I have never seen a more explicit example of why IT support insists on removing Macintosh computers. Do you really find life rewarding, cleaning up after others mistakes? If you are a skilled, intelligent person, wouldn't you rather create new software/hardware that would advance society, rather than simply keep it at a level of dependance?
I could go off on a number of tangental analogies, but I'm not actually trying to be a troll. This is a classical problem in many industries/environments, it just comes to the front with Windows due to the number of installs/exploits. In my first computer job we supported a health care system we hadn't written. As we did, we would fix the problems and not just the data, and wondered why the original company didn't. The answer was simple: if the software didn't have problems, there wouldn't have been support calls, and that's where the real money was.
~$6, 5 days, and the ones I've seen have had rows of games. If you decided to buy, yes it would add to the total, but it works out well enough if you go for older titles and buy used.
To prevent a tangent, I try to base my spending on the entertainment factor. A movie lasts 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours, and costs $5 - $15 depending on timing and snacks, or $10 - $20 for the DVD. I generally equate this to $10 for 90 minutes. If a $50 game gives me 10 hours of interactive entertainment, I generally consider it worth it. It's the perception of dropping so much money up front that makes the price seem unbalanced, when in reality it isn't.
(Also keep in mind a major sporting event or concert lasts maybe 3 hours and can vary wildly from $10 to $150 or more. Compared to this, games that are playable are a huge bargain.)
Oh, and another review page to check is Game Rankings. They try and collect various reviews together for games and their average ratings. The reviews themselves are rated Game Rankings. I've found these useful because one or another may point out just the detail that makes or breaks the deal.
Hear that? That's the sound of their redirection server being slashdotted. I wonder how much traffic they've calculated this would bring, and if they've thought it through.
(At least, I'm getting 'Cannot be displayed' errors. Whether that's because their getting flooded, or because they've already given up, or for some reason this and the
example in the article aren't going through them.)
On the other hand, it's good to have the heads up if something might not be as secure as we think it is. This warning gives those who turn it on occasionally the knowledge they need to turn it off if not needed, and not just leave it on.
It also may give those who need it on something to watch for until a patch does come out.
I don't think Apple is trying to go into the business sector on this scale. It's one thing to say Ford has a lot of money, but look at what the Virginia Tech contract did to their supply chain of new G5s. Apple is mainly working on two fronts - increase home sales, and reverse the negative trend in education and specialized business (publishing/video/what have you). Their perfectly happy with whatever businesses choose to use Apple machines on their own, but they probably aren't persuing contracts this large.
As for convincing the boss, it's a matter of degree. If there's a need for 20 new machines for a new department, doing a price/Cost of Ownership comparison between (say) Dell and Apple is perfectly valid, especially if Blaster hit your company pretty hard. If it's a one-by-one replacement case, or if you just want a Mac with nothing wrong with your current computer, the chances of getting it are a lot lower.
There are clothes that have 'made in the USA' labels, and there are Hondas that are advertised as being built in Ohio. If there is a backlash, how long until we see 'Made in USA' on software packages or web pages?
Of course, I don't think we need a backlash. If small developers/publishers (like Ambrosia or Blizzard) started throwing labels on, I wonder how long it would take to catch on. Of course, then there would be regulations about how much software has to be written in the US before it can actually be labeled such. And the example corollary - if DHL Worldwide Express is known to outsource IT work, could their competition that doesn't outsource use that as a selling point? Could Fed-Ex or UPS use this to their advantage, if they haven't outsourced?
There never seemed to be a chance for this to happen in manufacturing, but with so many small IT organizations and the internet it seems like it would be easy for a company with no plans to outsource to be able to turn this into a selling point. Of course, depending on their size/audience this could be a hinderance if they are trying to compete globally, but that's probably not as big a problem for a small company starting out.
Yeah, it can't possibly double by 2007. Why, we'd have to get involved in a war in the Middle East and have accidents at offshore oil rigs and have problems with the Alaskan Pipe line and have an energy company-friendly administration that won't release oil reserves...
This may or may not still be true, but last summer I was picking up the wife's car from the shop and the manager showed me a crashed hybrid. He said on a normal car they would have fixed but the insurance company declared it 'Totalled' because there wasn't enough information yet on how well the aluminum body and various motor parts would hold up once repaired. I imagine from a walk-away point of view the accident data is already in, but it may still be a while before repair records are up to par and insurance companies can accurately predict their liability tables or whatever they use.
Of course, this may just mean you're more likely to get a new car from an accident. As long as a) no one you know got hurt and b) it wasn't your fault, woo-hoo!
The Beatles songs are from an album 'In The Beginning" and features The Beatles & Tony Sheridan. It is important to note that the label listed is Polydor, not Apple (Records). (In fact, it sounds like recordings before they were the Fab Four, so to speak.)
Way back when Apple (Computer) was contacting record labels for songs, wouldn't they have contacted Apple (Records)? Even if not directly, wouldn't Apple (Records) have found out through their record label contacts? And the iPod was out even longer! It seems to me that they had a chance to go for a 'Cease & Desist' early on, but decided to sit back and wait to sue to ride on Apple (Computer)'s coattails. Surely that breaches the 'Good Faith' principle, though the article doesn't state in what jurisdiction the suit was filed so who knows how it will apply.
For their last settlements there wouldn't have been an opportunity to act before Apple (Computer) went public with their name/speakers, and for the iPod, but I find it very hard to believe that Apple (Records) had no idea the Apple (Computer) Music Store was coming, or even that they just noticed it now. What they more likely just noticed is the 10,000,000th song sold.
Are there any mailservers that can check if you've received a message previously? Maybe they should have a 'Sent' mailbox and check against them. It could clear it out every ten minutes of everything older than 24 hours, ensuring you'd get 1 notice a day max. If these filters are outside the server, it should be easy for them to offer this. Shouldn't it?
isn't almost any software bug a case of the computer doing exactly what the program says to do, even though that is not what the programmer intended to have happen in that case?
No, that's more of a design flaw. In this case, HAL simply developed a neurosis to keep what he knew secret by any means necessary. It's not so much that his programming didn't work as intended, but that they didn't know how it would work given the 'secret' order, or that he was designed to never be secretive and therefore ended up unpredictable.
In other words, there is a difference in typing the program incorrectly/poorly (e.g. using i instead of l in a loop, or forgetting to default j to 0), and just not considering everything possible during the design phase (e.g. assuming it is impossible for someone to enter a negative number, so never checking for it before using it.)
Of course, there is also a difference depending upon whom you're describing it to. To the customer you'd describe it as "A simple, one time glitch". To your mananger it's "a bug that will take some time to track down". To your fellow programmers/analysts "it's the most FUBARed thing ever and whomever wrote it was a bigger idiot than McBride!"
It was the day before Christmas, and being a company of about 8 people they were, shall we say, taking it easy. A client had called in for help with a small error with an order they were working on. He couldn't dial in ('96-ish, supporting via modem) and asked them to reset the modem. She asked 'you mean the box with the lights?' He said yeah.
(Wait for it.)
Suddenly, everyone in that company started to report that their screens stopped responding. Yep; she turned the main Unix server off and on.
Needless to say, he didn't do much 'take it easy' for a while that day.
Actually, as I understand it it's both true and misleading. The code was from UNIX System V Code, released by Caldera, that upon further review was removed. The missing fact was that the code was removed because it was crufty and unnecessary, not because they didn't have the right to use it.
From their point of view, getting an article out implying that Bruce Perens admitted wrong doing is a good thing. If a regular newswire picks up just that piece, it's a huge accomplishment. Especially since they hardly ever pick up the detailed corrections of misleading spin.
I think the difference is in what's implied - standardizing on Win2K also results in standardizing in MS Outlook, MS Office, MS SQL, MS IIS, MS Printer Sharing etc. While Apple offers alternatives to these that are included, many (e.g. MySQL, Apache, CUPS) are open source and widely supported/modifyable. So if you take the OS as part of the hardware (true from a certain point of view), you are more free to use any other software on top of it. Especially if you throw a Unix base and X11 into the curve (for legacy apps), and a FREE Full-featured development environment (Project Developer w/ Applescript, Cocoa, Carbon, and others).
On top off all that, the simpler (and probably cheaper) licensing scheme should help a lot, once it's widely know that the apps are there.
IIRC, an encoder would require different royalties than a player. Not to mention the processing power to encode in realtime.
Granted, recording without encoding is easy and with 40 gigs you could do quite a bit. But if you'd want to encode it later it would be a manual process, especially if everything is named "Sound Capture #nnn".
(I'm not going to touch on the processing required for Apple's Speech Recognition - while simple recognition isn't bad, parsing "Phish" would be interesting.)
The video camera actually isn't unlikely, though the iSight isn't designed to be used in such a portable manner. They could license/design a camera like digital phones have, but the screen price would go up (or margin would go down).
I'm not certain, but I think it's the other way around. Cops certainly doesn't plan on making money from incidental adverts, so why would they go through each show like "That logo's on for 12.3 seconds. How much should we ask for?" Also, it's blurred out at Cops' or possibly the network's expense, which would seem extraneous to me unless they would themselves have to pay more if they didn't.
Apparently you can sue Take 2 if you run a red light.
That's not a bad idea. Just because a murder is so much worse, if your kid speeds or runs a light or even hits drives to fast into your garage and dents your bumper why not sue? They're all things that happen in the game, aren't they? In fact, given that they are actually required as opposed to shooting randomly, you'd have a better case!
Obviously, I think the death and this lawsuit are bogus. Suing over tickets would actually be a good case, though no lawyer would take it. There are money in all three, but while death involves tragedy and gets sympathy, and this art involves intellectual property which is a hot-button item, the tickets would reveal just how petty all of the lawsuits are. FWIW, even if there were something to this case, the game has been out ample time for him to see it and file sooner.
You don't own any property, do you? If I put a fence up on my side of the property line, how do you get to decide what color it should be? Do you get to paint a side of my house, just because it faces yours? What about my car? Are you allowed to spray it as I drive by? Can you rip off my clothes if they displease you? Where does it end?
And exactly which walls belong to "all of us"? If there were any such walls, wouldn't "all of us" get to have a say on what's put there? What if "all of us" don't like how some people "express themselves"? Isn't not liking something just another way of expressing oneself, and a valid point of view by your reasoning?
A wall belongs to whomever owns the property. If it's the government, then only duly appointed officials can determine what is allowed on the wall. A public space does not mean anarchy rules it. If anything, rules are strictly enforced to attempt to give everyone as equal use as possible. By definition that means that some won't be allowed to do everything they want - whether it's play extremely loud music, have an orgy in public, or paint walls they didn't pay to build or maintain. These rules are defined by the current status quo - it was once unthinkable for women to show their ankles, or for certain people to use public drinking fountains. When public opinion sways to the point that anyone can paint any wall they choose, then maybe you'll have a point.
If the "graffiti artist" was granted permission by the owner to paint it, then he's essentially the same as any other hired artist. If he didn't have permission, then he'd just be another vandal.
Have you seen a cop show or MTV video lately? Notice all of those blurs on shirts/hats? Those are usually trademarks or copyrights that they don't want to acquire rights to use. Examples could include a Nike hat, a Simpsons shirt, etc. IIRC, on the Dogma special features Kevin Smith's shirt was blurred on some of his extra stuff, and when he was talking about his original distributor on the commentary it was bleeped out. Intellectual property law is a convoluted subject right now, and most are erring on the side of caution to avoid this kind of lawsuit.
The first internet game I played was at CMU in '89: Nettrek. Oh, the homework I didn't do shooting down those Berkley Federation scum...
But I digress. Because the internet is already hear for consoles to use they will get more online quicker, but a developer has to choose between peer-to-peer games and a central server. Nowadays, it's almost mandatory to have a central stats/meeting place server, which requires a whole design of it's own. This involves development, deployment, and maintenance. As more players are shown to be buying games for online features, more games will have them as makes sense.
This editorial seems to completely miss the extra development work necessary. And having a "disdain for all things professional sports" pretty much disqualifies you from having anything close to an impartial, insightful editorial. Anything looks barren if you ignore 90% of it.
{ I realize that Microsoft has some kind of central servers system in place but games still need to have special code to use them, and extra testing. From a development point of view the problems change, but the overall time line and cost don't. }
Slashdot Mirror
I have never seen a more explicit example of why IT support insists on removing Macintosh computers. Do you really find life rewarding, cleaning up after others mistakes? If you are a skilled, intelligent person, wouldn't you rather create new software/hardware that would advance society, rather than simply keep it at a level of dependance?
I could go off on a number of tangental analogies, but I'm not actually trying to be a troll. This is a classical problem in many industries/environments, it just comes to the front with Windows due to the number of installs/exploits. In my first computer job we supported a health care system we hadn't written. As we did, we would fix the problems and not just the data, and wondered why the original company didn't. The answer was simple: if the software didn't have problems, there wouldn't have been support calls, and that's where the real money was.
~$6, 5 days, and the ones I've seen have had rows of games. If you decided to buy, yes it would add to the total, but it works out well enough if you go for older titles and buy used.
To prevent a tangent, I try to base my spending on the entertainment factor. A movie lasts 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours, and costs $5 - $15 depending on timing and snacks, or $10 - $20 for the DVD. I generally equate this to $10 for 90 minutes. If a $50 game gives me 10 hours of interactive entertainment, I generally consider it worth it. It's the perception of dropping so much money up front that makes the price seem unbalanced, when in reality it isn't.
(Also keep in mind a major sporting event or concert lasts maybe 3 hours and can vary wildly from $10 to $150 or more. Compared to this, games that are playable are a huge bargain.)
Oh, and another review page to check is Game Rankings. They try and collect various reviews together for games and their average ratings. The reviews themselves are rated Game Rankings. I've found these useful because one or another may point out just the detail that makes or breaks the deal.
Everybody go here. Go again.
Hear that? That's the sound of their redirection server being slashdotted. I wonder how much traffic they've calculated this would bring, and if they've thought it through.
(At least, I'm getting 'Cannot be displayed' errors. Whether that's because their getting flooded, or because they've already given up, or for some reason this and the example in the article aren't going through them.)
Remember kids: If you voice or even think an opinion contrary to your selected President, then the terrorists win.
This means I should agree with Dave Barry, right? I patterned his name on my punch card with a hole punch.
On the other hand, it's good to have the heads up if something might not be as secure as we think it is. This warning gives those who turn it on occasionally the knowledge they need to turn it off if not needed, and not just leave it on.
It also may give those who need it on something to watch for until a patch does come out.
I don't think Apple is trying to go into the business sector on this scale. It's one thing to say Ford has a lot of money, but look at what the Virginia Tech contract did to their supply chain of new G5s. Apple is mainly working on two fronts - increase home sales, and reverse the negative trend in education and specialized business (publishing/video/what have you). Their perfectly happy with whatever businesses choose to use Apple machines on their own, but they probably aren't persuing contracts this large.
As for convincing the boss, it's a matter of degree. If there's a need for 20 new machines for a new department, doing a price/Cost of Ownership comparison between (say) Dell and Apple is perfectly valid, especially if Blaster hit your company pretty hard. If it's a one-by-one replacement case, or if you just want a Mac with nothing wrong with your current computer, the chances of getting it are a lot lower.
That leads to an interesting thought - Tux on racecars, racecar toys, cereal boxes, NASCAR games, NASCAR games on X-Box...
Boggles the mind.
I thought it was Fudged-Over Repaired DOS.
There are clothes that have 'made in the USA' labels, and there are Hondas that are advertised as being built in Ohio. If there is a backlash, how long until we see 'Made in USA' on software packages or web pages?
Of course, I don't think we need a backlash. If small developers/publishers (like Ambrosia or Blizzard) started throwing labels on, I wonder how long it would take to catch on. Of course, then there would be regulations about how much software has to be written in the US before it can actually be labeled such. And the example corollary - if DHL Worldwide Express is known to outsource IT work, could their competition that doesn't outsource use that as a selling point? Could Fed-Ex or UPS use this to their advantage, if they haven't outsourced?
There never seemed to be a chance for this to happen in manufacturing, but with so many small IT organizations and the internet it seems like it would be easy for a company with no plans to outsource to be able to turn this into a selling point. Of course, depending on their size/audience this could be a hinderance if they are trying to compete globally, but that's probably not as big a problem for a small company starting out.
Let's see...
1999..........$0.899
2003..........$1.799
Yeah, it can't possibly double by 2007. Why, we'd have to get involved in a war in the Middle East and have accidents at offshore oil rigs and have problems with the Alaskan Pipe line and have an energy company-friendly administration that won't release oil reserves...
This may or may not still be true, but last summer I was picking up the wife's car from the shop and the manager showed me a crashed hybrid. He said on a normal car they would have fixed but the insurance company declared it 'Totalled' because there wasn't enough information yet on how well the aluminum body and various motor parts would hold up once repaired. I imagine from a walk-away point of view the accident data is already in, but it may still be a while before repair records are up to par and insurance companies can accurately predict their liability tables or whatever they use.
Of course, this may just mean you're more likely to get a new car from an accident. As long as a) no one you know got hurt and b) it wasn't your fault, woo-hoo!
The Beatles songs are from an album 'In The Beginning" and features The Beatles & Tony Sheridan. It is important to note that the label listed is Polydor, not Apple (Records). (In fact, it sounds like recordings before they were the Fab Four, so to speak.)
Way back when Apple (Computer) was contacting record labels for songs, wouldn't they have contacted Apple (Records)? Even if not directly, wouldn't Apple (Records) have found out through their record label contacts? And the iPod was out even longer! It seems to me that they had a chance to go for a 'Cease & Desist' early on, but decided to sit back and wait to sue to ride on Apple (Computer)'s coattails. Surely that breaches the 'Good Faith' principle, though the article doesn't state in what jurisdiction the suit was filed so who knows how it will apply.
For their last settlements there wouldn't have been an opportunity to act before Apple (Computer) went public with their name/speakers, and for the iPod, but I find it very hard to believe that Apple (Records) had no idea the Apple (Computer) Music Store was coming, or even that they just noticed it now. What they more likely just noticed is the 10,000,000th song sold.
... you'll start getting "You're mailbox is near/over it's limit" messages.
Are there any mailservers that can check if you've received a message previously? Maybe they should have a 'Sent' mailbox and check against them. It could clear it out every ten minutes of everything older than 24 hours, ensuring you'd get 1 notice a day max. If these filters are outside the server, it should be easy for them to offer this. Shouldn't it?
isn't almost any software bug a case of the computer doing exactly what the program says to do, even though that is not what the programmer intended to have happen in that case?
No, that's more of a design flaw. In this case, HAL simply developed a neurosis to keep what he knew secret by any means necessary. It's not so much that his programming didn't work as intended, but that they didn't know how it would work given the 'secret' order, or that he was designed to never be secretive and therefore ended up unpredictable.
In other words, there is a difference in typing the program incorrectly/poorly (e.g. using i instead of l in a loop, or forgetting to default j to 0), and just not considering everything possible during the design phase (e.g. assuming it is impossible for someone to enter a negative number, so never checking for it before using it.)
Of course, there is also a difference depending upon whom you're describing it to. To the customer you'd describe it as "A simple, one time glitch". To your mananger it's "a bug that will take some time to track down". To your fellow programmers/analysts "it's the most FUBARed thing ever and whomever wrote it was a bigger idiot than McBride!"
A coworker has this gem in his history.
It was the day before Christmas, and being a company of about 8 people they were, shall we say, taking it easy. A client had called in for help with a small error with an order they were working on. He couldn't dial in ('96-ish, supporting via modem) and asked them to reset the modem. She asked 'you mean the box with the lights?' He said yeah.
(Wait for it.)
Suddenly, everyone in that company started to report that their screens stopped responding. Yep; she turned the main Unix server off and on.
Needless to say, he didn't do much 'take it easy' for a while that day.
Actually, as I understand it it's both true and misleading. The code was from UNIX System V Code, released by Caldera, that upon further review was removed. The missing fact was that the code was removed because it was crufty and unnecessary, not because they didn't have the right to use it.
From their point of view, getting an article out implying that Bruce Perens admitted wrong doing is a good thing. If a regular newswire picks up just that piece, it's a huge accomplishment. Especially since they hardly ever pick up the detailed corrections of misleading spin.
I think the difference is in what's implied - standardizing on Win2K also results in standardizing in MS Outlook, MS Office, MS SQL, MS IIS, MS Printer Sharing etc. While Apple offers alternatives to these that are included, many (e.g. MySQL, Apache, CUPS) are open source and widely supported/modifyable. So if you take the OS as part of the hardware (true from a certain point of view), you are more free to use any other software on top of it. Especially if you throw a Unix base and X11 into the curve (for legacy apps), and a FREE Full-featured development environment (Project Developer w/ Applescript, Cocoa, Carbon, and others).
On top off all that, the simpler (and probably cheaper) licensing scheme should help a lot, once it's widely know that the apps are there.
IIRC, an encoder would require different royalties than a player. Not to mention the processing power to encode in realtime. Granted, recording without encoding is easy and with 40 gigs you could do quite a bit. But if you'd want to encode it later it would be a manual process, especially if everything is named "Sound Capture #nnn".
(I'm not going to touch on the processing required for Apple's Speech Recognition - while simple recognition isn't bad, parsing "Phish" would be interesting.)
The video camera actually isn't unlikely, though the iSight isn't designed to be used in such a portable manner. They could license/design a camera like digital phones have, but the screen price would go up (or margin would go down).
It's Pittsburgh, you insensitive clod!
I'm not certain, but I think it's the other way around. Cops certainly doesn't plan on making money from incidental adverts, so why would they go through each show like "That logo's on for 12.3 seconds. How much should we ask for?" Also, it's blurred out at Cops' or possibly the network's expense, which would seem extraneous to me unless they would themselves have to pay more if they didn't.
Apparently you can sue Take 2 if you run a red light.
That's not a bad idea. Just because a murder is so much worse, if your kid speeds or runs a light or even hits drives to fast into your garage and dents your bumper why not sue? They're all things that happen in the game, aren't they? In fact, given that they are actually required as opposed to shooting randomly, you'd have a better case!
Obviously, I think the death and this lawsuit are bogus. Suing over tickets would actually be a good case, though no lawyer would take it. There are money in all three, but while death involves tragedy and gets sympathy, and this art involves intellectual property which is a hot-button item, the tickets would reveal just how petty all of the lawsuits are. FWIW, even if there were something to this case, the game has been out ample time for him to see it and file sooner.
You don't own any property, do you? If I put a fence up on my side of the property line, how do you get to decide what color it should be? Do you get to paint a side of my house, just because it faces yours? What about my car? Are you allowed to spray it as I drive by? Can you rip off my clothes if they displease you? Where does it end?
And exactly which walls belong to "all of us"? If there were any such walls, wouldn't "all of us" get to have a say on what's put there? What if "all of us" don't like how some people "express themselves"? Isn't not liking something just another way of expressing oneself, and a valid point of view by your reasoning?
A wall belongs to whomever owns the property. If it's the government, then only duly appointed officials can determine what is allowed on the wall. A public space does not mean anarchy rules it. If anything, rules are strictly enforced to attempt to give everyone as equal use as possible. By definition that means that some won't be allowed to do everything they want - whether it's play extremely loud music, have an orgy in public, or paint walls they didn't pay to build or maintain. These rules are defined by the current status quo - it was once unthinkable for women to show their ankles, or for certain people to use public drinking fountains. When public opinion sways to the point that anyone can paint any wall they choose, then maybe you'll have a point.
If the "graffiti artist" was granted permission by the owner to paint it, then he's essentially the same as any other hired artist. If he didn't have permission, then he'd just be another vandal.
Have you seen a cop show or MTV video lately? Notice all of those blurs on shirts/hats? Those are usually trademarks or copyrights that they don't want to acquire rights to use. Examples could include a Nike hat, a Simpsons shirt, etc. IIRC, on the Dogma special features Kevin Smith's shirt was blurred on some of his extra stuff, and when he was talking about his original distributor on the commentary it was bleeped out. Intellectual property law is a convoluted subject right now, and most are erring on the side of caution to avoid this kind of lawsuit.
But that's what it's all about! If only people would listen.
- Dennis, the mud farmer from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Qrail
The first internet game I played was at CMU in '89: Nettrek. Oh, the homework I didn't do shooting down those Berkley Federation scum...
But I digress. Because the internet is already hear for consoles to use they will get more online quicker, but a developer has to choose between peer-to-peer games and a central server. Nowadays, it's almost mandatory to have a central stats/meeting place server, which requires a whole design of it's own. This involves development, deployment, and maintenance. As more players are shown to be buying games for online features, more games will have them as makes sense.
This editorial seems to completely miss the extra development work necessary. And having a "disdain for all things professional sports" pretty much disqualifies you from having anything close to an impartial, insightful editorial. Anything looks barren if you ignore 90% of it.
{ I realize that Microsoft has some kind of central servers system in place but games still need to have special code to use them, and extra testing. From a development point of view the problems change, but the overall time line and cost don't. }