First I think the if you have time, write the code was a joke.
Tests are useful, but it depends where, with UIs a lot of it is about how it feels, looks it so quite hard to write test that are useful and won't break at the slightest change. With underlying complex code however tests are very useful.
Nobody said test are a silver bullet an you will not get any bugs, but written well and appropriately they can save time developing and maintaing. written badly you spend more time fixing tests than writing code, and once you don't trust your test not to break they loose a lot of their value. Since you just assume its a broken test double the code to debug.
Documentation can useful however it has to be short, and useful too many times do see things like:/*
finds item in list
map the map to find the key in
Key the key
returns the found item or null */ ItemType find(Map map, KeyType key)
for crying out loud the documentation provides nothing (apart from fluff I should ignore), and really it isn't needed it anyway. That is what you get when you force people to document every single thing. Developers should be able to read code, I can read code better than can English and definitely write it better because spelling isn't so important 8-). I can usually tell when someone meant to do something or it was by accident.
On a side note documents seen to be far too big, too much emphasis on you wrote X page well you must have done lots of work. (just like back in school) Once I read a specification for transferring data the first 100 pages where what is XML the last 2 where what was needed.
I good technical document should convey the relevant information well, putting irrelevant padding only detracts from that
The problem is not people don't care, it is that the political system makes it hard to express your opinion on individual issues.
You have basically 2 parties, you choose on the issues that you consider important Health, Education, Fiscal Policy.... Privacy
For me privacy is probably high on the list of priorities, but I don't think it is true for most. But even if it is who do I vote for to get those concerns addressed.
So high I am a member of the Pirate Party. (I couldn't vote for them not enough members better luck next time)
There is no easy way to say no way in hell do I want law X to pass, its an all or nothing proposition
I assume you are subtracting 1 from the other to get you difference. That is an incorrect calculation, if Android crashed 50% and iPhone crashed 0% (degenerate case) would android only be 50% worse. The fact is that since you hope (an app should never crashes) apps crash relatively rarely even a small percentage of crashes makes a big difference.
To get how much more it a iOS app crashes divide the two iOS/Andriod * 100 (third quarter) 3.66/2.97 * 100 = 23% more crashes
In fact given the number of different hardware configurations android has to deal with I am surprised that it is better. Ok not after using a Mac for the past several months and seeing how often that crashed.
Depends on the person, I have been thinking of buying a LCD TV for about 1 year now, I still have a 25 inch CRT. It is low priority since I don't really need it, if the right (right quality, right price) deal came along I would buy it maybe.
I buy a lot of things like that, it is not unusual for me to spend years thinking about buying stuff, but usually on larger items though I wouldn't do that to buy a plug.
I agree, but the problem is not cheap stuff the problem is that there is no easy way to tell the quality of a product. Too many times all they do is stick a brand on something and charge more for the exact same product.
I think that a solution should be in all advertising should include a appropriate measure of quality e.g. expected life of a product. If it does not meet that life with normal use automatic replacement, if it is does not meet that quality standard for x% of products then the company and individuals should be investigated for fraud.
$2500 is probably not even worth there lawyers time (too busy issuing take down notices), even though probably impossible fraudulent intent to prove anyway.
property rights are always true in the world how would you prove that this a requirement. Could you not have a commune that voted, would that not be a democracy without property rights. Like saying democracy -> wet water, therefore democracy requires wet water. (possibly true because without it there may not be life). The question is why do you need property rights for democracy. It's stated but not shown.
The objection may have been that it is an emotive statement since it implies if you remove property right you automatically remove democracy which people think is good. With no proof.
I'm not at all convinced media would suffer. Maybe it would I can't be sure. But from some evidence I see it may even improve.
1. People love to create, they do it now for love of creating, they spend their own time and money in doing so, without any real prospect of being remunerated.
2. Maybe the resources would not be there to spend $500,000,000 on a movie but what do we get with the current system the same type of movie other an over again because the investment is so high that they cannot make a loss. Reducing the profit may force costs to reduce possibly meaning people are more willing to be creative. Do you think that top actors would not work for $100,000 a year if that was all that was offered.
3. Copyright leads to companies and artists spending resources on protecting those rights, when their time would be better suited to making new and better products.
4. It is hard to create without doing everything from scratch I don't have the resources to go out a buy a licence to use everything I need. Imagine if anybody could use music / graphics from other peoples movies that could create a vast pool of resources.
I think its a balancing act and allowing people to profit from there creations in order to motivate them create and giving people freedom to experience (because that also inspires people) and use other peoples work to create new works.
Because of this I do think that at our current state less copyright would probably increase both quality and quantity.
I agree with the policy but why 28 years, seems like an arbitrary number, is there any evidence of what term is best. To me 28 years seems excessive since the vast majority of most songs/films revenues seem to occur in the first year. (I could be wrong) does anybody know some stats that describe what proportion of an average song/movie money is made over time.
Power is either exerted directly or by proxy. Currently money is a synonym of power and in a democracy or republic government is a kind of power by proxy.
The government must be monitored by the people. And now we have the technology to do so for the first time in history, just like the government has the technology to monitor the people. The former is much more justified since they are our proxies.
"All governments fall eventually"
Yes, but when?
I Don't know but it seems unlikely that its going the external invasion any time soon in the US at least, but there is a growing decent within the population. I am not saying that the new government will be better but might be, I don't believe people start out to being corrupt they just become so when opportunity knocks. If we monitor them (No secrets that last for ever) it may at least increase the time before it is corrupted.
Since you obviously don't agree with this, I'm sure you won't mind when I share your paycheck with all of my friends.
His paycheck is scarce. where is knowledge is not sharing only increases it.
The problem isn't that it removes scarcity, the problem is that that scarcity has been artificially added in the first place. Maybe out of necessity.
But who should decide how much scarcity should be introduced, I don't think it should be either the one who directly benefits from that scarcity or the one who benefits from that lack of it, because neither one is likely to fairly judge its value.
It should be enough so that the creator is motivated enough to produce the work in an efficient manner. It just seems that law as it currently is so skewed in the favour the owner of the right, that people don't mind ignoring the rights of the owner.
Make content easily accessible, at a fair price, with fair terms, for a fair duration and piracy will simply shrink into insignificance.
It's a property of people, are you trying to say that people don't bribe politicians is communist states. Government should be above this, it a problem with the system of government. Limit and monitor politicians so they can't be bribed. (or make it as hard as possible) Of course it will be hard for to make any politician make themselves be monitored in that way but that's what revolution is for. All governments fall eventually
I would consider copyright/patients a violation of capitalism (or at least free market) since it grants the owner a monopoly. I am not saying it is no necessary to do so for a limited period of time, just that we you restrict other people from making the same or interchangeable product then you no longer have a free market.
Just a question why is that point 17 years? where is your source for that information. I especially don't see how it can hold for computer industry where a 17 year old computer is best used as a paper weight.
from 1968-2006 an average of 85 (3227 total) people died from terrorist attacks in the US. So more people are struck by lightning. Less are killed but if you remove 9/11 from the equation where 2977 people where killed 6.6 people where killed per year. 26.8% deaths from lightning strikes happen in Open field, park, playground, etc. that's 10 better ban parks, they are more dangerous than terrorism
Although it is sad when anyone dies, and I wish 9/11 never happened, people need to have a little perspective:
in 9/11 2,977 people died in 2000, 65,313 people in the US died of Influenza and Pneumonia (nowhere near the biggest cause)
between 1968-2006 3,227 died that's 85 per year, although it would be best that nobody died of either its no reason to give over rights for the sake of security
I think rewards and punishments will be necessary for a long time, but they don't have to be financial, respect and acknowledgement of your work maybe enough, as long as you can survive reasonably comfortably
It should be the opposite way around MEPs and MPs should have everything logged and up for public examination, they are the peoples employees after all.
This should be part of terms and conditions of their employment contract.
We don't want paedophiles in parliament, think of the children
not sure this is theft, theft is used to lightly If you don't pay the rent or you don't pay a phone bill are they sent to jail for theft? No, I think it is some form of contractual violation.
you are either very fast at doing what you need to do, or your Firefox is a lot slower than mine. I takes about 4 seconds for Firefox to and 3 seconds for chrome (but less plug-ins for chrome, 17 tabs open if firefox 1 in chrome). Not a particularly fast computer probably 2 years old.
I also run Firefox on a computer I bought for $30 second hand start-up time although I haven't timed that is probably under 10 seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
First I think the if you have time, write the code was a joke.
Tests are useful, but it depends where, with UIs a lot of it is about how it feels, looks it so quite hard to write test that are useful and won't break at the slightest change. With underlying complex code however tests are very useful.
Nobody said test are a silver bullet an you will not get any bugs, but written well and appropriately they can save time developing and maintaing. written badly you spend more time fixing tests than writing code, and once you don't trust your test not to break they loose a lot of their value. Since you just assume its a broken test double the code to debug.
Documentation can useful however it has to be short, and useful too many times do see things like: /*
finds item in list
map the map to find the key in
Key the key
returns the found item or null
*/
ItemType find(Map map, KeyType key)
for crying out loud the documentation provides nothing (apart from fluff I should ignore), and really it isn't needed it anyway. That is what you get when you force people to document every single thing. Developers should be able to read code, I can read code better than can English and definitely write it better because spelling isn't so important 8-). I can usually tell when someone meant to do something or it was by accident.
On a side note documents seen to be far too big, too much emphasis on you wrote X page well you must have done lots of work. (just like back in school) Once I read a specification for transferring data the first 100 pages where what is XML the last 2 where what was needed.
I good technical document should convey the relevant information well, putting irrelevant padding only detracts from that
Not 100% sure on this but I think at least with entangled bits it is not possible to snoop on the message.
I am pretty sure it is still limited but the speed of light
The problem is not people don't care, it is that the political system makes it hard to express your opinion on individual issues.
You have basically 2 parties, you choose on the issues that you consider important Health, Education, Fiscal Policy .... Privacy
For me privacy is probably high on the list of priorities, but I don't think it is true for most. But even if it is who do I vote for to get those concerns addressed.
So high I am a member of the Pirate Party. (I couldn't vote for them not enough members better luck next time)
There is no easy way to say no way in hell do I want law X to pass, its an all or nothing proposition
I assume you are subtracting 1 from the other to get you difference. That is an incorrect calculation, if Android crashed 50% and iPhone crashed 0% (degenerate case) would android only be 50% worse. The fact is that since you hope (an app should never crashes) apps crash relatively rarely even a small percentage of crashes makes a big difference.
To get how much more it a iOS app crashes divide the two iOS/Andriod * 100 (third quarter) 3.66/2.97 * 100 = 23% more crashes
In fact given the number of different hardware configurations android has to deal with I am surprised that it is better. Ok not after using a Mac for the past several months and seeing how often that crashed.
100,000xlayers fees is also a big number, the problem is an individual probably wouldn't consider it worth 1 case. Maybe a class action
Depends on the person, I have been thinking of buying a LCD TV for about 1 year now, I still have a 25 inch CRT. It is low priority since I don't really need it, if the right (right quality, right price) deal came along I would buy it maybe.
I buy a lot of things like that, it is not unusual for me to spend years thinking about buying stuff, but usually on larger items though I wouldn't do that to buy a plug.
I know I am a bit odd though
I agree, but the problem is not cheap stuff the problem is that there is no easy way to tell the quality of a product.
Too many times all they do is stick a brand on something and charge more for the exact same product.
I think that a solution should be in all advertising should include a appropriate measure of quality e.g. expected life of a product. If it does not meet that life with normal use automatic replacement, if it is does not meet that quality standard for x% of products then the company and individuals should be investigated for fraud.
$2500 is probably not even worth there lawyers time (too busy issuing take down notices), even though probably impossible fraudulent intent to prove anyway.
I think the argument was:
democracy -> property rights
property rights are always true in the world how would you prove that this a requirement. Could you not have a commune that voted, would that not be a democracy without property rights. Like saying democracy -> wet water, therefore democracy requires wet water. (possibly true because without it there may not be life). The question is why do you need property rights for democracy. It's stated but not shown.
The objection may have been that it is an emotive statement since it implies if you remove property right you automatically remove democracy which people think is good. With no proof.
I'm not at all convinced media would suffer. Maybe it would I can't be sure. But from some evidence I see it may even improve.
1. People love to create, they do it now for love of creating, they spend their own time and money in doing so, without any real prospect of being remunerated.
2. Maybe the resources would not be there to spend $500,000,000 on a movie but what do we get with the current system the same type of movie other an over again because the investment is so high that they cannot make a loss. Reducing the profit may force costs to reduce possibly meaning people are more willing to be creative. Do you think that top actors would not work for $100,000 a year if that was all that was offered.
3. Copyright leads to companies and artists spending resources on protecting those rights, when their time would be better suited to making new and better products.
4. It is hard to create without doing everything from scratch I don't have the resources to go out a buy a licence to use everything I need. Imagine if anybody could use music / graphics from other peoples movies that could create a vast pool of resources.
I think its a balancing act and allowing people to profit from there creations in order to motivate them create and giving people freedom to experience (because that also inspires people) and use other peoples work to create new works.
Because of this I do think that at our current state less copyright would probably increase both quality and quantity.
I agree with the policy but why 28 years, seems like an arbitrary number, is there any evidence of what term is best. To me 28 years seems excessive since the vast majority of most songs/films revenues seem to occur in the first year. (I could be wrong) does anybody know some stats that describe what proportion of an average song/movie money is made over time.
Well, yes, but how?
Power is either exerted directly or by proxy. Currently money is a synonym of power and in a democracy or republic government is a kind of power by proxy.
The government must be monitored by the people. And now we have the technology to do so for the first time in history, just like the government has the technology to monitor the people. The former is much more justified since they are our proxies.
"All governments fall eventually"
Yes, but when?
I Don't know but it seems unlikely that its going the external invasion any time soon in the US at least, but there is a growing decent within the population. I am not saying that the new government will be better but might be, I don't believe people start out to being corrupt they just become so when opportunity knocks. If we monitor them (No secrets that last for ever) it may at least increase the time before it is corrupted.
Since you obviously don't agree with this, I'm sure you won't mind when I share your paycheck with all of my friends.
His paycheck is scarce. where is knowledge is not sharing only increases it.
The problem isn't that it removes scarcity, the problem is that that scarcity has been artificially added in the first place. Maybe out of necessity.
But who should decide how much scarcity should be introduced, I don't think it should be either the one who directly benefits from that scarcity or the one who benefits from that lack of it, because neither one is likely to fairly judge its value.
It should be enough so that the creator is motivated enough to produce the work in an efficient manner. It just seems that law as it currently is so skewed in the favour the owner of the right, that people don't mind ignoring the rights of the owner.
Make content easily accessible, at a fair price, with fair terms, for a fair duration and piracy will simply shrink into insignificance.
It's a property of people, are you trying to say that people don't bribe politicians is communist states. Government should be above this, it a problem with the system of government. Limit and monitor politicians so they can't be bribed. (or make it as hard as possible) Of course it will be hard for to make any politician make themselves be monitored in that way but that's what revolution is for. All governments fall eventually
I would consider copyright/patients a violation of capitalism (or at least free market) since it grants the owner a monopoly.
I am not saying it is no necessary to do so for a limited period of time, just that we you restrict other people from making the same or interchangeable product then you no longer have a free market.
Just a question why is that point 17 years? where is your source for that information. I especially don't see how it can hold for computer industry where a 17 year old computer is best used as a paper weight.
Could it be that we are in a recession, people are finding it hard to afford food and music isn't their priority.
I know that's crazy talk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike 40-50 people in the us are killed by lightning only 10% of people struck so lets say 400 people are actually struck.
from 1968-2006 an average of 85 (3227 total) people died from terrorist attacks in the US. So more people are struck by lightning. Less are killed but if you remove 9/11 from the equation where 2977 people where killed 6.6 people where killed per year. 26.8% deaths from lightning strikes happen in Open field, park, playground, etc. that's 10 better ban parks, they are more dangerous than terrorism
Although it is sad when anyone dies, and I wish 9/11 never happened, people need to have a little perspective:
in 9/11 2,977 people died in 2000, 65,313 people in the US died of Influenza and Pneumonia (nowhere near the biggest cause)
between 1968-2006 3,227 died that's 85 per year, although it would be best that nobody died of either its no reason to give over rights for the sake of security
I think rewards and punishments will be necessary for a long time, but they don't have to be financial, respect and acknowledgement of your work maybe enough, as long as you can survive reasonably comfortably
How about replacing Politicians, we just vote for the best algorithm? End of corruption.
It should be the opposite way around MEPs and MPs should have everything logged and up for public examination, they are the peoples employees after all.
This should be part of terms and conditions of their employment contract.
We don't want paedophiles in parliament, think of the children
Failure to pay prostitutes is theft.
not sure this is theft, theft is used to lightly If you don't pay the rent or you don't pay a phone bill are they sent to jail for theft? No, I think it is some form of contractual violation.
I have heard though some who knows a developer working on speeding up Firefox that the main problem is plug-ins slowing it down
you are either very fast at doing what you need to do, or your Firefox is a lot slower than mine. I takes about 4 seconds for Firefox to and 3 seconds for chrome (but less plug-ins for chrome, 17 tabs open if firefox 1 in chrome). Not a particularly fast computer probably 2 years old.
I also run Firefox on a computer I bought for $30 second hand start-up time although I haven't timed that is probably under 10 seconds.