...a severe typographical error is made on a $250,000 print run and not noticed until the run is finished. We can claim the costs of that entire print run from the insurers - of course we pay a hefty premium.
A typographical error is a random enough mistake that it can be ensured. However, if it could be proven that your company intentionally included the typo, or you tried to make several design changes on the insurance financed run, it'd be fraud.
You can insure against disasters, such as car ACCIDENTS or ACCIDENTAL costly errors such as your typo example, but not against bad business decisions. Typos are unpredictable, especially since you probably spend a lot of time proofreading before a big run. Your insurance company probably made sure you had a good enough proofreading team and good enough track record that it was not too great a risk to insure you.
But insuring the predictable mistake of forgetting to reregister your domain name (it happens exactly once every X months) is not reasonable or even meaningful. By not reregistering, you are effectively donating it to the DNS company and letting them put it up for sale (details are probably in the agreement you signed with your registrar). That's not an unexpected loss, it's a poor business decision. Not having a better agreement with your registrar to automatically renew your domain name is also a bad business decision. Any insurance company would take it as you having made a choice not to re-register the name.
If you still believe you can insure a domain name, please define exactly what is being insured, and how much it is worth, and how, when the time comes, you will prove you did not fraudulantly fail to re-register your domain name in order to collect your policy (kind of like burning down your own house).
...What is fully comprehensive car insurance, if not indemnifying you against your driving negligence?
If you take your car, aim it at a brick wall, and floor it, your insurance company will not pay. If you park it near a cliff, put it in neutral with out the parking brake on, and let it roll off the cliff, they won't pay. It's not against "your driving negligence", it's against the random possibility that you'll crash, or be crashed into. 'Underwriting' loosely means risk assesment, where an underwriter considers an insurance applicant's relevant details, such as whether they have a history of unsafe driving (speeding tickets, many crashes, DUI's), and will decide how much of a risk you are, and therefor how much you have to pay them to insure you.
I had a customer tell me not too long ago that someone called him and tried to sell him insurance for his domain name to protect it from being registered by someone else right before and/or after it expires. The customer told the spammer to go scratch.
I highly doubt it but I have to ask.. is this a legit practice?
Well, insurance has to be based on a certain type of Risk. Speculative risk is not insurable, Pure risk is insurable. ("Pure Risk is uncertainty as to whether some unpredictable event that can result in loss will occur.") Failing to reregister is a bad business decision, and is totally predictable, not a randomly occuring event, and thus it is speculative risk. He's insuring your tendency to forget... but he can't insure something he can't control or 100% replace. If your house is insured, and it burns down, the insurance company pays for its repair or replacement.
If you lose your domain name because you forget to reregister it, then what is the "domain name insurance" company going to do about it? Take someone to court? Maybe take you to court for negligence? He can't sell domain name insurance; He could however set up a domain name reminder service, or reregister your domain names on your behalf on a regular basis.
He couldn't even insure you against the potential for business loss should you forget to reregister and lose your valuable name to someone else, because that would be Speculative risk.
It just keep the one-way compatability to M$ products where they can read what others export to them, but no one can (fully) read what they produce.
Yeah, it probably will. But then again, for most simple to medium complexity Word and Excel files, Corel and others can read the formats well enough. And you have the option of outputting to CSV, TXT, RTF, etc. If your activity insists that you maintain a strict standard, then you should probably be using pure XML with XSL's or something, not just hoping that MS will do it. It'd be nice if they did, considering their market span, but there are alternatives.
Hypothetical Question: A [German|French] student needs information on WWII, and the political aftermath. Where can they find information on anti-semitism and white supremacy groups to add to the project?
BOOKS. Doesn't anyone go to the library anymore? The internet's a great source for statistics, news, and cutting edge academic papers, but nothing can teach you a topic better than a few days in the library.
Would someone define "(un)solicited" for me, as it is defined regarding email?
For some reason I recall that if you get a random 'introductory' mailing, and if you delete it right away but did NOT click the unsubscribe link, they consider that you have opted IN (by not opting out), and thus future mailings are considered solicited.
Just look at an HTML file exported form Word2k. I would not call that compatible with any HTML I've ever learned. Most probably the XML file exported from Office 11 will be a Microsoft specific file, specifying lots of Office specific ActiveX (aka OLE) info that cannot be emulated.
Let's hope the word processor competitors (Staroffice, Corel) can make tools like Dreamweaver's "Clean Up Word HTML", only for cleaning up Word XML.
Let's also hope that although MS Word may produce bloated XML, it can still read and process well-formed, simple XML, as good as (or better than) it can read and process non-word files, such as HTML or TXT files.
Net primary productivity (NPP) is defined as the net flux of carbon from the atmosphere into green plants per unit time. NPP refers to a rate process, i.e., the amount of vegetable matter produced (net primary production) per day, week, or year. However, the terms net primary productivity and net primary production are sometimes used rather liberally and interchangeably, and some scientists still tend to confuse productivity with standing biomass or standing crop. NPP is a fundamental ecological variable, not only because it measures the energy input to the biosphere and terrestrial carbon dioxide assimilation, but also because of its significance in indicating the condition of the land surface area and status of a wide range of ecological processes. There are many ways to estimate terrestrial NPP from field measurements that depend on the type of plants and available measurements. Methods are discussed in connection with the biomes included in the NPP Database. Some of the methodology reviews were carried out as part of the NCEAS (National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis) Working Groups on "Development of a Consistent Worldwide Net Primary Production (NPP) Database" between December 1997 and October 1998.
I'd be interested in how much of that 40% we 'appropriate' goes not into salad bars, but into cows and horses and chickens and other farm animals. The average farm animal eats a lot more vegetation than the avarage human.
I'm also curious as to how much of that number comes from the 'opportunity cost' of humans being around - is a lot of that 40% just speculation about what the NPP would be if we had never developed into high level primates, and thus only affected the world as much as a gorilla does?
Does it take into account the positive human factor of adding technology to make infertile ground into very fertile ground? Would there be less green stuff if we had left those once-infertile lands alone?
Some guy invented a 'closed-captioning' actionscript for Flash MX that parses an XML file, which tells the Flash movie when to display which caption. "The advantage of the tool is that it not only saves time, it also allows captioning to be done by someone other than the original Flash developer..."
I don't think that I've ever seen a bloated website where the additional "functionality" was worth the slower downloads (even with broadband) and browser bugs (even with IE).
Well if it is in fact 'bloated' then, yes, it has too much crap and probably isn't worth your d/l time. But many high-bandwidth multimedia sites are successful where a text-site wouldn't be. Amazon's product images (albeit well optimized) bring their products to life, automobile makers' flashy websites allow people to preview the latest cars in vibrant color, custom configurations, etc. A picture is worth a thousand words. Slashdot, Google, Livejournal and others could probably get away with text-only, but many uses of the web demand a multimedia environment.
I agree with your opinion of flash, though. It is pretty lame.
Pretty lame? It's kept the web alive; most sites profit solely off of advertisements, and flash capability makes companies consider the web to be a viable advertising media. GIFs are to Flash as Supermarket flyers are to Superbowl TV commercials.
Faced with that choice, if I were an admin running a server that is FREE to the public, you bet I would ban your block (probably temporarily).
You're right, when it's a free server, you really can't complain. Like it or don't, there's zero monetary risk: you either enjoy it, or you don't. Free services are provided 'as is', and the providers don't owe you anything.
Blizzard's battlenet kind of walks a fine line, in that it's called a 'free' service but is promoted strongly as a prime feature of the not-free games (diablo, warcraft, etc.). You simply do not get the same gaming experience doing single player as you do multiplayer for those games. When you purchase the license/CD-key to the game, that becomes your login to the server. I think of it as a one time access charge. The server is not accessible to anyone else who doesn't own a CD-key. It's members only, and for this case memberships cost money. Then again, Blizzard clearly states that battlenet is a free, separate service, although they are selling games that pretty much rely on battlenet to become popular.
Dont you come on here and tell me what I must do with my web access: Ill share the information I want in the way I want, and if I choose not to share any information at all, then I shall be respected for that decision.
Go ahead, do what you want. But if at your brick-and-mortar store you want to offer special low prices for caucasian people and higher charges for chinese people, then yeah do it if you want, but know that you're in violation of the law. It's only a matter of time before similar legislation is passed to apply to web transactions.
I agree with this post. If you're handicapped, that's your own problem, and it's obvious that people with no hands are gonna have trouble typing on a keyboard, or that blind people are going to have problems using a vision-centric service, such as a commercial web site. The answer is to make a reasonable effort to offer equal opportunity to procure the services. In this case, the guy could probably have made a phone call, spoken to a manager about how he'd like the Web discount but he can't get to it cause he's blind, and the manager would authorize it. I'm glad the judge didn't make a hastey decision or try to establish such a far reaching extension of the ADA specs.
PS. Why does everyone pick on SW airlines all the time? They're the nicest, friendliest airline there is (except for that rules that really fat people have to pay for 2 seats).
Re:What about Apple LCDs?
on
LCD Round-up
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
The spitball scenario doesn't match up to the ISP scenario, because (1) in a classroom most kids know each other fairly well, (2) a non-disruptive, family-like attitudeamong students and teachers is beneficial and an important part of the learning experience, and (3) there's a good chance that most of the kids saw the spitball get launched while the teacher's back was turned, and they're just keeping their mouths shut. So you're getting punished for 'aiding the offender', not for actually shooting the spitball. When some stranger on your ISP cheats, there's no way you could have known about it beforehand or done anything to stop it. You're not guilty of any part of the offense.
Your other points are frighteningly real (well mostly real) and good examples of unjust discrimination, but they are on a completely different level than ISP banning. When someone's cheating in a game, it's possible to identify exactly who that someone is. The character name, their account number (props to blizzard!), there are a number of ways for an administrator to id someone in a game. Broad ISP banning is blatantly discriminatory and unneccesary.
You have to weigh the damage that a cheater is causing against the damage that loss of about two legitimate players on the same/24 would cause. If a fellow is making a big enough fool of himself, and the service isn't yet popular enough that a ban might cause a financially significant number of cancellations of service, a "Too many cheaters from your ISP" message may be warranted.
No, friggin', way. I will NOT be held accountable for what other users, whom I have absolutely zero control over, do while online. To group me with them just because we pay the same provider for service (and in some areas there may be only one available provider), is discrimination. It's ridiculously thin guilt by association.
The dictionary.com page you've linked to actually gives four different meanings of "arbitrary," of which you've cited only the first. The second - "based on or subject to individual judgment or preference" - is presumably the sense originally intended.
Rats, I've been caught:-) True, but unless a real dictator is in charge, it's hard for a large corporation to act based on an "individual['s] judgement or preference."
If there is any malicious code at all:
If it was in fact one sneaky DB tech who put in some malicious code against Searchking, without Google's consent, that tech can be punished and the problem resolved.
If it was an official decision from an executive committee, well then Searchking is gonna have a hell of a time arguing that his business is legit while at the same time Google's is not. His business is to fix (rig) the page ranking system to PROMOTE less worthy sites. So why is it wrong for google to do the same thing: fix (repair) their rating systems to DEMOTE less than worthy sites?
on the grounds the organization arbitrarily and purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites
Yeah, I can't think of any way to do something both Arbitrarily (Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle) and Purposefully (Having a purpose; intentional) at the same time?
Exactly what keeps someone from scratching or polishing the barrel of their gun? Or steal someone elses? I don't believe this is the answer, I also don't believe gun control is the answer. Anyone can find ways to disrupt society with or without guns.
It's been said a million times: no security system is perfect; there's always a way to circumvent. However, the more roadblocks in the way of a criminal trying to shoot someone, the better.
For example: If there were a single button on commercial DVD players, labeled "Copy", which would automatically make ten perfect DVD hardcopies that you could give to your ten best friends, would DVD copying be epidemic? You bet it would. But there are reasonably complicated security measures in place that keeps DVD duplication only within the reach of the dedicated tech community, who understand how to use DeCSS and the like.
We can't stop gun problems altogether, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what little we can.
Which story would you rather tell your grand children: '... and our database design was better than everyone elses' or '... and there I was in my fox hole with bombs exploding all around me...'?
The story that I'd rather tell my grandchildren is that the unprecedented speed of my database helped develop a new low cost, high-tech medicine that saved the lives of millions of AIDS sufferers in Africa and around the world, thus ending so much suffering that the world's population decided to put away their differences.
Or that I was the 3rd grade school teacher for a child who turned out to be the next Ghandi.
Definitely not that I was a mindless pawn in some decades-old economic feud between a war-hawking, oil-loving White House and a crazy old Arab.
Why do so many people think that war and economic pressure are the only ways to initiate change? Want to make a real, lasting difference? Volunteer to help out a cause at MoveOn.org, whether through their site or through a local group in your area.
Much easier to measure a persons race then family history. Piece of cake to lie about family history too.
It's difficult to lie about medical records that would indicate famuily history, though. Also, check this google search about insurance premium based on race. Particularly, this page leads me to expect that insurance companies shouldn't go anywhere near race-based coverage. For example, "as early as the 1950s, it was becoming clear that the life-expectancy gap had less to do with race than with such factors as lower incomes and poorer medical care."
It's all numbers... only question is which numbers you decide to use.
I agree. Statistics never tell cause and effect, they can only correlate. If you cite certain factors and ignore others (which is often necessary with topics that have so many factors), you can easily cook results one way or the other. I hope the medical genomics industry is very careful to understand the research about gene cause and effect, and not get carried away.
I kinda wonder about the race one, since some races of people are more susceptible to certain diseases and thus a higher risk in some categories.
In that case it's usually more politically correct to go with family history rather than race, as it typically provides more accurate predisposition info.
For redundancy or performance reasons you want to have the same business rules executed on the GUI as well as verified on the server.
That just isn't possible in complex web applications. (Excluding backups and fall-overs) it's foolish to store the same data in two different places, and that includes business-rule. It's hard enough to get your business rules from your business people and into an applcation, let alone implement them twice, in diffeerent languages, just for redundancy sake. The redundancy would cause more trouble than it's worth. Better to have the stored procedures just tell the front end what to display.
Currently I'm on project where the web forms take months to build but the thousands upon thousands of business rules take years. I can't even imagine trying to re-implement all those business rules into a webserver/GUI language just to verify our Oracle PL/SQL code.
I know all those "i switched to apple" folks in the ads..."my pc was like Zap and there goes my files! no i didn't back anything up, cause i'm a doofus!"
They're the same morons who come and say "my computer hates me" or "my computer is possessed." i want to rip their eyes out and say, "well, i hate you too so buzz off!", so maybe it's best if those idiots switch to mac and never talk to me again...
Slashdot Mirror
...a severe typographical error is made on a $250,000 print run and not noticed until the run is finished. We can claim the costs of that entire print run from the insurers - of course we pay a hefty premium.
...What is fully comprehensive car insurance, if not indemnifying you against your driving negligence?
A typographical error is a random enough mistake that it can be ensured. However, if it could be proven that your company intentionally included the typo, or you tried to make several design changes on the insurance financed run, it'd be fraud.
You can insure against disasters, such as car ACCIDENTS or ACCIDENTAL costly errors such as your typo example, but not against bad business decisions. Typos are unpredictable, especially since you probably spend a lot of time proofreading before a big run. Your insurance company probably made sure you had a good enough proofreading team and good enough track record that it was not too great a risk to insure you.
But insuring the predictable mistake of forgetting to reregister your domain name (it happens exactly once every X months) is not reasonable or even meaningful. By not reregistering, you are effectively donating it to the DNS company and letting them put it up for sale (details are probably in the agreement you signed with your registrar). That's not an unexpected loss, it's a poor business decision. Not having a better agreement with your registrar to automatically renew your domain name is also a bad business decision. Any insurance company would take it as you having made a choice not to re-register the name.
If you still believe you can insure a domain name, please define exactly what is being insured, and how much it is worth, and how, when the time comes, you will prove you did not fraudulantly fail to re-register your domain name in order to collect your policy (kind of like burning down your own house).
If you take your car, aim it at a brick wall, and floor it, your insurance company will not pay. If you park it near a cliff, put it in neutral with out the parking brake on, and let it roll off the cliff, they won't pay. It's not against "your driving negligence", it's against the random possibility that you'll crash, or be crashed into. 'Underwriting' loosely means risk assesment, where an underwriter considers an insurance applicant's relevant details, such as whether they have a history of unsafe driving (speeding tickets, many crashes, DUI's), and will decide how much of a risk you are, and therefor how much you have to pay them to insure you.
If you lose your domain name because you forget to reregister it, then what is the "domain name insurance" company going to do about it? Take someone to court? Maybe take you to court for negligence? He can't sell domain name insurance; He could however set up a domain name reminder service, or reregister your domain names on your behalf on a regular basis.
He couldn't even insure you against the potential for business loss should you forget to reregister and lose your valuable name to someone else, because that would be Speculative risk.
Yes I work for an insurance company.
It just keep the one-way compatability to M$ products where they can read what others export to them, but no one can (fully) read what they produce.
Yeah, it probably will. But then again, for most simple to medium complexity Word and Excel files, Corel and others can read the formats well enough. And you have the option of outputting to CSV, TXT, RTF, etc. If your activity insists that you maintain a strict standard, then you should probably be using pure XML with XSL's or something, not just hoping that MS will do it. It'd be nice if they did, considering their market span, but there are alternatives.
Would someone define "(un)solicited" for me, as it is defined regarding email?
For some reason I recall that if you get a random 'introductory' mailing, and if you delete it right away but did NOT click the unsubscribe link, they consider that you have opted IN (by not opting out), and thus future mailings are considered solicited.
Similarly, what defines "opting in/out" ?
Let's also hope that although MS Word may produce bloated XML, it can still read and process well-formed, simple XML, as good as (or better than) it can read and process non-word files, such as HTML or TXT files.
I'd be interested in how much of that 40% we 'appropriate' goes not into salad bars, but into cows and horses and chickens and other farm animals. The average farm animal eats a lot more vegetation than the avarage human.
I'm also curious as to how much of that number comes from the 'opportunity cost' of humans being around - is a lot of that 40% just speculation about what the NPP would be if we had never developed into high level primates, and thus only affected the world as much as a gorilla does?
Does it take into account the positive human factor of adding technology to make infertile ground into very fertile ground? Would there be less green stuff if we had left those once-infertile lands alone?
Don't bash flash so fast... it's accessible! sort of.
Some guy invented a 'closed-captioning' actionscript for Flash MX that parses an XML file, which tells the Flash movie when to display which caption. "The advantage of the tool is that it not only saves time, it also allows captioning to be done by someone other than the original Flash developer..."
Also, try Macromedia's page on Flash MX Accessibility.
Come on, how is that redundant??????
I don't think that I've ever seen a bloated website where the additional "functionality" was worth the slower downloads (even with broadband) and browser bugs (even with IE).
Well if it is in fact 'bloated' then, yes, it has too much crap and probably isn't worth your d/l time. But many high-bandwidth multimedia sites are successful where a text-site wouldn't be. Amazon's product images (albeit well optimized) bring their products to life, automobile makers' flashy websites allow people to preview the latest cars in vibrant color, custom configurations, etc. A picture is worth a thousand words. Slashdot, Google, Livejournal and others could probably get away with text-only, but many uses of the web demand a multimedia environment.
I agree with your opinion of flash, though. It is pretty lame.
:-) )
Pretty lame? It's kept the web alive; most sites profit solely off of advertisements, and flash capability makes companies consider the web to be a viable advertising media. GIFs are to Flash as Supermarket flyers are to Superbowl TV commercials.
Flash also has some great print capabilities, although they're underused.
You can make a much better web GUI with flash than with HTML, DHTML, etc. (or much worse if you suck at GUI
Faced with that choice, if I were an admin running a server that is FREE to the public, you bet I would ban your block (probably temporarily).
You're right, when it's a free server, you really can't complain. Like it or don't, there's zero monetary risk: you either enjoy it, or you don't. Free services are provided 'as is', and the providers don't owe you anything.
Blizzard's battlenet kind of walks a fine line, in that it's called a 'free' service but is promoted strongly as a prime feature of the not-free games (diablo, warcraft, etc.). You simply do not get the same gaming experience doing single player as you do multiplayer for those games. When you purchase the license/CD-key to the game, that becomes your login to the server. I think of it as a one time access charge. The server is not accessible to anyone else who doesn't own a CD-key. It's members only, and for this case memberships cost money. Then again, Blizzard clearly states that battlenet is a free, separate service, although they are selling games that pretty much rely on battlenet to become popular.
Dont you come on here and tell me what I must do with my web access: Ill share the information I want in the way I want, and if I choose not to share any information at all, then I shall be respected for that decision.
Go ahead, do what you want. But if at your brick-and-mortar store you want to offer special low prices for caucasian people and higher charges for chinese people, then yeah do it if you want, but know that you're in violation of the law. It's only a matter of time before similar legislation is passed to apply to web transactions.
I agree with this post. If you're handicapped, that's your own problem, and it's obvious that people with no hands are gonna have trouble typing on a keyboard, or that blind people are going to have problems using a vision-centric service, such as a commercial web site. The answer is to make a reasonable effort to offer equal opportunity to procure the services. In this case, the guy could probably have made a phone call, spoken to a manager about how he'd like the Web discount but he can't get to it cause he's blind, and the manager would authorize it. I'm glad the judge didn't make a hastey decision or try to establish such a far reaching extension of the ADA specs.
PS. Why does everyone pick on SW airlines all the time? They're the nicest, friendliest airline there is (except for that rules that really fat people have to pay for 2 seats).
The spitball scenario doesn't match up to the ISP scenario, because (1) in a classroom most kids know each other fairly well, (2) a non-disruptive, family-like attitudeamong students and teachers is beneficial and an important part of the learning experience, and (3) there's a good chance that most of the kids saw the spitball get launched while the teacher's back was turned, and they're just keeping their mouths shut. So you're getting punished for 'aiding the offender', not for actually shooting the spitball. When some stranger on your ISP cheats, there's no way you could have known about it beforehand or done anything to stop it. You're not guilty of any part of the offense.
Your other points are frighteningly real (well mostly real) and good examples of unjust discrimination, but they are on a completely different level than ISP banning. When someone's cheating in a game, it's possible to identify exactly who that someone is. The character name, their account number (props to blizzard!), there are a number of ways for an administrator to id someone in a game. Broad ISP banning is blatantly discriminatory and unneccesary.
You have to weigh the damage that a cheater is causing against the damage that loss of about two legitimate players on the same /24 would cause. If a fellow is making a big enough fool of himself, and the service isn't yet popular enough that a ban might cause a financially significant number of cancellations of service, a "Too many cheaters from your ISP" message may be warranted.
No, friggin', way. I will NOT be held accountable for what other users, whom I have absolutely zero control over, do while online. To group me with them just because we pay the same provider for service (and in some areas there may be only one available provider), is discrimination. It's ridiculously thin guilt by association.
Rats, I've been caught:-) True, but unless a real dictator is in charge, it's hard for a large corporation to act based on an "individual['s] judgement or preference."
If there is any malicious code at all:
on the grounds the organization arbitrarily and purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites
Yeah, I can't think of any way to do something both Arbitrarily (Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle) and Purposefully (Having a purpose; intentional) at the same time?
For example: If there were a single button on commercial DVD players, labeled "Copy", which would automatically make ten perfect DVD hardcopies that you could give to your ten best friends, would DVD copying be epidemic? You bet it would. But there are reasonably complicated security measures in place that keeps DVD duplication only within the reach of the dedicated tech community, who understand how to use DeCSS and the like.
We can't stop gun problems altogether, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what little we can.
Or that I was the 3rd grade school teacher for a child who turned out to be the next Ghandi.
Definitely not that I was a mindless pawn in some decades-old economic feud between a war-hawking, oil-loving White House and a crazy old Arab.
Why do so many people think that war and economic pressure are the only ways to initiate change? Want to make a real, lasting difference? Volunteer to help out a cause at MoveOn.org, whether through their site or through a local group in your area.
I agree. Statistics never tell cause and effect, they can only correlate. If you cite certain factors and ignore others (which is often necessary with topics that have so many factors), you can easily cook results one way or the other. I hope the medical genomics industry is very careful to understand the research about gene cause and effect, and not get carried away.
I kinda wonder about the race one, since some races of people are more susceptible to certain diseases and thus a higher risk in some categories.
In that case it's usually more politically correct to go with family history rather than race, as it typically provides more accurate predisposition info.
For redundancy or performance reasons you want to have the same business rules executed on the GUI as well as verified on the server.
That just isn't possible in complex web applications. (Excluding backups and fall-overs) it's foolish to store the same data in two different places, and that includes business-rule. It's hard enough to get your business rules from your business people and into an applcation, let alone implement them twice, in diffeerent languages, just for redundancy sake. The redundancy would cause more trouble than it's worth. Better to have the stored procedures just tell the front end what to display.
Currently I'm on project where the web forms take months to build but the thousands upon thousands of business rules take years. I can't even imagine trying to re-implement all those business rules into a webserver/GUI language just to verify our Oracle PL/SQL code.
I know all those "i switched to apple" folks in the ads..."my pc was like Zap and there goes my files! no i didn't back anything up, cause i'm a doofus!"
They're the same morons who come and say "my computer hates me" or "my computer is possessed." i want to rip their eyes out and say, "well, i hate you too so buzz off!", so maybe it's best if those idiots switch to mac and never talk to me again...
Bigger, dumber human says: "And now, for the severe beating of an intelligent human..."