Re: why>?

better algorithm harlan; i mean-- i still dont understand the problem,
the sum of the variance = 0.

it looks like it rounds down.. not that big of a deal based on the
precision of the numbers.

Enron and their auditor had some well-respected systems. Lots of value
there. Or did I transpose the s and t?


ENRON HAD A BUNCH OF SPREADSHEETS
and it was impossible to audit ***; it was impossible for auditors to
wade through 10,000 spreadsheets so it was easy for those assholes to
hide some shady transactions.

because of ENRON we got Sarbanes-Oxley; and you dipshits are violating
every aspect of SOX by using a tool that is impossible to
a) track changes - who changed which function, who changed which value;
who changed which work***. these tasks are easily done with a
database. an AUDIT TRAIL. VERSION CONTROL.
b) prove that a spread*** is accurate-- you have duplicate copies of
functions in a billion different places; it is imossible to have
accuracy; veritifable results in XLS
c) leverage 1,000 spread*** developers-- into something that is
scalable and accurate and can work for mulitple users

i just find it humorous that you guys sit there and defend the idea of
working in a slow ass product that is impossible to verify.
having a billion copies of the same function is not a good way to write
reports.

all you guys do is write reports

good luck kids
find a real tool

.