Using a few examples of flawed QA to claim all closed-source QA doesn't happen is a ridiculous argument. I could point out how many flaws are introduced in updates to open-source software, and use your logic to say OSS has no QA. OSS has enough merits to guarantee it a very glorious future - we don't have to make stuff up or sensationalise problems both camps go through to distort reality. FUD - I thought we didn't like that here.
Open source means the QA can be shifted from a group of QA workers in an office to people who use the software. Both approaches work, and both are not perfect. Saying one is inherently better than the other is a bit strange, as they both achieve the same thing, only in different places. QA performed in-house has access to the source code, and can highlight errors and get them fixed, just the same as any OSS project. The only difference is the QA workers are getting paid for it, and are working directly with the developers. I'm not saying that's better, it's just what happens.
No, the "hahaha" is on you, if you think proprietary software has no quality control. It has plenty. So does Open Source software. When you spend money on a closed-source package, chances are that software house has a QA department. I don't mean to be rude to anyone or piss anyone off, but the same can't be said for most OSS projects, apart from those released through the few large OSS houses that have their own QA departments. Just because you've found bugs in closed-source software doesn't mean they don't have QA. The fact that they do have QA demonstrates you're wrong on that. People find bugs in open-source software, too - by your logic, OSS is just as bad as closed-source. Great jerrrb.
Nope. The US system has selective availability turned off, and all new US GPS satellites don't even have SA functionality, so they can't turn it back on later.
I have to disagree with you there. The CCTV evidence is of good enough quality to identify which person in a group committed an offense. If a group of lads start beating up someone, even if there's a massive flurry of fists, it's easy enough for the CCTV operator to see which guy started it, and then the cops can line the guys up, and the CCTV operator can point out the guy. That's not possible with cops on the street, as unless there are as many cops as CCTV, the guy who started the fight will have to be let go, as it's his word against the word of someone else. The judge can be shown the entire CCTV footage, from the fight, to the line-up. It works just as well as having a cop there, only it costs far less. If a thug doesn't think a CCTV is going to put him away, chances are he won't think a cop will, either. Of course proper education will help, but it has to be a two-pronged approach - fix the symptoms to relieve society, and fix the cause to stop it from happening again.
Which is why you should always use javascript to create the correct tags in the right place. That also gets around the click-to-use patent issues that affected IE.
You've clearly not been in a high-security prison, then. I think you'll find it's bars, not observation, that makes a prison. Cameras aren't stopping you from going anywhere or doing anything.
They will, though, make it much easier for the cops to prosecute you should your idea of having fun include putting screwdrivers in grannies' faces...
No, their main use is evidence gathering. Deterrence is secondary. If someone goes bat-shit-crazy and attacks someone, no amount of cameras (or guns or death penalties or dolphins or whatever) will stop that. If, though, a CCTV operator (or witness on the street) sees it, then the cops can pick the person up and charge them. CCTV is just a way to get more evidence. They're also used to covertly follow suspects as they move through a city. I saw CCTV with loud speakers stop a guy who was running from the cops. He kept on running, and the same guy kept on talking to him from all the CCTV cameras he passed - "I can still see you - you can't get away". He didn't. The CCTV operator guided the cops to him, and he was arrested.
NO! How can we feel outraged if we don't blow it out of all proportion and forget that public!=private!?!
I agree entirely. Unless these cameras are in your house, then there is no problem. Unless you're the sort of person that screams at folks who accidentally look at them in the street, they're not doing anything bad at all.
You're legally allowed to find out who owns the camera and request a copy of the footage under the data protection act. If the footage looks exactly like you say it did - just a couple making out, and not a possible rape or something - then you can take it up with the owner.
So you expect privacy in public? Why do we have the word "public" then? What's to stop each camera being replaced by a cop - would that be worrying, too?
No, Carphone Warehouse is Europe's largest independent phone seller (nearly 2,000 stores). They also bought $700m worth of AOL UK, making them one of the largest DSL providers in the UK.
They're not exactly Joe and Bob's Basement Hosting Company;)
It's quite simple, really. The most obvious side-effect regarding pollution is that the pollution created by generating the energy for the car is not emitted at the car, but at the power station (where it's easier to clean). It can also use renewable sources of energy, and shift from one to the other instantly (it doesn't have to know it's being charged on hydroelectric, solar, wind, wave, hippie farts, whatever). It's a step in the right direction - instead of having cars that can only use petrol, and which burn it right in your street, we can have cars that get their power from somewhere miles away, and can even use "green" power without having to do anything to the car.
No, it's possible to make a great-looking website that adheres to the markup rules, if the design isn't fantastically insane (and I've yet to see one that is too complicated). You're spot-on when you say that valid markup isn't necessarily good code, but it *is* syntactically correct, which is half of the battle.
As for ampersands in href attribute, you should use the html entity (&) for that, if you want to make valid code. It's not being stupid, it's doing its job:)
I wouldn't say it's a good business practice to only get things 95% correct. The difficulty of making 100%-validating code is not hard at all. Fair enough if it took months to achieve, but it doesn't. A competent HTML/CSS coder can take a design and turn it into 100%-validating code just as long as it takes them to make it to 95%. There are not better things for a client-side coder to spend their time on, as that's their job.
Or just go to "Code View" in Dreamweaver and stay out of "Design View". Dreamweaver is the best text editor for HTML/CSS/PHP I've ever seen, plus it removes the need for a FTP application when moving content to/from dev/test/live servers. Branding Dreamweaver as WYSIWYG-only is a bit of a disservice for the application that stemmed from HomeSite.
I feel I have to wade in here. I'm not usually one for blowing software's trumpet, but here goes.
You can use Dreamweaver to hand-code. I do it daily, using the code-view. Its site management is a great feature, allowing you to specify the local location of your code, a test server, and the live server, the URL the dev/test/live sites are visible at, among many other things. It supports version control, FTP, SFTP, IPv6, etc. Its code-colouring is also excellent, as well as its built-in O'Reilly references for HTML, ASP, APS.NET, CSS, JavaScript, PHP, XML, and XSLT. It also has options for hotkey-launching of specific browsers for testing (which works wonders with multiple monitors). At work we have an intranet where we define our websites (remote login details for the testing/live servers, custom apache directives, etc), and whenever one site is updated, the intranet spits out a Dreamweaver.STE file (or, rather, two - one for a PC and one for a Mac), which can simply be imported into Dreamweaver, and all the configuration is done. You can switch between different site definitions very simply, so working on multiple projects at once is a snap (even with multiple monitors non-Dreamweaver users would still have to use alt-tab to go to their browser, then hit F5 to refresh it, as opposed to pressing one key).
I've yet to find one thing Dreamweaver won't let me do, but please enlighten me:)
Classing Dreamweaver as just another FrontPage clone is ridiculous, as it's come a long way as a simple code editor. I've yet to find a faster solution for developing XHTML and PHP, espcially in the workplace.
We use dreamweaver to code XHTML and CSS where I work. We don't use the WYSIWYG feature, just the code view. Since Macromedia bought Allaire, and since Adobe bought Macromedia, Dreamweaver is now HomeSite's direct descendant and latest incarnation. Implying that Dreamweaver==WYSIWYG is clearly not very fair.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible to make even the most beautiful sites render accurately across all the major browsers and still contain perfectly valid markup. It smacks of being lazy, or just not knowing the importance of validating code.
You support the little guy solely because he's the little guy? That's pretty silly, surely. Size doesn't mean they're doing the right thing. What if AMD started to throw babies off mountains tomorrow - would you still support them? Your post seems to suggest you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Using a few examples of flawed QA to claim all closed-source QA doesn't happen is a ridiculous argument. I could point out how many flaws are introduced in updates to open-source software, and use your logic to say OSS has no QA. OSS has enough merits to guarantee it a very glorious future - we don't have to make stuff up or sensationalise problems both camps go through to distort reality. FUD - I thought we didn't like that here.
Open source means the QA can be shifted from a group of QA workers in an office to people who use the software. Both approaches work, and both are not perfect. Saying one is inherently better than the other is a bit strange, as they both achieve the same thing, only in different places. QA performed in-house has access to the source code, and can highlight errors and get them fixed, just the same as any OSS project. The only difference is the QA workers are getting paid for it, and are working directly with the developers. I'm not saying that's better, it's just what happens.
No, the "hahaha" is on you, if you think proprietary software has no quality control. It has plenty. So does Open Source software. When you spend money on a closed-source package, chances are that software house has a QA department. I don't mean to be rude to anyone or piss anyone off, but the same can't be said for most OSS projects, apart from those released through the few large OSS houses that have their own QA departments. Just because you've found bugs in closed-source software doesn't mean they don't have QA. The fact that they do have QA demonstrates you're wrong on that. People find bugs in open-source software, too - by your logic, OSS is just as bad as closed-source. Great jerrrb.
They being the US. I didn't mention anyone else in the post :)
Nope. The US system has selective availability turned off, and all new US GPS satellites don't even have SA functionality, so they can't turn it back on later.
I have to disagree with you there. The CCTV evidence is of good enough quality to identify which person in a group committed an offense. If a group of lads start beating up someone, even if there's a massive flurry of fists, it's easy enough for the CCTV operator to see which guy started it, and then the cops can line the guys up, and the CCTV operator can point out the guy. That's not possible with cops on the street, as unless there are as many cops as CCTV, the guy who started the fight will have to be let go, as it's his word against the word of someone else. The judge can be shown the entire CCTV footage, from the fight, to the line-up. It works just as well as having a cop there, only it costs far less. If a thug doesn't think a CCTV is going to put him away, chances are he won't think a cop will, either. Of course proper education will help, but it has to be a two-pronged approach - fix the symptoms to relieve society, and fix the cause to stop it from happening again.
Which is why you should always use javascript to create the correct tags in the right place. That also gets around the click-to-use patent issues that affected IE.
You've clearly not been in a high-security prison, then. I think you'll find it's bars, not observation, that makes a prison. Cameras aren't stopping you from going anywhere or doing anything.
They will, though, make it much easier for the cops to prosecute you should your idea of having fun include putting screwdrivers in grannies' faces...
No, their main use is evidence gathering. Deterrence is secondary. If someone goes bat-shit-crazy and attacks someone, no amount of cameras (or guns or death penalties or dolphins or whatever) will stop that. If, though, a CCTV operator (or witness on the street) sees it, then the cops can pick the person up and charge them. CCTV is just a way to get more evidence. They're also used to covertly follow suspects as they move through a city. I saw CCTV with loud speakers stop a guy who was running from the cops. He kept on running, and the same guy kept on talking to him from all the CCTV cameras he passed - "I can still see you - you can't get away". He didn't. The CCTV operator guided the cops to him, and he was arrested.
NO! How can we feel outraged if we don't blow it out of all proportion and forget that public!=private!?!
I agree entirely. Unless these cameras are in your house, then there is no problem. Unless you're the sort of person that screams at folks who accidentally look at them in the street, they're not doing anything bad at all.
You're legally allowed to find out who owns the camera and request a copy of the footage under the data protection act. If the footage looks exactly like you say it did - just a couple making out, and not a possible rape or something - then you can take it up with the owner.
So you expect privacy in public? Why do we have the word "public" then? What's to stop each camera being replaced by a cop - would that be worrying, too?
Because stealing a computer is punishable by death. Is your NOC in Saudi Arabia? Sure as hell sounds like it.
No, Carphone Warehouse is Europe's largest independent phone seller (nearly 2,000 stores). They also bought $700m worth of AOL UK, making them one of the largest DSL providers in the UK.
;)
They're not exactly Joe and Bob's Basement Hosting Company
It's quite simple, really. The most obvious side-effect regarding pollution is that the pollution created by generating the energy for the car is not emitted at the car, but at the power station (where it's easier to clean). It can also use renewable sources of energy, and shift from one to the other instantly (it doesn't have to know it's being charged on hydroelectric, solar, wind, wave, hippie farts, whatever). It's a step in the right direction - instead of having cars that can only use petrol, and which burn it right in your street, we can have cars that get their power from somewhere miles away, and can even use "green" power without having to do anything to the car.
You can fully remap your keyboard in windows, fyi :)
No, it's possible to make a great-looking website that adheres to the markup rules, if the design isn't fantastically insane (and I've yet to see one that is too complicated). You're spot-on when you say that valid markup isn't necessarily good code, but it *is* syntactically correct, which is half of the battle.
:)
As for ampersands in href attribute, you should use the html entity (&) for that, if you want to make valid code. It's not being stupid, it's doing its job
I wouldn't say it's a good business practice to only get things 95% correct. The difficulty of making 100%-validating code is not hard at all. Fair enough if it took months to achieve, but it doesn't. A competent HTML/CSS coder can take a design and turn it into 100%-validating code just as long as it takes them to make it to 95%. There are not better things for a client-side coder to spend their time on, as that's their job.
Because non-validating code negatively affects page rankings in Google, for one thing. A page's content doesn't matter if you can't find it.
Or just go to "Code View" in Dreamweaver and stay out of "Design View". Dreamweaver is the best text editor for HTML/CSS/PHP I've ever seen, plus it removes the need for a FTP application when moving content to/from dev/test/live servers. Branding Dreamweaver as WYSIWYG-only is a bit of a disservice for the application that stemmed from HomeSite.
I feel I have to wade in here. I'm not usually one for blowing software's trumpet, but here goes.
.STE file (or, rather, two - one for a PC and one for a Mac), which can simply be imported into Dreamweaver, and all the configuration is done. You can switch between different site definitions very simply, so working on multiple projects at once is a snap (even with multiple monitors non-Dreamweaver users would still have to use alt-tab to go to their browser, then hit F5 to refresh it, as opposed to pressing one key).
:)
You can use Dreamweaver to hand-code. I do it daily, using the code-view. Its site management is a great feature, allowing you to specify the local location of your code, a test server, and the live server, the URL the dev/test/live sites are visible at, among many other things. It supports version control, FTP, SFTP, IPv6, etc. Its code-colouring is also excellent, as well as its built-in O'Reilly references for HTML, ASP, APS.NET, CSS, JavaScript, PHP, XML, and XSLT. It also has options for hotkey-launching of specific browsers for testing (which works wonders with multiple monitors). At work we have an intranet where we define our websites (remote login details for the testing/live servers, custom apache directives, etc), and whenever one site is updated, the intranet spits out a Dreamweaver
I've yet to find one thing Dreamweaver won't let me do, but please enlighten me
Classing Dreamweaver as just another FrontPage clone is ridiculous, as it's come a long way as a simple code editor. I've yet to find a faster solution for developing XHTML and PHP, espcially in the workplace.
We use dreamweaver to code XHTML and CSS where I work. We don't use the WYSIWYG feature, just the code view. Since Macromedia bought Allaire, and since Adobe bought Macromedia, Dreamweaver is now HomeSite's direct descendant and latest incarnation. Implying that Dreamweaver==WYSIWYG is clearly not very fair.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible to make even the most beautiful sites render accurately across all the major browsers and still contain perfectly valid markup. It smacks of being lazy, or just not knowing the importance of validating code.
What makes you think the only people lawyers advise are imprisoned suspects?
You support the little guy solely because he's the little guy? That's pretty silly, surely. Size doesn't mean they're doing the right thing. What if AMD started to throw babies off mountains tomorrow - would you still support them? Your post seems to suggest you will.