First of all, I didn't mean to equate usability Testing with UAT. I put the latter in parentheses, as a possible add-on during that phase, the same way I did for unit testing. True, looking back at it, I could have been more clear, but you throwing insults at me was unwarranted. You could have asked for clarification.
Second, I have been working in Software development since 1994, so yes, I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable in the field, and do not really need a lecture on testing .
Third, my breakdown applies to what is *generally* understood by the terms, not by Firefox's own practices, of which I have no particular knowledge, and don't care that much about anyway. There are differences with each company.
Lastly, if I want more crap from you, I'd just squeeze your little head. So act as an adult, and people will respond accordingly. Or insult, and be insulted. Thank you!
What's common to all releases is there are no guarantees it won't crash your system. The *theoretical* difference is in the probability of that happening...
"Yes, business is personal, especially these days." Right. Google was losing market share in China. I bet that if it wasn't, business wouldn't have gotten anywhere near being "personal".
And what's that special "experience" of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he's born up to 6 years old? Please.
A corporation's goal is to increase its profits & market shares. Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing, and at worst utter hypocrisy.
John Connor: No, no, no, no. You gotta listen to the way people talk. You don't say "affirmative", or some shit like that. You say "no problemo". And if someone comes on to you with an attitude you say "eat me". And if you want to shine them on it's "hasta la vista, baby".
He/she who cheats discovers later why this is a bad idea.
Unfortunately, his/her co-workers too.
It perverts a "natural selection" in the industry, leading to an increase in the number of incompetents, doing a disservice to all capable workers in the field. You get a person like that in your team, and you end up doing extra work in any case:
if he/she stays you'll have to spend time correcting his lack of skills
if he/she is sacked, you'll have to add at least part of his assignment to yours
They should be expelled from CS, and subscribed to Economics, to match their natural talent. They'll fit perfectly in Wall Street & Investment Banking.
Speaking of "objective reading of intellectual sophistication", I drew my own conclusions after reading your "Chinese-as-mindless-cottonhead-robots" comment. I'm sure others will do as well.
i am making an objective reading of your intellectual sophistication based upon what you have written:
Right, that's what people resorting to insults always say to make themselves feel better. They convince themselves that their insults are "objective".
you're 11 years old, or a certifiable low iq moron
You seem pretty emotional about all this. All this anger towards those not sharing your limited view of the world...Did your mom dressed you as a girl often? Were you sexually abused? On medication, perhaps?
but thanks for the laughs retard
xoxoxoxoxoxoxox
I'm glad we shared the amusement. Please feel free to post any further pointless drivel that comes across your mind on things you know nothing about. Doesn't bother me at all. You are a dime a dozen.
"when china makes deals with russia, india, and brazil, it is doing what is best for china. its not leading on the world stage"
HA ha ha. And when the US deals with these countries, it is doing anything different? Or is it that what the US has been doing these last years (Iraq etc) is "leading on the world stage"? Your views are not only simplistic, they are hypocritical. Best case scenario is, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the opinion of people resorting to straw mans and insults. Slashdot is not a mega-corp, and I never said that those mega-corps were "evil". Most of the other things you mumbled are out of sheer ignorance. My turn to laugh at you.
"i am very sick of this meme that companies control everything in the west"
Whether that makes you sick or not is irrelevant. Most of the media is controlled by a handful of companies, and that is a fact. There is no real diversity of views, only minor ones. The Chinese state censors Western propaganda, where you get your idea of democracy, that you put as a condition to be a superpower. If China has showed us anything, is precisely that being a democracy is not a pre-condition to succeed on the world stage.
BTW, how much "global international cooperation" did the US need to become a world super-power? Next to none. Ultra-nationalism is a strength, not a weakness. And it does not exclude cooperation with other no less nationalistic countries such as Russia, India, or Brazil.
As I said, I find your view on China to be extremely simplistic.
"of course, by completely controlling media, the government is creating a population of robots who aren't thinking critically"
How is that worse than US media completely controlled by a handful of corporations outputting the same crap ? Do you really think that the US youth in its majority is capable of critical thinking? Are you capable of critical thought ? Because your "blind cottonheaded nationalistic robots" comment is way too simplistic and does not speak in your favor.
Have you ever considered that it is precisely ultra-nationalism and "tribalism" that could actually help China be the next superpower and crush the competition? I guess not.
You mean "natural variation [of the Sun's output]" has been disproved by NASA as the cause of Global Warming. The parent you were replying to was talking about the natural variation of the temperature of the planet, not the natural variation of the Sun's output (he's even talking about errors of measurements of temperature the line before that one).
The original link (if you go further up the thread) he presented as backing up his position, was claiming that Sun activity was the cause of GW. Then he claimed that there was no GW at all, which shows his inconsistency, and the fact that he decided to oppose man-made GW no matter the evidence to the contrary.
As for the errors of measurements he's referring to, it's a classic no-point. The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) is known & uncontroversial, contrarily to what he pretends. UHI is corrected according to the sensors locations using several techniques (satellite-derived night light observations , corrections for population, etc..).
Excess CO2 has nothing to do with global warming in fact rising CO2 is an effect of increased global temps not a cause.
The US senate means nothing. The hundreds of scientists that disagree with the climate change fraud do.
Think for yourself for a minute. CO2 is what we exhale and what plants inhale. A good case can be made for the good caused by a warming planet. The facts indicate that there has not been any warming. Studies have shown that incorrect measurements taken in hot heat island city environments can account for the change.
You're repeating the same old already disproved fallacies over. Go to the NASA site I mentioned earlier & try your best at looking at the facts.
Natural variation makes a lot more sense than the idiocy of the global warming "proof".
Natural variation has been disproved by NASA.
Go on and believe the few "experts" ignore the others and follow what Al Gore says.
I believe the facts, and that independently of what Al Gore might think. BTW, the "few experts " are the majority. That includes NASA who has the largest concentration of climate scientists, the academies of sciences of 27 countries, and all the major scientific institutions like National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, American Meteorological Society, US Geological Survey etc...
That site is loaded with pseudo-scientific data & outright lies. A few examples:
It claims NASA studies have shown that the sun is responsible for GW. This is a lie. NASA said the opposite. Go the NASA Web site & verify by yourself (http://climate.nasa.gov/)
The "founder of the Weather Channel" (John Coleman) is not a climate scientist. If you watch his YouTube series, you'll notice how he's confusing weather (short-term) with climate (long-term)
The "GW swindle" documentary has been sued in court for misrepresenting the opinions of the scientists interviewed. ex: Sir David King, the Government's former chief scientist.
The typical strawman of "CO2 is not a pollutant" has been addressed many times over. No scientist claimed CO2 was a pollutant. It is the excess of CO2 coming form industrial waste that is having heat trapping effects and causes ocean acidification: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
The US senate is no authority on GW. The US Academy of Sciences is. The latter subscribes to man-made GW.
etc..
There is a difference between the FACTS of GW, and the solutions proposed. The only thing that I agree with that site you mentioned, is that some of the policies & the utilization for political ends of GW are questionable.
You'll have to defer the lower priority bugs to meet your release date, but without sufficient time to address them-- say, a last-minute bug that would require a significant rewrite of a subsystem that you didn't even author-- you can at least try to make the problem less painful in the meantime.
What I'm trying to tell you, is that, when you hide the bug, you're not making the problem less painful. On the contrary. For the rest, read my previous response.
You should stop pretending to be "involved" with software development.
You're obviously not.
My guess is you're a webmaster.
After all that's the position all people who didn't make it end up.
Your guess is wrong. I have been programing since 1994. You "obviously" don't understand the difference between working under pressure with unreasonable deadlines, which happens more often than not, and doing crappy programing that have you do these last-minute code hacks unworthy of what you pretend to be.
After all, "people that didn't make it" & substandard developers like to find excuses for their own failure.
Wait, you were serious? Does your hair come to points on the side of your head, by any chance?
If I could cope with unreasonable deadlines without some sort of nasty compromise, I wouldn't be developing software.
No, I have actually my hair combed backwards. Dealing with unreasonable deadlines doesn't have to necessarily cause last-minute crappy hacks such as the one reported.
You make compromises in your code all the time by taking into account your deadlines. You plan ahead. When was the last time you developed with no pressure?
Judges deal all the time in topics that they have no expertise in. They have to get educated in the finer nuances of all sorts of topics. I don't see how this is any different. While they won't probably understand every minute point I don't think it is necessary to have that level of understanding...
Yes, it is.
"Educated witnesses" have been constantly spewing half-truths that, in order to debunk them, one has to have extensive knowledge of climatology. A judge is no such individual. That doesn't mean he is "intellectually beneath" it.
I personnally have more confidence in such prestigious scientific institutions such as the national Academy of Sciences of 27 or so countries & others I enumerated above, than a legal system where the guys with the most expensive lawyers win. But that's just me.
A consensus does mean the debate is over.
It means all agree..
Nope, it doesn't.
"Consensus" means *general* agreement, not unanimity. Most of scientists agree, and the few who don't are divided between:
There is is no GW
There is GW, but it's natural
There is AGW, but it's beneficial
Undecided
And those who disagree and claim being "silenced" (yeah, right) should stop playing victim & come up with better scientific evidence than what they've got right now, which is close to nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
To be defend-able, doesn't a patent need to be somehow novel and its invention non obvious?
Just because a patent is filed doesn’t mean it is defendable in a court of law. Looking in the details of some of these patents listed in the article, they don't strike me as particularly novel nor non-obvious:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,910,205.PN.&OS=PN/6,910,205&RS=PN/6,910,205
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=RE38,104.PN.&OS=PN/RE38,104&RS=PN/RE38,104
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,426,720.PN.&OS=PN/7,426,720&RS=PN/7,426,720
etc...
That reminds me:
"IBM sued [us] over a RISC patent that asserted that 'if you make something simpler, it'll go faster.'...and we lost." -James Gosling
Beta = feature complete + usability testing (+ UAT)..
But to those who found my "comeback" hilarious, hey, I'm glad I made you laugh.
As for UAT not being done in the beta stage, it's not a absolute rule at all. I've seen it done, and that would be why I put it in parentheses.
As for the AC's "pure bunk" qualifier, someone posted this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
Looks like it was not "pure bunk" after all. And no, I don't thank people for insulting me. I'd rather be a "dick".
Second, I have been working in Software development since 1994, so yes, I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable in the field, and do not really need a lecture on testing .
Third, my breakdown applies to what is *generally* understood by the terms, not by Firefox's own practices, of which I have no particular knowledge, and don't care that much about anyway. There are differences with each company.
Lastly, if I want more crap from you, I'd just squeeze your little head. So act as an adult, and people will respond accordingly. Or insult, and be insulted. Thank you!
Alpha = dev release that has undergone WB & BB tests.
Beta = feature complete + usability testing (UAT)..
What's common to all releases is there are no guarantees it won't crash your system. The *theoretical* difference is in the probability of that happening...
And what's that special "experience" of a totalitarian regime a child can get from the moment he's born up to 6 years old? Please.
A corporation's goal is to increase its profits & market shares. Trying to make it pass as some kind of moral authority is at best a marketing trick for image polishing, and at worst utter hypocrisy.
The Terminator: Hasta la vista, baby.
He/she who cheats discovers later why this is a bad idea.
Unfortunately, his/her co-workers too.
It perverts a "natural selection" in the industry, leading to an increase in the number of incompetents, doing a disservice to all capable workers in the field. You get a person like that in your team, and you end up doing extra work in any case:
They should be expelled from CS, and subscribed to Economics, to match their natural talent. They'll fit perfectly in Wall Street & Investment Banking.
.
Good luck with your personal problems.
i am making an objective reading of your intellectual sophistication based upon what you have written:
Right, that's what people resorting to insults always say to make themselves feel better. They convince themselves that their insults are "objective".
you're 11 years old, or a certifiable low iq moron
You seem pretty emotional about all this. All this anger towards those not sharing your limited view of the world...Did your mom dressed you as a girl often? Were you sexually abused? On medication, perhaps?
but thanks for the laughs retard
xoxoxoxoxoxoxox
I'm glad we shared the amusement. Please feel free to post any further pointless drivel that comes across your mind on things you know nothing about. Doesn't bother me at all. You are a dime a dozen.
i'm guessing 11
Kid, I'm not the one throwing childish insults.
And your personal attacks are as laughable as anything else you babbled in this thread.
HA ha ha. And when the US deals with these countries, it is doing anything different? Or is it that what the US has been doing these last years (Iraq etc) is "leading on the world stage"? Your views are not only simplistic, they are hypocritical. Best case scenario is, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the opinion of people resorting to straw mans and insults. Slashdot is not a mega-corp, and I never said that those mega-corps were "evil". Most of the other things you mumbled are out of sheer ignorance. My turn to laugh at you.
Whether that makes you sick or not is irrelevant. Most of the media is controlled by a handful of companies, and that is a fact. There is no real diversity of views, only minor ones. The Chinese state censors Western propaganda, where you get your idea of democracy, that you put as a condition to be a superpower. If China has showed us anything, is precisely that being a democracy is not a pre-condition to succeed on the world stage.
BTW, how much "global international cooperation" did the US need to become a world super-power? Next to none. Ultra-nationalism is a strength, not a weakness. And it does not exclude cooperation with other no less nationalistic countries such as Russia, India, or Brazil.
As I said, I find your view on China to be extremely simplistic.
How is that worse than US media completely controlled by a handful of corporations outputting the same crap ? Do you really think that the US youth in its majority is capable of critical thinking? Are you capable of critical thought ? Because your "blind cottonheaded nationalistic robots" comment is way too simplistic and does not speak in your favor.
Have you ever considered that it is precisely ultra-nationalism and "tribalism" that could actually help China be the next superpower and crush the competition? I guess not.
Here in the USA, we call those "lawyers". I've seen a few upside 'ah 300 lbs. You can't hunt 'em though :(.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endangered_species_in_North_America
Natural variation has been disproved by NASA.
You mean "natural variation [of the Sun's output]" has been disproved by NASA as the cause of Global Warming. The parent you were replying to was talking about the natural variation of the temperature of the planet, not the natural variation of the Sun's output (he's even talking about errors of measurements of temperature the line before that one).
The original link (if you go further up the thread) he presented as backing up his position, was claiming that Sun activity was the cause of GW. Then he claimed that there was no GW at all, which shows his inconsistency, and the fact that he decided to oppose man-made GW no matter the evidence to the contrary.
As for the errors of measurements he's referring to, it's a classic no-point. The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) is known & uncontroversial, contrarily to what he pretends. UHI is corrected according to the sensors locations using several techniques (satellite-derived night light observations , corrections for population, etc..).
You believe what you want.
No, I believe the facts. My personal desires are irrelevant.
You don't need to be a scientist to realize which side is correct.
Yes, you do. AFAIK, climatology is a science.
The nasa article in the link speaks for itself.
Which essentially means you didn't even bother to verify it by going to the NASA site I mentioned. Looks like it is YOU who believe what YOU want.
I don't care who John Coleman is what he says makes sense.
He doesn't make sense. Weather is distinct from climate. He is not qualified .
The court case involving the gw swindle ended in a decision that the content was essentially true.
Ofcom, the UK media regulator has ruled that The Great Global Warming Swindle was unfair to the IPCC, David King, and Carl Wunsch and breached a requirement of impartiality about global warming policy.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/ofcom_rules_that_the_great_glo.php
Excess CO2 has nothing to do with global warming in fact rising CO2 is an effect of increased global temps not a cause. The US senate means nothing. The hundreds of scientists that disagree with the climate change fraud do. Think for yourself for a minute. CO2 is what we exhale and what plants inhale. A good case can be made for the good caused by a warming planet. The facts indicate that there has not been any warming. Studies have shown that incorrect measurements taken in hot heat island city environments can account for the change.
You're repeating the same old already disproved fallacies over. Go to the NASA site I mentioned earlier & try your best at looking at the facts.
Natural variation makes a lot more sense than the idiocy of the global warming "proof".
Natural variation has been disproved by NASA.
Go on and believe the few "experts" ignore the others and follow what Al Gore says.
I believe the facts, and that independently of what Al Gore might think. BTW, the "few experts " are the majority. That includes NASA who has the largest concentration of climate scientists, the academies of sciences of 27 countries, and all the major scientific institutions like National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, American Meteorological Society, US Geological Survey etc...
Global warming is a scam.
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
That site is loaded with pseudo-scientific data & outright lies. A few examples:
There is a difference between the FACTS of GW, and the solutions proposed. The only thing that I agree with that site you mentioned, is that some of the policies & the utilization for political ends of GW are questionable.
"Opera 10 has been released."
<sarcasm> That's great news for the 15 or so opera users in the world.</sarcasm>
You'll have to defer the lower priority bugs to meet your release date, but without sufficient time to address them-- say, a last-minute bug that would require a significant rewrite of a subsystem that you didn't even author-- you can at least try to make the problem less painful in the meantime.
What I'm trying to tell you, is that, when you hide the bug, you're not making the problem less painful. On the contrary. For the rest, read my previous response.
You should stop pretending to be "involved" with software development. You're obviously not. My guess is you're a webmaster. After all that's the position all people who didn't make it end up.
Your guess is wrong. I have been programing since 1994. You "obviously" don't understand the difference between working under pressure with unreasonable deadlines, which happens more often than not, and doing crappy programing that have you do these last-minute code hacks unworthy of what you pretend to be.
After all, "people that didn't make it" & substandard developers like to find excuses for their own failure.
Wait, you were serious? Does your hair come to points on the side of your head, by any chance?
If I could cope with unreasonable deadlines without some sort of nasty compromise, I wouldn't be developing software.
No, I have actually my hair combed backwards. Dealing with unreasonable deadlines doesn't have to necessarily cause last-minute crappy hacks such as the one reported.
You make compromises in your code all the time by taking into account your deadlines. You plan ahead. When was the last time you developed with no pressure?
Judges deal all the time in topics that they have no expertise in. They have to get educated in the finer nuances of all sorts of topics. I don't see how this is any different. While they won't probably understand every minute point I don't think it is necessary to have that level of understanding...
Yes, it is.
"Educated witnesses" have been constantly spewing half-truths that, in order to debunk them, one has to have extensive knowledge of climatology. A judge is no such individual. That doesn't mean he is "intellectually beneath" it.
I personnally have more confidence in such prestigious scientific institutions such as the national Academy of Sciences of 27 or so countries & others I enumerated above, than a legal system where the guys with the most expensive lawyers win. But that's just me.
AGW = Anti-Global Warming?
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Glad I could help.
A consensus does mean the debate is over. It means all agree. .
Nope, it doesn't.
"Consensus" means *general* agreement, not unanimity. Most of scientists agree, and the few who don't are divided between:
And those who disagree and claim being "silenced" (yeah, right) should stop playing victim & come up with better scientific evidence than what they've got right now, which is close to nothing.