What you are describing is regression testing. Test suites are good for that because you can automate tests that essentially review existing code to make sure it was not affected. So yes, that form of testing finds "new" errors. But only new error in the code you have a regrssion test for. Now, consider this. A defect is "new" if you haven't seen it before. That doesn't mean it didn't exist for a long time, it only means you might not have caught it until now.
Testing comes in many forms including inpsections, walkthroughs and reviews. These forms of test can be executes on requirements, design and even test cases to find defects in those items.
Nope, I am not an advocate for BDUF. Even Agile requires that you do some form of requirements development design and code practices. Agile is not, "we have an idea, let's go try it out." Most successful methodologies have many of the same requisites, the differences are in how they are executed. Agile is an iterative methodology with short cycle times, BDUF (waterfall) is not.
A methodolgy should be chosen based on a number of factors. There is no one good methodology for all projects.
BTW, Agile is also an methodology and it too could be a "standard" within a company.
But the real key is reducing the number of defects introduced into software. Testing only finds existing errors. If the number of errors are low from using good requirements, design and development practices then testing becomes less expensive and time consuming.
There's a group buy going on at www.audiworld.com. Check the B6 S4 forum. They will probably fit your VW. If not, you can call the vendor and find some that fit your car.
This doesn't always have to be true. If at the highest level the messages were well received and acted upon, the lower levels would not feel a need to change the message. Unfortunately this is all too rare and the message sent back down is ultimately, don't send bad news.
There are so many places for this process and structure to break down that it takes a very good executive team to keep it working. Ultimately this is where the failure is...Executive management.
hence the huge leverage a capability like this would give N. Korea.
N. Korea would not be hurt by a counter cyber attack and a military attack by the U.S. would not accomplish a change in power like it did in Iraq. Besides the U.S. not being able to 'win', the N. Korea dictatorship would ultimately benefit. They might lose scores of citizens (less mouths to feed) in return for a probable gain in S. Korean territory plus have control over the inevitable huge amount of aid afterwards.
I hear ya. Are you sitting down the hall from me?;-)
I'm currently at a company with about 500 IT employees and there are over 100 different projects going on at the same time. No two of these projects are executed in the same way. Not the fault of the developers or development managers, it's the fault of middle management, the business customer and executive management. Many in middle management are afraid they will be outsourced while a couple of them micro manage their groups and absolutely DO NOT want to see a change. They derive their organizational power by filtering what uppr management sees and hears. Very sad situation.
That does seem to be the case at I company I consult for. As a part of an assessment, we received several unsolicited comments that they would be resistant to changing the way they performed development because the business customer was free to outsource. And it's happened on a few projects when the development team pushed back on timelines and requirements.
As a result, the development staff here lies to their managers, who lie to their directors, who lie to their VP's and on up the line. This points to a breakdown in communication between all levels in IT including the lines between IT and the business.
how many large companies think that they can still be successful by programming their way out of problems.
If you work at a company that places some value on requirements and design development before you start cranking out code, consider yourself fortunate. And for those of you that have a consistent process for development and deployment, you're not that common either. There are still a considerable number of large companies with a presence on the web that rely on individual heriocs to keep their business running.
In most cases, it's management's reliance on a few people within development that keeps them from making any improvements. That and the lack of undestanding that spending some money could make (or save) them significant amounts of money.
In most cases the real cause is something political or economic. If a country threatens another economically or politically, the threatened country may react.
In this case, N. Korea would have to ask itself if it really wants war with the U.S.. Attacking our ability to survive economically would most likely be an act of war. I don't think N. Korea wants war with the U.S., it's a no-win situation for both sides. Their goals with this is probably just more leverage and another type of cold war defense. Having the capablity to launch a cyber attack is a form of self-defense.
The Mk 15 had skinny fins. The bombs with cool fins (B-43, B-57 and B-61) came out a few years later.
A couple of the Air-to-Air nukes (GAR-11, AIR-2A) had cool fins too.
Are you saying global warming is a fact or is global warming caused by humans is a fact? I'm open to seeing any scientific proofs that you have that I am unaware of.
Discount it or not but there is disagreement about the causation of global warming. My own feeling is that there is a human factor to it but the quantitative proof has not been established.
In regards to the Kyoto treaty, the inequity in responsibility for relief was enough to kill it. That coupled with the unproven benefits to be realized meant that the treaty was more of a political and economic weapon than an environmentally sound policy.
I link to my own site because it's useful for me to not repost this information for every discussion I have on the topic.
Yes it is sourced. I would hope that the speaker and the date would be useful in doing the same research that I did before I posted it. I quit providing links to the sources because it was a maintenance nightmare keeping up with changed or dropped links. All of these are easily Googled and are cited in referencable publications. Here's a link that does a better job at it. Many of them are in the Congressional Record. http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694
Where are your facts? As far as I can tell you are making nothing nothing more than unsubstantiated claims. If you have some data or facts to back up your claims then why not post them? Your post is not even as clever as Moore's 'documentary.' He twisted his claims into liberal entertainment that people paid to view. You failed there unless you were going for humor.
His movie (I can't degrade the term documentary) is so full of holes, distortions and lies that even if there were some truth buried in it, it's probably there by accident.
As others have noted the author doesn't offer an alternative. We can debate the issues surrounding the purpose of the plant or nuclear power ad nauseum but the fact remains we still have to deal with it. It appears to me that the objective of the article is ratcheting up rhetoric on the subject without adding any value to the topic.
case of where technology can't keep up with marketing and sales. Since the manufacturer can't restrict usage of their hardware they've found an easy fix. The courts.
I think they should create their own remedy and not rely on a societal function to do it for them. If they have a problem with individuals pirating their property then they should go after them.
the next new economic model? Customized mass production is supposed to move us beyond just cranking out the same thing for everyone. Nike has its customized shoe option where you can design your shoes on line and have them within a months.
It's significant that he's admitting it and moving on in a positive way. Granted, he's not the lone soul out there with ethics but a scientist of his stature makes it easier for the rest of the mere mortal scientists to exhibit the same behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are describing is regression testing. Test suites are good for that because you can automate tests that essentially review existing code to make sure it was not affected. So yes, that form of testing finds "new" errors. But only new error in the code you have a regrssion test for. Now, consider this. A defect is "new" if you haven't seen it before. That doesn't mean it didn't exist for a long time, it only means you might not have caught it until now.
Testing comes in many forms including inpsections, walkthroughs and reviews. These forms of test can be executes on requirements, design and even test cases to find defects in those items.
Nope, I am not an advocate for BDUF. Even Agile requires that you do some form of requirements development design and code practices. Agile is not, "we have an idea, let's go try it out." Most successful methodologies have many of the same requisites, the differences are in how they are executed. Agile is an iterative methodology with short cycle times, BDUF (waterfall) is not.
A methodolgy should be chosen based on a number of factors. There is no one good methodology for all projects.
BTW, Agile is also an methodology and it too could be a "standard" within a company.
But the real key is reducing the number of defects introduced into software. Testing only finds existing errors. If the number of errors are low from using good requirements, design and development practices then testing becomes less expensive and time consuming.
There's a group buy going on at www.audiworld.com. Check the B6 S4 forum. They will probably fit your VW. If not, you can call the vendor and find some that fit your car.
Form what I read, it seems the source is from within China.
Thanks for the link.
This doesn't always have to be true. If at the highest level the messages were well received and acted upon, the lower levels would not feel a need to change the message. Unfortunately this is all too rare and the message sent back down is ultimately, don't send bad news.
There are so many places for this process and structure to break down that it takes a very good executive team to keep it working. Ultimately this is where the failure is...Executive management.
hence the huge leverage a capability like this would give N. Korea.
N. Korea would not be hurt by a counter cyber attack and a military attack by the U.S. would not accomplish a change in power like it did in Iraq. Besides the U.S. not being able to 'win', the N. Korea dictatorship would ultimately benefit. They might lose scores of citizens (less mouths to feed) in return for a probable gain in S. Korean territory plus have control over the inevitable huge amount of aid afterwards.
I hear ya. Are you sitting down the hall from me? ;-)
I'm currently at a company with about 500 IT employees and there are over 100 different projects going on at the same time. No two of these projects are executed in the same way. Not the fault of the developers or development managers, it's the fault of middle management, the business customer and executive management. Many in middle management are afraid they will be outsourced while a couple of them micro manage their groups and absolutely DO NOT want to see a change. They derive their organizational power by filtering what uppr management sees and hears. Very sad situation.
That does seem to be the case at I company I consult for. As a part of an assessment, we received several unsolicited comments that they would be resistant to changing the way they performed development because the business customer was free to outsource. And it's happened on a few projects when the development team pushed back on timelines and requirements.
As a result, the development staff here lies to their managers, who lie to their directors, who lie to their VP's and on up the line. This points to a breakdown in communication between all levels in IT including the lines between IT and the business.
how many large companies think that they can still be successful by programming their way out of problems.
If you work at a company that places some value on requirements and design development before you start cranking out code, consider yourself fortunate. And for those of you that have a consistent process for development and deployment, you're not that common either. There are still a considerable number of large companies with a presence on the web that rely on individual heriocs to keep their business running.
In most cases, it's management's reliance on a few people within development that keeps them from making any improvements. That and the lack of undestanding that spending some money could make (or save) them significant amounts of money.
alone.
In most cases the real cause is something political or economic. If a country threatens another economically or politically, the threatened country may react.
In this case, N. Korea would have to ask itself if it really wants war with the U.S.. Attacking our ability to survive economically would most likely be an act of war. I don't think N. Korea wants war with the U.S., it's a no-win situation for both sides. Their goals with this is probably just more leverage and another type of cold war defense. Having the capablity to launch a cyber attack is a form of self-defense.
to handle all online transactions. I'd hate to carry one for my bank, one for my credit card, etc.
The Mk 15 had skinny fins. The bombs with cool fins (B-43, B-57 and B-61) came out a few years later. A couple of the Air-to-Air nukes (GAR-11, AIR-2A) had cool fins too.
to convince the marketing folks. I tell them once and leave with, "Hear me now, believe me later." After a while, their hearing improves.
Are you saying global warming is a fact or is global warming caused by humans is a fact? I'm open to seeing any scientific proofs that you have that I am unaware of.
Discount it or not but there is disagreement about the causation of global warming. My own feeling is that there is a human factor to it but the quantitative proof has not been established.
In regards to the Kyoto treaty, the inequity in responsibility for relief was enough to kill it. That coupled with the unproven benefits to be realized meant that the treaty was more of a political and economic weapon than an environmentally sound policy.
I link to my own site because it's useful for me to not repost this information for every discussion I have on the topic.
Yes it is sourced. I would hope that the speaker and the date would be useful in doing the same research that I did before I posted it. I quit providing links to the sources because it was a maintenance nightmare keeping up with changed or dropped links. All of these are easily Googled and are cited in referencable publications. Here's a link that does a better job at it. Many of them are in the Congressional Record. http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694
Seems he believed it, said it and repeated it. http://www.treadonus.com/Political%20Perspective.h tml
Where are your facts? As far as I can tell you are making nothing nothing more than unsubstantiated claims. If you have some data or facts to back up your claims then why not post them? Your post is not even as clever as Moore's 'documentary.' He twisted his claims into liberal entertainment that people paid to view. You failed there unless you were going for humor.
His movie (I can't degrade the term documentary) is so full of holes, distortions and lies that even if there were some truth buried in it, it's probably there by accident.
Even lefty Christopher Hitchens calls him a liar http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/.
And his distortions are not tiny nor are they unimportant. http://www.treadonus.com/Other.html.
on the whims of the internet community you'll know it's time to put me down.
I was hoping that my sarcasm was showing :-P
As others have noted the author doesn't offer an alternative. We can debate the issues surrounding the purpose of the plant or nuclear power ad nauseum but the fact remains we still have to deal with it. It appears to me that the objective of the article is ratcheting up rhetoric on the subject without adding any value to the topic.
and not clean it up!
case of where technology can't keep up with marketing and sales. Since the manufacturer can't restrict usage of their hardware they've found an easy fix. The courts.
I think they should create their own remedy and not rely on a societal function to do it for them. If they have a problem with individuals pirating their property then they should go after them.
the next new economic model? Customized mass production is supposed to move us beyond just cranking out the same thing for everyone. Nike has its customized shoe option where you can design your shoes on line and have them within a months.
Then it becomes two mistakes. Bad code and bad test.
It's significant that he's admitting it and moving on in a positive way. Granted, he's not the lone soul out there with ethics but a scientist of his stature makes it easier for the rest of the mere mortal scientists to exhibit the same behavior.