareholder that realizes a loss on a redemption of MMF shares will often acquire shares in that MMF within 30 days before or after the redemption.
(4) Redemptions of shares of MMFs, which have relatively stable values even when share prices float, do not give rise to the concern that § 1091 is meant to address. Moreover, given the expected volume of transactions in MMF shares, tracking wash sales of MMF shares will present shareholders of floating-NAV MMFs with significant practical challenges. Therefore, it is in the interest of sound tax administration to prescribe circumstances in which the IRS will not treat a redemption of these MMF shares as part of a wash sale under § 1091. Those circumstances are set forth in sections 3 and 4 of this revenue procedure.
This revenue procedure applies to a redemption of one or more shares in an investment company registered under the 1940 Act if—
.01 The investment company is regulated as an MMF under Rule 2a-7 and holds itself out to the public as an MMF; and
.02 At the time of the redemption, the investment company is a floating-NAV MMF.
.01 If a redemption is within the scope of section 3 of this revenue procedure and results in a de minimis loss, the IRS will not treat such redemption as part of a wash sale. Therefore, § 1091(a) will not disallow the deduction for the resulting de minimis loss in the year realized and § 1091(d) will not cause the basis of any property to be determined by reference to the basis of the redeemed shares.
.02 Solely for purposes of section 4.01 of this revenue procedure, the term de minimis loss means a loss realized upon a redemption of a share of stock of an MMF the amount of which (expressed as a positive number) is not more than one half of one percent (0.5%) of the taxpayer's basis in that share.
.03 In determining whether a loss is a de minimis loss within the meaning of section 4.02 of this revenue procedure, a taxpayer must use the same basis determination method and lot selection method under § 1012 and the regulations thereunder that the taxpayer uses to determine the amount of its gain or loss for purposes of calculating taxable income.
.01 Example 1. (1) Fund is an MMF that meets the requirements of Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act and holds itself out to the public as an MMF. Fund is a floating-NAV MMF at all times during year 1. Before September 1 of year 1, Taxpayer, a domestic corporation that is taxable under subchapter C of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, holds no shares of Fund. On September 1 of year 1, Taxpayer invests $1,000,000.00 in Fund when Fund's price per share is $1.0000, receiving in return 1,000,000 shares of Fund. On October 1 of year 1, Taxpayer invests an additional $250,000.00 in Fund when Fund's price per share is $1.0005, receiving in return 249,875.06 shares, which Taxpayer holds in the same account. On October 15 of year 1, Taxpayer redeems $200,000.00 of Fund shares from the same account when Fund's price per share is $0.9980. Taxpayer engages in no other transactions in Fund shares or any substantially identical shares or securities during year 1. Fund is a regulated investment company within the meaning of § 1.1012-1(e)(5) and Taxpayer uses the average basis method to determine the basis of its shares.
(2) Taxpayer's average basis in each Fund share increased to $1.0001 when Taxpayer purchased 249,875.06 shares on October 1 ($1,250,000.00 total purchase price divided by 1,249,875.06 shares). Based on Fund's market NAV on October 15, Taxpayer redeemed 200,400.80 shares to receive $200,000.00 in proceeds. Taxpayer therefore realizes a loss of $420.83 on the October 15 redemption (proceeds of $200,000.00 minus basis of $200,420.83 in redeemed shares), or a loss of $.0021 per share (proceeds of $.9980 per share minus basis of $1.0001 per share). This loss is a de minimis loss under section 4.02 of this revenue procedure because the loss of $.0021 per share is less than $.0050 per share (.5% of $1.0001). Therefore, under section 4.01 of this revenue procedure, the IRS will not treat the loss on each Fund share as subject to current disallowance under § 1091.
.02 Example 2. (1) The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that Fund's price per share at the time of the October 15 redemption is $0.9940.
(2) As in Example 1, Taxpayer's average basis in each Fund share is $1.0001 after the second purchase. Based on Fund's market NAV on October 15, Taxpayer redeemed 201,207.24 shares to receive $200,000.00 in proceeds. Taxpayer therefore realizes a loss of $1,227.36 on the October 15 redemption (proceeds of $200,000 minus basis of $201,227.36 in redeemed shares), or a loss of $.0061 per share (proceeds of $.9940 per share minus basis of $1.0001 per share). Because the loss of $.0061 per share is more than $.0050 per share (.5% of $1.0001), Taxpayer's loss is not a de minimis loss under section 4.02 of this revenue procedure and is subject to current disallowance under § 1091. The entire loss is disallowed under § 1091(a) because Taxpayer purchased more than 201,207.24 shares on October 1.
(3) Taxpayer's basis in its Fund shares after the application of § 1091(a) is determined as follows. First, Taxpayer's basis in 201,207.24 of the 249,875.06 shares it purchased on October 1 is increased to $202,454.71 (Taxpayer's $201,227.36 basis in the sold shares, increased by $1,227.36, which is the difference between the $201,227.36 basis in the replacement shares and the $200,000.00 received for the sold shares). Second, the average basis of all Fund shares held by Taxpayer is determined by dividing Taxpayer's total basis in its Fund shares of $1,050,000.00 (the sum of the $202,454.71 basis in the replacement shares computed above and the $847,545.29 basis in the remaining 847,460.58 shares) by Taxpayer's total remaining Fund shares of 1,048,667.82. Accordingly, Taxpayer's average basis in each Fund share on October 15, year 1 is $1.0013.
The principal author of this revenue procedure is Steven Harrison of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions & Products). For further information regarding this revenue procedure contact Mr. Harrison at (202) 622-3930 (not a toll-free call).
[55] A government MMF is an MMF that maintains at least 80 percent of its assets in cash and certain government securities and repurchase agreements. A retail MMF is an MMF that limits each shareholder's redemptions to $1 million per business day.
[56] The SEC has also amended Rule 2a-7 to require every MMF to disclose daily the fund's current net asset value (NAV) per share rounded to the nearest basis point, but government and retail MMFs are not required to use basis point rounding to issue and redeem shares.
|More Internal Revenue Bulletins


text:
Bruno Mars "When I Was Your Man" (Video Premiere)
"When I Was Your Man" is a song recorded by American singer-songwriter Bruno Mars. The track was the third promotional and final countdown single before the release of his second studio album "Unorthodox Jukebox" that was released on digital retailers on December 11, 2012 via Atlantic Records. The song was written by himself with the collaboration of Philip Lawrence, Ari Levine and Andrew Wyatt. The soul and pop piano ballad about a pre-fame heartbreak as he regrets a girl that he let get away, expressing his earnest hope that her new man is giving her all the love and attention he was unwilling, or unable to provide when they were together, was confirmed as the second official single from the album. The music video directed by Cameron Duddy was posted on his Youtube channel on February 5th, 2013.
During the finale show of the third edition of The Voice, the singer performed the track and confirmed that it would be the next official single taken from the album.
"When I Was Your Man – Single" is available on iTunes (BUY)


text:
Cabin & RV'ing
Whether you enjoy the peace and quiet of a secluded summer cabin or like hitting the road in your RV we have a selection of outdoor cooking gear that will fit you needs. Our cooking systems are designed to offer the greatest amount of versatility in terms of cooking style and add-on accessories no matter where you spend your summer weekends.
Camp Chef Lumberjack Over Fire Grill 18"x36"Item #: OFG36
List Price: $40.00
Price: $36.99
You Save: $3.01 (8%)
Camp Chef's Lumberjack Over Fire Grill is the simplest way to cook while camping. Make of durable plated steel, it's as tough as those who cook over it. Folding legs make for easy transportation and compact storage. The Lumberjack grill is hands d... Learn More
RV connection hoseItem #: RVHOSE
List Price: $40.00
Price: $34.99
You Save: $5.01 (13%)
Stop lugging around that extra propane tank. Now you can connect your Camp Chef stove directly to your RV's propane. No need to take up space with a separate tank for your stove. Simply attach your Camp Chef stove to your RV's propane directly with t... Learn More
Camp Chef Alpine Heavy Duty Cylinder StoveItem #: CS14
List Price: $261.00
Price: $199.99
You Save: $61.01 (23%)
Whether you are an outfitter or just a lover of wall tent camping, you will be hard pressed to find a wood burning stove that has the value added features of the Alpine Heavy Duty Cylinder Stove. There is no fiddling around after the purchase trying ... Learn More
Camp Chef Monterey Propane Fire PitItem #: FP40
List Price: $498.00
Price: $399.99
You Save: $98.01 (20%)
Camp Chef's newest Patio Series fire pit. The Monterey centerpiece will enhance any outdoor living space with its elegant design and added warmth of a clean, beautiful fire. Go from coffee table to fireplace by removing the penny vein finish li... Learn More
Camp Chef Gas Fire RingItem #: GCLOG
List Price: $175.00
Price: $79.99
You Save: $95.01 (54%)
Enjoy the comfort of this "forest friendly" portable gas campfire. Whether you're out on the road in the RV. car camping with the family or just enjoying a night out on the patio - this portable gas firepit is sure to keep you warm. Comes with base &... Learn More
Camp Chef Redwood Portable Propane Fire PitItem #: GCLOGD
List Price: $175.00
Price: $129.99
You Save: $45.01 (26%)
Camp Chef has added another great product to their propane fire pit line up, the Redwood. The Camp Chef Redwood fits nicely in between the Del Rio and their standard Propane Fire Pit with some of the features of the Del Rio and the size of the ... Learn More
Camp Chef Del Rio Gas Fire PitItem #: FP29LG
List Price: $292.00
Price: $220.00
You Save: $72.00 (25%)
BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND - Antique Copper Plate Finish Fire Enjoy the warmth of an outdoor fire without the mess and fuss of chopping wood. This beautiful fire pit burns at 55,000 BTU in a lava rock gas ring. This pit is a perfect accessory for ... Learn More
Camp Chef Monterey Fire Pit - Natural Gas VersionItem #: FP40NG
List Price: $523.00
Price: $399.99
You Save: $123.01 (24%)
Camp Chef's newest Patio Series fire pit. The Monterey centerpiece will enhance any outdoor living space with its elegant design and added warmth of a clean, beautiful fire. Go from coffee table to fireplace by removing the penny vein finish li... Learn More