I disagree. Both of your reasons for reading blogs assume that people go there for the merit of the information and opinions itself (either to be affirmed or challenged by it). But only a few sites (usually written by highly egotistical people)are like that (aka drudge report), and they are really a completely seperate catagory. (although if they want to claim the title 'blog' they are welcome to it - damn I hate that word).
What is much more often the case is that people read webjournals to learn about the person writing them. People write webjournals as a way of laying out their opinions on the table and saying "this is who I am - take me or leave me". They are a 2000 word personal adv, a way to vent your frustrations, a filtering mechanism to find people you like, a way keep distant friends up-to-date with what is going on in your life since you can't have one-on-one conversations with all of them all the time.
Webjournals are inherently about people not information, which is what makes them such an annoyance for google, whose task is to find information.
No, he's right. I was putting together a new computers for brother just before christmas. Here is what I did: 1) Installed windows 2000 from the CD, not connected to the internet. 2) Powered down the computer and plugged into cable modem, via ethernet. 3) Powered on computer and immediately ran Windows Update.
Before I could even select which updates to install, I had a windows messaging box (the Windows functionality, not MSN messager) pop up. Anyway, I finished installing all the updates, and then proceded to install a virus checker and spyware removal programs, and the virus checker indeed did find stuff (I forget what).
So within 30 seconds of connecting the computer to the internet, a virus had already exploited a flaw in Windows, and probably had already infected the system. But I had definately been infected within 30 minutes of connecting to the internet, because it took less time than that to install the updates and virus checker.
No it isn't. "the Agnostic faith" would be an oxymoron. But because there is no proof of the existance or non-existance of God, then asserting one way or the other is not a valid fact, theory, or hypothesis of science, but instead is an opinion or belief. Hence Atheism is a belief system based on faith.
Now, about this additional dimensions. You don't know what you are talking about.
He was making a reference to string theory. One of the ideas thrown around by string theorists is that while the particles for the electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear forces can only move in our 4 relativistic dimensions, gravitons can move in many more of the 11 dimensions. This would explain why it is so much weaker than the rest of the forces, since it expands in so many more dimensions.
But if gravity is weak because gravitons are "leaking" out into other dimensions, then it makes you wonder why it wouldn't also leak in as well, which is the point he is getting at.
The reason gravity is so weak is because the gravitational constant G is much smaller that the electric constant k. End of story.
Constants are simply numbers that we have determined experimentally, and thoughout the history of science we have often developed new theories that explain why the constants are what the specific values they are. What we know about subatom particles today is most assuredly not the end of the story, and there is no reason to think that we won't someday discover explainations for why the different particles have different constants.
Yeah the thing that kills my reboot time on x86 boxes is definately the BIOS, in particular the "Verifying DMA Buffers" check that cannot be turned off and adds about 20 seconds to the boot time.
Are you sure about this? I don't think the submitter knew what he was talking about. The press release actually said:
Szulik said Red Hat Desktop is less expensive to administer and more secure than Microsoft's offerings. It will cost on average about $5 a month per machine, with additional support services available, he said. (emphasis mine)
It sound so me that the $5/mo is just their estimate on how much it would take to administer a linux desktop, and does not include any purchase or support costs.
Take a look at the prices given for this new desktop. That is a hell of a lot more than $5/mo. The cheapest option is the Extention Pack (50 seats/ no extra administration tools), which comes out to $70 per seat, and you only get 30 days of telephone support with any of them.
What, you mean being a convicted monopolist means that I have to register everything I do?
No, not at all. However the business rules in this country state that the list of anyone holding more than 10% stock of a publically traded company must be made public. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the person who perchases the stock to report this information. Mr. Gates is not being held to a higher standard than anyone else.
Piracy is a pretty shity form of civil disobediance. The whole point of civil disobedience is to break an unjust law, and have everyone outraged when you are punished for it because they see how unjust it is. This doesn't work for piracy because, you can claim that you are doing it for the good of society all you want, but how can anyone tell that you aren't just spoiled brats who wants everything given to you for free.
You want to stick it to the RIAA? Stop promoting their music by pirating it! Thats right, just stop buying thier music all together, and support musicians who are trying to do things your way, but can't because you you keep listening to RIAA music.
On the other hand, they might run into trademark-problems once again if they try to change the name of the program to Thunderfox. There are only so many words one can use for a product/company per market niche.
Good point. FYI a quick search only brings up one software package called thunderfox - a video game from the 80's, and a bunch of posturing on whether thunderbird will change it's name to thunderfox. Discarding those just leaves us with people who call themselves thunderfox on the internet, and just happen to be talking about software. So if there is a software package called thunderfox, the authors apparently don't care about anyone knowing about it.
Only if the machines were hijacked illegally. I wonder how the court would rule if the distributed service running on the machine was a spyware program that technically told the user what it was doing (because none reads software licence agreements) and which the user agreed to install.
Now if these machines were being used to do something illegal then the buyers of the service could be held accountable, and the money trail makes it trivial to track down.
Either way, that's the sort of thing that economists should figure out. It actually kind of bugs me that this is considered to be a "political" issue, as though peoples' belief or lack of belief in Reaganomics will affect whether or not "it works". The same thing for environmental issues, energy policy, population growth, and so on... the hard data should come first, "politics" second (or later) insofar as possible.
The reason that these things are and must be political issues is because they affect our lives. Remember also that both economics and environmental studies are observational not experimental sciences, where it takes a much longer time to learn things because we are limited to drawing conclusions from the natural situations we are put in. These situations often have numerous variables to be concidered, as compared to experiments in which we attempt to keep everything constant but the single variable we are testing. Because of this we often don't have hard data. Economists can look at the same set of data and come to different conclusions, and nothing but more time and experience will help us understand which is the correct one. No one knows exactly what effect trickle down policies of the regan era had on the stagflationary economy of the time because there was too much else going on to deterimine causality between all the different variables and their outcome.
Unfortunately, we can't stop life and wait till we understand everything. We have to keep living today, making decisions with the limit knowledge we have at the moment. And many of these decisions effect not just ourselves, or even our immediate relations, but society as a whole. Therefore these decisions must be made as a society and in lack of a clear black and white picture, we must use our own heuristics, opinions and beliefs to shape these inherently political decisions.
It is also the weaker of the arguments. While some radio waves come into you house uninvited, they are not recieved by your eyes unless you deliberately invite the signal to be displayed on your television. Really what this argument is saying is that it is okay to sell whatever you want but should be restricted from giving certain things away, which is rubbish.
The stronger argument is that the broadcast frequencies are limited resource owned collectively by the people and thus regulated according to the will of the people.
With broadcast television, only one person can broadcast on a single frequency, and thus the number of broadcasters is limited. Therfore, content is also limited and thus suitable to be regulated by the will of the people.
However, this is not the case with the WiFi. While the airwaves it is using are a limited resource, the content is not. Therefore regulating the proper use of the airwaves is justified, but regulating the content is not.
Furthermore, the very fact that there are a limited number of broadcast TV, and an unlimited number of websites makes it possible to censor broadcast TV and makes completely impossible to censor the web. So not only is the argument flawed, any attempts to do so will have no real effect (except for creating more unevenly applied laws).
How about actually listing some real complaints with the CC instead of some vague deragatory remarks. A creative commons licence depends on the terms you select, and does indeed meet Debians and FSF's definition of free for many of these options. In fact the free software foundation recomends that you use a Creative Common licence for works other than software and documentation. Furthermore, I have talked to Richard Stallman about this and he agrees that different types of works need different types and amounts protection and that when he started the FSF he did was only concidering software, and does not project his moral beliefs of software copyright and patents onto all copyright and patent.
The creative commons creates a common set of licences that simplify things for the creator, distributer, and consumer. It also creates a single umbrella movement for encouraging more open licencing of works. It is a valuable work.
I myself have noticed alot of confusion concerning the usage of the creative commons licences. The original idea seemed simple to me - pick which clauses you want and list them. They even provided simple icons to help mark what your licence allows. But apparently alot of people just don't get it. I don't know how many sites I have seen that simply state that thier works are available under a creative commons license, without bothering to mention which one.
However the problem is not entirely the fault of the artists. I went back to the creative commons site today, and it took me ten minutes to find the original simple page explaining the different licences. Before that I went through their "Choose a licence" path it and they actually encourage people to mark the works on their websites vaguely as being under a creative commons licence. To get the terms of the specific license you must click on the link.
This is bad practice. People are used to the name of the license telling them roughly what you can do with the licence. GPL, BSD, Open Source, Shareware, Freeware, these all give you at least a rough idea of what you can do with the work. Therefore someone stumbing on the Creative Commons Licence for the first time would naturally extend what they know to think it is yet another licence. But it isn't - it is a collection of licences.
Consider the first time someone encounters a creative commons licence. Unsure of what it is suppose they actually do click the link on the bottom of the page and read the (very nice and clear) human readable creed. They will then think "okay that is what they creative commons licence allows" and never bother to click on any other link again, because they think they already know what the licence allows.
I do not think that creative commons concept is too confusing for people, but it is different, and the way it is being handled does nothing to indicate to people that it is different. At the very least people should display the applicable clause icons next to the creative commons link, so that people may notice that there is something different.
PS: This does not directly apply to this case since prior to April 24th these had no licencing information, and after that the notice was clearly displayed, and in either case Lindows should have contacted the author to get permission. It is just a side discussion.
Burining ethanol is extremely ineffiecient
on
Ethanol From Waste Straw
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Apparently traditional ethanol from food crops like corn used at least as much energy to create as they released when burned.
This is really neither hear nor there. Nobody is thinking about using ethanol as a combustable fuel. It is just too expensive for that. One big reason for this is because ethanol needs to be very pure for combustion, the main thing being that it can't have any other liquids like water in it. So at present, it is only used as an additive to gasoline, because the blend results in cleaner exhaust.
However making ethanol for fuel cells is something like 4x more efficient, because it doesn't have to be as pure. I can't find the slashdot-linked orignal article that I read, but google has some more info. I haven't read all the details about it yet and how it compares to methanol, biodiesal etc, but it seems worth checking out.
Farked...erm...I mean Slashdotted...at only 4 comments.
Actually, this site was already slashdotted before it even went live. I am a subscriber and couldn't even get to it. Maybe the guy has some sort of grudge against his ISP, posting a DSL hosted site like that. Or maybe he is a troll - posted just to see the bitching in the thread. Or perhaps he is just an attention starved fool, pretending to be submitting someone elses site when it is really his own.
Yeah, It's just like when Darth Vader tried to get Luke to join him. After Luke had destroyed the first Death Star, Vader and Palpatine realized what a great asset he could be. They offered him the chance of a lifetime, just wanted to reward him for his good work, and what did the whiny brat do? Goes and kills them both and destroys the empire's last change of survival. He ruined the livelyhoods of millions of innocent emperial employees, not to mention the thousands he murdered, just for some hippy idealism. If only he had been more grateful like these two guys, maybe the world could have been a better place.
Except that the general theory of relativity was created because newtonian gravity violated the speed of light. If this test showed that frame dragging did not exist, we would be have to figure out a new way of making those two consistant, and (on the surface at least) one (unlikely) possibility would be that some things can travel faster than light.
You do have to know how they work in order to program them correctly.
I don't know. I use to think like that, but with all the increased layers of abstraction, if this guy knows how databases and Java works, then how will knowing how the computer works help him?
Knowing the low levels of how the computer works won't help him write more efficient code like it would in C. For that all he needs to know are the O(x) of his algorithms and database calls. Nor will it help him with security, since you can't muck around with pointers directly in java. For that you just need to have an understanding of network security, and how to write good java code.
I never visit drudge. I never watch CNN or read the newspaper either. Used to, then I realised that unless you're personally involved in something, then "news" is just gossip. Anything that's really important, will affect me directly, and I won't need a reporter to tell me about it.
Yes and no. I have stopped watching televized news for the same reason. The information they provide is worthless gossip: Some sports team beat another, crime is still occuring, minutia of celeberaties life still over analysed, a politician made yet another an empty speech, pundits continue to preach reterict, and to finish here is something sappy. Not a sigle piece of information that is relevent to me.
But that does not mean that everything that hasn't affected me directly is not important for me to know. I have never been affected directly by the DCMA, Patriot Act, or upcomming redistricting and water regulations. But if I wait until they do affect me, it will be to late.
As much as I agree with Thoreau's "Simplify, simplify, simplify", I also know that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Call me silly here, but that article talks about developer ONLY testing, and doesn't seem to discuss different types of projects at all. This was about basic code testing, and mainly unit-test.
Yes, this is exacly what this article is about. What is wrong with that?
No UAT, no System Test, no Integration Test... no how test cases should be defined.
No it is assumed that anyone programmer worth his salt knows some test methodology, and this usefull article explains tools that make that task easier.
Please go an get a decent, non-language specific book on testing before reading and listening to this article.
Yes I agree, if you don't know these things you should learn them. But you act as thought this article is a waste of the electrons it traveled over, while it is actually quite usefull. I program python, learned about test methodology years ago but didn't learn about these tools until today.
I don't see how you got +5 Insightfull for pointing out that this is article is not the all-inclusive source of testing knowledge. Everything ever written is limited in scope, that doesn't make it less usefull for the purpose it was written.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Both of your reasons for reading blogs assume that people go there for the merit of the information and opinions itself (either to be affirmed or challenged by it). But only a few sites (usually written by highly egotistical people)are like that (aka drudge report), and they are really a completely seperate catagory. (although if they want to claim the title 'blog' they are welcome to it - damn I hate that word).
What is much more often the case is that people read webjournals to learn about the person writing them. People write webjournals as a way of laying out their opinions on the table and saying "this is who I am - take me or leave me". They are a 2000 word personal adv, a way to vent your frustrations, a filtering mechanism to find people you like, a way keep distant friends up-to-date with what is going on in your life since you can't have one-on-one conversations with all of them all the time.
Webjournals are inherently about people not information, which is what makes them such an annoyance for google, whose task is to find information.
No, he's right. I was putting together a new computers for brother just before christmas. Here is what I did:
1) Installed windows 2000 from the CD, not connected to the internet.
2) Powered down the computer and plugged into cable modem, via ethernet.
3) Powered on computer and immediately ran Windows Update.
Before I could even select which updates to install, I had a windows messaging box (the Windows functionality, not MSN messager) pop up. Anyway, I finished installing all the updates, and then proceded to install a virus checker and spyware removal programs, and the virus checker indeed did find stuff (I forget what).
So within 30 seconds of connecting the computer to the internet, a virus had already exploited a flaw in Windows, and probably had already infected the system. But I had definately been infected within 30 minutes of connecting to the internet, because it took less time than that to install the updates and virus checker.
The focus should be on getting off the earth, and since the ion drive is worthless for that, then no.
the Atheist faith
Isn't that an oxymoron?
No it isn't. "the Agnostic faith" would be an oxymoron. But because there is no proof of the existance or non-existance of God, then asserting one way or the other is not a valid fact, theory, or hypothesis of science, but instead is an opinion or belief. Hence Atheism is a belief system based on faith.
Now, about this additional dimensions. You don't know what you are talking about.
He was making a reference to string theory. One of the ideas thrown around by string theorists is that while the particles for the electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear forces can only move in our 4 relativistic dimensions, gravitons can move in many more of the 11 dimensions. This would explain why it is so much weaker than the rest of the forces, since it expands in so many more dimensions.
But if gravity is weak because gravitons are "leaking" out into other dimensions, then it makes you wonder why it wouldn't also leak in as well, which is the point he is getting at.
The reason gravity is so weak is because the gravitational constant G is much smaller that the electric constant k. End of story.
Constants are simply numbers that we have determined experimentally, and thoughout the history of science we have often developed new theories that explain why the constants are what the specific values they are. What we know about subatom particles today is most assuredly not the end of the story, and there is no reason to think that we won't someday discover explainations for why the different particles have different constants.
Yeah the thing that kills my reboot time on x86 boxes is definately the BIOS, in particular the "Verifying DMA Buffers" check that cannot be turned off and adds about 20 seconds to the boot time.
Bah. And I suppose next youre going to tell me that Kevin Mitnick never hacked into a computer by whisling hayes modem codes into a prison telephone.
Are you sure about this? I don't think the submitter knew what he was talking about. The press release actually said:
Szulik said Red Hat Desktop is less expensive to administer and more secure than Microsoft's offerings. It will cost on average about $5 a month per machine, with additional support services available, he said. (emphasis mine)
It sound so me that the $5/mo is just their estimate on how much it would take to administer a linux desktop, and does not include any purchase or support costs.
Take a look at the prices given for this new desktop. That is a hell of a lot more than $5/mo. The cheapest option is the Extention Pack (50 seats/ no extra administration tools), which comes out to $70 per seat, and you only get 30 days of telephone support with any of them.
What, you mean being a convicted monopolist means that I have to register everything I do?
No, not at all. However the business rules in this country state that the list of anyone holding more than 10% stock of a publically traded company must be made public. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the person who perchases the stock to report this information. Mr. Gates is not being held to a higher standard than anyone else.
We view piracy as a form of civil disobedience.
Piracy is a pretty shity form of civil disobediance. The whole point of civil disobedience is to break an unjust law, and have everyone outraged when you are punished for it because they see how unjust it is. This doesn't work for piracy because, you can claim that you are doing it for the good of society all you want, but how can anyone tell that you aren't just spoiled brats who wants everything given to you for free.
You want to stick it to the RIAA? Stop promoting their music by pirating it! Thats right, just stop buying thier music all together, and support musicians who are trying to do things your way, but can't because you you keep listening to RIAA music.
On the other hand, they might run into trademark-problems once again if they try to change the name of the program to Thunderfox. There are only so many words one can use for a product/company per market niche.
Good point. FYI a quick search only brings up one software package called thunderfox - a video game from the 80's, and a bunch of posturing on whether thunderbird will change it's name to thunderfox. Discarding those just leaves us with people who call themselves thunderfox on the internet, and just happen to be talking about software. So if there is a software package called thunderfox, the authors apparently don't care about anyone knowing about it.
Only if the machines were hijacked illegally. I wonder how the court would rule if the distributed service running on the machine was a spyware program that technically told the user what it was doing (because none reads software licence agreements) and which the user agreed to install.
Now if these machines were being used to do something illegal then the buyers of the service could be held accountable, and the money trail makes it trivial to track down.
Either way, that's the sort of thing that economists should figure out. It actually kind of bugs me that this is considered to be a "political" issue, as though peoples' belief or lack of belief in Reaganomics will affect whether or not "it works". The same thing for environmental issues, energy policy, population growth, and so on... the hard data should come first, "politics" second (or later) insofar as possible.
The reason that these things are and must be political issues is because they affect our lives. Remember also that both economics and environmental studies are observational not experimental sciences, where it takes a much longer time to learn things because we are limited to drawing conclusions from the natural situations we are put in. These situations often have numerous variables to be concidered, as compared to experiments in which we attempt to keep everything constant but the single variable we are testing. Because of this we often don't have hard data. Economists can look at the same set of data and come to different conclusions, and nothing but more time and experience will help us understand which is the correct one. No one knows exactly what effect trickle down policies of the regan era had on the stagflationary economy of the time because there was too much else going on to deterimine causality between all the different variables and their outcome.
Unfortunately, we can't stop life and wait till we understand everything. We have to keep living today, making decisions with the limit knowledge we have at the moment. And many of these decisions effect not just ourselves, or even our immediate relations, but society as a whole. Therefore these decisions must be made as a society and in lack of a clear black and white picture, we must use our own heuristics, opinions and beliefs to shape these inherently political decisions.
It is also the weaker of the arguments. While some radio waves come into you house uninvited, they are not recieved by your eyes unless you deliberately invite the signal to be displayed on your television. Really what this argument is saying is that it is okay to sell whatever you want but should be restricted from giving certain things away, which is rubbish.
The stronger argument is that the broadcast frequencies are limited resource owned collectively by the people and thus regulated according to the will of the people.
With broadcast television, only one person can broadcast on a single frequency, and thus the number of broadcasters is limited. Therfore, content is also limited and thus suitable to be regulated by the will of the people.
However, this is not the case with the WiFi. While the airwaves it is using are a limited resource, the content is not. Therefore regulating the proper use of the airwaves is justified, but regulating the content is not.
Furthermore, the very fact that there are a limited number of broadcast TV, and an unlimited number of websites makes it possible to censor broadcast TV and makes completely impossible to censor the web. So not only is the argument flawed, any attempts to do so will have no real effect (except for creating more unevenly applied laws).
Apparently Microsoft still thinks that digital watches are a really neat idea.
How about actually listing some real complaints with the CC instead of some vague deragatory remarks. A creative commons licence depends on the terms you select, and does indeed meet Debians and FSF's definition of free for many of these options. In fact the free software foundation recomends that you use a Creative Common licence for works other than software and documentation. Furthermore, I have talked to Richard Stallman about this and he agrees that different types of works need different types and amounts protection and that when he started the FSF he did was only concidering software, and does not project his moral beliefs of software copyright and patents onto all copyright and patent.
The creative commons creates a common set of licences that simplify things for the creator, distributer, and consumer. It also creates a single umbrella movement for encouraging more open licencing of works. It is a valuable work.
I myself have noticed alot of confusion concerning the usage of the creative commons licences. The original idea seemed simple to me - pick which clauses you want and list them. They even provided simple icons to help mark what your licence allows. But apparently alot of people just don't get it. I don't know how many sites I have seen that simply state that thier works are available under a creative commons license, without bothering to mention which one.
However the problem is not entirely the fault of the artists. I went back to the creative commons site today, and it took me ten minutes to find the original simple page explaining the different licences. Before that I went through their "Choose a licence" path it and they actually encourage people to mark the works on their websites vaguely as being under a creative commons licence. To get the terms of the specific license you must click on the link.
This is bad practice. People are used to the name of the license telling them roughly what you can do with the licence. GPL, BSD, Open Source, Shareware, Freeware, these all give you at least a rough idea of what you can do with the work. Therefore someone stumbing on the Creative Commons Licence for the first time would naturally extend what they know to think it is yet another licence. But it isn't - it is a collection of licences.
Consider the first time someone encounters a creative commons licence. Unsure of what it is suppose they actually do click the link on the bottom of the page and read the (very nice and clear) human readable creed. They will then think "okay that is what they creative commons licence allows" and never bother to click on any other link again, because they think they already know what the licence allows.
I do not think that creative commons concept is too confusing for people, but it is different, and the way it is being handled does nothing to indicate to people that it is different. At the very least people should display the applicable clause icons next to the creative commons link, so that people may notice that there is something different.
PS:
This does not directly apply to this case since prior to April 24th these had no licencing information, and after that the notice was clearly displayed, and in either case Lindows should have contacted the author to get permission. It is just a side discussion.
Apparently traditional ethanol from food crops like corn used at least as much energy to create as they released when burned.
This is really neither hear nor there. Nobody is thinking about using ethanol as a combustable fuel. It is just too expensive for that. One big reason for this is because ethanol needs to be very pure for combustion, the main thing being that it can't have any other liquids like water in it. So at present, it is only used as an additive to gasoline, because the blend results in cleaner exhaust.
However making ethanol for fuel cells is something like 4x more efficient, because it doesn't have to be as pure. I can't find the slashdot-linked orignal article that I read, but google has some more info. I haven't read all the details about it yet and how it compares to methanol, biodiesal etc, but it seems worth checking out.
Farked...erm...I mean Slashdotted...at only 4 comments.
Actually, this site was already slashdotted before it even went live. I am a subscriber and couldn't even get to it. Maybe the guy has some sort of grudge against his ISP, posting a DSL hosted site like that. Or maybe he is a troll - posted just to see the bitching in the thread. Or perhaps he is just an attention starved fool, pretending to be submitting someone elses site when it is really his own.
Yeah, It's just like when Darth Vader tried to get Luke to join him. After Luke had destroyed the first Death Star, Vader and Palpatine realized what a great asset he could be. They offered him the chance of a lifetime, just wanted to reward him for his good work, and what did the whiny brat do? Goes and kills them both and destroys the empire's last change of survival. He ruined the livelyhoods of millions of innocent emperial employees, not to mention the thousands he murdered, just for some hippy idealism. If only he had been more grateful like these two guys, maybe the world could have been a better place.
Except that the general theory of relativity was created because newtonian gravity violated the speed of light. If this test showed that frame dragging did not exist, we would be have to figure out a new way of making those two consistant, and (on the surface at least) one (unlikely) possibility would be that some things can travel faster than light.
You do have to know how they work in order to program them correctly.
I don't know. I use to think like that, but with all the increased layers of abstraction, if this guy knows how databases and Java works, then how will knowing how the computer works help him?
Knowing the low levels of how the computer works won't help him write more efficient code like it would in C. For that all he needs to know are the O(x) of his algorithms and database calls. Nor will it help him with security, since you can't muck around with pointers directly in java. For that you just need to have an understanding of network security, and how to write good java code.
I never visit drudge. I never watch CNN or read the newspaper either. Used to, then I realised that unless you're personally involved in something, then "news" is just gossip. Anything that's really important, will affect me directly, and I won't need a reporter to tell me about it.
Yes and no. I have stopped watching televized news for the same reason. The information they provide is worthless gossip: Some sports team beat another, crime is still occuring, minutia of celeberaties life still over analysed, a politician made yet another an empty speech, pundits continue to preach reterict, and to finish here is something sappy. Not a sigle piece of information that is relevent to me.
But that does not mean that everything that hasn't affected me directly is not important for me to know. I have never been affected directly by the DCMA, Patriot Act, or upcomming redistricting and water regulations. But if I wait until they do affect me, it will be to late.
As much as I agree with Thoreau's "Simplify, simplify, simplify", I also know that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
How can comething be infinitely long in one of its dimensions without having an infinite volume?
I can live with that. Just please don't tell me it also has infinite surface area.
Call me silly here, but that article talks about developer ONLY testing, and doesn't seem to discuss different types of projects at all. This was about basic code testing, and mainly unit-test.
Yes, this is exacly what this article is about. What is wrong with that?
No UAT, no System Test, no Integration Test... no how test cases should be defined.
No it is assumed that anyone programmer worth his salt knows some test methodology, and this usefull article explains tools that make that task easier.
Please go an get a decent, non-language specific book on testing before reading and listening to this article.
Yes I agree, if you don't know these things you should learn them. But you act as thought this article is a waste of the electrons it traveled over, while it is actually quite usefull. I program python, learned about test methodology years ago but didn't learn about these tools until today.
I don't see how you got +5 Insightfull for pointing out that this is article is not the all-inclusive source of testing knowledge. Everything ever written is limited in scope, that doesn't make it less usefull for the purpose it was written.