The Importance of Conceptual Integrity

Recently, I had the opportunity to re-read one of my favorite books on software engineering and design, The Mythical Man-Month. There are so many interesting nuggets of wisdom in that book, but the one that resonated with me this time around with the idea of "Conceptual Integrity". This is the idea that successful software projects are the result of the vision of one person, one mind. In that way, the design of the software reflects a consistency with all of the features fitting together a logical fashion.

The opposite of a design with "Conceptual Integrity" is a piece of software that is designed "by committee". In this situation, you have competing visions battling to insert features into the design. When this happens, it is inevitable that compromise and miscommunicaton will take place. It is difficult for all the members of the committee to agree on the same vision, so everyone will have their own ideas as to what the design should look like. What you end up with is a piece of bloatware that is confusing to use and often full of bugs. A lot of mass market software suffers from this malady. I'm sure we can all think of pieces of software that are burdened with tons of little features that are confusing to use because they don't seem to fit together.

I see this happen all the time at my Fortune 500 company. Often you have different groups going off and designing programs and systems without consideration with how they fit into the overall strategy of the company. One example of this is something as simple as the design of a logging system. Every group as its own vision as to what should be logged, where it should be logged, and how it should be logged. Therefore, everyone ends up building their own logging component that reflects that vision. Obviously this is a problem because now you have applications with log files in different places, in different formats, and with different user interfaces. Aside from the duplication of labor issue, it becomes hard to support systems that have applications with different logging "visions".

The solution was to try to build a common logging component. Of course, the common component reflected a totally different vision that was often incompatible with everyone else's vision. As a result, nobody wanted to use it!

The underlying problem is that there is nobody who is the overall technical architect with the authority to set the vision for the entire company. That person would have been able to say, "this is what the logging component vision should be, and my vision is that everybody should use it." Thus, the systems at my company would have some semblance of Conceptual Integrity.

Obviously the role of that one overall architect becomes very crucial, and you don't want to give that power to just anybody. That is why it is important for companies to identify promising software designers, cultivate them, and keep them happy. Their performance can make of break a company's software product so it is an investment that is worthwhile. The alternative is to continue to design by committee and keep designing software that makes no sense!

In Defense of Programmers Everywhere

Recently, someone I work with sent me a link to a news article entitled _Programmers to Blame for Hard-To-Use Software_. The article has several quotes David Platt, who is author of a book _Why Software Sucks... and What You Can Do About It_. His basic premise is that programmers think "differently" than the rest of the population, and the faults in modern consumer software are caused by these differences. Reading the article, my knee-jerk reaction was to think that this guy was an idiot. After all, I am a programmer and he is pointing the finger of blame squarely in my direction. However, after some consideration, he does raise a few good points; however, I still think he is an idiot.

My main objection is that he seems to imply that programmers are solely responsible for the content of modern consumer software. That, of course, is a total farce. As someone who has worked in the software industry, I can tell you that a software package is the result of the collaboration of many different groups of people: user reps (who try and figure out what the public will pay for and who sign off on the final product to make sure it meets the needs of the public), business analysts (who translate the marketing "wants" into a list of requirements for consumption by the techies), programmers (who turn the requirements given to them into an actual piece of software), testers (who verify that the software doesn't have any "bugs"), and managers (who have oversight over the product and makes sure that everyone does their job).

Gone are the days when a lone programmer could write a major piece of software and exert total creative control over the end result. Today's modern programmer only holds so much sway over the final result. This is actually a good thing in the sense that programmers DO have a different aesthetic than the average person. That is why you have user reps who are supposed to be in tune with users, and that is why you have business analysts who can translate "user-speak" into "techno-speak". If anything, those are the ones whom you should be blaming, since it is their job to be in touch with the user.

Some of the other specific points he makes are utterly crazy. He complains about the "do you really want to delete?" message box as being a bad feature. He makes the analogy that your car doesn't ask you whether or not you really want to start your engine when you turn the key. That is an ignorant analogy. Deleting a file is a destructive step that can be irreversible (or at least require some work to recover). It makes sense for the computer to make an operation like this require multiple clicks. Starting a car, on the other hand, is not something that will destroy or harm the car (at least I would hope not). On the other hand, if turning your ignition key caused your tires to deflate, I would hope that there would be some confirmation before this destructive action is taken.

He also makes the assertion that programmers prefer control as indicated by the fact that they tend to prefer manual transmissions. I certainly have no performed a statistical study on this subject, but my own observation among my co-workers suggests that programmers are no more likely to drive sticks than anyone else. The only co-worker that I know who drives a stick is not a programmer but one of the aforementioned "business analysts", so I am not sure what that means.

He also blames extraneous features like "moveable toolbars" for crashes and security breaches. While it may be true that feature-creep in general is bad because it adds complication, I think he is being somewhat flippant to suggest that toolbars cause crashes and breaches. I have never heard of toolbars causing security holes in an application! This type of grandstanding harms what would otherwise be an actual point.

Finally, he has some rant about how the Starbucks website allows you to search for a Starbucks within 5, 10, or 15 miles. He claims that most people just want to know where the closest Starbucks is to their location. I happen to agree with this point. However, it doesn't really rise to the level of annoyance in my mind. In fact, until he brought it up, I never really thought much about it. Most sites, including the Starbucks store locator site will default to the smallest radius, and then the results will sort by distance, so for most cases, this is good enough for me. Of course, I live in a major metro area. I suppose if I lived in the "boonies", I might be annoyed by having to change the radius to 50 miles every time, but honestly, this isn't a big deal to me.

He does bring up some good points though. Bad error messages, flash web sites... These are the bane of my existence as well. However, these points are overshadowed his seeming preconceived notions about programmers and the software industry in general. While he claims to be a computer science consultant (or something like that), his words seem to make me feel like he does not know what he is talking about. My impression is that he is just trying to sell books through his grandstanding rather than actually trying to engage in an actual dialogue to improve the state of the industry.

Why I Like _Starship Troopers_...

In my formative years, I read a lot of Science Fiction. This is partly due to the fact that I grew up what could be called a "Golden Age" of Science Fiction movies and TV, from the late 70's and through the 80's. Star Wars brought about a whole slew of Science Fiction, both good and bad. However, I loved it all. When I couldn't get enough on the big screen and the little screen, I turned to the written word. One interesting thing was that I seemed to be drawn to the "masters" of Sci Fi: Bradbury, Clarke, Asimov, Herbert. However, the one book that I loved more than any other during my teen years was Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein.

I must have read that book at least a hundred times! I remember one summer where I would take that book out of the library almost continuously. After a month of reading it, I'd return it to the library and then go back the next day to take it out again! At first, I was drawn in by its portrait of the military of the future: the men, the training, the weapons (I LOVED those powered jumpsuits!), and especially the battles on futuristic worlds. At that time in my life, I was fascinated with the military, as many young men are before they encounter Born on the Fourth of July, so this book seemed like the ultimate bible of future warfare.

However, after a couple of readings, I started to gain some more insight into the philosophical and political aspects of the book. While I still do not agree with all of these ideas, Heinlein does give you a lot to think about, if you are open to the experience:

The most controversal idea is that only people who have participated in "Federal Service" (i.e. the military) should be allowed to vote. Heinlein's idea is that only people who have "proven" that they are willing to put the welfare of society above their own should be entrusted with the right to vote. This idea seems controversal to us since we have been raised in a society which values democracy and "the will of the people". Any governmental structure which would disenfranchise a majority of its population unless they put their lives on the line seems anti-thetical to this notion. However, his idea does have some merits, even if you don't totally agree. Currently, the percentage of people who exercise their right to vote is quite low, and those who do vote often do so without much thought ("Oh, Clinton is soooo dreamy, so I will vote for him!"). The idea that people should have to prove their worthiness to vote doesn't seem so bad, all things considered. I don't know if "joining the army" is a suitable proof, but it is an idea that shouldn't be thrown out via a knee jerk reaction.

Another controversial idea is that corporal punishment should be expanded in order to deter crime. In the book, even the most minor infractions are punished by having to endure the whip. The rationale is that the pain and embarrassment of this sort of thing leaves a lasting impression on both the punished and those who witness the punishment. Thus, it acts as a powerful deterrent. In a way, it sort of reminds me a little bit of Rudy Guliani's crackdown on minor, "quality of life" crimes. While his crackdown was met with resistance and anger, you can't argue with the results. Is Heinlein simply taking this concept to the next level? From an emotional standpoint, my initial reaction is to strongly opposed this expansion of corporal punishment. After all, I find spanking and the like quite distasteful. However, from a logical standpoint, there is some common sense to this approach. Certainly, if people were whipped for speeding and other traffic offenses, our highways would be much safer! Although I am not sold on Heinlein's idea, his vision certainly gives one food for thought.

One final idea that permeates this book is the role of violence in society and nature. Heinlein's idea is that war and violence are a natural part of the universe that we live in. After all, nature is ruled by "survival of the fittest", where species need to adapt to their environment or die in favor of a stronger species. In the _Starship Troopers_ universe, the human race has encountered a variety of other life forms, some of which are bent on our destruction. If we decide to just throw away our weapons and live peacefully, we would be wiped out and become a tiny footnote in the history of the universe. If we want to survive, we have to wage war, because that is the "law of the jungle". This idea is also an interesting one, although I strongly disagree with it. In nature, it isn't always the strongest who survives. Species adapt to the presense of more aggressive species in a variety of ways that don't involve violence. Why can't this principle be applied to relations between so-called "intelligent" species? This principle certainly applies when the other species is ourselves!

This is just a taste of some of the thought-provoking ideas that brought me back to _Starship Troopers_ again and again. While I may not agree with all of Heinlein's ideas, he does have a way of forcing you to question the beliefs which you may take for granted. In the end, you might still hold those beliefs, but at least you have taken the time to consider another point of view. And isn't that what good literature (both Sci-Fi and non Sci-fi) is supposed to do?

Investing Made Simple - Part II: Investing and the Power of Compound Interest

As promised in an earlier post, I am going to write a set of articles on the subject of investing aimed at the novice. To start things off, I am going to start with some of the basics of investing.

You probably know what investing is, but I will try to define it anyway. At its essense, investing is the act of taking your money and commiting it to some enterprise in the hopes of making even more money. Basically, you are telling your money to go out and "get a job", in a manner of speaking. This is inherently a risky activity. Sometimes, investing works and you will end up with more money than you started out with. However, there are times when investing doesn't work and you end up with less money than you started out with. Obviously, you would rather invest in some enterprise where you end up with more money.

There are an infinite number of different "enterprises" that you can invest in. Here are some examples:

• You can loan your money to a bank (by depositing it in a savings account) in return for the bank paying you "interest" in return for letting them use your money.

• You can loan your money to the U.S. Government (by buying a savings bond) in return for the government paying you "interest".

• You can buy part-ownership in a company (by buying stock in the company) in the hopes of sharing in the profits of the company.

• You can buy a house in the hopes of being able to sell the house for a higher price in the future.

Again, the main theme here is that you are setting aside some of your extra money in some way so that, hopefully, you will earn even more money than you started out with. The amount of money that you initially invest is often referred to as the principal. If you invest $100 in a particular stock, then your principal is $100.

Investors measure the performance of their investments by quoting a statistic called the rate of return. This is the amount of money that the investment has earned, as a percentage of the principal. Let's say that the stock that you bought for $100 earns you $10 in profit. Then your rate of return for this investment is 10%, since $10 is 10% of $100.

Usually investors look at the rate of return per year. This is referred to as the annual rate of return or the annual effective yield. What this means is that, over the course of a one year period, the investment is earning a rate of return of X%.

An annual rate of return of 10% may not seem like a lot at first. On first glance, you are only getting $10 for every $100 you invest. If you are an instant gratification type of person, this might not seem like much of return for your troubles. You want to get rich quick. However, there is a powerful concept in investing known as compound interest, which will get you rich if you show a little bit of patience. If you can only learn one thing about investing, then this is the one thing that you need to understand.

Compound interest is a very simple concept. What it means is that you earn a return on your past returns. For instance, let's say that after a year, your $100 stock has earned $10. Now you have $110. Let's also say that your stock earns another 10% in year 2. That isn't just 10% of your original $100 investment. That's 10% of your $110. At the end of year 2, you will have earned $11, so your total balance is $121.

So what, you say. $11 in year two isn't much more than the $10 that I earned in year 1. However, as the years go by, you are earning 10% on a ever growing pile of money. After 10 years, you will have $259.37. After 20 years, you will have $672.75. After 30 years, you will have $1744.94. As you can see, the rate at which your money is growing is accelerating! In the first 10 years, you made $159.37. In the next 10 years, you made $413.38. In the final 10 years, you made $1072.19. Now in year 31, your money is going to row $174.49, which is almost 2 times your initial investment of $100 - all in one year!

You can see how powerful compound interest can be, if you just can be a little patient.

The practical application of this is when you have to invest for some long term goal, like retirement or a child's college education. The amounts of money that you need for those things seems so large and unattainable that it is hard to motivate oneself to start saving for them. However, if you remember that even a little money saved now can turn into big money 20 or 30 years down the road, those goals don't seem quite so insurmountable.

The important thing to remember is that as time goes on, your earnings will accelerate because of the power of compound interest. Therefore, it is crucial to start investing as early as possible. When you are 25 years old, retirement seems so far away, so you may not be motivated to save for it. However, if you wait until you are 35 to start saving for retirement, you will have lost a lot of money, since now your investments have 10 less years to grow. 10 years may not seem like a lot. However, with compound interest, you can get a lot of earning acceleration in that extra decade.

Here is some motivation for you. You say that you don't have money to set aside for retirement. However, if you really try, you can probably squeeze $100 a month out of your budget to invest. It isn't hard to do. You may have to give up your daily latte, and you might have to pack a lunch instead of dining out every day, but those aren't big sacrifices to make once you read what I am about to tell you.

Let's say that you take that $100 a month and invest it in some mutual fund that earns an 8% rate of return per year. That is a pretty conservative rate of return, but I'll use it anyway for illustrative purposes. Here is what your retirement account will look like at various points in time:

• After 10 years, you will have $18,294.60.
• After 20 years, you will have $58,902.04.
• After 30 years, you will have $149,035.94.
• After 40 years, you will have $349,100.78.

Those are some pretty amazing amounts of money, just from giving up lattes and lunches out!

Note how much of a difference those 10 years make. Starting at age 25 instead of 35 translates into an extra $200,000 when you retire! I don't know about you, but if somebody offered me $200,000 just for giving up lattes and lunches for 10 years, I am taking it with both hands! The amazing thing is that people will sell their souls to the devil (err...reality TV producers) for a lot less money than that. However, judging by the lines at McDonalds and Starbucks, people aren't too interested in that $200,000 payday.

There are two things you should take away from this example. First, even a little bit of money, invested regularly, can turn into a big amount of money with the power of compound interest. Second, the earlier you start investing, the more powerful compound interest becomes!

Management vs Technical

Anyone who has worked in engineering or technology knows that one question that you are inevitably asked on the job is "management or technical". That is, do you want to pursue the "management" career path or the "technical" career path? At my current job, we have periodic "career discussions" with our supervisors, and usually the discussion centers around this question. Up until now, I have always thought of myself as more of a "technical" type of person. I naturally lean more towards the introverted side of the spectrum, I love the hands-on problem solving aspect of technical work, I love learning new things, and I am not a big fan of all of the politics that the "management" folks have to deal with. Besides, I am a darn fine techno-geek! Therefore, I didn't really see any reason to stray from the technical path.

Recently, however, I have been toying with the idea of going down the management path - going over to the "dark side" so to speak.

Why do I want to set sail in that sea of politics known as "project management"? First, I really think that I would actually enjoy mentoring and managing technical people. Recently, I have had the opportunity to take the "lead" on several small projects. This involves directing and managing a couple of others. I find that I really enjoy interacting with junior level techies, directing their work, and teaching them a thing or two about software that I have picked up in my years of programming. Also, there is a certain rush about getting people to do your bidding. There is a certain empowerment in getting work done through delegation, and you often can get more done by spreading the work to multiple people than if you had to do everything yourself.

The second reason is that I think I have a knack for managing projects. Managing a project seems to be a combination of planning, prioritization, and seeing the big picture. Those are all skills that techno-geeks have in spades. Programming is all about seeing abstractions and interconnections, organizing them, and using them to build a system. Managing a project follows a similiar pattern. You have some task or goal, a set of resources, and you have to figure out how to get from point A to point B through organization, planning and execution. In fact, it is somewhat amazing to be that more techies don't gravitate more towards management roles. Actually, it really isn't that amazing given that techies seem to more comfortable with the logical behavior of bytes and circuits, versus the unpredictability of the human computer.

The third reason is that I really feel as if I can do some good as a manager. While there are a lot of good technical managers that don't have a strong technical foundation (which may be why they went into management in the first place), I feel that having that strong foundation would make for an even better technical manager. After all, having been in the trenches as a coder can only help a manager to understand the issues facing a software project, as well as understand the geeks the manager is trying to manage. I have noticed that a manager with a strong technical background has more credibility than a manager whose programming consists of setting the timer on the VCR (I mean, come on, who actually owns a VCR anymore). One of the roles of a manager is to mentor, develop, and inspire people. It is hard to be truly developed and inspired by someone who hasn't walked in your shoes!

Even though I have three reasons why I would go over to the "management" side of the house, the one main reservation that I have is the politics. One big component of being a manager is that you have to "massage" the system in order to get what you want. I find that good managers spend a lot of time trying to portray themselves and their people in the most positive light. That involves a lot of "face time" with the right people at the right time. My personality doesn't really lend itself to that sort of backroom bargaining. That is not the way I am wired. My fear is that either I would have to develop that skill, or I might suffer as a manager.

All that being said, I think I have come to the conclusion that I really shouldn't be looking to choose between "management" or "technical" in the first place. Why can't I do both? If you look at sports, the all-time greats are the ones who excel at all facets of the game. Michael Jordan started off as a great "off the dribble" player, and he was an all-star player. Then he developed an amazing jump shot. And then he turned into one of the top defenders. Whenever he had a hole in his game, he worked hard to turn that deficiency into a strength. Eventually, he ended being considered one of the greatest of all time.

Why not strive for the same sort of greatness in our own lives? I am not suggesting that I am going to be the Michael Jordan of software development. However, it is certainly a worthy goal to at least reach for. Therefore, I think I am going to develop both my "technical" skills and my "management" skills and see where that leads me.

Leadership Models

Recently, I was thinking about the essense of what it takes to be a good leader. You see, as I get older (and hopefully wiser), I find that I am being thrust more and more into a leadership role mainly because of my age and experience. To be honest, I am starting to relish this role and the prestige that comes with it, so to say I am "thrust" into this role may not be accurate assessment, as it implies that it is role that I do not want. I do want it, even though it is not something that I necessarily seek out.

Anyway, if I am going to do anything, I want to do it right. Therefore, I have been thinking about what it takes to be a good leader. At its essense, a leader is somebody who directs the actions of others. Therefore, a good leader is good at directing the actions of others - getting them to do what you want. From my observations, there are three different general models of leadership: authoritative, trust, and collaborative.

"Authoritative leadership" is where one uses one's position in the management hierarchy to lead. People follow you by virtue of your position within the organization. In this model, there is usually some force of law, written or unwritten, that helps to enforce the authority of the leader. The military, for instance, makes it a crime to not follow the lawful order of someone of a higher rank. This ensures that the leader is able to exercise his or her authority. In the workplace, authority is not necessarily a matter of law, but it is enforced by the company's culture. For instance, not following order may be punished through bad performance reviews ("he is not a 'team player'"), smaller raises and bonuses, or outright termination.

At its heart, this model of leadership has the potential to marginalize the opinions of the subordinates. People may be ordered to do something that they feel is not the correct course of action, so they may choose to give the minimum amount of effort to satisfy the order. This "passive, aggressive" stance may lead to mere compliance rather than a whole-hearted effort. Therefore, it would appear to be a sub-optimal leadership model. It seems like inexperienced leaders rely solely on this model, but an experienced leader will seek out other models in order to get more than just compliance.

A second model of leadership is what I call "trust leadership". It is the next step up from "authoritative leadership". The leader's authority is backed up by a trust in the leader, based upon the leader's experience and past track record. The subordinates may not totally understand or agree with the leader's order, but they are willing to follow because they "trust" that the leader knows what he or she is doing. Even though the subordinates may not have a complete picture behind the leader's reasoning, they have confidence that the leader's orders will make sense eventually. This has the potential to bring about more compliance through blind faith, but it still may be sub-optimal since the subordinates do not have ownership over the actions. In a sense, the subordinates are still just pawns in a game that they do not fully comprehend.

The third model of leadership is what I call "collaborative leadership". Under this model, the leader convinces the subordinates that his or her orders are the correct course of action. Rather than just being directive to be followed blindly, they are actions that make logical sense. On the surface, they sounds like "leadership by consensus" which is another phrase for "chaos". However, the leader becomes the driver of that consensus through either force of personality or logic. The advantage of this is that the orders don't seem like orders, because the subordinates have been convinced, in their heart, that they are doing the right thing. In a sense, they are taking "ownership" of the orders, so they don't feel like orders. When people have this level of commitment, they are naturally more productive.

One other side benefit of "collaborative leadership" is that it opens the possibility for the leader to solicit the team for their views. It is rare that the leader knows everything, so a good leader listens to his experts before blindly barking orders. Also, the subordinates may have a similar opinion to the leader as far as the course of action to take, so the order feels more like it came from the "bottom-up", increasing the "buy-in".

My conclusion is that to lead, one must not rely on authority alone. A good leader needs to be able to elicit compliance by cultivating a enviornment of trust and a sense of ownership.

As an aside, people often point to Donald Trump's The Apprentice as some sort of pop-culture MBA course. While there may be some merit to this opinion, it seems like 24 could be a better TV show to study if you want to get management insights. Every show is packed with decision making under pressure, risk assessment, contingency planning, and other MBA-style lessons. Maybe Jack Bauer is a better mentor to emulate than The Donald? Then again, Trump lives in opulence, surrounded by beautiful women. On the other hand, Jack spent the last two years in a Chinese prison...

Investing Made Simple, Part I

Investing is defined as setting aside a sum of money in order to gain a financial return in the future. It is amazing to me how there exists so much ignorance with regard to investment advice. Actually, I really shouldn't be amazed since common sense seems to be not so common these days. Here is a case in point: my mother.

My mother is a reasonably intelligent woman, so I don't want you to get the wrong idea about her. However, she does seem to have a streak of ignorance when it comes to investing. To begin with, she tends to be very conservative when it comes to investing. That itself is not ignorant. Everybody has different levels of comfort when it comes to taking risks. Each person needs to assess their own choices in order to determine what will allow them to sleep at night. Most of her excess money is kept in CD's and savings accounts, which are relatively safe investments. However, she has two strange attributes when it comes to investing.

First, for some reason she has a soft spot for investing in coins, which generally aren't the safest of investments. She isn't what you would call an coin collector in the sense that she doesn't spend her off-hours going to coin shows and such, so she doesn't derive any joy out of her coins. Basically what she does is every year she takes a chunk of money, buy some US Mint Proof sets, and hides them away in a closet. Now it usually isn't a large chunk of money, but it is still odd behavior for someone who keeps all of her savings in FDIC-insured accounts.

Second, for some reason she also has a soft spot for one particular local bank stock. This is the only stock that she has ever owned to my knowledge, and she has quite a big stake in this stock. Investing in stocks is inherently more risky than putting your money in a CD, so that seems out of character for her. However, buying one stock and one stock only seems adds to the mystery to me. I have tried to ask her why she feels "safe" investing in this one particular stock, but not safe investing in, say, a S&P 500 index fund where she would be holding shares of 500 of the biggest companies. Usually, her reply is that this particular bank stock always seems to do well, so based upon this track record, she feels safe holding onto it.

Like I said, she is an intelligent person, but when it comes to investing, she seems to become irrational.

To be fair, this behavior is not exclusive to her. I have stories of people who have invested in all sorts of crazy ways which defy reality. In my younger days, I myself plunked down $200 to buy shares in a company that was building french-fry vending machines. I had somehow convinced myself that this was the "next big thing", but I have yet to see a single french fry vending machine anywhere in my travels.

The interesting thing about the french-fry stock was that I was sold on it by a friend of mine from high school who ended up working for a Boiler Room type brokerage which employed a "pump and dump" strategy spearheaded by a bunch of wide-eyed kids seduced by the allure of making money. My friend ended up getting out of that situation once he realized what was going on, but not before he had convinced himself and some other people that french-fries from a vending machine was the next Microsoft. In fairness, he lost a few hundred bucks on the stock too, which is why I don't hold the loss over his head. The Vin Diesel movie certainly does portray this brokers quite accurately from what I can, by the way.

Anyway, the fact that these "Boiler Room" outfits even exist is a testament to the general ignorance of the population with respect to investing. In the coming weeks and month, I am going to attempt to rectify the situation through the application of education and logic. Now I am not hopeful that I was succeed since people will continue to be irrational when it comes to the pursuit of wealth. However, I feel as if I have an obligation to share my knowledge about this topic.

If you cannot tune in to future blog postings, I urge you to read the most sensible and down-to-earth investing guide I have ever come across. It is called The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need, by Andrew Tobias. This isn't a "get rich quick" type of book, so if you are looking for a quick windfall, you won't find it here. However, it gives realistic and practical advice on how to invest and manage your money.

By the way, if you ARE looking to get rich quick, my observations tell me that the best way is to publish and sell a book on how to get rich quick. People seem to eat these types of books up, regardless of their validity. After all, anyone who really has a way to get rich quick is going to be saving that knowledge for themselves, and not selling it for $20 a pop to anyone who can read.