Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:45:36 -0400
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Mike Zdeb <msz03@ALBANY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bona fide DO-loop bug (was: Re: Combining iterative DO and
hi ... re "It's not what you don't know that worries me; it's what you think you know."
then there's Donald Rumsfeld ...
"There are known knowns.
These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we now know we donít know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
These are things we do not know we donít know."
U@Albany School of Public Health
One University Place (Room 119)
Rensselaer, New York 12144-3456
> On 7/18/10, Paul Dorfman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> _Null_ and the fellow RTFMers (including the little birdie),
> I don't claim to be a RTMer. I did not realize exactly how it worked
> until back on May 7th when Toby Dunn posted the "Stupid Human Do-Loop
> Trick" thread where he "discovered" that he could count, up and down.
> Which caused me to revisit the docs and realize that each
> specification can have any or all of the optional parts.
> Of course that did not help me to identify the problem in program from
> the "Combining iterative DO and UNTIL condition " thread.
> I worked for a statistician once that told me something to the effect.
> "It's not what you don't know that worries me; it's what you think you
> know." This seems particularly appropriate to this discussion.