I'm not suggesting that people do not understand basic laws, or laws simplified and explained by experts, but the intricacies of law in the modern context is such that it's not readily available to the common person. That doesn't preclude lawful behaviour; did someone sit you down and explain all the laws in the country when you were 10 years old, at which point you started to be culpable for your actions? at 17, when you could potentially be tried as an adult? About the only circumstance in which that actually happens is road laws.
Case in point: do you understand the difference between battery & assault? Is there one? What constitutes aggravated assault, and what is the limits of self defence? what of the degrees of murder, or the difference between that and manslaughter? without being a lawyer, the best I (or, I suspect, you) can offer is the explanation distilled by the media that you've read somewhere. That doesn't mean you don't understand actions which are illegal without understanding the legal code that forms the basis for prosecution.
It appears you are contradicting yourself there. For example, if you don't understand what the limits of self defence are how then can you then understand if a potential action is legal or not?
How can you expect someone to follow the law if they don't understand the law?
You have made some interesting points but you really haven't answered the question.
Forget about it, its not important. Why don't you read the story "Tarantulas eject silk from feet" instead? You can be assured that the BBC give you all the important information you need to know in an unbiased and factully complete way. After all they are independent.
While I agree that there is no solver bullet, I would like to think that some of us have moved on from the 1960's.
I promise you that I can write code that has the prescribed level of unit testing and complexity that also doesn't work.
What doesn't work, the unit of code tested? In that case your unit test is just plain wrong. If its the application that doesn't work then that is a different issue, one which unit testing is not designed to address. Don't fall into the cargo cult trap - the right processes need to be used the right amount for the right reasons.
I don't (usually) practice TDD. I do however write automated test cases for as much of the system that I'm developing as practical. Usually thats around 80% or more of the functionality.
The major benefit of automated testing comes with maintainence of the code. Making changes 6months or more later can be more difficult as you've forgotton all the intricate details and exceptional cases. This is where test cases can make your life eaiser and much more productive.
70% - out of every X lines of code, 70% of them are actually executed in test. For example, code might contain something like:
if (month == 12 && day == 25) {
printf("Joyous Season of Light\n");
}
However, without cheating, this holiday greeting would be untested on most testing days.
Using techniques like IOC and Mock classes that snippet of code could be tested every test run.
This is dead on. Every software-developing business needs to decide its own process needs.
This is just another cargo cult problem. Managers, seeing that another company/team use process X on a successful project, decide to implement the same process for their team. However no process will make a difference if the developers have been directed to build the wrong solution in the first place, even if the code is 100% bug free.
While you probably "could" build a Hudson type system using Ant, Hudson is not ANT ++. It can use ANT to build and run tests, but can also use any number of other tools. Continuous build management systems are an invaluable addition to a developers workflow. If you're developing Java then Hudson/Jenkins is well worth looking into.
Its just you, but don't feel bad, its important for nature to explore all evolutionary paths.
Seriously though, it will depend on what you're working on and how proficent you are at the task. I'm currently working with 4 smaller moniters side by side and find all 4 to be very useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they should have been using macs. They don't get viruses.
If someone is driving in the "overtaking lane" at the speed limit, how can you legally get close enough to tail gate them?
So because they are nutcases its ok to hunt them down, imprision, torture and kill them? Your ad hominem attack is obvious and irrelevant.
and it will apply to you unless you stay out of their clutches.
That is an increasingly difficult thing to do.
The games are not about physicall training but mental training. Soldiers who won't shoot the enemy are not very useful soldiers.
I'm not suggesting that people do not understand basic laws, or laws simplified and explained by experts, but the intricacies of law in the modern context is such that it's not readily available to the common person. That doesn't preclude lawful behaviour; did someone sit you down and explain all the laws in the country when you were 10 years old, at which point you started to be culpable for your actions? at 17, when you could potentially be tried as an adult? About the only circumstance in which that actually happens is road laws.
Case in point: do you understand the difference between battery & assault? Is there one? What constitutes aggravated assault, and what is the limits of self defence? what of the degrees of murder, or the difference between that and manslaughter? without being a lawyer, the best I (or, I suspect, you) can offer is the explanation distilled by the media that you've read somewhere. That doesn't mean you don't understand actions which are illegal without understanding the legal code that forms the basis for prosecution.
It appears you are contradicting yourself there. For example, if you don't understand what the limits of self defence are how then can you then understand if a potential action is legal or not?
How can you expect someone to follow the law if they don't understand the law?
You have made some interesting points but you really haven't answered the question.
Its lucky that OBL wasn't a Sicilian.
Is there any way of disagreeing with you without implicating myself?
Forget about it, its not important. Why don't you read the story "Tarantulas eject silk from feet" instead? You can be assured that the BBC give you all the important information you need to know in an unbiased and factully complete way. After all they are independent.
That kind of freedom is almost twice the price of living under the filter.
Relax, he just needs information.
There has allways been luddites, always will be.
I promise you that I can write code that has the prescribed level of unit testing and complexity that also doesn't work.
What doesn't work, the unit of code tested? In that case your unit test is just plain wrong. If its the application that doesn't work then that is a different issue, one which unit testing is not designed to address. Don't fall into the cargo cult trap - the right processes need to be used the right amount for the right reasons.
I don't (usually) practice TDD. I do however write automated test cases for as much of the system that I'm developing as practical. Usually thats around 80% or more of the functionality.
The major benefit of automated testing comes with maintainence of the code. Making changes 6months or more later can be more difficult as you've forgotton all the intricate details and exceptional cases. This is where test cases can make your life eaiser and much more productive.
70% - out of every X lines of code, 70% of them are actually executed in test. For example, code might contain something like: if (month == 12 && day == 25) { printf("Joyous Season of Light\n"); } However, without cheating, this holiday greeting would be untested on most testing days.
Using techniques like IOC and Mock classes that snippet of code could be tested every test run.
This is dead on. Every software-developing business needs to decide its own process needs.
This is just another cargo cult problem. Managers, seeing that another company/team use process X on a successful project, decide to implement the same process for their team. However no process will make a difference if the developers have been directed to build the wrong solution in the first place, even if the code is 100% bug free.
Sir, I can't find the stun setting on my M4A1.
Tie a white piece of cloth to a broomstick, wave it out of a door. Show both of your hands, then walk slowly out. Lie down in the floor.
... and then detonate your vest when the soldiers move in.
I bet this will eventually end up being used to detect people slacking off, web browsing or IM'ing.
Yes, but thats just the group of people without RSI, no keylogger required.
( plus a few more thing )
While you probably "could" build a Hudson type system using Ant, Hudson is not ANT ++. It can use ANT to build and run tests, but can also use any number of other tools. Continuous build management systems are an invaluable addition to a developers workflow. If you're developing Java then Hudson/Jenkins is well worth looking into.
Its just you, but don't feel bad, its important for nature to explore all evolutionary paths.
Seriously though, it will depend on what you're working on and how proficent you are at the task. I'm currently working with 4 smaller moniters side by side and find all 4 to be very useful.
So you literally want to fuck NVIDIA?
Perhaps you've forgotten to weight the death toll by race.
And let the lawyers win instead?
Parasitic drag on an object is proportional to the square of the airspeed. Tripling the fuel consumption is probably too conservative.