I agree with the above, when you set out to write code knowing you're going to have to test it, it will influence how you do the design and insulate functionality from the rest of the system, in order to be easily testable.
The problem, however, is you've just made this guys problem even worse. He can't even get allocation for testing. Now he'll need allocation for refactoring AND testing.
My opinion is to break it down into small incremental changes that may take years to filter through the whole system. He can get into the habit RIGHT NOW of writing a small test case for every problem he finds, this will solve his immediate problem, well... immediately. It will focus testing only where it's most badly needed.
Then design wise, the thing to do would be for every problem found, see what can be re-factored and improved right there and then, and do it immediately (with test cases to prevent regression).
The trick then is to keep metrics of how many issues boomerang now, how much time is spent fixing them, and then also keep track of how many "test-cased-and-refactored" issues boomerang. Yes, this will require rigorous timekeeping.
When people started talking about flying cars the same stuff came up and the response is... Don't let Joe Soap fly it, make a computer do it.
You have to be reasonable here, either Joe has the capacity to qualify for a PPL (significantly harder than getting your license at the DMV), or you don't require a PPL, and have a machine fly the thing. This has positives like, no need for crazy-busy traffic control if the planes can talk to each other.
The only PROBLEM I see with that is a failure which will REQUIRE the passenger to intervene and fly by override. I guess worst case is you require a slimmed down version of a PPL.
BUT, all that aside, the article mentions "taxi" services. Which alleviates all these issues (and yes, your average cabby probably won't qualify for the license without quite a bit of sharpening up).
As far as I can see you couldn't have one without the other, if you return youthful vigor to your body that implies at least a partial extension of life span.
Agreed, I assign very little malice to a swear word. It's just a word, that a lot of people have decided is unacceptable, for some reason I fail to understand.
For example: We can say sex as many times as we want on TV. But not fuck. Why not? What made the one vulgar but the other not? It seems horribly arbitrary to me...
And why are people sad that the young generation no longer assign shock-and-horror to that word? Isn't that a good thing? We're LOSING a swear word!
The only effect this will have is, that the word "fuck" will no longer be of any use to someone who wants to use a swear word, and it'll drop out of common usage....
It's like the word "Bloody". For generations past, it was a HARSH curse word not to be uttered in ANY company. Now, nobody gives a fuck about it.:D
The USA sets the standard. If the FAA won't touch it, pretty much no-one else will, since their product will be useless in one of the top markets in the world, and I'm pretty sure the other major markets just follow the example of the USA anyway.
Also, indeed, it seems the experimental crowd grows smaller. I am 30, and by a huge margin the whippersnapper of the local EAA chapter. I'm not even that active, but I'm trying to get a plane built "someday". That's more than I can say for the rest of "gen-X". The sad part is, even though my composite plane will (hopefully someday) be light-years ahead of what the general-aviation guys are flying, it's still a design from the late 70's. There's not much "new" out there... The most radical guy I can think of is Rutan, and he's getting on in years now...
And that's the EXPERIMENTAL crowd. As far as I can tell, Cessna are only interested in stamping out their ancient designs for the rest of time. And why shouldn't they? the older aviation crowd wanna fly what they know... and the FAA are totally cool with that! I can hardly imagine any significant flying school not having a fleet of 172's. It's the status quo for the aviation guys, and status quo is all there is for them. I find this very irritating since I'm an IT person, and I want to see continuous improvement and experimentation.
Aviation had an age where people were free to try new things, and try they did. But these days propose anything just a little bit out of the box and even your local EAA guy starts telling you how crazy you are for not sticking to the "tried ways". It seems air-folk think that everything's been tried and any deviation from the set standard is to ask for death. If you get totally crazy, yes, I agree, you'll probably die, especially if you're "eyeball engineering", like many a self-styled builder is known to do. That's not what I mean here.
I feel that FAA certification has killed any innovation that is to be had in the industry. That is combined with a general lack of interest from young people in experimental flying (no, getting your com and bussing people around in a Caravan doesn't count). When the current (already oldish) generation of EAA-ers die, I'm not sure there are going to be significant numbers of people to replace them. I think, in about 15 years, I will be one of two EAA people left in my city, down from enough people to run the local EAA airfield by themselves. I cry for the day that particular initiative will die due to lack of interest.
This is why they're clearly wrong: "$#*! my dad says" is CLEARLY not the most controversial title they could've chosen. They could've gone straight for "Shit my dad says", but no, they actually "hid" the explitive, you know, to take into account sensitive ninnies. You just can't please some people.
EVE divides space into regions that have several (10) different levels of policing. This affects many game dynamics, but in short:
In systems with a security status >= 0.5: If you shoot at another player, the fuzz show up with overwhelming force almost immediately and kills you with extreme prejudice (aka: Empire space)
0.1 to 0.4: The fuzz won't show up to deal retribution, but gates and stations have stationary turrets that will fire on you if you shoot at other players within their range. (aka: Lowsec)
0.0: Absolutely lawless space. Anyone can shoot at anyone. Usually ruled by alliances because they have enough firepower to assure relative safety. (aka: Nullsec)
You can, if you want, pay isk to "declare war" on another corporation. In that case, all of the fuzz/turrets won't intervene, no matter the security status, as long as you only fire on THAT corp, of course.
At the end of the day, it's pretty easy to just whip out a camera-phone (these days this translates to "every cellphone"), and take a picture of the screen.
And what about those "Fast and the furious" movies? They seem to be all hipped to the point of dripping in R&B, flash cars, flashier chicks, big bonehead "I'm da man" mentality oozing everywhere. And oh wait, did that kid just whip out a laptop with his homies to tune the engine for optimal performance based on multiple variables? Oh snap!
I think computers are way cooler in young culture at the moment than we older guys think.
There's a circular reasoning to it too. It's okay for me to kill them, because they're going to kill me. And they're OK with killing me, because I'm going to kill them.
To all the captains obvious replying... Yes I knew that typing the reply. That is my whole point! No, we shouldn't value the lives of soldiers less because they're "expecting to die". No it's not acceptable just because we've been conditioned to believe it is. The human loss stays just as real, no matter how you prefer to rationalize it.
Ever think think that maybe, had we not put such a low threshold on the value of a soldiers' life, as compared to us normal civilians, that maybe wars wouldn't be fought as easily by the powers that be? In fact, my personal opinion is, those that are in power explicitly lower our perception of a soldiers' worth, or their "expectation to die", or "duty to die" using the terminology and news reporting as stated above, to convince us the loss of human life is acceptable. Would we make a bigger fuss about it to our leaders had we realized the true trauma playing out? No, it's way more comforting to think of soldiers as "volunteers to death" that we can sum up as numbers. What's our number vs theirs? Oh good, theirs is higher, YAY for DEATH! (I'll go out on a karmic limb here and say the opponent's soldier's lives are just as valuable as your sides)
That a soldier is really just a pawn in a game, and expected loss of life calculations don't really reflect the tragedy playing out. If we kill a 100k, and they kill 10k, that's clearly a good thing, go ahead and attack! Right?
I'm also quite sure it's part of a commander's internal rationalization, as much as his populace's, to stop himself from realizing what he's leading his men into.
Indeed, ever notice how such a big deal is made over "civilian" casualties, but soldiers, they almost don't even count. Oh well, 10k soldiers died, but HOLY MOLY! You killed a CIVILIAN!!!
I don't like the idea. But personally I'm not fussed about it. I have a FZ20 that I still use a lot. When I bought it, I bought an extra after-market battery to boot. The after market battery died within months, while the OEM one is still going strong years later.
So, from a practical standpoint, I don't think I care that much. I certainly know where they're coming from wrt crappy after-market batteries. But I do NOT think it justifies preventing other people from using them, and mat swing my dollar-vote next time around.
I'd say if you're into quality goods though, in this case, going with the OEM battery is probably a good idea to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
> Chrysler's standard 2.4-liter four-cylinder, the base engine in its minivan line
---
You know, there may be another way to save some gas here..... (tip to Americans, in Europe and elsewhere, 2.4 liters is not a "base" engine)
Like this....
http://ergo.contourdesign.com/products/rollermouse/default.aspx
(Not affiliated, but this article really is non-news to me)
I agree with the above, when you set out to write code knowing you're going to have to test it, it will influence how you do the design and insulate functionality from the rest of the system, in order to be easily testable.
The problem, however, is you've just made this guys problem even worse. He can't even get allocation for testing. Now he'll need allocation for refactoring AND testing.
My opinion is to break it down into small incremental changes that may take years to filter through the whole system. He can get into the habit RIGHT NOW of writing a small test case for every problem he finds, this will solve his immediate problem, well... immediately. It will focus testing only where it's most badly needed.
Then design wise, the thing to do would be for every problem found, see what can be re-factored and improved right there and then, and do it immediately (with test cases to prevent regression).
The trick then is to keep metrics of how many issues boomerang now, how much time is spent fixing them, and then also keep track of how many "test-cased-and-refactored" issues boomerang. Yes, this will require rigorous timekeeping.
When people started talking about flying cars the same stuff came up and the response is... Don't let Joe Soap fly it, make a computer do it.
You have to be reasonable here, either Joe has the capacity to qualify for a PPL (significantly harder than getting your license at the DMV), or you don't require a PPL, and have a machine fly the thing. This has positives like, no need for crazy-busy traffic control if the planes can talk to each other.
The only PROBLEM I see with that is a failure which will REQUIRE the passenger to intervene and fly by override. I guess worst case is you require a slimmed down version of a PPL.
BUT, all that aside, the article mentions "taxi" services. Which alleviates all these issues (and yes, your average cabby probably won't qualify for the license without quite a bit of sharpening up).
As far as I can see you couldn't have one without the other, if you return youthful vigor to your body that implies at least a partial extension of life span.
I would say if your drone just got shot out of the sky, it is a good indication that you can send a team of rangers.
Surely you mean Steven Seagal?
Agreed, I assign very little malice to a swear word. It's just a word, that a lot of people have decided is unacceptable, for some reason I fail to understand.
For example: We can say sex as many times as we want on TV. But not fuck. Why not? What made the one vulgar but the other not? It seems horribly arbitrary to me...
And why are people sad that the young generation no longer assign shock-and-horror to that word? Isn't that a good thing? We're LOSING a swear word!
The only effect this will have is, that the word "fuck" will no longer be of any use to someone who wants to use a swear word, and it'll drop out of common usage....
It's like the word "Bloody". For generations past, it was a HARSH curse word not to be uttered in ANY company. Now, nobody gives a fuck about it. :D
I don't live in the USA. But...
The USA sets the standard. If the FAA won't touch it, pretty much no-one else will, since their product will be useless in one of the top markets in the world, and I'm pretty sure the other major markets just follow the example of the USA anyway.
Also, indeed, it seems the experimental crowd grows smaller. I am 30, and by a huge margin the whippersnapper of the local EAA chapter. I'm not even that active, but I'm trying to get a plane built "someday". That's more than I can say for the rest of "gen-X". The sad part is, even though my composite plane will (hopefully someday) be light-years ahead of what the general-aviation guys are flying, it's still a design from the late 70's. There's not much "new" out there... The most radical guy I can think of is Rutan, and he's getting on in years now...
And that's the EXPERIMENTAL crowd. As far as I can tell, Cessna are only interested in stamping out their ancient designs for the rest of time. And why shouldn't they? the older aviation crowd wanna fly what they know... and the FAA are totally cool with that! I can hardly imagine any significant flying school not having a fleet of 172's. It's the status quo for the aviation guys, and status quo is all there is for them. I find this very irritating since I'm an IT person, and I want to see continuous improvement and experimentation.
Aviation had an age where people were free to try new things, and try they did. But these days propose anything just a little bit out of the box and even your local EAA guy starts telling you how crazy you are for not sticking to the "tried ways". It seems air-folk think that everything's been tried and any deviation from the set standard is to ask for death. If you get totally crazy, yes, I agree, you'll probably die, especially if you're "eyeball engineering", like many a self-styled builder is known to do. That's not what I mean here.
I feel that FAA certification has killed any innovation that is to be had in the industry. That is combined with a general lack of interest from young people in experimental flying (no, getting your com and bussing people around in a Caravan doesn't count). When the current (already oldish) generation of EAA-ers die, I'm not sure there are going to be significant numbers of people to replace them. I think, in about 15 years, I will be one of two EAA people left in my city, down from enough people to run the local EAA airfield by themselves. I cry for the day that particular initiative will die due to lack of interest.
This is why they're clearly wrong: "$#*! my dad says" is CLEARLY not the most controversial title they could've chosen. They could've gone straight for "Shit my dad says", but no, they actually "hid" the explitive, you know, to take into account sensitive ninnies. You just can't please some people.
0.0 through 1.0 in 0.1 increments. Mine is but a high-level overview.
EVE divides space into regions that have several (10) different levels of policing. This affects many game dynamics, but in short:
In systems with a security status >= 0.5: If you shoot at another player, the fuzz show up with overwhelming force almost immediately and kills you with extreme prejudice (aka: Empire space)
0.1 to 0.4: The fuzz won't show up to deal retribution, but gates and stations have stationary turrets that will fire on you if you shoot at other players within their range. (aka: Lowsec)
0.0: Absolutely lawless space. Anyone can shoot at anyone. Usually ruled by alliances because they have enough firepower to assure relative safety. (aka: Nullsec)
You can, if you want, pay isk to "declare war" on another corporation. In that case, all of the fuzz/turrets won't intervene, no matter the security status, as long as you only fire on THAT corp, of course.
And the Sierra games...
At the end of the day, it's pretty easy to just whip out a camera-phone (these days this translates to "every cellphone"), and take a picture of the screen.
Perhaps they've just proven that a very early stage of cancer (like damaged DNA) prevents alzheimers...
And what about those "Fast and the furious" movies? They seem to be all hipped to the point of dripping in R&B, flash cars, flashier chicks, big bonehead "I'm da man" mentality oozing everywhere. And oh wait, did that kid just whip out a laptop with his homies to tune the engine for optimal performance based on multiple variables? Oh snap!
I think computers are way cooler in young culture at the moment than we older guys think.
There's a circular reasoning to it too. It's okay for me to kill them, because they're going to kill me. And they're OK with killing me, because I'm going to kill them.
To all the captains obvious replying... Yes I knew that typing the reply. That is my whole point! No, we shouldn't value the lives of soldiers less because they're "expecting to die". No it's not acceptable just because we've been conditioned to believe it is. The human loss stays just as real, no matter how you prefer to rationalize it.
Ever think think that maybe, had we not put such a low threshold on the value of a soldiers' life, as compared to us normal civilians, that maybe wars wouldn't be fought as easily by the powers that be? In fact, my personal opinion is, those that are in power explicitly lower our perception of a soldiers' worth, or their "expectation to die", or "duty to die" using the terminology and news reporting as stated above, to convince us the loss of human life is acceptable. Would we make a bigger fuss about it to our leaders had we realized the true trauma playing out? No, it's way more comforting to think of soldiers as "volunteers to death" that we can sum up as numbers. What's our number vs theirs? Oh good, theirs is higher, YAY for DEATH! (I'll go out on a karmic limb here and say the opponent's soldier's lives are just as valuable as your sides)
That a soldier is really just a pawn in a game, and expected loss of life calculations don't really reflect the tragedy playing out. If we kill a 100k, and they kill 10k, that's clearly a good thing, go ahead and attack! Right?
I'm also quite sure it's part of a commander's internal rationalization, as much as his populace's, to stop himself from realizing what he's leading his men into.
Indeed, ever notice how such a big deal is made over "civilian" casualties, but soldiers, they almost don't even count. Oh well, 10k soldiers died, but HOLY MOLY! You killed a CIVILIAN!!!
I think I'd make just as bad a soldier as you.
Patent application granted to "Telkom Communications" for a "method for transmitting data via avian carrier", even though lots of prior art exists.
So now you won't using ethereal to sniff packets. But a shotgun.
"And now, they're looking at banning toy guns.... and they're going to KEEP THE FUCKING REAL ONES!" - George Carlin
Damn giraffes never use their signals, they should all have their licenses revoked.
I don't like the idea. But personally I'm not fussed about it. I have a FZ20 that I still use a lot. When I bought it, I bought an extra after-market battery to boot. The after market battery died within months, while the OEM one is still going strong years later.
So, from a practical standpoint, I don't think I care that much. I certainly know where they're coming from wrt crappy after-market batteries. But I do NOT think it justifies preventing other people from using them, and mat swing my dollar-vote next time around.
I'd say if you're into quality goods though, in this case, going with the OEM battery is probably a good idea to begin with.
I recall watching this TED talk a while ago that touches on the subject of how defaults heavily influence our decisions. Cool stuff:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html