Software bugs fall into three broad catagories, regardless how QA labels them:
1. Insignificant (font size on menu two it 1 point bigger than menu 2)
2. Average - (If you click the menu, while holding down the alt key, a wrong menu pops up), at least 85% of the bugs are here.
3. WTF - (The wrong user is updated if you keep hitting 'save').
All 2's and 3's need to be fixed - you can set priority to schedule which ones to do first, but you cannot ignore them. The error witnessed is often just one manifestation of a bug, the other results from the same coding error could be worse.
We are never going to ship bug free software, but if we know about it before we ship, we needs to be fixed.
The example surprised me, if I have to drill down 20 freakin levels and then the app blows - i'm going to cuss, and cuss loudly (and may stop using the software). I thought the example of the bug to ignore, was going to be an example of one NOT to ignore.
Take a look at the doc itself, it seem to propose just that.
"This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org
Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,
and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to
convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site."
Here's a great site brightstation.com. These are the people that purchased Boo.com's software. Man, that software is smokin. Show this site to you coworker and time how long s/he clicks around before giving up.
Throughout its history, the Oxford English Dictionary has been enriched by evidence contributed by readers. One hundred and twenty years ago, James Murray, original editor of the OED, launched an 'Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public of Great Britain, America and the British Colonies' for words for the Dictionary. This appeal was relaunched in 1999 by the current editor, John Simpson . ..
Obviously, OED editors haven't come across the new 'wiki' word yet.
I often wonder how to approach a miserable job. In some of my more Marxist moods, I think that working in a job that one enjoys is an appropriate thing to demand. Hey, we are a very wealthy country and would should be able to collectively afford the freedom for individuals to 'improve' society by doing what they enjoy (at least not loathe). However, in other moods this seems naive or unrealistic. A comedian once said "If you don't like your job, there is a group for that...it called the human race". Further, I am confused, utterly, on why I find my current position so miserable. Maybe it is something internal - immaturity, unrealistic expectations,etc. or maybe the reasons really are the external ones (work environs) that I recite to my wife every weekday afternoon.
In sum, It is a very good question without an easy answer. Fuck I hate capitalism - I really want to be happy with my work.
It appears Hericlitus did have something to say about all the perl-lisp-c++-java flamewars!
Hericlitus said that the universe was nothing but conflict and strife. What was experienced was illusion. What there is is a constant incessant flux, a raging fire. What is real is the logos (the binary code), that which lies beneath the fire.http://n4bz.org/gsr/gsr7.htm
'Hericlitus' is the correct english transliteration.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/heraclit.htm
I haven't seen the 'Heriklitos' transliteration before. If one want's to nit pick, even the name as it is spelled using Attic Greek letters found in your ancient greek class were actually created in the middle ages, to disambiguate the Greek language as written by Plato, Aristotle, et. al.
I'll go a little further with this pop-culture thing. There is a law of software development that states: any technology that takes more smarts or attention than is available to the programmer, that programmer will classify it as 'stupid' and will claim it as only a product of good marketing or a mass duping of a large group of gullable people (pop culture). Alan's point is there are many in the field that don't have the background or intellectual rigor to understand what good programming languages provide, thus [my interp] those people will label those languages or features as 'stupid' or unuseful. I'm worried that your opinions of HTML and XML fall into this category. So, sir, you may be in that pop culture that Alan complains about. The only way to be sure you are not is to provide some good arguments supporting you position.
They had to do an IPO, the feds forced them to. You see, once a company has given away engough stock (to employees, etc) then the gov steps in and says you are in effect a public company (lookee at all the people that have shares) and must follow the rules and processes all public companies must follow (they are protecting all those people that have shares) - so Google was forced to register with a stock exchange and print up pretty reports to the SEC. They didn't want to go public.
I don't believe the sacasm was missed. Why does one use sarcasm? Well, it is often used to show the sillyness of a position. Sarcastically stating a silly consequence of a position suggests that one should reconsider that position. Surely it is an immature and often misleading approach to public dialog, because it doesn't suggest which part of a postition should, and should not be abandoned.
The parent was suggesting by his sarcasm that there is too much blame being placed on these controversial groups. Given that some of these groups are considered by many to be very terrible, many will find the ambigous suggestion behind the sarcasm to be immature and misleading. Surely this sort of this should be pointed out on/.
Shame on you. The activities of those groups you cite are horrible, irrational, and in some cases down right evil. By overstating their responsibility here, you hope all the blame toward these irresponsible groups would likewise be dismissed. A fallacious ad absurdium argument. Shame on you for such weak resoning regarding some rather terrible people.
Slashdot Mirror
you are homophobic
Software bugs fall into three broad catagories, regardless how QA labels them: 1. Insignificant (font size on menu two it 1 point bigger than menu 2) 2. Average - (If you click the menu, while holding down the alt key, a wrong menu pops up), at least 85% of the bugs are here. 3. WTF - (The wrong user is updated if you keep hitting 'save'). All 2's and 3's need to be fixed - you can set priority to schedule which ones to do first, but you cannot ignore them. The error witnessed is often just one manifestation of a bug, the other results from the same coding error could be worse. We are never going to ship bug free software, but if we know about it before we ship, we needs to be fixed. The example surprised me, if I have to drill down 20 freakin levels and then the app blows - i'm going to cuss, and cuss loudly (and may stop using the software). I thought the example of the bug to ignore, was going to be an example of one NOT to ignore.
Take a look at the doc itself, it seem to propose just that. "This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site."
I read somewhere that they are selling the crap out of these. Sounds like a bunch of greedy bags to me.
Here's a great site brightstation.com. These are the people that purchased Boo.com's software. Man, that software is smokin. Show this site to you coworker and time how long s/he clicks around before giving up.
From OED's web site:
.
Throughout its history, the Oxford English Dictionary has been enriched by evidence contributed by readers. One hundred and twenty years ago, James Murray, original editor of the OED, launched an 'Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public of Great Britain, America and the British Colonies' for words for the Dictionary. This appeal was relaunched in 1999 by the current editor, John Simpson . .
Obviously, OED editors haven't come across the new 'wiki' word yet.
Of course galactic, airlock and core are standard english words. Perhaps, their meanings in a SF context, are what's recorded in a SF dictionary.
I often wonder how to approach a miserable job. In some of my more Marxist moods, I think that working in a job that one enjoys is an appropriate thing to demand. Hey, we are a very wealthy country and would should be able to collectively afford the freedom for individuals to 'improve' society by doing what they enjoy (at least not loathe). However, in other moods this seems naive or unrealistic. A comedian once said "If you don't like your job, there is a group for that...it called the human race". Further, I am confused, utterly, on why I find my current position so miserable. Maybe it is something internal - immaturity, unrealistic expectations,etc. or maybe the reasons really are the external ones (work environs) that I recite to my wife every weekday afternoon. In sum, It is a very good question without an easy answer. Fuck I hate capitalism - I really want to be happy with my work.
Oracle makes a product for Platonic functions, called Oracle Forms. he he.
Yep. http://www.compiere.org/
It appears Hericlitus did have something to say about all the perl-lisp-c++-java flamewars!
Hericlitus said that the universe was nothing but conflict and strife. What was experienced was illusion. What there is is a constant incessant flux, a raging fire. What is real is the logos (the binary code), that which lies beneath the fire. http://n4bz.org/gsr/gsr7.htm
'Hericlitus' is the correct english transliteration. http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/heraclit.htm I haven't seen the 'Heriklitos' transliteration before. If one want's to nit pick, even the name as it is spelled using Attic Greek letters found in your ancient greek class were actually created in the middle ages, to disambiguate the Greek language as written by Plato, Aristotle, et. al.
I'll go a little further with this pop-culture thing. There is a law of software development that states: any technology that takes more smarts or attention than is available to the programmer, that programmer will classify it as 'stupid' and will claim it as only a product of good marketing or a mass duping of a large group of gullable people (pop culture). Alan's point is there are many in the field that don't have the background or intellectual rigor to understand what good programming languages provide, thus [my interp] those people will label those languages or features as 'stupid' or unuseful. I'm worried that your opinions of HTML and XML fall into this category. So, sir, you may be in that pop culture that Alan complains about. The only way to be sure you are not is to provide some good arguments supporting you position.
They had to do an IPO, the feds forced them to. You see, once a company has given away engough stock (to employees, etc) then the gov steps in and says you are in effect a public company (lookee at all the people that have shares) and must follow the rules and processes all public companies must follow (they are protecting all those people that have shares) - so Google was forced to register with a stock exchange and print up pretty reports to the SEC. They didn't want to go public.
I don't believe the sacasm was missed. Why does one use sarcasm? Well, it is often used to show the sillyness of a position. Sarcastically stating a silly consequence of a position suggests that one should reconsider that position. Surely it is an immature and often misleading approach to public dialog, because it doesn't suggest which part of a postition should, and should not be abandoned. The parent was suggesting by his sarcasm that there is too much blame being placed on these controversial groups. Given that some of these groups are considered by many to be very terrible, many will find the ambigous suggestion behind the sarcasm to be immature and misleading. Surely this sort of this should be pointed out on /.
Shame on you. The activities of those groups you cite are horrible, irrational, and in some cases down right evil. By overstating their responsibility here, you hope all the blame toward these irresponsible groups would likewise be dismissed. A fallacious ad absurdium argument. Shame on you for such weak resoning regarding some rather terrible people.