everyone will read it and post it on Slashdot. This guy is using kernels of truth to act as if those kernels of truth are indisputable evidence of his incorrect conclusions. e.g. "The sky is blue. Blue is the color of water. Therefor if I fly I will drown."
The same passion is what makes the genre strong, it also is what leads to the last minute SOSs. Just get on with it. This is just a way for the writer to put a spin on an otherwise sorta lame article.
There is a common misconception that the origianl issues with blocked VoIP calls originated at the ISP level. Let me repeat: "It did not occur at the ISP level.". It was blocked inside the phone network of the Telco, which is entirely different on many many levels. This precedence is unrelated to your ISP's regulation of your ports.
Re:Requirements?
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is a sign that there was no quality assurance during the requirement gathering. Which probably means you were not actually starting your "QA process" , but were actually starting "testing".
To sum it up
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Quality assurance is a process that runs through the entire project, testing is a component of that process.
When building software there is a tendency to lump quality assurance and testing together precipitously at the end of a project. The distinction that is made in this article is an important one, true quality and successful projects are obtained by having quality assurance as a project long process. Then you have quality assurance during requirements, design, development and yes even testing.
Upon reading this again... I realize that the Micrsoft Solution Framework really gets at this idea very well, while still being applicable to large projects. It also attempts to protect against "releasing demo code". It heavily advocates early and continuous builds with an ever expanding capability, so that the development is always *technically* at a releasable stage (within reason).
Well, since I know.NET and I have used this ability in.NET I can speak to.net.
Excuse me for trying not to be an expert on everything oh 'god of compilers'. If I had made a mistake on speaking to something else, you guys would be chewing out for a mistake. Now you're chewing me out for being too specific.
Take the two sample ways to implement and then compile them. Then look at the MSIL that is created, if they are the same, then they were optimized to be identical. This works for most simple constructs, such as the one in the message body. If they are different then you have to know the relative costs of what the MSIL is doing in order to figure it out.
Well, considering the primary TiVo problem is hardware cost... Apple sounds good. If anyone can figure out how to drop overpriced hardware onto people it is Apple. Of course, I thought the TiVo had real promise... if the perennial also-rans at Apple buy it.. maybe it *is* doomed.
p.s. I know Ipods are selling well, I am more referring to their history in the PC market... and being a bit of troll.:)
People seem to think that xforms *requires* you to code to all of its complexity. Which is not true. Their design allows for a great deal of complexity, but can be used in a much simpler form for simple interactions.
I see this being used heavily in internal or B2B application initially... so really browser difference problems might be shielded during the shakeout period.
Its really rather idiotic in fact, because the XForms implementation will not require replacing a few hundred million browsers. Whoever got that idea, just doesn't understand how it really works. The other ways of doing forms will still work. No one said "Oh no, you can't do forms with Perl or PHP anymore once.Net comes out."
he seems to think that regular forms and regular HTML will just go *poof* which is not true. there are a lot of business apps that desperately need a more complex way to do forms (preferably tied to XML somehow) but the average user *will* still be able to use plain old HTML forms.
web forms 2.0 would essentially operate withing the existing capabilities of the browsers, but provide a standard structure to provide the functionality. ala a "forms library".
You forgot number 3: The microsoft standard actually deals with the real world business needs for these forms.
And number 4: The "evolutionary" method is a load of crap that has been tried before (in essence, and in a non-published/standardized way)by people such as myself and it always sucks eggs once implemented for anything more than posting porn to a bit torrent tracker.
It is not a no brainer. There is far more going on that the micrsoft idea and "purists" at the W3C are dealing with. Most notable, web form generation from meta data (in a well designed way) that can generate forms for passage through XML middleware (like biztalk and some java stuff out there) without a ton of work for minor modifications and on a large scale. It is most certainly not a no-brainer.
yeah, they didn't say the software "couldn't do it" they just said that "no one had confirmed that it could do it", and without that it shouldn't be used for evidence... makes sense to me too
Slashdot Mirror
everyone will read it and post it on Slashdot. This guy is using kernels of truth to act as if those kernels of truth are indisputable evidence of his incorrect conclusions. e.g. "The sky is blue. Blue is the color of water. Therefor if I fly I will drown."
The same passion is what makes the genre strong, it also is what leads to the last minute SOSs. Just get on with it. This is just a way for the writer to put a spin on an otherwise sorta lame article.
No. In actuality, the article (or article author) you reference is as confused as everyone else.
I for one am sick of corps trying to preserve dieing business models by abusing existing power structures.
Here here!
It's so pervasive though as to make you think it is just plain inevitable. Something that can not be stopped but can only be guarded...
Copernicus and the church... a very old sample of abuse of existing power structures....
There is a common misconception that the origianl issues with blocked VoIP calls originated at the ISP level. Let me repeat: "It did not occur at the ISP level.". It was blocked inside the phone network of the Telco, which is entirely different on many many levels. This precedence is unrelated to your ISP's regulation of your ports.
This is a sign that there was no quality assurance during the requirement gathering. Which probably means you were not actually starting your "QA process" , but were actually starting "testing".
Quality assurance is a process that runs through the entire project, testing is a component of that process.
When building software there is a tendency to lump quality assurance and testing together precipitously at the end of a project. The distinction that is made in this article is an important one, true quality and successful projects are obtained by having quality assurance as a project long process. Then you have quality assurance during requirements, design, development and yes even testing.
Upon reading this again... I realize that the Micrsoft Solution Framework really gets at this idea very well, while still being applicable to large projects. It also attempts to protect against "releasing demo code". It heavily advocates early and continuous builds with an ever expanding capability, so that the development is always *technically* at a releasable stage (within reason).
Flame away for mentioning MS in a good light.
He doesn't say what you would do different if you follow this approach though.. at least not that I can tease out of it.
Well, since I know .NET and I have used this ability in .NET I can speak to .net.
.NET has an easy way to do this.
Excuse me for trying not to be an expert on everything oh 'god of compilers'. If I had made a mistake on speaking to something else, you guys would be chewing out for a mistake. Now you're chewing me out for being too specific.
It is a fact that
name one, with some kind of supporting docs
Take the two sample ways to implement and then compile them. Then look at the MSIL that is created, if they are the same, then they were optimized to be identical. This works for most simple constructs, such as the one in the message body. If they are different then you have to know the relative costs of what the MSIL is doing in order to figure it out.
Well, considering the primary TiVo problem is hardware cost... Apple sounds good. If anyone can figure out how to drop overpriced hardware onto people it is Apple. Of course, I thought the TiVo had real promise... if the perennial also-rans at Apple buy it.. maybe it *is* doomed.
:)
p.s. I know Ipods are selling well, I am more referring to their history in the PC market... and being a bit of troll.
People seem to think that xforms *requires* you to code to all of its complexity. Which is not true. Their design allows for a great deal of complexity, but can be used in a much simpler form for simple interactions.
I was using middleware in its most generic sense. A process, application, server, etc. that is neither a database nor provides user interface.
I see this being used heavily in internal or B2B application initially... so really browser difference problems might be shielded during the shakeout period.
Its really rather idiotic in fact, because the XForms implementation will not require replacing a few hundred million browsers. Whoever got that idea, just doesn't understand how it really works. The other ways of doing forms will still work. No one said "Oh no, you can't do forms with Perl or PHP anymore once .Net comes out."
he seems to think that regular forms and regular HTML will just go *poof* which is not true. there are a lot of business apps that desperately need a more complex way to do forms (preferably tied to XML somehow) but the average user *will* still be able to use plain old HTML forms.
web forms 2.0 would essentially operate withing the existing capabilities of the browsers, but provide a standard structure to provide the functionality. ala a "forms library".
You forgot number 3: The microsoft standard actually deals with the real world business needs for these forms.
And number 4: The "evolutionary" method is a load of crap that has been tried before (in essence, and in a non-published/standardized way)by people such as myself and it always sucks eggs once implemented for anything more than posting porn to a bit torrent tracker.
It is not a no brainer. There is far more going on that the micrsoft idea and "purists" at the W3C are dealing with. Most notable, web form generation from meta data (in a well designed way) that can generate forms for passage through XML middleware (like biztalk and some java stuff out there) without a ton of work for minor modifications and on a large scale. It is most certainly not a no-brainer.
that guy is an asshat, enuff said
Also, I've had my TiVo for more than two years, so the lifetime subscription has paid for itself.
Is this why they have added 1.3 million subscribers in the last year?
yeah, they didn't say the software "couldn't do it" they just said that "no one had confirmed that it could do it", and without that it shouldn't be used for evidence... makes sense to me too
more FUD. It doesn't "stop working". It just can't get any more channel data so it will stop automatically recording things.