Using Books for Support and Technical Elevation
Maintaining a technical library in your office can elevate more than just your mind. What book do you use to prop up your monitor? It's important to find the fattest book, giving the most lift, which is used least frequently, resulting in the least disturbance. The general solution to the Monitor-Prop problem can be found by seeking a maximum to this equation:
Suitability(Book) = Thickness(Book) * Estimated_Days_Since_Last_Used(Book)
When I crunched the numbers through Excel Lite, the hands down winner was:
"Special Edition Using Access 95 - The Most Complete Reference" (from QUE publishing.)
At 1300 pages, with over 1500 days passing during which the book was called into action exactly zero times, I challenge you to find a better Monitor-Stand.
After-blog-mint:
Rory is alive! Good news.
'Daniel Turini' on Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:38:53 GMT, sez: Damn!
And I thought that only we used that kind of book-elevation technique! The formula we used was exactly the same. To be fair, we used it when we started with dual monitors setup.
"Outlook 97 programming", "Windows 95 user interface design guidelines" and Petzold's "Windows CE Programming" (yes, Windows CE 1.0) can make a 17" monitor stay on its proper position. :)
'Kathleen Dollard' on Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:11:14 GMT, sez: Ah yes, but remember what that book says about you. It's THE book people see when they come into your office, right after they notice who you're IMing with and how many different versions of Visual Studio you have simultaneously loaded.
I'm a retro kind of chick. I'm going for Greg Lief's Clipper book (et al, but sorry I forgot the et al).
You're going to admit to Access??? Well, at least it's not Crystal! <vbg>
'Geert-Jan Thomas' on Thu, 08 Jul 2004 04:31:38 GMT, sez: I'll vote for Programming Windows 3.1 by Charles Petzold. It was on my desk for years because of a monitor stand suitability factor of about 0,0001.
Now it's back!! The reason once more being the monitor stand suitability factor which is now approximately 2.547e8795.
'secretGeek' on Thu, 08 Jul 2004 22:13:16 GMT, sez: You're right Kathleen -- admitting to Access is a bit like admitting to leprosy.
I should put some kind of cover over the access book, so that it doesn't give such a bad impression.
Or i could revise the formulae, to also take into account the perceived difficulty of the book's subject matter. That way, the book of choice for my monitor stand would be "Inside Visual C++ [Version 5.0]" which is not quite as voluminous as Access 95, but has a much higher perceived difficulty and hasn't been opened in about four years.
cheers
lb
'sg again (with a random link...)' on Thu, 08 Jul 2004 22:15:22 GMT, sez: Cheers Geert-Jan
Poor Charles Petzold is sure taking a hammering! I guess his books don't have the same longevity as those of, say, Shakespeare.
'Nathan Ridley' on Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:01:02 GMT, sez: Actually my monitor is being propped up by Programming Windows with MFC (2nd Edition) by Jeff Prosise, not because there's anything irrelevant or out of date about it, but because DotNet and WinForms are just too sweet in comparison! :D
'Dustin' on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:40:16 GMT, sez: Multipliers for hard / soft cover???
'secretGeek' on Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:41:57 GMT, sez: yep - you're right dustin...
this equation now involves:
suitability(book) = [ Num_Pages(book)+Thickness(covers(book)) ] * Num_Days_since_used(book) * Kudos_Associated_With(Subject(book))
i'm gonna need a PA with a PhD in mathematics, just to choose the book to prop up my monitor....
what ever happened to 'productivity'??
...lb
'procrastination' on Thu, 29 Jul 2004 03:10:58 GMT, sez: George Sutty and Steve Blair:
Programmer's Guide to the EGA/VGA... "Includes a Disk"!
kudos = ~90%!
AU$79.95. Copyright 1988. 512 Pages, 370mm thick approx.
"Enclosed is one double-sided, double-density diskette for th IBM PC, PS/2 and compatibles running DOS 2.0 or higher."
kudos = ~95%
Disk is missing! :/ kudos = ~85%
s(b) = (512 pages + 370 mm) * (365*(2004-1988)) * 85% kudos
s(b) = 882 pmm * 5840 days * 0.85
suitability = 4.378248 x 10^6
'sg' on Thu, 29 Jul 2004 03:38:49 GMT, sez: that's a pretty damn high suitability factor.
|