It also requires that your QA people have the ability to program - which I am not sure is a fair requirement.
This depends entirely on how important QA is to you. I see QA and development as two sides of the same coin. QA people should be accustomed to scripting. Loops, variables, arguments, procs and functions; this is coding. Everything else is just perspective. Simple black-box stuff is fine for training, but QA people need to learn more to effectivly describe the deeper issues.
Inevitably, development pushes the due date for their code, but the final date does not change. Automation is the best way to do regression tests. The human eye can then focus on new functionality.
Now where I have the biggest problem is that with the DMCA it --IS-- illegal to try and circumvent this sort of scheme Actually, it's the DMCA that is illegal. Hopefully this will be recognized and corrected in the near future. In the meantime, I can only do my exceedingly small part and purchase no software from companies that use or support such disdain for their customers. This includes movies and CDs.
Prosecuting file sharers will definitely cause many to stop sharing. Why risk these ridiculous penalties. So, we can have off-shore servers; these will be cut off if things continue as they have. Other tech solutions can be legislated to death as well.
Most understand that it is the business model that is dying, not music (though some of the shit out there...). All businesses strive for a Monopoly. Most of the time they find it better to divide the territory among the survivors in an ologopoly. An ologopoly is much the same as a monopoly except to stay busy, the MBAs trade a few points of market share back and forth, and they wait patiently for the mistake that will crumble the other, so they can take credit and get a few million more options.
Seems like the real conflict is 'how does one achieve economy of scale without granting so much power to the faceless company that the customer becomes an afterthought to the real money made through manipulating the Stock market?'
to screw up the English language. Just look at the number of people that think loose means lose. They don't even know the word lose exists. *Rasberries*
We actually shouldn't treat cyberspace differently. I think what many want is for the entire world to be treated like cyberspace, where censorship and repression are difficult and ultimately, impossible for the truly determined.
How do you make Linux interface with a security chip in such a way that untrusted applications are sandboxed without taking root away from the machine's owner? I think the answer is, 'you can't,'
Would someone care to explain this? I'm a bit vague on what this means.
I really need a system to capture all my meaninless muttering.
Hmm. like 'Sir or Madam,
I am writing regarding your super-glue substitute and, oh shit what's this in my hair? I need a shower. I love that your product ow that coffee's hot! will not stick my finger to my eyelid.
Sincerly, will you turn down that fucking polka music,
While I suppose we should listen to this Mungbean, it's only so we can clues as to where he is trying to get us NOT to look. He strikes me as a conscienceless corporate whore; after all, If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bullshit.
#2 AOL already requires a credit card number for service. It wouldn't suprise me, if they just charged it to the card. Maybe a bit easier to fix, but then they lose their internet service. Assume that the credit card company is willing to reverse the charge for an unsolicited product, what do you think AOL's reaction will be?
I do know that the credit card companies can't (or are too lame) reverse the charges on AOL unless AOL itself does the chargeback. This is because AOL bills the credit companies in one large statement. They can't identify who is being charged. Sounds like crap to me, but this is what three different credit card companies told me. Hell of a way to do business.
I'd imagine it goes like this:
Hey I didn't order this! And you butthairs have already charged my credit card; a card for which I only authorized you to take out my monthly AOL service charge with.
Just send it back. We'll refund your money.
Screw you! Federal Law states I can keep it.
Well, if you don't send it back, we can't give you a refund.
Slam the phone down and try to call the credit card company. They tell the story that I was told by the three credit card companies. In a very real sense, AOL is circumventing Federal Law because they can.
On a side note, I do believe companies that reach a certain size are inherently evil.
Actually I wonder what would happen if they could see that Mr. Perfect is a womanizing misogynist with syphilis. Oh wait... they already can tell the guy's an asshole; but they know they are the one who will be able to change him.
Someone should buy an OEM copy of XP from someone who got, but never used it (that is, they installed linux/bsd/whatever or even their old copy of win98).
They should then install it: if it doesn't work, Call microsoft to get it working. Likely they won't allow it, so lawsuit. Preferably small claims, as this will limit their ability to throw money at it.
Speaking as someone who was once a licensed plumber, running lines in the sewers poses a couple problems I can think of.
One, sewers back up and need to be snaked with steel blades. I'm trying to picture how they would avoid slicing the cables...
Two, I know you can get a lot of bandwidth from fibre, but still, if they keep putting more and more fibre in the sewer, it will mean more problems with backups. Eww.
You saw Windows XP at Fry's? I'm assuming you mean you saw a demo computer running XP, and not that you merely saw the box sitting on a shelf. By your logic, I could say "I saw Linux at my friend's house and was not impressed. It was nothing but text and stuff."
I only have three working brain cells, and I knew what he meant U:>
I don't spend a lot of time worring about continuity, so if there were details that were out of sync with the previous history, I didn't notice 'em and couldn't give a shit. The only thing I didn't like was the theme song. ZZZZZzzzzz...
But Geez! Soft porn?? I've seen more evocative soap commercials (never mind the bloody perfume ads). It was an uncomfortable situation for two people exposed to something on the planet. I saw nothing sexual in the scene at all. Unless one believes putting suntan lotion on at the beach is an invitation for sex. It could be, but it requires eye contact among other things that were not in the scene. And what's wrong with a Vulcan with a nice body? They can't all be skinny twirps like Spock (of course, Nimoy probably actually is an alien).
Slashdot Mirror
It also requires that your QA people have the ability to program - which I am not sure is a fair requirement.
This depends entirely on how important QA is to you. I see QA and development as two sides of the same coin. QA people should be accustomed to scripting. Loops, variables, arguments, procs and functions; this is coding. Everything else is just perspective. Simple black-box stuff is fine for training, but QA people need to learn more to effectivly describe the deeper issues.
Inevitably, development pushes the due date for their code, but the final date does not change. Automation is the best way to do regression tests. The human eye can then focus on new functionality.
thanks. Saved me the trouble. wasting the time to correct someones grammer, and being wrong!
What's the difference between grammar and spelling?
Gee. I don't know.
And how is that relevant to the quote in italics?
Can't figure that one out either.
thanks. Saved me the trouble. wasting the time to correct someones grammer, and being wrong! It's pathetic.
Now where I have the biggest problem is that with the DMCA it --IS-- illegal to try and circumvent this sort of scheme
Actually, it's the DMCA that is illegal. Hopefully this will be recognized and corrected in the near future. In the meantime, I can only do my exceedingly small part and purchase no software from companies that use or support such disdain for their customers. This includes movies and CDs.
That's right! You must be anonomously philanthropic. Spiderman is a good example. Do it. Reveal your results. Don't get caught!
Prosecuting file sharers will definitely cause many to stop sharing. Why risk these ridiculous penalties. So, we can have off-shore servers; these will be cut off if things continue as they have. Other tech solutions can be legislated to death as well.
Most understand that it is the business model that is dying, not music (though some of the shit out there...). All businesses strive for a Monopoly. Most of the time they find it better to divide the territory among the survivors in an ologopoly. An ologopoly is much the same as a monopoly except to stay busy, the MBAs trade a few points of market share back and forth, and they wait patiently for the mistake that will crumble the other, so they can take credit and get a few million more options.
Seems like the real conflict is 'how does one achieve economy of scale without granting so much power to the faceless company that the customer becomes an afterthought to the real money made through manipulating the Stock market?'
Thoughts?
It's not its, it's it's.
And they have been saying I'm crazy for wearing this tinfoil-wrapped colonder on my head! We'll see who is crazy now!
to screw up the English language. Just look at the number of people that think loose means lose. They don't even know the word lose exists.
*Rasberries*
We actually shouldn't treat cyberspace differently. I think what many want is for the entire world to be treated like cyberspace, where censorship and repression are difficult and ultimately, impossible for the truly determined.
Would someone care to explain this? I'm a bit vague on what this means.
I really need a system to capture all my meaninless muttering.
Hmm. like 'Sir or Madam,
I am writing regarding your super-glue substitute and, oh shit what's this in my hair? I need a shower. I love that your product ow that coffee's hot! will not stick my finger to my eyelid.
Sincerly, will you turn down that fucking polka music,
teasea
Can we get an updated definition of 'is'.
Sorry, did you get the impression I was beating around the Bush?
My day for bad puns, I guess.
While I suppose we should listen to this Mungbean, it's only so we can clues as to where he is trying to get us NOT to look. He strikes me as a conscienceless corporate whore; after all, If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bullshit.
I do know that the credit card companies can't (or are too lame) reverse the charges on AOL unless AOL itself does the chargeback. This is because AOL bills the credit companies in one large statement. They can't identify who is being charged. Sounds like crap to me, but this is what three different credit card companies told me. Hell of a way to do business.
I'd imagine it goes like this:
- Hey I didn't order this! And you butthairs have already charged my credit card; a card for which I only authorized you to take out my monthly AOL service charge with.
- Just send it back. We'll refund your money.
- Screw you! Federal Law states I can keep it.
- Well, if you don't send it back, we can't give you a refund.
Slam the phone down and try to call the credit card company. They tell the story that I was told by the three credit card companies. In a very real sense, AOL is circumventing Federal Law because they can.On a side note, I do believe companies that reach a certain size are inherently evil.
Actually I wonder what would happen if they could see that Mr. Perfect is a womanizing misogynist with syphilis. Oh wait... they already can tell the guy's an asshole; but they know they are the one who will be able to change him.
Someone should buy an OEM copy of XP from someone who got, but never used it (that is, they installed linux/bsd/whatever or even their old copy of win98).
They should then install it: if it doesn't work, Call microsoft to get it working. Likely they won't allow it, so lawsuit. Preferably small claims, as this will limit their ability to throw money at it.
I love 'em. Just pure sugar though.
Maybe. But I think I can get it to hump a doughnut and piss on your hush Puppies.
You mean it's not broadcast from space? Ahh! False advertising! There is no God!!!
I only have three working brain cells, and I knew what he meant U:>
I don't spend a lot of time worring about continuity, so if there were details that were out of sync with the previous history, I didn't notice 'em and couldn't give a shit.
The only thing I didn't like was the theme song. ZZZZZzzzzz...
But Geez! Soft porn?? I've seen more evocative soap commercials (never mind the bloody perfume ads). It was an uncomfortable situation for two people exposed to something on the planet. I saw nothing sexual in the scene at all. Unless one believes putting suntan lotion on at the beach is an invitation for sex. It could be, but it requires eye contact among other things that were not in the scene. And what's wrong with a Vulcan with a nice body? They can't all be skinny twirps like Spock (of course, Nimoy probably actually is an alien).
I'm gonna have to start stealing computers; this is how I wanna go :) Poor funeral director won't be able to wipe the shit-eating grin off my face.
Mebbe Whooooosh is the word of the day.