otherwise in .NET

Encoding QRCode in .NET otherwise

aleb s and Haug s bold statements, while a welcome contribution to the search for truth, cause us to become teary-eyed, nostalgic for a beautiful dream that has been unrepentantly shattered. Faced with the unavoidable heartbreaking truth, we yearn for paradise lost. Losing BSM would deprive us of something that seemed incalculably valuable. BSM, for all its aws, offered quanti able light where before there was only unknown darkness (prior related models contained, in general, too many unobservables and hurdles to implementation). By being deprived of BSM, we would lose such comforting, albeit misplaced, certainty. We thank Taleb and Haug for their veracity-seeking quest, but we loathe the loss of our innocent naivet . e The most obvious certainty that the model offered was a precise number for the value of an option. This it did in a quite ingenious way. Everyone would tell you that an option should cost money because it gives you the right to enjoy a potentially large payout while limiting the possible losses if things do not go your way. But who ensures that that right has value per se That value is supposed to come from the probability assigned to the option expiring in-the-money. So who guarantees that the probability of making money on the option is nonzero Who can honestly claim to know the exact distribution governing nancial assets Pricing options based simply on probabilistic assumptions sounds a bit shy. What BSM innovatively did was price options through non-arbitrage arguments. It showed that (mathematically, at least) dealers could build a replicating portfolio of the underlying asset and borrowed money that would always mirror the value of the option. Non-arbitrage conditions guaranteed that the value of the option at any point should equal the

inf Y (t) = inf Y (t) .

3.4.4.2 Raman Spectroscopy Raman spectra result from inelastic scattering of light as shown schematically in Figure 3.41 (68). A Raman shift from the energy of the incident radiation less the energy of a vibrational mode as shown in the diagram is called a Stokes shift. Stokes shifts are more intense than the shifts that result from scattering by excited-state vibrational levels to the nonexcited ground-state level, so-called anti-Stokes shifts. Because typically less than 1 photon in a million exhibits Raman scattering in transparent regions of the visible or ultraviolet, strong laser excitation is used in Raman studies. However, when the frequency of the excitation laser approaches an allowed electronic transition of the molecule under study, but not so close as to have

0.665 0.042 0.493 0.135 0.336 0.07 0.386 0.039 0.53 0.123

relevance of theoretical inventions that the BSM critique brings to the fore is the way that academics and quants respond to it. Theoreticians have a big chance to show that they, in fact, care about the real world and its inhabitants. When confronted with the arguments of very prominent practitioners in a eld that is nothing if not entirely practical, those of the nonpracticing variety should humbly listen. What would an (honest) ornithologist do if faced with a group of talking birds in the mood for sharing some insights as to how things really are up there in the blue sky For the sake of ornithology s relevance, I surely hope that they would stay quiet and respectfully pay attention. Who knows, they may learn something of use. Today s business schools and mathematics departments ornithologists should also jump at the opportunity offered by birds like Taleb, Haug, Derman, Rebonato, Wilmott, and others and try to appreciate why it is that they question the validity, applicability, soundness, rationale, and even popularity of theoretical dogma. Neither the repetition of tired exculpatory clich s nor outright neglect should be acceptable responses. e Someone who jumped to the defense of the theorists tried to offer shelter from the skeptics-launched lambasting in the following terms: Models . . . rely on a set of assumptions that rarely hold in the market. That

Summary

A lot of Java code ends up in a JSP when the fundamental purpose of JSPs is forgotten or thrown out. In building JSPs, the focus should be on writing the user interface and not the application proper. JSPs are so flexible and easy to deploy and work with that the temptation is great to push validation, SQL, or whatever into the JSP. Before you know it, the whole application state is creeping into the HttpSession, and the JSP is stuck in the Too Much Code AntiPattern. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, the main purpose of JSPs is to provide the view in the MVC triad. This AntiPattern comes into play mostly when developers fail to maintain that separation of concerns between the Model, View, and Controller. The reason that this is such an issue is the mixed development model of HTML and Java that ends up in the JSPs caught in this AntiPattern. When you build HTML applications, this requires following certain processes and using a paradigm and skill set that are very different from the processes, paradigms, and skill sets that are used for Java development. Systems built without the separation of concerns recommended by the MVC pattern are harder to maintain because of the differences inherent in developing HTML and Java applications. One application that a colleague was called in to rescue had a JSP that had so much Java code embedded in it that the Java runtime could not load the resulting Java class that was generated from the JSP. The length of the generated servlet method that builds the response exceeded the 64K limit on method size. Needless to say, this one page was a big part of the application. Imagine how hard that page was to maintain.