Code reviews are valuable.
Try both automated and human reviews.
Automated reviews are as simple as coming to the table with a profile of the code and quick ratios that make sense to your application. We run scripts against our source code control system to 'score' certain things... even a basic % changed is useful in prioritizing human review. Finding redundant code is another good check.
Human reviews can be useful with the right folks. Subject matter experts (on the problem space, not technology), senior engineers/architects, and SA/DBAs are always good. Don't waste time - bring it in, review the high risk areas. More reviews on common libraries, less (or none) on single use situations.
Exactly. They should create one, our copy the existing one.
America has become too global. Constant association with despotic regimes, backward religions and heartless capitalism is polluting our on internal dialogue. Why is the Middle East even on the news when we have serious issues of education, civil rights and personal freedom to be concerned about.
Only fools invest without return. Net neutrality is just a ploy to allow wealthy California java jockeys to exploit the hard earned physical assets of large corporations. Hundreds of thousands have worked to build this infrastructure, and net neutrality is just another way for California rich boys to swoop in an make money on that investment... and leave the telcom pension accounts bankrupt. Hard working corporate employees have invested decades in this infrastructure, and will now find their long term investments liquidated through short sighted profit taking of sockless 20 years with pierced faces.
Ceding control of the internet is a liquidation strategy. International control of the net is a lot like net neutrality in that it separates the Return from the Investment. Once large corporations - the economic engine of the West - understand they will never be allowed a more than modest Return on long term Investments, they will cease to invest in truly innovative technologies. Russia, China and others do NOT want to take the internet to the next level. Instead, they want to control and confine what is there. These nations approach the internet with a LIQUIDATION STRATEGY; they want to consume its benefits, not expand its reach.
Ideas grow, change or die. The liquidation strategy for the internet will kill it within 10 to 20 years. This is not a rail system, and other nations do not understand the difference.
America will never share the internet. It is not economically possible. Even if that is what the politicians think they are doing, they are really just giving the world the current 20 year old system. American industry will need a replacement system that is not constrained by less innovative minds. And in 10 years, we will be discussing this again.
What the world really wants is not to control the internet. Smart minds abroad understand that we will just create another. That is WHY they will not create their own.
What the world wants is to control America's internet. They need to both tether our explosive information sharing and tap into the economic engine it has been become. Russia and China only win if they can leech off the American internet for economic and political power. At least until we come up with the next disruptive technology... and like after the free market, nuclear weapons, space travel and the internet... they will collectively scratch their heads and begin to adapt... and eventually want a say in how we use that, too.
I'm not thinking the UN is a role model for the betterment of mankind. And, of course, maintaining the internet would then be 5 times more expensive (due to the bribes and kickbacks required).
yes, I am sure that the microsoft contract negotiations are just a ploy to get a better price on the open source software.:)
This is clearly an indication of how deeply infected the Dutch IT scene is. Really, it's funny. The original open source decision was to prevent companies like MS from being able to gain subtle control of the IT decisions... but now it looks like the MPs were a couple of years too late.:)
I say, give microsoft its Dane's Geld and move on. Don't tick them off, or they'll raise the price even further (and its obvious the Dutch will HAVE to pay...).
Slashdot Mirror
Code reviews are valuable. Try both automated and human reviews. Automated reviews are as simple as coming to the table with a profile of the code and quick ratios that make sense to your application. We run scripts against our source code control system to 'score' certain things... even a basic % changed is useful in prioritizing human review. Finding redundant code is another good check. Human reviews can be useful with the right folks. Subject matter experts (on the problem space, not technology), senior engineers/architects, and SA/DBAs are always good. Don't waste time - bring it in, review the high risk areas. More reviews on common libraries, less (or none) on single use situations.
Exactly. They should create one, our copy the existing one. America has become too global. Constant association with despotic regimes, backward religions and heartless capitalism is polluting our on internal dialogue. Why is the Middle East even on the news when we have serious issues of education, civil rights and personal freedom to be concerned about. Only fools invest without return. Net neutrality is just a ploy to allow wealthy California java jockeys to exploit the hard earned physical assets of large corporations. Hundreds of thousands have worked to build this infrastructure, and net neutrality is just another way for California rich boys to swoop in an make money on that investment... and leave the telcom pension accounts bankrupt. Hard working corporate employees have invested decades in this infrastructure, and will now find their long term investments liquidated through short sighted profit taking of sockless 20 years with pierced faces. Ceding control of the internet is a liquidation strategy. International control of the net is a lot like net neutrality in that it separates the Return from the Investment. Once large corporations - the economic engine of the West - understand they will never be allowed a more than modest Return on long term Investments, they will cease to invest in truly innovative technologies. Russia, China and others do NOT want to take the internet to the next level. Instead, they want to control and confine what is there. These nations approach the internet with a LIQUIDATION STRATEGY; they want to consume its benefits, not expand its reach. Ideas grow, change or die. The liquidation strategy for the internet will kill it within 10 to 20 years. This is not a rail system, and other nations do not understand the difference. America will never share the internet. It is not economically possible. Even if that is what the politicians think they are doing, they are really just giving the world the current 20 year old system. American industry will need a replacement system that is not constrained by less innovative minds. And in 10 years, we will be discussing this again. What the world really wants is not to control the internet. Smart minds abroad understand that we will just create another. That is WHY they will not create their own. What the world wants is to control America's internet. They need to both tether our explosive information sharing and tap into the economic engine it has been become. Russia and China only win if they can leech off the American internet for economic and political power. At least until we come up with the next disruptive technology... and like after the free market, nuclear weapons, space travel and the internet... they will collectively scratch their heads and begin to adapt... and eventually want a say in how we use that, too.
I'm not thinking the UN is a role model for the betterment of mankind. And, of course, maintaining the internet would then be 5 times more expensive (due to the bribes and kickbacks required).
I would have thought Bose would have made the list. The company has majorly repositioned its legacy systems to support new digital units and formats.
yes, I am sure that the microsoft contract negotiations are just a ploy to get a better price on the open source software. :)
This is clearly an indication of how deeply infected the Dutch IT scene is. Really, it's funny. The original open source decision was to prevent companies like MS from being able to gain subtle control of the IT decisions... but now it looks like the MPs were a couple of years too late. :)
I say, give microsoft its Dane's Geld and move on. Don't tick them off, or they'll raise the price even further (and its obvious the Dutch will HAVE to pay...).