Like paying people to rob hundreds of houses for a cut of the profits.:-)
And now you have hundreds of people who could get caught during the 'massive wave of recent burglaries' and roll over on you to avoid jail. So, you've got a pretty good chance of years in prison for organized crime and probably not enough cash to hire a mob lawyer.
Come to seattle - we have a different sort of religion, but not so much with the enviroweenies. Oh, and you'll learn to hate guys on bicycles. Sadly, the weather is a bit gray, but the flip side is good skiing an hour or two away.
Mass produced desktop markets don't run 3D CAD. High-end workstations and servers hardly count and wouldn't be a major driver of the market.
Any recent gaming box can run 16G of ram, though admittedly those aren't ECC setups. The high end ain't so high these days.
What is a consumer driver for large cheap supplies of RAM?
Games, mostly. That and photoshop. I suspect that it's a wash between the billion odd computers in circulation and the ones in datacenters that drive chip prices these days.
I wish the programming side of computing was as interested in making things smaller and faster in code.
They are, just not everywhere. There just aren't that many people who care about how fast their spreadsheet is any more, and it isn't nearly as profitable to get devs optimizing speed vs add features. It's hard enough to get bugs fixed.
Apple gets away with it by making its products' cases hard to open.
The monobloc MBPs are really easy - 10 screws. The HDD requires a T6 torx, but that's about it, and it takes all of 15 minutes to upgrade both disk and ram.
Yes, but still extra work beyond what they WOULD be doing.
You mean like their job? Or are you suggesting that docs and specs are for other people?
You have to (a) see the tests are failing, (b) repeat the failure (c) determine the failure is a false positive.
a, b are automatic. It sends you mail and you can run the test locally. C is a judgment call, and if you're getting too many of those you have too many tests. Write fewer tests that exercise important stuff that can be broken.
Instead of working on code that DOES SOMETHING FOR USERS, you are repairing code that never would have broken if you didn't write it and wouldn't have mattered if it were not there
Users like not having the same thing break that broke last month, for instance. This is maintenance level work, akin to keeping the lights on. Now then, if you weren't writing a bug, you wouldn't have to repair it, would you?
The thing about the testing people, is that they never can comprehend the negative drain things like false positives take.
The thing about you is that you make all sorts of assumptions in order to avoid having to consider a new way of doing things. I never said that tests need to be heavy or complete. That's all you. I have a test framework, it's light and easy to deal with, and it allows me to proceed with confidence in the face of changing code and new devs.
If they'd taken the time to produce working software instead of working tests the product would have been fine (as it was once the test-focused people were ejected).
To paraphrase, you had some idiots who were big into testing, so now testing is a waste of time. Right.
How do you figure? It can't be denied arbitrarily and is necessary in most parts of the US as a result of most cities being planned around cars. Perhaps the phrase you want is 'negotiated tort'. It's not quite a right, but we are required to allow anyone who demonstrates some small facility with a car and hasn't done anything really stupid (like not pay fines) to drive on public streets.
Or the test is making an assumption that is invalid in relation to some new code change, so instead of just fixing one bug you fix two. That happens even when you aren't re-working, just repairing.
Sounds like it's documenting how things should actually work, which is something you should be doing anyway.
That's why I advised him to try maintaining a small test suite first to see if it catches bugs more frequently than you have to maintain the tests.
I don't recall saying anything about size.
There's also the overhead for same test suites of keeping fully in sync with what goes in the main build, when you add new files etc.
So you update your tests when the underlying code changes. Not seeing a problem.
And if it's a bug they guy has seen before, the developer can fix it very quickly. That's really low cost too.
Until the dev switches departments or jobs or just forgets. These things happen.
It's hard to find where it pays off to spend a ton of effort building a formal test suite when all that might just happen anyway...
So don't spend a ton. And you really get to choose - either the code is tested or you don't know what the hell it's doing.
Don't they teach anything about risk these days? Testing and QA improve quality and reduce risk, making the chance of failure go down. That's worth a bit more overhead, isn't it? It's not like the CFO invested their quarterly profits in lotto, right?
You see bugs come back every 2-3 months, but is preventing that really worse than the overhead of maintaining and adhering to a test suite that all of the developers would have to do? That alone may not be enough of a reason to impose the overhead that testing can cause.
What overhead? Fix a bug, write a test that exercises the bug first, then set up a continuous build server that shouts when a test fails. All the developer has to do is keep the pass rate at 100%, which is only overhead when they reintroduce a bug or rework the design (which is unlikely here). Way cheaper than waiting for someone to find the bug later on.
It's not a hate crime unless the class is a motivating factor - if I beat some black guy for cheating at pool, that's assault. If I shout racial epithets, it's probably going to be prosecuted as a hate crime. Switch the roles so he's beating me and it's the same. It matters because when you go after someone for being part of a group, it's a threat to other members of the group and often tied to more organized assaults. Best to punish accordingly.
I was thinking that it was more a reaction to the crazy bitch that drove a girl to suicide last year. It was on the east coast, but it got national headlines.
Japan has better transit, so you could, for instance, spend most of your travel time on a train, and it's possible that japanese people largely use cars for weekend trips (far out modders also push the average down - if you've added a 10 foot fiberglass rear bumper to your van (no lie!), you probably don't drive it much).
I'd like to look at it as a holistic transport problem - how do you move people in volume with the minimum time per passenger? This is different from GM's thing, as cars are not required, and really, good subway networks in cities and mid distance trains could give an 80% solution. Hell, even a 50% solution that means we don't need to build bigger roads is probably a financial win.
Forget that - buy high end stuff (for durability, quality) and just buy slower; you'll spend less over time because you won't replace what you buy, and you'll find that you really don't need half of it in the first place.
Europeans do compressed cities just fine, and since you're in DC, i'll say that Ballston and Courthouse are a really good example of high density living.
and a lot of it is fraud detection (say, at Visa) and large internet sites deciding what sorts of products to show you when you log in based on your purchase history/similar users' history.
Slashdot Mirror
Like paying people to rob hundreds of houses for a cut of the profits. :-)
And now you have hundreds of people who could get caught during the 'massive wave of recent burglaries' and roll over on you to avoid jail. So, you've got a pretty good chance of years in prison for organized crime and probably not enough cash to hire a mob lawyer.
I was thinking more that having someone look at the hardware now and again will tell you if something is getting seriously degraded.
Come to seattle - we have a different sort of religion, but not so much with the enviroweenies. Oh, and you'll learn to hate guys on bicycles. Sadly, the weather is a bit gray, but the flip side is good skiing an hour or two away.
Mass produced desktop markets don't run 3D CAD. High-end workstations and servers hardly count and wouldn't be a major driver of the market.
Any recent gaming box can run 16G of ram, though admittedly those aren't ECC setups. The high end ain't so high these days.
What is a consumer driver for large cheap supplies of RAM?
Games, mostly. That and photoshop. I suspect that it's a wash between the billion odd computers in circulation and the ones in datacenters that drive chip prices these days.
I wish the programming side of computing was as interested in making things smaller and faster in code.
They are, just not everywhere. There just aren't that many people who care about how fast their spreadsheet is any more, and it isn't nearly as profitable to get devs optimizing speed vs add features. It's hard enough to get bugs fixed.
Apple gets away with it by making its products' cases hard to open.
The monobloc MBPs are really easy - 10 screws. The HDD requires a T6 torx, but that's about it, and it takes all of 15 minutes to upgrade both disk and ram.
I'm looking at a new machine right now, and getting 4x4G costs about $200. Really, not that expensive at all. The SSD is about twice that.
Yes, but still extra work beyond what they WOULD be doing.
You mean like their job? Or are you suggesting that docs and specs are for other people?
You have to (a) see the tests are failing, (b) repeat the failure (c) determine the failure is a false positive.
a, b are automatic. It sends you mail and you can run the test locally. C is a judgment call, and if you're getting too many of those you have too many tests. Write fewer tests that exercise important stuff that can be broken.
Instead of working on code that DOES SOMETHING FOR USERS, you are repairing code that never would have broken if you didn't write it and wouldn't have mattered if it were not there
Users like not having the same thing break that broke last month, for instance. This is maintenance level work, akin to keeping the lights on. Now then, if you weren't writing a bug, you wouldn't have to repair it, would you?
The thing about the testing people, is that they never can comprehend the negative drain things like false positives take.
The thing about you is that you make all sorts of assumptions in order to avoid having to consider a new way of doing things. I never said that tests need to be heavy or complete. That's all you. I have a test framework, it's light and easy to deal with, and it allows me to proceed with confidence in the face of changing code and new devs.
If they'd taken the time to produce working software instead of working tests the product would have been fine (as it was once the test-focused people were ejected).
To paraphrase, you had some idiots who were big into testing, so now testing is a waste of time. Right.
I understand that driving is a privilege
How do you figure? It can't be denied arbitrarily and is necessary in most parts of the US as a result of most cities being planned around cars. Perhaps the phrase you want is 'negotiated tort'. It's not quite a right, but we are required to allow anyone who demonstrates some small facility with a car and hasn't done anything really stupid (like not pay fines) to drive on public streets.
Not in my city. I predict they'd either ignore me or meekly comply, then complain about me later.
Or the test is making an assumption that is invalid in relation to some new code change, so instead of just fixing one bug you fix two. That happens even when you aren't re-working, just repairing.
Sounds like it's documenting how things should actually work, which is something you should be doing anyway.
That's why I advised him to try maintaining a small test suite first to see if it catches bugs more frequently than you have to maintain the tests.
I don't recall saying anything about size.
There's also the overhead for same test suites of keeping fully in sync with what goes in the main build, when you add new files etc.
So you update your tests when the underlying code changes. Not seeing a problem.
And if it's a bug they guy has seen before, the developer can fix it very quickly. That's really low cost too.
Until the dev switches departments or jobs or just forgets. These things happen.
It's hard to find where it pays off to spend a ton of effort building a formal test suite when all that might just happen anyway...
So don't spend a ton. And you really get to choose - either the code is tested or you don't know what the hell it's doing.
Don't they teach anything about risk these days? Testing and QA improve quality and reduce risk, making the chance of failure go down. That's worth a bit more overhead, isn't it? It's not like the CFO invested their quarterly profits in lotto, right?
So go read slashdot. When you get bored, install something new (like ruby) and play with it.
OP is talking about setting up an entire QA process that tests every possible case that can be thought of.
No, he's talking about a formal test suite. This means testing that isn't ad-hoc, but not much more.
You see bugs come back every 2-3 months, but is preventing that really worse than the overhead of maintaining and adhering to a test suite that all of the developers would have to do? That alone may not be enough of a reason to impose the overhead that testing can cause.
What overhead? Fix a bug, write a test that exercises the bug first, then set up a continuous build server that shouts when a test fails. All the developer has to do is keep the pass rate at 100%, which is only overhead when they reintroduce a bug or rework the design (which is unlikely here). Way cheaper than waiting for someone to find the bug later on.
The judge would probably use the reasonable person standard (IANAL), so it's only credible of a reasonable person would buy it.
It's not a hate crime unless the class is a motivating factor - if I beat some black guy for cheating at pool, that's assault. If I shout racial epithets, it's probably going to be prosecuted as a hate crime. Switch the roles so he's beating me and it's the same. It matters because when you go after someone for being part of a group, it's a threat to other members of the group and often tied to more organized assaults. Best to punish accordingly.
I was thinking that it was more a reaction to the crazy bitch that drove a girl to suicide last year. It was on the east coast, but it got national headlines.
And never forget: lots of people in Mumbai will happily commute an hour each way to earn $2/hour.
You really think you can get a tech worker for $4k/year? Hell, for that price, I could hire a staff for myself to, um do something.
Japan has better transit, so you could, for instance, spend most of your travel time on a train, and it's possible that japanese people largely use cars for weekend trips (far out modders also push the average down - if you've added a 10 foot fiberglass rear bumper to your van (no lie!), you probably don't drive it much).
I'd like to look at it as a holistic transport problem - how do you move people in volume with the minimum time per passenger? This is different from GM's thing, as cars are not required, and really, good subway networks in cities and mid distance trains could give an 80% solution. Hell, even a 50% solution that means we don't need to build bigger roads is probably a financial win.
Forget that - buy high end stuff (for durability, quality) and just buy slower; you'll spend less over time because you won't replace what you buy, and you'll find that you really don't need half of it in the first place.
Europeans do compressed cities just fine, and since you're in DC, i'll say that Ballston and Courthouse are a really good example of high density living.
and a lot of it is fraud detection (say, at Visa) and large internet sites deciding what sorts of products to show you when you log in based on your purchase history/similar users' history.
Check out the amazon listing. Apparently, they changed some of the look and feel under pressure from rolex.
You just haven't met the right girls. Plenty of hot geek girls, and some of them dig vinyl.