The baseline is assuming the effort involved in creating a test suite with full coverage of the specification and a detailed specification.
The detailed specification is an often overlooked cost driver in this scenario. Customers really hate having to write detailed specifications and then being held to them.
This is the second time I have found someone "in the wild" who thinks Aspects are a good idea. It inspired me to log in after all these years.
It seems to me that Aspects are a maintenance and debugging nightmare. Not that there aren't plenty of those already. The main use seems to be letting a developer use printouts to poorly mimic a proper debugger.
What is nice about them? I'm willing to be convinced.
If he is acquitted, he is not suspected any more. He is vindicated
The details may differ in Sweden, but typically in the West, "not proven guilty" is not the same as "proven innocent". Justice systems that do this are based on the idea that it is better to err and let some guilty people go free in order to decrease the number of innocent people who are wrongly convicted.
He may well be proven innocent, as you rightly point out, but there is a middle ground where suspicion might well remain.
Killing fewer people than someone else doesn't always make you good.
Correct, but trying (and succeeding) to kill fewer innocent people does make you better than someone who's trying (and succeeding) to kill more innocent people.
I haven't shuffled through all of them, or seen a believable analysis of the whole enchilada. But according to one Guardian article, your simple assertion is probably bullshit.
I heard it on that jingoistic, neocon broadcast network NPR. Specifically, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Monday July 26, with guests Mark Mazzetti (NYT), Nick Davies (Guardian), Richard Haass (some NGO). Mr. Davies and Mr. Mazzetti were among the reporters who reviewed the wikileaks documents before they were published so they have a multi-week head start on the rest of us. link to this episode
Note that the story you link to does not disprove my assertion. Incompetence and bumbling, and even deceit, while indefensible, are not even close to as bad as intentionally killing civilians (at a rate in excess of ten to one) in terror attacks. The Taliban and their supporters are clearly the bad guys in this conflict.
According to the wikileaks documents, the U.S. Military is the good guy in Afghanistan: the Taliban has killed more than 10 times as many civilians, on purpose, while the U.S. Military has bent over backwards to avoid that.
You do believe the wikileaks documents, don't you?
Except the report did not claim anywhere that it was intentional.
The report didn't have to, because nobody disputes that it was intentional; the authors themselves admitted to writing those emails. The question was whether "hiding the decline" was legitimate or misleading. The report concluded that it was misleading.
On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a "trick" and to "hide the decline" in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.
Intentionally supplying misleading figures is scientific misconduct. It may be commonplace, but that's no excuse.
Personally, that doesn't bother me much; science has always been politicized between factions who behave unethically in order to further their own theories. What does bother me is the attempt to pass off the results of incompetent software engineering as valid science.
Yes, they could wage a DoS attack to stifle the economy and communications, maybe slow some business down, but people will not die. Alleging that type of attack is even remotely similar to what happened on 9/11 is grossly irresponsible.
It is easy (though not pleasant) to imagine how a prolonged disruption of computer-controlled utilities (power, water, heat, transportation) could cause suffering far in excess of 9/11, especially if current trends are extrapolated into the future. Read RISKS.
Funny how the right wing love to talk about leftists being for overbearing government that controls everything you do, but it's the conservative strongholds that have laws like that.
It's almost as if "right-wing" and "left-wing" are completely meaningless terms.
Start the long expression on the line after the variable, indenting one additional level from that which the variable is indented at. If you break up the long expression onto multiple lines, indent them the same as the first line of the long expression, unless you want to add more for clarity of sub-expressions. The resulting paragraph of code will still resemble the similar paragraphs y and z.
Or, keep the long expression on a single line and let the editor's word wrap handle it.
I mind... The last grovernment that tried to use genetics to modify it's society of illness didn't have the technology,
so they just resorted to gassing millions of the "unfit" to protect the chosen.
I don't think that government was the last one. Compulsory sterilization for eugenic reasons occurred more recently than that in the United States, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some countries have it today.
Spaces work better than tabs because the code is always formatted properly.
No, because there is more than one way to properly format code, and different situations require different formatting. I sometimes edit the same code in a 24x80 terminal window and in an IDE maximized on a WUXGA screen. Sometimes the same code is edited by people with different levels of visual acuity.
You cannot have your indent be two and me with 8 and have the code line up properly, especially when lining up complex if or math statements (where you may be using the level of indent to help with showing how the parens or operators nest).
Sure you can. This comment shows how. I'm open to a counterexample though; can you provide an expression that cannot be made to render properly in a variable indentation width environment?
On a large enough team over enough time, people who use tabs will start to mix tabs and spaces for alignment. Once that starts happening you'll get code / comments / ascii art diagrams all misaligned when viewed in someone else's editor who doesn't have the same tabwidth. The only reliable way to solve this for everyone is to force tabs-as-spaces (:set expandtab).
The superior solution is to force everyone to use tabs for indenting, and then let people adjust their editors to display whatever tab size they prefer.
The Fairness Doctrine is appropriate for the public airwaves, a shared resource,
No. The Fairness Doctrine is a tool for the government to suppress political views it does not agree with. That's how it was used, and that's why people want to bring it back.
So how on earth would eliminating medicare improve the quality of mental health services given to the poor?
It depends on the details, like what you replaced it with, if anything, and if/how Medicaid were to change as well. Under no worldview that I am aware of is Medicare the best way to implement a single payer health care system.
Under medicated? In the US? I'll eat my hat if that is the case.
The post you reply to provides examples of that: the anti-vaccination and homeopathy people.
The subtext of this story is that medication is not a replacement for other forms of therapy.
The previous poster's point is that that subtext is wrong: medication is frequently superior to other forms of therapy. If one wants to claim that there are specific times where medication is not a replacement for other forms of therapy, it is better to say that explicitly, and why, than to imply that various anti-evidence medical movements are correct.
Personally, I don't know if too many kids are being treated with antipsychotic medication. If they were, it would fit my assumptions and biases about the world, but those are not always correct.
Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.'
That would be a good thing, because "hard science" is not a single anthropomorphic entity but a collection of disparate opinions, equations, experiments and hypotheses. Ideal scientists are skeptics, willing to change their minds to follow the evidence, but actual scientists are flawed human beings subject to the same cognitive failures as you and I. The Feynman quote from this Megan McArdle column illustrates it well:
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
Since the goal of the scientific method is greater understanding, how is it a bad thing for the general public to have a greater understanding of it? Scientists are not high priests. When ordinary people set aside their blind "faith in science" in favor of a more realistic understanding of what it takes for a hypothesis to survive in the shark tank long enough to be called a theory, it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The baseline is assuming the effort involved in creating a test suite with full coverage of the specification and a detailed specification.
The detailed specification is an often overlooked cost driver in this scenario. Customers really hate having to write detailed specifications and then being held to them.
This is the second time I have found someone "in the wild" who thinks Aspects are a good idea. It inspired me to log in after all these years. It seems to me that Aspects are a maintenance and debugging nightmare. Not that there aren't plenty of those already. The main use seems to be letting a developer use printouts to poorly mimic a proper debugger. What is nice about them? I'm willing to be convinced.
The details may differ in Sweden, but typically in the West, "not proven guilty" is not the same as "proven innocent". Justice systems that do this are based on the idea that it is better to err and let some guilty people go free in order to decrease the number of innocent people who are wrongly convicted.
He may well be proven innocent, as you rightly point out, but there is a middle ground where suspicion might well remain.
Correct, but trying (and succeeding) to kill fewer innocent people does make you better than someone who's trying (and succeeding) to kill more innocent people.
I heard it on that jingoistic, neocon broadcast network NPR. Specifically, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Monday July 26, with guests Mark Mazzetti (NYT), Nick Davies (Guardian), Richard Haass (some NGO). Mr. Davies and Mr. Mazzetti were among the reporters who reviewed the wikileaks documents before they were published so they have a multi-week head start on the rest of us. link to this episode
Note that the story you link to does not disprove my assertion. Incompetence and bumbling, and even deceit, while indefensible, are not even close to as bad as intentionally killing civilians (at a rate in excess of ten to one) in terror attacks. The Taliban and their supporters are clearly the bad guys in this conflict.
Khalifa Abdullah
According to the wikileaks documents, the U.S. Military is the good guy in Afghanistan: the Taliban has killed more than 10 times as many civilians, on purpose, while the U.S. Military has bent over backwards to avoid that.
You do believe the wikileaks documents, don't you?
The report didn't have to, because nobody disputes that it was intentional; the authors themselves admitted to writing those emails. The question was whether "hiding the decline" was legitimate or misleading. The report concluded that it was misleading.
From the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review Final Report pdf:
Intentionally supplying misleading figures is scientific misconduct. It may be commonplace, but that's no excuse.
Personally, that doesn't bother me much; science has always been politicized between factions who behave unethically in order to further their own theories. What does bother me is the attempt to pass off the results of incompetent software engineering as valid science.
Drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money.
It is easy (though not pleasant) to imagine how a prolonged disruption of computer-controlled utilities (power, water, heat, transportation) could cause suffering far in excess of 9/11, especially if current trends are extrapolated into the future. Read RISKS.
It means "an attack carried out using the Internet that is as devastating to the US as the attacks on 9/11," duh.
Denial of service attacks exist, yes.
Ask them about clitoridectomy and you'll get a different answer.
If we don't renew the USA PATRIOT Act, the children will have won!
It's almost as if "right-wing" and "left-wing" are completely meaningless terms.
How do you know that it's a book with disingenuous footnotes? Lomborg's rebuttal to Friel's book seems quite convincing.
If nobody can tell if it's correct, it's worthless. "Looking pretty" is essential to be confident that it is correct.
Sorry for the late reply.
Put the x on its own line, like this:
--tuple =(
--- x,
--- y,
--- z);
Now the x, y and z line up.
Start the long expression on the line after the variable, indenting one additional level from that which the variable is indented at. If you break up the long expression onto multiple lines, indent them the same as the first line of the long expression, unless you want to add more for clarity of sub-expressions. The resulting paragraph of code will still resemble the similar paragraphs y and z.
Or, keep the long expression on a single line and let the editor's word wrap handle it.
I don't think that government was the last one. Compulsory sterilization for eugenic reasons occurred more recently than that in the United States, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some countries have it today.
No, because there is more than one way to properly format code, and different situations require different formatting. I sometimes edit the same code in a 24x80 terminal window and in an IDE maximized on a WUXGA screen. Sometimes the same code is edited by people with different levels of visual acuity.
Sure you can. This comment shows how. I'm open to a counterexample though; can you provide an expression that cannot be made to render properly in a variable indentation width environment?
The superior solution is to force everyone to use tabs for indenting, and then let people adjust their editors to display whatever tab size they prefer.
No. The Fairness Doctrine is a tool for the government to suppress political views it does not agree with. That's how it was used, and that's why people want to bring it back.
It depends on the details, like what you replaced it with, if anything, and if/how Medicaid were to change as well. Under no worldview that I am aware of is Medicare the best way to implement a single payer health care system.
The post you reply to provides examples of that: the anti-vaccination and homeopathy people.
The previous poster's point is that that subtext is wrong: medication is frequently superior to other forms of therapy. If one wants to claim that there are specific times where medication is not a replacement for other forms of therapy, it is better to say that explicitly, and why, than to imply that various anti-evidence medical movements are correct.
Personally, I don't know if too many kids are being treated with antipsychotic medication. If they were, it would fit my assumptions and biases about the world, but those are not always correct.
That would be a good thing, because "hard science" is not a single anthropomorphic entity but a collection of disparate opinions, equations, experiments and hypotheses. Ideal scientists are skeptics, willing to change their minds to follow the evidence, but actual scientists are flawed human beings subject to the same cognitive failures as you and I. The Feynman quote from this Megan McArdle column illustrates it well:
Since the goal of the scientific method is greater understanding, how is it a bad thing for the general public to have a greater understanding of it? Scientists are not high priests. When ordinary people set aside their blind "faith in science" in favor of a more realistic understanding of what it takes for a hypothesis to survive in the shark tank long enough to be called a theory, it's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.