No. Unit testing is not a tester's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the coder to validate the code they wrote does the basic function it supposed to do.
Unit testing is white box testing and it's okay to get a tester to develop the tests as long as there's feedback from the developer about how the white box code is supposed to behave (internal behavior).
Should devs NOT test? Hell to the no they should definitely test.
Does the average dev have the skill set/ mind set of a tester? No. Even Microsoft often pairs a tester with a developer. Unit tests are likely to find as many or more bugs than black box testing and the typical developer will not be happy/motivated to find bugs in his own code.
So are you willing to deliver a buggy product just because you don't want to spend extra on test developers?
And how much would your uncle have made if he had no patent on the product and three big companies had copied his IP and were manufacturing and selling the product? The big company here allegedly and brazenly committed a crime because they could get away with it. They could potentially face consequences down the line. Are many companies stupid enough to willingly infringe patents?
They are a new spin on taxis. Instead of calling a cab company/driver on your cell phone or waving them down on the street, you call/wave them down over the internet.
Yes, shocking. Smartphones are supposed to have a stricter security than desktops/laptops in preventing snooping, viruses etc. So-called malicious software can't do much damage to the OS or other apps. (at least it's not supposed to if they strengthen it further).
The monopoly is that only you get to sell that particular movie.
If someone created that commercial movie, of course, they're are going to want to sell it. Who else, besides the owner, should have a right to sell movie tickets or DVDs for that movie? Pirates? Consumers? Who's being silly now?
That's like complaining that a donut-shop's owner has a monopoly to sell his donuts? Who else should have the rights?
what exactly is copyright if not a monopoly concerning an intellectual product?
The same kind of monopoly a car owner gets after paying for his car? (Do non-owners have the right to a joyride without the owner's permission?) In this case, the copyright holder has the monopoly because he paid hundreds of millions for the creation of the content and therefore has a lot of rights in controlling it.
a person is given singular and absolute control over distribution - hows does this differ from a monopoly?
BTW, calling it just a monopoly is completely wrong without saying it's a monopoly of what? Is it a monopoly of racing movies? No, there are dozens/hundreds of other such movies. So, where exactly is that monopoly that you claim is stifling?
If a company took a look at how the gpl code worked and then came up with a brand new algorithm with the same results as the gpl it would still be considered gpl code which is ridiculous.
Why should it be considered GPL code? Since the new code is different in multiple ways from the GPLed code, there is no copyright infringement. Only patents deal with abstraction of multiple implementations of an algorithm.
Java has good out-of-bounds checking for arrays, unlike the non-existent support in C. Could you explain how exactly a buffer overflow can happen in Java (calling native code is not allowed)?
Sorry, from the webpage it appears MIUI 5 had 3D effect icons with dimmer colors (like iOS6 and before) whereas MIUI 6 has a flat icons/look with bright colors similar to iOS 7. I personally don't like the iOS 7 look and feel and whoever copied it must have no design sense to copy an inferior look and feel.
If Apple can design in California and manufacture in China, and make tons of profit, why can't IBM do the same? Why does it have to sell the design part to people who are nowhere near as competent?
To take something away from someone, it would have to belong to them in the first place. The only reason it is theirs is because of copyright law.
Interesting, so if you were to compose an original poem, who exactly would it belong to, according to your liberated rules? Would it belong to the entire public?
I was giving them money and in return they promise to offer up some item to me.
Maybe that's enough for dumb fucks like you. But others, like me, want to own a part of the company we paid for.
Your deal sounds like this to me: "I will offer you $100 for an item worth $100. And if you don't deliver the item to me, it's okay, I'm screwed. If you make billions on the back of my investment (even if I don't use that word), that's okay too. You deserve all the profits and I'm owed nothing, even though I took a risk investing my money in your risky company."
I'm guessing you know absolutely nothing about startups. In tech startups, the creators (people with the ideas and/or technology) obtain capital from investors called angel investors. These angels are first in the series of many types of investors that fund the startup (other types of investors include venture capitalists and the stock market). Depending on the amount invested and the risk, the investor demands a certain percent of the company ownership.
As an example, a tech startup raises $2 million from an angel investor in exchange for giving 10% of company ownership to the angel investor. However, when the tech startup raises the same $2 million from crowd funding, it gives 0% ownership to the people who risked their money for at best 0% rate of return. That's the ripoff! Do you get it now?? People who invest in startups should demand a chunk of the company no matter how small that chunk.
Now imagine you invested $500 in a crowd funded (total $20 million) company that subsequently sells to a bigger company for $2 billion. Don't you think, the startup owes you tens of thousands of dollars for risking your money?
Have you seen a football/soccer match? Some games have no goals at all. Therefore they are not substantial.
Not so. There are other important (or substantial) portions of the match such as: the near goal misses, the clever dodges, penalties, free kicks etc. I do agree these are nowhere as important as goals, but they are of secondary importance (and still important).
Fans (the only real market for rebroadcasting) do not care about random goals.
I disagree. Nobody posts videos of boring or inconsequential things such as the goalkeeper throwing the ball to a player, or some player passing the ball to another player far away from the opponent's goal post. Goals are rarely inconsequential unless one team has scored a lot of goals.
If you don't advertise which game etc. it came from it will not in any way affect resale value.
I think it would be rather easy to figure out which game is being played (especially because other viewers can post comments about it) unless you are very new to football.
I'd really like to see a crowdfunding site which takes venture capital out of the realm of multi-millionaires, and puts it within reach of the common person.
They obviously could do it, but they won't. They rather prefer the common person stay common, and not rich.
The time taken to show all of the goals combined for an average soccer game will usually consume (much) less than 3 minutes of an (approximately) 180 minute broadcast.
Yes, they are inconsequential, quantitatively. I meant, they are substantial, qualititatively, like the best parts or ending of a movie.
This is one of google's definition of the word substantial:
adjective: substantial
1. of considerable importance, size, or worth.
"a substantial amount of cash"
I think goals are definitely of considerable importance and are therefore substantial. Therefore, posting goal videos for many football matches falls outside the acceptable rules for fair use and should be considered copyright infringement, just as the copyright owners have stated.
You're wrong. You're reducing potential profit from the copyright holders by rebroadcasting information for free. If you were a stadium ticket buyer, or watched the game on TV or DVD, would you be willing to spend the time or the money to watch the game, had you already seen the clips on the web? No.
In short, if you can see the good parts for free on the web, you won't visit the stadium for the match or watch it on TV thereby reducing profit for copyright holders. And copyright is all about preventing freeloaders from reducing profit to copyright holders.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, imagine null-terminating a 2 MB string and then trying to obtain its length in some operation... too much processor time wasted.
Ballmer's version is short and clear. I hate dialog boxes with long messages followed by "Yes/No" buttons.
Are you telling me the upright center cap in this rolls royce youtube video is patented by your acquaintance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Unit testing is white box testing and it's okay to get a tester to develop the tests as long as there's feedback from the developer about how the white box code is supposed to behave (internal behavior).
Does the average dev have the skill set/ mind set of a tester? No. Even Microsoft often pairs a tester with a developer. Unit tests are likely to find as many or more bugs than black box testing and the typical developer will not be happy/motivated to find bugs in his own code.
So are you willing to deliver a buggy product just because you don't want to spend extra on test developers?
And how much would your uncle have made if he had no patent on the product and three big companies had copied his IP and were manufacturing and selling the product? The big company here allegedly and brazenly committed a crime because they could get away with it. They could potentially face consequences down the line. Are many companies stupid enough to willingly infringe patents?
Not viable long term for physical book sellers. Maybe they need to charge a token amount to allow you to browse their books/products.
They are a new spin on taxis. Instead of calling a cab company/driver on your cell phone or waving them down on the street, you call/wave them down over the internet.
Yes, shocking. Smartphones are supposed to have a stricter security than desktops/laptops in preventing snooping, viruses etc. So-called malicious software can't do much damage to the OS or other apps. (at least it's not supposed to if they strengthen it further).
If someone created that commercial movie, of course, they're are going to want to sell it. Who else, besides the owner, should have a right to sell movie tickets or DVDs for that movie? Pirates? Consumers? Who's being silly now?
That's like complaining that a donut-shop's owner has a monopoly to sell his donuts? Who else should have the rights?
The same kind of monopoly a car owner gets after paying for his car? (Do non-owners have the right to a joyride without the owner's permission?) In this case, the copyright holder has the monopoly because he paid hundreds of millions for the creation of the content and therefore has a lot of rights in controlling it.
BTW, calling it just a monopoly is completely wrong without saying it's a monopoly of what? Is it a monopoly of racing movies? No, there are dozens/hundreds of other such movies. So, where exactly is that monopoly that you claim is stifling?
Python, or even BASIC, are better than C/C++ for beginners.
$1,000 is way too much, because $230 is already expensive. Let's do the math:
Current CPM (cost per thousand ad impressions/views) is $3.10
Therefore $230 will buy you (230 x 1000) / 3 = 74193 page views / year.
And that happens to be 74193 / 365 = 203 page views / day.
Few people, other than web addicts, browse more than 200 pages / day.
Why should it be considered GPL code? Since the new code is different in multiple ways from the GPLed code, there is no copyright infringement. Only patents deal with abstraction of multiple implementations of an algorithm.
Java has good out-of-bounds checking for arrays, unlike the non-existent support in C. Could you explain how exactly a buffer overflow can happen in Java (calling native code is not allowed)?
Sorry, from the webpage it appears MIUI 5 had 3D effect icons with dimmer colors (like iOS6 and before) whereas MIUI 6 has a flat icons/look with bright colors similar to iOS 7. I personally don't like the iOS 7 look and feel and whoever copied it must have no design sense to copy an inferior look and feel.
If Apple can design in California and manufacture in China, and make tons of profit, why can't IBM do the same? Why does it have to sell the design part to people who are nowhere near as competent?
Interesting, so if you were to compose an original poem, who exactly would it belong to, according to your liberated rules? Would it belong to the entire public?
Maybe that's enough for dumb fucks like you. But others, like me, want to own a part of the company we paid for.
Your deal sounds like this to me: "I will offer you $100 for an item worth $100. And if you don't deliver the item to me, it's okay, I'm screwed. If you make billions on the back of my investment (even if I don't use that word), that's okay too. You deserve all the profits and I'm owed nothing, even though I took a risk investing my money in your risky company."
Yeah, that's really smart.
I'm guessing you know absolutely nothing about startups. In tech startups, the creators (people with the ideas and/or technology) obtain capital from investors called angel investors. These angels are first in the series of many types of investors that fund the startup (other types of investors include venture capitalists and the stock market). Depending on the amount invested and the risk, the investor demands a certain percent of the company ownership.
As an example, a tech startup raises $2 million from an angel investor in exchange for giving 10% of company ownership to the angel investor. However, when the tech startup raises the same $2 million from crowd funding, it gives 0% ownership to the people who risked their money for at best 0% rate of return. That's the ripoff! Do you get it now?? People who invest in startups should demand a chunk of the company no matter how small that chunk.
Now imagine you invested $500 in a crowd funded (total $20 million) company that subsequently sells to a bigger company for $2 billion. Don't you think, the startup owes you tens of thousands of dollars for risking your money?
Not so. There are other important (or substantial) portions of the match such as: the near goal misses, the clever dodges, penalties, free kicks etc. I do agree these are nowhere as important as goals, but they are of secondary importance (and still important).
I disagree. Nobody posts videos of boring or inconsequential things such as the goalkeeper throwing the ball to a player, or some player passing the ball to another player far away from the opponent's goal post. Goals are rarely inconsequential unless one team has scored a lot of goals.
I think it would be rather easy to figure out which game is being played (especially because other viewers can post comments about it) unless you are very new to football.
They obviously could do it, but they won't. They rather prefer the common person stay common, and not rich.
You mean ripoff platform. It's certainly not donation... they should own a percentage of the company just like angel investors who give seed capital.
Yes, they are inconsequential, quantitatively. I meant, they are substantial, qualititatively, like the best parts or ending of a movie.
This is one of google's definition of the word substantial:
I think goals are definitely of considerable importance and are therefore substantial. Therefore, posting goal videos for many football matches falls outside the acceptable rules for fair use and should be considered copyright infringement, just as the copyright owners have stated.
Aren't goals a substantial portion of a football match?
Won't rebroadcasting goals reduce potential market (stadium and TV viewership) of the copyrighted work?
You're wrong. You're reducing potential profit from the copyright holders by rebroadcasting information for free. If you were a stadium ticket buyer, or watched the game on TV or DVD, would you be willing to spend the time or the money to watch the game, had you already seen the clips on the web? No.
In short, if you can see the good parts for free on the web, you won't visit the stadium for the match or watch it on TV thereby reducing profit for copyright holders. And copyright is all about preventing freeloaders from reducing profit to copyright holders.