...and so is anyone else that thinks it's wrong to kill animals for food, but perfectly fine to kill plants (or maim them, abort their offspring, etc). I could see an argument for not eating as much meat as most of the western culture does, but for health reasons only. If you're against killing, get your minerals from a rock!
I'm not sure what you mean by "we" (USA? Planet Earth?), but if you're referring to the U.S. then yea, we are in the process of becoming post-industrial since most industrial labor is moving overseas. The US is becoming more of a service-economy based each day; which is worrying some people. Apparently the concern is that we won't be able to support our own industrial needs in the future (especially in times of war where our current allies might align with our enemy).
I predict that unless and until some kind of revolution takes place, workers will continue to see thier leisure time eroded and their freedom dimished.
There's an easy way around all of this. Get paid by the hour instead of being a salary slave. Once you take a salary job you're expected to work whenever needed for however long. However, when you get paid by the hour (magically) you end up working only 40hrs/week. Amazing!
I worked as QA in salaried positions for almost three years and am so much happier now that I'm contracting. I don't mind putting in extra time when it's needed, but now that they have to pay time-and-a-half, it's only requested during emergencies. When salaried, it was requested more often than needed, or I was expected to work the same amount as the guy working 10-12 hour days even though he's doing it by choice, not out of necessity for the company's survival.
In your original post you were commenting on how powerful Hypercard was ("a billion times more powerful than either of the BASICs"). Now you're saying that it's only good for making "toys"? ("just as all of the various BASICs")
Computers download information, he says. They do not teach children to think.
Ok, last I knew, most teachers in public schools didn't teach children how to think either, should we get rid of them?
This seems like another case of, "Hey, this beige box didn't magically solve my problem!" When the truth is that if the tool is used properly, a computer can do everything mentioned in the article.
This reminds me of the calculator debate when I was in school. People thought that if students were allowed to use calculators that they would loose their math skills. Now calculators are required, but only as an aide to the learning, not in place of the logical thinking that takes place.
I think we could take this same issue and scale it up to the realm of computing/Internet. What we should be looking for is, "What is the best way (insert new technology here) can be used to further learning and education." Instead of assuming that it can adequately replace portions of it.
This "grass roots" effort is probably the start of a new political party. (since Bill's large contributions to the Dems and Repubs haven't yeilded any results for him)
The following excerpt of the article explains where the technology came from.
The magician who performed this feat was Digital Motion cofounder and president Robert Dunning, a former marketing manager at high-end computer manufacturer GST-Micro City in Southern California. Dunning used highly specialized hardware and software, much of it still in the testing phase, designed by Sunnyvale, Calif.-based FutureTel and other niche companies in the graphics and publishing industries. Dunning's achievement, according to Dunning, Hauswirth and the third Digital Motion partner, was in assembling off-the-shelf components in a way no one else had done before to produce high-quality video. Soon enough, Stanley would hijack Dunning's work, wrongly calling it proprietary technology that Stanley himself had developed.
I'm just wondering which "off-the-shelf" components these are.
One of my former employers had a product with 14 applications and nearly everything was automated. Maintaining the scripts was a daily process, but only consumed an hour or two each morning at the most (15 minutes to review results if nothing went wrong).
We would start automation as soon as we had even the smallest idea of what was to be built. Daily communication with the developer allowed me to change my scripts to match the (new) expectation if anything changed.
It's hard to separate GUI testing from data testing (as far as determining a ratio), since some scripts did both, but it was very GUI intensive. For me, automating the GUI was the most beneficial because it allowed me time to create more intelligent tests instead of wasting my time with thousands of "dumb" tests (i.e. click button; expect dialog... ad infinitum).
Automation is very time consuming initially, but if planned and written correctly, the payback can be HUGE since the team isn't bogged down with mindless tasks and can focus on bigger issues instead of "buttonX displays dialogY = pass". We had a team of 6 QA to 30 devs, so it was hardly a 1:2 ratio. It's just a matter of making it part of the (daily) routine, keeping informed of changes, and writing code/scripts that are easily modified.
First, let me start off by saying that automation !(necessarily)= good testing. It can, but does not guarantee a trusted system. As for Dr. Spafford, I don't see why he thinks open source projects can't be put through rigorous (standardized) test to achieve "trustablility". Automation could take care of most of this, but it all goes back to design. If the code AND tests are not designed properly, then you don't have jack.
Are you talking about mixing testing and design with coding? That's a bad idea.
(please correct me if I'm misunderstanding) The quote above explains why Spoing has such a difficult time with automated scripts. My personal experience has shown me that the ONLY way to successfully automate a project is to have developers and testers working tightly together from the very start (including design phase). Without having QA review the initial design, and keep close contact/communication with the developers throughout the rest of the process, automation is useless.
When working this close, creating automated tests prior to handling the code no longer becomes theoretical. Scripts do not "break" as they are updated with the new changes before testing the next release. Yes, automation is a development project in itself, but can be worth it if done correctly. The idea that "Mixing coders and testers in the same group is just a bad idea on multiple levels" is what creates messy situations in regards to automation. However, if you're talking about coders testing their own project, then I agree. Otherwise, you're describing glorified beta testing (throwing code "over the wall" to testing).
The money made at the box office is only important because it increases rental and video sales (which is where most of the money is made in the industry, so I've heard).
Do you start your relationships on complete skepticism? Do you consider everyone to be guilty until prooven innocent? No wonder you have to resort to saying that I sound ridiculous.
I just don't like the idea of starting a relationship based on lack-of-trust. I know I wouldn't hire someone if I thought I needed to perform a background check on them.
Besides, how is a background check going to determine if you're honest or not. Just because you've committed a crime doesn't mean you lie, and just because you have not commited a crime (or never have been caught) doesn't mean that you're truthful. So the corp ends up wasting their money while receiving no results.
If a person is responsible; I don't care if they mainline Windex(TM). I've met sober people that I wouldn't trust in a chem plant (or any other job that required quick thinking and reflexes) and stoned ones that I would. So, no. If they want to inject peanut butter between their toes during the lunch break, fine, as long as they are responsible while under the influence. (and don't tell me it's not possible, I've known too many stoners wear ties and own their own companies)
I must be really lucky (according to you) since I've never worked for a place that required background checks or drug testing and they have all been "decent" jobs. Maybe you'll find this to be true when you're no longer working in the University's caffeteria.
Ditto! My policy is that if they want to know something about me, they can ask me. If they don't trust me to tell the truth, then why the heck are they hiring me?!?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean your (snail) mailbox isn't innundated with credit card offers?
...and so is anyone else that thinks it's wrong to kill animals for food, but perfectly fine to kill plants (or maim them, abort their offspring, etc). I could see an argument for not eating as much meat as most of the western culture does, but for health reasons only. If you're against killing, get your minerals from a rock!
I'm not sure what you mean by "we" (USA? Planet Earth?), but if you're referring to the U.S. then yea, we are in the process of becoming post-industrial since most industrial labor is moving overseas. The US is becoming more of a service-economy based each day; which is worrying some people. Apparently the concern is that we won't be able to support our own industrial needs in the future (especially in times of war where our current allies might align with our enemy).
I predict that unless and until some kind of revolution takes place, workers will continue to see thier leisure time eroded and their freedom dimished.
There's an easy way around all of this. Get paid by the hour instead of being a salary slave. Once you take a salary job you're expected to work whenever needed for however long. However, when you get paid by the hour (magically) you end up working only 40hrs/week. Amazing!
I worked as QA in salaried positions for almost three years and am so much happier now that I'm contracting. I don't mind putting in extra time when it's needed, but now that they have to pay time-and-a-half, it's only requested during emergencies. When salaried, it was requested more often than needed, or I was expected to work the same amount as the guy working 10-12 hour days even though he's doing it by choice, not out of necessity for the company's survival.
...now if that ain't funny...
In your original post you were commenting on how powerful Hypercard was ("a billion times more powerful than either of the BASICs"). Now you're saying that it's only good for making "toys"? ("just as all of the various BASICs")
Make up your mind.
The FBI has insisted the companies employ U.S. citizens to handle wiretapping activities
Whew! I'm sure glad they don't want any foreign nationals spying on me.
Computers download information, he says. They do not teach children to think.
Ok, last I knew, most teachers in public schools didn't teach children how to think either, should we get rid of them?
This seems like another case of, "Hey, this beige box didn't magically solve my problem!" When the truth is that if the tool is used properly, a computer can do everything mentioned in the article.
This reminds me of the calculator debate when I was in school. People thought that if students were allowed to use calculators that they would loose their math skills. Now calculators are required, but only as an aide to the learning, not in place of the logical thinking that takes place.
I think we could take this same issue and scale it up to the realm of computing/Internet. What we should be looking for is, "What is the best way (insert new technology here) can be used to further learning and education." Instead of assuming that it can adequately replace portions of it.
This "grass roots" effort is probably the start of a new political party. (since Bill's large contributions to the Dems and Repubs haven't yeilded any results for him)
The following excerpt of the article explains where the technology came from.
The magician who performed this feat was Digital Motion cofounder and president Robert Dunning, a former marketing manager at high-end computer manufacturer GST-Micro City in Southern California. Dunning used highly specialized hardware and software, much of it still in the testing phase, designed by Sunnyvale, Calif.-based FutureTel and other niche companies in the graphics and publishing industries. Dunning's achievement, according to Dunning, Hauswirth and the third Digital Motion partner, was in assembling off-the-shelf components in a way no one else had done before to produce high-quality video. Soon enough, Stanley would hijack Dunning's work, wrongly calling it proprietary technology that Stanley himself had developed.
I'm just wondering which "off-the-shelf" components these are.
One of my former employers had a product with 14 applications and nearly everything was automated. Maintaining the scripts was a daily process, but only consumed an hour or two each morning at the most (15 minutes to review results if nothing went wrong).
We would start automation as soon as we had even the smallest idea of what was to be built. Daily communication with the developer allowed me to change my scripts to match the (new) expectation if anything changed.
It's hard to separate GUI testing from data testing (as far as determining a ratio), since some scripts did both, but it was very GUI intensive. For me, automating the GUI was the most beneficial because it allowed me time to create more intelligent tests instead of wasting my time with thousands of "dumb" tests (i.e. click button; expect dialog... ad infinitum).
Automation is very time consuming initially, but if planned and written correctly, the payback can be HUGE since the team isn't bogged down with mindless tasks and can focus on bigger issues instead of "buttonX displays dialogY = pass". We had a team of 6 QA to 30 devs, so it was hardly a 1:2 ratio. It's just a matter of making it part of the (daily) routine, keeping informed of changes, and writing code/scripts that are easily modified.
First, let me start off by saying that automation !(necessarily)= good testing. It can, but does not guarantee a trusted system. As for Dr. Spafford, I don't see why he thinks open source projects can't be put through rigorous (standardized) test to achieve "trustablility". Automation could take care of most of this, but it all goes back to design. If the code AND tests are not designed properly, then you don't have jack.
Are you talking about mixing testing and design with coding? That's a bad idea.
(please correct me if I'm misunderstanding) The quote above explains why Spoing has such a difficult time with automated scripts. My personal experience has shown me that the ONLY way to successfully automate a project is to have developers and testers working tightly together from the very start (including design phase). Without having QA review the initial design, and keep close contact/communication with the developers throughout the rest of the process, automation is useless.
When working this close, creating automated tests prior to handling the code no longer becomes theoretical. Scripts do not "break" as they are updated with the new changes before testing the next release. Yes, automation is a development project in itself, but can be worth it if done correctly. The idea that "Mixing coders and testers in the same group is just a bad idea on multiple levels" is what creates messy situations in regards to automation. However, if you're talking about coders testing their own project, then I agree. Otherwise, you're describing glorified beta testing (throwing code "over the wall" to testing).
The money made at the box office is only important because it increases rental and video sales (which is where most of the money is made in the industry, so I've heard).
Do you start your relationships on complete skepticism? Do you consider everyone to be guilty until prooven innocent? No wonder you have to resort to saying that I sound ridiculous.
I never indicated they they were the same. What are you smoking?
I just don't like the idea of starting a relationship based on lack-of-trust. I know I wouldn't hire someone if I thought I needed to perform a background check on them.
Besides, how is a background check going to determine if you're honest or not. Just because you've committed a crime doesn't mean you lie, and just because you have not commited a crime (or never have been caught) doesn't mean that you're truthful. So the corp ends up wasting their money while receiving no results.
If a person is responsible; I don't care if they mainline Windex(TM). I've met sober people that I wouldn't trust in a chem plant (or any other job that required quick thinking and reflexes) and stoned ones that I would. So, no. If they want to inject peanut butter between their toes during the lunch break, fine, as long as they are responsible while under the influence. (and don't tell me it's not possible, I've known too many stoners wear ties and own their own companies)
I must be really lucky (according to you) since I've never worked for a place that required background checks or drug testing and they have all been "decent" jobs. Maybe you'll find this to be true when you're no longer working in the University's caffeteria.
Not checking to see if her SS# matched seems like it would constitute negligence to me; considering that it's part of their job.
Ditto! My policy is that if they want to know something about me, they can ask me. If they don't trust me to tell the truth, then why the heck are they hiring me?!?