Here at IBM we have an internal tool from research that does static code analysis.
That wouldn't be SCAMP would it? Love that tool but haven't seen it since a really old version I had on a developer kit. I emailed the original author to see if it is still being written but never got a response back.
Would it not make sense to run this tool to catch these types of errors before wasting everyones time in a code review?
By the time you get to code review and test, you should be catching logic errors, not stupid syntactical and poor code style ones. If the tool helps a developer clean up and catch the obvious stuff, then testing can be much more productive catching the real problems.
Basically if the tool helps reduce errors then it is useful. Same comment goes for code complexity checkers. No tool will catch everything though, but then again you shouldn't be depending on it to.
Actually I'm in an engineering firm and not only is Linux not on our desktops, I've never seen it on any of the desktops of companies we deal with. Other engineering firms, customers, suppliers, none of them use it. We've used it in R&D on a few projects though, but not on the general desktop.
Understood. However if I was dragged into court on an offense, I'd much rather have absolute record of what happened versus some guy just telling the court what I did based on his possibly faulty memory.
For example, I firmly believe black boxes in cars are a very good thing. If I'm cut off on a highway and it's my word versus his for the accident, I want a technological record of what both cars were doing before the accident to prove what really happened.
I would even support this being expanded into video recording on cars. I was recently sideswiped into the guardrail by a car that never stopped. Because they never found out the identity of the other driver, the insurance company called it a 'single vehicle accident' and upped my rates. If my vehicle had a black box and video record, presumably they could have used that to back up my claim and track down the other driver.
I agree that this kind of technology should be watched for potential privacy abuse, and regulated when deemed necessary. However I can see a lot more benefit than harm, and the potential for privacy abouse should not prevent the technology from being developed and deployed.
This is up there with the people who complain red light traffic cameras are an infringement of privacy (privacy to do what? break the law?).
A robot if programmed would do a comparable amount of work to a person. Same as a camera system designed to watch people who blow through red lights. If it's legal for a person to do it then it should be legal for a machine. If the machine is doing something that would be illegal if it were a person then yes, obviously that should also be illegal.
Actually is the disconnect between the motion that your eyes see and is telling your brain, and your inner ear that tells your brain you are not moving. That's why some people get motion sickness watching say an IMAX movie of first person perspective of a roller coaster.
I just don't understand why a creative group of people would limit their creative range. I mean, if Michelangelo had said "screw it, I'm just doing sculpture," we would never have had the Sistine chapel ceiling, right?
Actually he never wanted to paint that. He told the church that he was a sculptor not a painter but they insisted.
Back then if the church told you to do something you did it or the consequences were severe.
No, I'm not having my cake and eating it too. As I said I'm fine with people taking pictures of my house. It's you who are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Google took a picture - one time. You were stating that you were going to repeatedly drive by and take pictures everyday. As I pointed out it's the repeated actions that turn the issue from a simple, legal picture taking to something potentially illegal.
AMD dies, then Intel will jack their rates up about double.
We saw something like this with Blu-Ray when HDDVD was announced to be dead.
Really? I've seen Blu-rays both hardware and movies drop in price. Probably due to more manufacturers increasing competition and more people buying systems.
I don't let the receiver upgrade the picture - just the TV. It does an amazing job.
Be careful on the receiver. Some don't convert input signals and are just pass thrus. So if you component into the receiver the signal out has to be component too - it wont reroute over HDMI. Not a big deal, it just means more cables.
To put it simply: HDMI. A non-upconverting DVD player isn't likely to have an HDMI out, and if I'm trying to minimize the cables that have to go to my tv (or for that matter my receiver), I'd rather use a single HDMI cable instead of a three-cable component video and a single digital audio cable.
Ah thank you. See I have a single HDMI going from my stereo receiver to my TV, and everything else going into my stereo, so that's not a concern for me.
I wanted to buy The Mist. Can't.
I wanted to buy Battlestar Galactica. Can't.
After a year of owning my bluray, I own Planet Earth, Apocolypto, 300 and the special five disc edition of Blade Runner. That's it. Four movies in a year. They're losing a lot of money by having nothing but crap out there.
Well you can blame the HD-DVD guys for the lack of Blu-ray content now. But it will get better soon now that the war is finally over.
Average people will not spend $400 on new technology especially with an economic recession looming over us.
Actually now is a perfect time to buy. With not many people buying, prices will drop to try and entice more people into spending. You can get good deals in a recession.
Incidentally the looming recession is only in the US.
Stop with your baseless charges so the courts aren't full of nonsense and can get around to real cases, like whether large corporations have to right to send their agents onto private property, take photographs of what they find there, put them and other information about them into databases, and finding ways to make money from that.
That lawsuit is not a real case - its pure nonsense. You seem to agree it's not illegal to take pictures of a house, so wheres the argument?
One set of those laws deal with trespassing on private property. There's also precedent for devaluing property and some other precedent for mental anguish. It's up for the courts (not you) to decide if they apply here. That's what the courts are for.
Taking pictures of a property does not devalue a property. That's sheer nonsense. So is the mental anquish claim. If they really had mental anguish, give them $10 for some Tylenol. What a crock.
And since you say that its not my decision on whether or not taking pictures is illegal, why is it you can say that I cant have you arrested for stalking? According to your argument shouldn't I have the full right to have you arrested for stalking (and probably sue you for mental anguish) then let the courts decide?
Why is that? I'm doing it every day whether you are there or not, and so it's systematic. I'm not harassing you, after all your house is there, it's not underground or invisible, and doesn't have a sign on it about no photos. Why stalking? Stalking your house? Or does it make you feel like your privacy is being invaded so you invoke this stalking thing that doesn't really apply?
Taking a picture of my house is fine and not against any law. If you are repeatedly doing the same action for no discernable reason and I perceive that as a threat to me and my family, then yes that does fall under stalking law and I can have you arrested or removed. It's the continual repeated action that elevates it from just taking a picture to harassment. It's got nothing to do with privacy.
How many tourists in say the Caribbean or Italy take pictures of the interesting houses while there? Should they all get sued? Good luck suing someone in Italy. Or the Caribbean for that matter.
So you're ok with just suing Americans in America because it is easier? Either it's a crime or it isn't.
Maybe I'll drive around in my van up and down your block and take pictures of your house and your neighbors' houses every day. And I can start a website where I post those photos. Just those.
As long as you don't break any laws, then go ahead and waste your time. Although I could probably get you on a stalking charge if you kept it up.
So I'm a tourist in a new city and I see a nice neighbourhood. I'm not allowed to take any pictures? How many tourists in say the Caribbean or Italy take pictures of the interesting houses while there? Should they all get sued?
Incidentally I lived in a restored century home in a tourist area for a while, and lots of people took pictures of my house because it was interesting. Some asked permission, most didn't. Didn't really bother me. If I didn't want people taking pictures of my house I would have taken measures to block it from view.
If the people didn't want anyone taking pictures of their house they should have: a)put a sign up stating this, b)built their house underground or c)made their house invisible.
With the absence of the above, people should be free to take pictures of whatever they like as long as it isn't for profit.
Google should countersue the couple for mental anguish for having to deal with another completely frivolous lawsuit and the stress on the employees that it creates. Also for defamation of character and libel.
Well I would have no issues *using* open source products in my company, but I would have issues following any licence agreement that required me to *release* the source to anything I modify.
The software that my company creates is useless without the hardware we also create. Releasing any source we modify back out into the community would only serve to reduce our competitiveness. The open source community in general would never use or benefit from what we write.
I'm speaking now solely of the business my company is in - other companies may very well benefit from releasing source code community wide.
Let's try something different; based on your assumption that sat. radio is competing with iPods, terristrial radio and CDs, should we now allow all FM stations to merge into one? After all, they are competing with sat. radio, iPods, etc.
It's all got to do with percentage market share. If you look at broadcast and satellite market as a whole, if both XM and Sirius had say 40% or ever 20% of that market each, then no they wouldn't be permitted to merge. Letting XM and Sirius merge at this point does not reduce choice as the percentage market share is too tiny.
The issue has little to do with what competition remains within satellite radio, but whether there remains competition. Satellite radio competes with broadcast radio and a number of other formats, so the merger does not remove competition, but makes the combined company more efficient and less likely to lose money.
Both XM and Sirius are bleeding money right now and that can't last forever. If the the industry allowed them both to go under that would counterproductive to helping competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow - jump to conclusions much? Get a grip.
That wouldn't be SCAMP would it? Love that tool but haven't seen it since a really old version I had on a developer kit. I emailed the original author to see if it is still being written but never got a response back.
Would it not make sense to run this tool to catch these types of errors before wasting everyones time in a code review?
By the time you get to code review and test, you should be catching logic errors, not stupid syntactical and poor code style ones. If the tool helps a developer clean up and catch the obvious stuff, then testing can be much more productive catching the real problems.
Basically if the tool helps reduce errors then it is useful. Same comment goes for code complexity checkers. No tool will catch everything though, but then again you shouldn't be depending on it to.
Actually I'm in an engineering firm and not only is Linux not on our desktops, I've never seen it on any of the desktops of companies we deal with. Other engineering firms, customers, suppliers, none of them use it. We've used it in R&D on a few projects though, but not on the general desktop.
I've seen more Macs than Linux.
Understood. However if I was dragged into court on an offense, I'd much rather have absolute record of what happened versus some guy just telling the court what I did based on his possibly faulty memory.
For example, I firmly believe black boxes in cars are a very good thing. If I'm cut off on a highway and it's my word versus his for the accident, I want a technological record of what both cars were doing before the accident to prove what really happened.
I would even support this being expanded into video recording on cars. I was recently sideswiped into the guardrail by a car that never stopped. Because they never found out the identity of the other driver, the insurance company called it a 'single vehicle accident' and upped my rates. If my vehicle had a black box and video record, presumably they could have used that to back up my claim and track down the other driver.
I agree that this kind of technology should be watched for potential privacy abuse, and regulated when deemed necessary. However I can see a lot more benefit than harm, and the potential for privacy abouse should not prevent the technology from being developed and deployed.
This is up there with the people who complain red light traffic cameras are an infringement of privacy (privacy to do what? break the law?).
A robot if programmed would do a comparable amount of work to a person. Same as a camera system designed to watch people who blow through red lights. If it's legal for a person to do it then it should be legal for a machine. If the machine is doing something that would be illegal if it were a person then yes, obviously that should also be illegal.
Geez.. I was wondering how is was going to be until some crackpot started complaining about supposed privacy infringement.
Actually is the disconnect between the motion that your eyes see and is telling your brain, and your inner ear that tells your brain you are not moving. That's why some people get motion sickness watching say an IMAX movie of first person perspective of a roller coaster.
Actually he never wanted to paint that. He told the church that he was a sculptor not a painter but they insisted.
Back then if the church told you to do something you did it or the consequences were severe.
No, I'm not having my cake and eating it too. As I said I'm fine with people taking pictures of my house. It's you who are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Google took a picture - one time. You were stating that you were going to repeatedly drive by and take pictures everyday. As I pointed out it's the repeated actions that turn the issue from a simple, legal picture taking to something potentially illegal.
Really? I've seen Blu-rays both hardware and movies drop in price. Probably due to more manufacturers increasing competition and more people buying systems.
I don't let the receiver upgrade the picture - just the TV. It does an amazing job.
Be careful on the receiver. Some don't convert input signals and are just pass thrus. So if you component into the receiver the signal out has to be component too - it wont reroute over HDMI. Not a big deal, it just means more cables.
Ah thank you. See I have a single HDMI going from my stereo receiver to my TV, and everything else going into my stereo, so that's not a concern for me.
I wanted to buy The Mist. Can't. I wanted to buy Battlestar Galactica. Can't.
After a year of owning my bluray, I own Planet Earth, Apocolypto, 300 and the special five disc edition of Blade Runner. That's it. Four movies in a year. They're losing a lot of money by having nothing but crap out there.
Well you can blame the HD-DVD guys for the lack of Blu-ray content now. But it will get better soon now that the war is finally over.
Actually now is a perfect time to buy. With not many people buying, prices will drop to try and entice more people into spending. You can get good deals in a recession.
Incidentally the looming recession is only in the US.
What's the point of an upconverting DVD player when the TV can do it natively and likely much better (as it knows what its own native format is)?
That lawsuit is not a real case - its pure nonsense. You seem to agree it's not illegal to take pictures of a house, so wheres the argument?
One set of those laws deal with trespassing on private property. There's also precedent for devaluing property and some other precedent for mental anguish. It's up for the courts (not you) to decide if they apply here. That's what the courts are for.Taking pictures of a property does not devalue a property. That's sheer nonsense. So is the mental anquish claim. If they really had mental anguish, give them $10 for some Tylenol. What a crock.
And since you say that its not my decision on whether or not taking pictures is illegal, why is it you can say that I cant have you arrested for stalking? According to your argument shouldn't I have the full right to have you arrested for stalking (and probably sue you for mental anguish) then let the courts decide?
Taking a picture of my house is fine and not against any law. If you are repeatedly doing the same action for no discernable reason and I perceive that as a threat to me and my family, then yes that does fall under stalking law and I can have you arrested or removed. It's the continual repeated action that elevates it from just taking a picture to harassment. It's got nothing to do with privacy.
How many tourists in say the Caribbean or Italy take pictures of the interesting houses while there? Should they all get sued? Good luck suing someone in Italy. Or the Caribbean for that matter.So you're ok with just suing Americans in America because it is easier? Either it's a crime or it isn't.
Maybe I'll drive around in my van up and down your block and take pictures of your house and your neighbors' houses every day. And I can start a website where I post those photos. Just those.
As long as you don't break any laws, then go ahead and waste your time. Although I could probably get you on a stalking charge if you kept it up.
So I'm a tourist in a new city and I see a nice neighbourhood. I'm not allowed to take any pictures? How many tourists in say the Caribbean or Italy take pictures of the interesting houses while there? Should they all get sued?
Incidentally I lived in a restored century home in a tourist area for a while, and lots of people took pictures of my house because it was interesting. Some asked permission, most didn't. Didn't really bother me. If I didn't want people taking pictures of my house I would have taken measures to block it from view.
If the people didn't want anyone taking pictures of their house they should have: a)put a sign up stating this, b)built their house underground or c)made their house invisible.
With the absence of the above, people should be free to take pictures of whatever they like as long as it isn't for profit.
Google should countersue the couple for mental anguish for having to deal with another completely frivolous lawsuit and the stress on the employees that it creates. Also for defamation of character and libel.
200 million should be a good value.
Well I would have no issues *using* open source products in my company, but I would have issues following any licence agreement that required me to *release* the source to anything I modify.
The software that my company creates is useless without the hardware we also create. Releasing any source we modify back out into the community would only serve to reduce our competitiveness. The open source community in general would never use or benefit from what we write.
I'm speaking now solely of the business my company is in - other companies may very well benefit from releasing source code community wide.
I think you are off by a decimal place. It's more like $150, not $1500 per year.
It's all got to do with percentage market share. If you look at broadcast and satellite market as a whole, if both XM and Sirius had say 40% or ever 20% of that market each, then no they wouldn't be permitted to merge. Letting XM and Sirius merge at this point does not reduce choice as the percentage market share is too tiny.
The issue has little to do with what competition remains within satellite radio, but whether there remains competition. Satellite radio competes with broadcast radio and a number of other formats, so the merger does not remove competition, but makes the combined company more efficient and less likely to lose money.
Both XM and Sirius are bleeding money right now and that can't last forever. If the the industry allowed them both to go under that would counterproductive to helping competition.