We have ISO at my orkplace. The hardware guys have a sequence of steps of design and manufacture that are well laid out. Getting this applied to the software guys has been more difficult.
One allowable thing is to write test apps to check out areas of coding that one isn't familiar with. This mimics the hardware steps of mockups and prototyping.
Recently I wrote a network app for the first time. Once that experimentation/research was done, I had some useful info to add to the Design (text) Doc. Once I had this much done though, when the time came to "develop" (according to ISO) the developing consisted of nothing more than cutting and pasting my test app, and tweaking some parameters.
I've been wondering about this for a while because it didn't seem right, that I must have been doing something wrong, but the article filled in the missing understanding.
> It gives the average person absolutely no idea what it does by just looking at what the name is.
Neither does "Dodge Ram" but I bet most people know what that is.
The problem as I see it is that people sit down at a computer, think "Gee a computer. I'm stupid at these," and proceed to shut off *all* logical reasoning. They must be stupid, so they are.
The article linked in the parent makes the argument that "flash-memory-based" and "hard-drive-based" aren't features. They are, and I am one person who makes my choice based on this feature.
I do not buy hd players because moving parts fail.
If Apple were to launch a flash iPod, I'd give it a look.
It seems to me that a lot of journalists make the following mistake:
"Hm, there are N viewpoints, therefore each viewpoint must receive 1/N of my coverage of this issue."
They call that balance, everything has had the same amount of time. What they really need to do is balance according to the weighting:
Viewpoint B gets 50% coverage since 50% of scientists believe it. Viewpoint A only gets a one line mention because nobody but this one guy over here believes it.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The medallion carries the OS and the mass storage parts, so you can borrow whomever's hardware to run your very small portable (quasi)computer.
SPEWS, SpamCop, et al don't block anything. They are merely a blacklist as the parent pointed out.
What I can't figure out is this: their service is *identical* to credit reports. They take reports from third parties, produce lists of reported activities, and let others make their own decisions from the list.
Why isn't the credit reporting agency analogy more often used? Regular people should understand that right away.
Interesting gambit; won't work in Canada. The CCRA specifically mentions that it does not collect or refund amounts less than $2.00. What I'm not sure of is if they carry this ahead to the next year, or if it's just forgotten.
Why not? Probably because of these wacko environmental laws that make it ridiculously easy for all the Not In MY Back Yard (NIMBY) people to stop any progress from ever being made. Thanks to them, it is almost completely impossible to build any new refineries anymore.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, NIMBY people, for making me pay more for my gasoline!!
Sounds like you just volunteered your backyard. Please post your coordinates; a major petroleum company rep will be along shortly to begin construction.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably not. Nearly 100% of competitive discs are discs and I'm willing to bet that competitive disc sales outweight recreational Frisbee sales.
As a consumer and early high-speed adopter, I was driven by plain old faster web surfing. I guess I'm not in the majority.
We have ISO at my orkplace. The hardware guys have a sequence of steps of design and manufacture that are well laid out. Getting this applied to the software guys has been more difficult.
One allowable thing is to write test apps to check out areas of coding that one isn't familiar with. This mimics the hardware steps of mockups and prototyping.
Recently I wrote a network app for the first time. Once that experimentation/research was done, I had some useful info to add to the Design (text) Doc. Once I had this much done though, when the time came to "develop" (according to ISO) the developing consisted of nothing more than cutting and pasting my test app, and tweaking some parameters.
I've been wondering about this for a while because it didn't seem right, that I must have been doing something wrong, but the article filled in the missing understanding.
Neither does "Dodge Ram" but I bet most people know what that is.
The problem as I see it is that people sit down at a computer, think "Gee a computer. I'm stupid at these," and proceed to shut off *all* logical reasoning. They must be stupid, so they are.
I do not buy hd players because moving parts fail.
If Apple were to launch a flash iPod, I'd give it a look.
struct foo a;
struct foo b;
If instead you have
struct foo *a;
struct foo *b;
if (a != b) { blah; }
is perfectly valid, and does exactly what the
patent is attempting to cover.
They call that balance, everything has had the same amount of time. What they really need to do is balance according to the weighting:
Viewpoint B gets 50% coverage since 50% of scientists believe it. Viewpoint A only gets a one line mention because nobody but this one guy over here believes it.
What I can't figure out is this: their service is *identical* to credit reports. They take reports from third parties, produce lists of reported activities, and let others make their own decisions from the list.
Why isn't the credit reporting agency analogy more often used? Regular people should understand that right away.
This "test" is basically useless.
I think you mean "rotate the fur-colour harmonics".
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, NIMBY people, for making me pay more for my gasoline!!
Sounds like you just volunteered your backyard. Please post your coordinates; a major petroleum company rep will be along shortly to begin construction.