It is rare to find someone who cannot acquire language and when so, it is usually associated with known damage. Given the number of immoral people (within any reasonable definition of moral behaviour), it would seem unlikely that it is a consistent genetically based part of people or the normal state is damage. A moral sense, however, is not unreasonable; but what fills it is learnt.
This is correct. You require someone to fill the role of domain expert (aka subject matter expert) who can provide clear requirements of what has to be done and guides a UI expert in how the users are to interact with the functionality. If you have to fulfill both roles and don't know the users' business, then the system will probably be a turd regardless of how well the software is designed and coded.
No, it's not necessarily your fault; however, programmers should become familiar with at least one area in which they intend to work.
'Actually most EULAs consist of the same language used in other EULAs. In that sense they are full of what in copyright is referred to as "scenes a faire," or components that are common to a particular type of work.'
To my mind, this describes almost all movies, most literature, and an awful lot of software.
When the vote ends, the serial number stubs are counted; they must match the number of ballots issued plus the number of spoiled ballots. This, in turn, must match the total number of issued ballots. This insure that no ballots "disappeared", nor any "appeared" from nowhere...
Once everyone agrees that everything balances, the ballot box seals are examined to make sure they were not tampered, and the serial numbers match. Then it is opened.
For curiosity's sake, what happens if the numbers don't match or the seals appear to have been tampered with?
'The result is that when you try any new methodology out, you're likely to have a success with your pilot group regardless of the merits of the methodology being tested.'
The pilot project for XP (Chrysler's Comprehensive Compensation (C3) project) was not a success.
Aside from the drama is that health effects of the noise, especially low frequency inaudible sounds, are not well researched. Here in Nova Scotia (Canada), a family has had to move due to this. A reasonably well researched UK report [PDF] also lends some credence to the problem.
The bottom line at the moment is that no one knows.
They are not arbitrary, they are the properties of the building materials. In the same way, there is no absolute correctness in the SW formal methods; it depends on the questions asked. For example: a proof that communicating threads never deadlock. Absolute correctness would imply that the code is both complete and consistent, completeness being the tricky part. Normally, the code can only be proved viv-a-vis a specification, which is mostly arbitrary, but must be consistent.
'They use analytical methods, which are fine and efficient, but which are nowhere near formal methods as I know them.'
These are exactly formal methods: a description of the design as a collection of mathematico-logical relations which, when solved, indicate that (in structural designs) the stresses and strains (deflections) do not exceed specified values. Testing generally consists of checking that the parameters assumed (e.g., 28 day compressive strength of the concrete) are correct. The relations are normally checked directly against strength of materials only for new and inovative designs (e.g., thin shelled concrete designs, though they are now much more common than when I last dealt with this.) There will also occasionally be load tests performed, especially if unexpected cracks appear!
Structural engineering - analysis of components and connections based on the science of strength of materials. Aeronautical engineering - design is based on computer simulation of air flows over wings and fuselage, then confirmed by testing, which is not antiethical to formal methods of physical components.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also one in Washington state, although it is a very much smaller city.
It was always this way even before Lucas, with the possible exceptions of 'Things to Come' and '2001 A Space Odyssey'.
It is rare to find someone who cannot acquire language and when so, it is usually associated with known damage. Given the number of immoral people (within any reasonable definition of moral behaviour), it would seem unlikely that it is a consistent genetically based part of people or the normal state is damage. A moral sense, however, is not unreasonable; but what fills it is learnt.
Could that be because Polish and Chinese software is worth paying for?
How did (and do) you know? Were you there, did you know someone who was there, or did you compare the descriptions after the fact with other sources?
"The Doctor"
No, it's not necessarily your fault; however, programmers should become familiar with at least one area in which they intend to work.
That's sort of like complaining that Tinker Toys or Lego don't come with detailed descriptions of strength of material and molecular dynamics.
Justice delayed is justice denied. This is not a feather in the cap for the justice system.
Consider the Newton.
(Although, patents wouldn't have helped.)
football, bikes, roller-skates, magazines, books, and clocks.
They should go outside and poke holes in the ground with a pointy stick.
To my mind, this describes almost all movies, most literature, and an awful lot of software.
And on what do you conclude that the results are correct?
When they bought an ATM company!
Here's a webcam view of the local railway station area.
Maybe it's an answer to the question:
Are We Not Men?
We Are Devo!
For curiosity's sake, what happens if the numbers don't match or the seals appear to have been tampered with?
The pilot project for XP (Chrysler's Comprehensive Compensation (C3) project) was not a success.
The bottom line at the moment is that no one knows.
No, but they found his footprints!
For many, if not most, the difference is zilch. I suspect that for others, being able to see the music as a squiggly engraving is worth something.
They are not arbitrary, they are the properties of the building materials. In the same way, there is no absolute correctness in the SW formal methods; it depends on the questions asked. For example: a proof that communicating threads never deadlock. Absolute correctness would imply that the code is both complete and consistent, completeness being the tricky part. Normally, the code can only be proved viv-a-vis a specification, which is mostly arbitrary, but must be consistent.
These are exactly formal methods: a description of the design as a collection of mathematico-logical relations which, when solved, indicate that (in structural designs) the stresses and strains (deflections) do not exceed specified values.
Testing generally consists of checking that the parameters assumed (e.g., 28 day compressive strength of the concrete) are correct. The relations are normally checked directly against strength of materials only for new and inovative designs (e.g., thin shelled concrete designs, though they are now much more common than when I last dealt with this.) There will also occasionally be load tests performed, especially if unexpected cracks appear!
Structural engineering - analysis of components and connections based on the science of strength of materials.
Aeronautical engineering - design is based on computer simulation of air flows over wings and fuselage, then confirmed by testing, which is not antiethical to formal methods of physical components.
Link please? (or at least tell us how he fared!)