As ironic as this is given Microsoft's big LSE advertising in the past, if they're having trouble with their current set up it's the fault of whatever programmers wrote it and not of.NET.
This is just as true as saying that the utility of the original system for which the LSE is seeking a replacement is a testament to the skill of the programmers of the particular system, and says nothing about the.NET environment (and Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2000, and all the other "infrastructure" technologies that were used to support it.)
Microsoft, OTOH, wasn't shy about using the deal to trumpet the strength of those components, so clearly, by Microsoft's own standards, that system losing out to a system which abandons Microsoft's infrastructure says just as much negative about the utility of Microsoft's infrastructure technology as the initial adoption said positive about it.
the LSE track record on technology is either funny or shameful, but certainly I would count them picking your system as an "endorsement" of the same order as being Bernie Madoff's accountant...
Why is this news? Sun/Solaris dominated the high-end financial sector for ages...any exchange/trading house/equity firm/etc that is using Windows is insane IMHO.
Its news because, in fact -- whether or not it was "insane" to do so -- the London Stock Exchange was relying on Windows,.NET, and other Microsoft products: "As part of its strategy to win more trading business and new customers, the London Stock Exchange needed a scalable, reliable, high-performance stock exchange ticker plant to replace its earlier system. Roughly 40 per cent of the Exchange's revenues are generated by the sale of real-time information about stock prices. Using the Microsoft®.NET Framework in Windows Server® 2003 and the Microsoft SQL Server(TM) 2000 database, the new Infolect® system has been built to achieve unprecedented levels of performance, availability, and business agility. Launched in September 2005, it is maintaining the London Stock Exchange's world-leading service reliability record while reducing latency by a factor of 15. Its successful implementation, with support from Microsoft and Accenture, shows the London Stock Exchange's leadership in developing next-generation trading systems." (source: Microsoft.)
The Patent Free parts are covered by the legally Binding Microsoft Community Promise
Microsoft claiming that something is safe doesn't actually mean it is.
Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?
A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise.
It may not always be a good idea to take legal advice from the party that would be on the other side if a legal issue arose: while, aside from the unambiguous "yes", this is might be generally true, note that the words "may be enforceable" are very important. The doctrine which makes such unilateral promises potentially enforceable is the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which only makes them enforceable where there has been reasonable, detrimental reliance on the promise, and to the extent the court finds it is necessary to prevent injustice resulting from the detrimental reliance on the promise.
Promissory estoppel does not prevent the promise from being revoked in the future, and does not apply in cases where reliance on the promise was not reasonable (such as when it was relied on after it was revoked, with actual knowledge of the revocation), and does not, even where it does apply, (as, enforcement of actually legally-binding terms, like those in a contract, would) necessarily enforce the terms as stated, but instead enforces them only insofar as is seen necessary to prevent "injustice", often measured not by the value of what is committed to in the promise, but by the value of the detriment incurred in relying on it, which may be much smaller in some cases.
I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.
RMS's post neither contains a personal attack on you nor lacks substantive comment. It does mention the fact that the CodePlex board has a number of current and former Microsoft employees and that you are a Microsoft apologist (which is, in fact, true, you are unquestionably a defender of Microsoft against critics in the FOSS community, and someone who defends someone against critics is an apologist) as a reason why people are wary of CodePlex, but also dismisses that as a basis for concluding that CodePlex's actions will be bad. He does that in the first paragraph.
The rest of the article he spends analyzing specific statements and actions of Microsoft, CodePlex, and the employees of both and making arguments as to why those actions and statements should be worrying to people who share Stallman's Free Software philosophy. Whether one disagrees with either the philosophy or the conclusions, it is ridiculous to dismiss the post as content-free.
I don't know whether you are clueless enough that you really think your description is accurate, or if you just think so little of your readers here that you expect them to believe it.
Given the context, it was supposed to be taken as one.
The context was Stallman noting it as (when viewed along with the fact that the background of other board members) a basis for wariness about CodePlex, but dismissing it as a basis for concluding that CodePlex's actions will be bad, before going on to focus on specific actions and statements of Microsoft and CodePlex are to point to areas where those statements, rather than the identities of its board members, were reasons for concern.
The paragraph referring to Icaza as an "apologist" is, in full:
Many in our community are suspicious of the CodePlex Foundation. With its board of directors dominated by Microsoft employees and ex-employees, plus apologist Miguel de Icaza, there is plenty of reason to be wary of the organization. But that doesn't prove its actions will be bad.
This is not a pejorative use. It is pointing to a relevant source of bias as a basis for concern that future actions might be tainted by that bias, and then also stating that that bias is not alone a basis for concluding that future actions by the biased actor will be bad.
It's also the only reference to de Icaza in the article; both Icaza's claim that the article is content free and his claim that it features are personal attack on him ring rather hollow. One might disagree with the importance of the Free Software philosophy that Stallman embraces, and (even if one does not) one might validly disagree with his painting of the particular actions cited in the article as reasons for concerns about Mirosoft/CodePlex's intentions with regard to Free Software, but it is ludicrous to paint the article as content free, and even more ludicrous to paint to the reference to the relationship of board members including Icaza to Microsoft as a "personal attack" on Icaza.
A more fair analysis of his blog would be that Microsoft needs to be steered in the right direction and there are some good people on the inside trying to do this.
The only way for people on the outside to help steer a company in the right direction is to vote with their dollars and make sure that it is clear why they are doing it. For-profit companies go where the money leads, or they fail and are replaced with ones that do.
According to sources laid out here The upper middle class (high 5 figure to well over $100,000 range) is about 15% of the population.
The "upper middle class" is usually the quintile above the middle quintile and below the top quintile (indeed, the one source cited in the article that actually links class terms to income quintiles uses it that way.) But the high-five-figure (~$88,000 or ~$91,000, depending on which of the figures cited in that article you use) "to well over $100,000" (actually unbounded on the top) group identified in the article is the top quintile (20%) of households, and somewhat less than that of population.
Since Apple has about a 12% market share it could be extrapolated (hypothetically since we would need more empirical data to corroborate) that a good portion of that 12% are, in fact, upper middle class and thus are more likely to have the funds to spend on multiple computing devices.
Even if the first part was an accurate description, this doesn't describe facts from which the conclusion stated would be justified. There are other reasons for suspecting that Apple's userbase is largely above median income, but the fact that their share of the market is within a few percentage points of the percentage of the population in the group you describe as "upper middle class", even if you slice up income groups to make that true, doesn't support that conclusion in the slightest.
If you slice up the population right, you can find an income group at any point on the spectrum that is approximately the same size relative to the whole population as the Apple share is to the whole computing market. This means absolutely nothing.
Re:netcraft didn't confirm but Perl is dying
on
Perl 5.11.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Nice to hear of the universe between your ears, where it's a fantasy island that you created yourself. Perl is the 5th most popular language on Github (and Ruby doesn't count because Engine Yard give Ruby guys free accounts).
Github gives everyone free accounts for open source development. But Github popularity isn't a measure of much of anything about a language, its more useful to tell you which communities Github has gained popularity in than which languages are widely used.
You claim, "The meaning of the transitive form is essentially a generalization of the intransitive form such that the intransitive form is identical to the transitive form with the assumed object being the question actually at issue in the debate." I fail to see how this is the case.
Its very simple.
People use the transitive construction to merely mean "raise the question", as the parent pointed out. There is absolutely no sense of circular argument in this case.
Correct, because the question for which a resolution is demanded in the more general, transitive use, is generally not the one that was already the subject of debate, as it would be in the more specific, intransitive use.
There is no sense of assuming the conclusions amongst your premises.
Correct. Assuming the conclusions amongst your premises is the intransitive use of the phrase "begs the question". Doing so demands a resolution of the same question that was at issue initially. While this is not the origin of the phrase "begs the question" in its transitive use, it is an accurate description of the situation described in the transitive use and consistent with the common English usage of the words in the phrase, and it shows how the transitive use may have been generalized from the intransitive use.
In response to your second point, there is indeed a problem with the transitive use: It causes confusion when people encounter the intransitive use.
Except that it doesn't. The intransitive use is no more (and probably less) confusing encountered with experience with the transitive use than it is with no experience with either use; the reason the intransitive use is confusing on first encounter, with or without knowledge of the transitive use, is that (aside from being viewed as a specific case of the transitive use with a non-obvious implicit object) the construction isn't really connected to the current English uses of the words that make it up when encountered outside of the phrase.
My inclination would be to favor the original sense of the construction, and discourage what you call the transitive use.
If I had to prefer one use -- which I don't, plenty of words and phrases have different meanings in intransitive and transitive senses, and transitive and intransitive uses are readily disambiguated by the sentence strucutre -- I'd prefer the one that was consistent with the meanings of the words outside of the construction, especially since the other one doesn't have any benefit in clear communication (not even in terms of compactly expressing an idea that would otherwise require a longer phrase, since "assuming the conclusion", which doesn't require any words used outside of their normal sense, isn't any less concise than "begging the question".)
If you still need a cable to connect your video sources, what's the point?
I'm pretty sure prototypes (and maybe one or two production implementations) of systems which can transmit analog and digital streams (including, in either form, audio+video streams) between points without cables have existed for a while.
Begs the question" has a specific meaning related to circular arguments.
Yes, the intransitive construction "begs the question' does. The transitive constructions "begs the question <question>" is also in common use, and has a different meaning regarding calling for a resolution of a question. The meaning of the transitive form is essentially a generalization of the intransitive form such that the intransitive form is identical to the transitive form with the assumed object being the question actually at issue in the debate. This is a rather elegant rationalization of the poor translation into English of the dubious translation into Latin of the Greek phrase that ultimately turned into "begging the question".
Arguing that the use of the transitive construction is wrong because of the well-established technical definition of the intransitive construction is, IMO, one of the most inane forms of misguided linguistic prescriptivist pedantry commonly seen, as the two are distinct constructions which are impossible to confuse with each other, and have meanings that are related the way one would expect the meanings of transitive and intransitive phrases to relate to each other (even though the more general, transitive form, is generalized from the more specific, intransitive form in a way which reflects the normal use of the English words in the phrase rather than etymology of the transitive form.)
Lets say I want to legally sell product X. A take down notice is issued and product X is delisted after a number of bids. I file a counterclaim and it doesn't go back up. I switch to say yahoo auctions (if it still exists?). Someone bids half of what the high bid on ebay was and it sells. I decide that ebay has now interfered with my business of selling second-hand goods. I think I might be able to make a case for liability.
And you'd probably be wrong. You don't generally have a right to have other companies facilitate your business, and them choosing not to business with you, except in a very narrow range of forbidden reasons and circumstances, isn't a basis for liability even if it "interferes with" your business.
Unit tests are only as good as the programmers who make them.
Yes, tests are only as good as whoever builds them.
And if the programmer can think of a unit test... chances are that his code has already accounted for it
Not really. Most programmers I have known were quite capable of understanding that a piece of code they are writing should produce certain values in certain cases and yet writing code at times which would not do that.
Knowing what the code should do in concrete cases is a prerequisite to being able to write code that does it other than by pure coincidence, but it certainly doesn't guarantee you that it will work.
Nor does it guarantee you that when the requirements change (or someone else has to refactor your code), the correct behavior on the requirement taht didn't change won't get broken because you won't remember the behavior that should have been seen in the particular edge case or because the person refactoring the code is someone else.
Having a unit test that preserves the present understanding of what the code should do, OTOH, does guarantee that, even if you are someone else does forget (or remember but code improperly to account for) the behavior in that particular edge case in the future, there'll be a big red flag hanging out telling them they need to fix it.
You could argue that unit testing is kindof like a big type test (do these modules exhibit certain specified behaviors for their "type"?), and maybe there's a language that treats typing like that, which would be intriguing.
I've never heard of one, though languages that feature built-in design-by-contract features are not-entirely-dissimilar from that. But that could be the basis of an interesting idea to build into a test suite designed for any language (at least, any OO language) -- so that a mixin or interface or superclass can have designated "heritable" unit tests associated with it, and those tests are applied against classes that use the mixin, implement the inteface, or inherit from the superclass, to validate that not only is the right "structure" provided, but that the right behavior is provided.
Yes, automated tests are essential for the long term viability of any program. But they are also a sgnificative delay for the first few iterations.
If you can't understand a behavioral requirement enough to write an automated test that would verify that code meets the requirement, you certainly don't understand the requirement well enough to write code that meets it, either.
There is a time when it makes sense adding them, but it not alsways at the begining of development.
It would seem to me that it would be at (or, really, just before) the beginning of writing real code to meet real, defined requirements. Its conceivable there might be some benefit do some prototyping aimed at exploring and nailing down ambiguous requirements before that, though even there you might want to have basic automated tests to verify the code being used as a prototype behaves correctly in terms of what it is intended to demonstrate.
I thought that if you just send them a counter-notification then the burden of proof is on the party who wants it removed.
If you file a counternotice, then the service provider must restore the material it took down to retain the benefit of the liability shield in the DMCA against any action you might bring against them for taking it down.
This actually has no bearing on the legal burden of proof between the person who claims they own the copyright and the person who is accused of violating it, it only matters to the service provider and who they are immunized against liability to.
Of course, most service providers care a lot more about complying with the takedown provisions when served a takedown notice by a big company than they care about restoring access when they receive a counternotice from an individual user, because they are lot more afraid of being sued by a big company than an individual user. (And, because, their users are people with whom they already have contractual arrangements set up very carefully by their legal departments to avoid any basis for liability in the first place, so they don't usually feel like they need the DMCA liability shield against their users; copyright owners with whom they have no carefully craft agreement designed to negate most conceivable bases for liability would be a different story even if they didn't generally have bigger budgets for legal battles.)
It doesn't matter what ebay's terms of service say. They can't violate the law. The DMCA requires them to restore the auction.
No, it doesn't.
The DMCA safe harbor provision means that, if they restore the material upon receipt of a proper counter notice, then they have no liability to the user for taking it down. The DMCA does not say that they have to restore the material that was the subject of a takedown when they get a counternotice, and it does not create any liability to the user for failing to restore the material. It merely does not create a shield from any liability they would otherwise have if they don't restore the material in response to a counternotice. But unless there is a basis for liability somewhere else, the absence of a liability shield doesn't hurt them at all.
Or even more so, how do machines or the nurses/doctors see you're still living if you're temporary unconscious (maybe a few too many beers?) and your pulse is zero.
As I understand, the main things checked usually to determine death (assuming there are no known reasons to suspect that these will be misleading) are:
* Pulse * Breathing * Pupil response
This will only affect the first of those. I'd think a big danger if medical personnel weren't aware of the implant (for whatever reason) is taking improper treatment based on the lack of pulse rather than declaring her dead.
Doesn't that mean that the problem is not how long US kids are in school?
No, it doesn't mean that.
It would seem to indicate that the problem isn't that the number of instructional hours is insufficient, but it does not mean that the problem isn't "how long" US kids are in school, either in hours per day or days per year or both.
That US students are in school fewer days and that they are in school more hours per school day could both be problematic; its quite possible that fewer hours of school per day but more total days would tend to produce better results.
The parent wasn't referring to federation, which is the server-to-server communication. The parent was referring to client-server communication, in which google's servers and their web client are all wrapped up together. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that we wouldn't be able to write a rich-client for google's servers. So you'd need to start an independent server and build up a protocol from scratch essentially.
Or write a client that pretended to be a server and use the federation protocol directly.
We have Share Point here at my office but my team doesn't use it because it is so hard to navigate. It is extremely difficult to figure out where you just posted something if you happen to stumble back to the main landing page. I'm shocked to hear that anyone considers that package a "success".
Its a success (for Microsoft) because lots of people bought it, not because it works well and provides value to the users.
Does anyone else worry about sending sensitive information over a service like Twitter, which has had security issues in the past?
Is there any means which has ever been used to communicate sensitive information -- including contracted couriers, the USPS, telephones, and in-person oral conversations -- that has not "had security issues in the past"?
The ever-useful Google/WikiPedia combo pointed to a research report estimating the global size of the software industry at $308B in 2008.
The universe of analysis in the paper suggesting the $1 Trillion savings is not the software industry, but all information and communications technology investment, which doesn't all (or even mostly) flow through the software industry, as much ICT is spent on things other than packaged software by companies that are themselves outside of the software industry. The estimate of the total annual ICT investment per year in the paper is $3.4T.
Saving $1T by not paying licensing fees to an industry worth 1/3rd as much would be a neat trick.
The savings projected is not just (or even primarily) the reduced license fees, but rather increased cost-efficiency of OSS development and the reduced losses from failed projects.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just as true as saying that the utility of the original system for which the LSE is seeking a replacement is a testament to the skill of the programmers of the particular system, and says nothing about the .NET environment (and Windows Server 2003, SQL Server 2000, and all the other "infrastructure" technologies that were used to support it.)
Microsoft, OTOH, wasn't shy about using the deal to trumpet the strength of those components, so clearly, by Microsoft's own standards, that system losing out to a system which abandons Microsoft's infrastructure says just as much negative about the utility of Microsoft's infrastructure technology as the initial adoption said positive about it.
Perhaps you see it that way, but Microsoft clearly disagrees.
Its news because, in fact -- whether or not it was "insane" to do so -- the London Stock Exchange was relying on Windows, .NET, and other Microsoft products: "As part of its strategy to win more trading business and new customers, the London Stock Exchange needed a scalable, reliable, high-performance stock exchange ticker plant to replace its earlier system. Roughly 40 per cent of the Exchange's revenues are generated by the sale of real-time information about stock prices. Using the Microsoft® .NET Framework in Windows Server® 2003 and the Microsoft SQL Server(TM) 2000 database, the new Infolect® system has been built to achieve unprecedented levels of performance, availability, and business agility. Launched in September 2005, it is maintaining the London Stock Exchange's world-leading service reliability record while reducing latency by a factor of 15. Its successful implementation, with support from Microsoft and Accenture, shows the London Stock Exchange's leadership in developing next-generation trading systems." (source: Microsoft.)
Microsoft claiming that something is safe doesn't actually mean it is.
It may not always be a good idea to take legal advice from the party that would be on the other side if a legal issue arose: while, aside from the unambiguous "yes", this is might be generally true, note that the words "may be enforceable" are very important. The doctrine which makes such unilateral promises potentially enforceable is the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which only makes them enforceable where there has been reasonable, detrimental reliance on the promise, and to the extent the court finds it is necessary to prevent injustice resulting from the detrimental reliance on the promise.
Promissory estoppel does not prevent the promise from being revoked in the future, and does not apply in cases where reliance on the promise was not reasonable (such as when it was relied on after it was revoked, with actual knowledge of the revocation), and does not, even where it does apply, (as, enforcement of actually legally-binding terms, like those in a contract, would) necessarily enforce the terms as stated, but instead enforces them only insofar as is seen necessary to prevent "injustice", often measured not by the value of what is committed to in the promise, but by the value of the detriment incurred in relying on it, which may be much smaller in some cases.
RMS's post neither contains a personal attack on you nor lacks substantive comment. It does mention the fact that the CodePlex board has a number of current and former Microsoft employees and that you are a Microsoft apologist (which is, in fact, true, you are unquestionably a defender of Microsoft against critics in the FOSS community, and someone who defends someone against critics is an apologist) as a reason why people are wary of CodePlex, but also dismisses that as a basis for concluding that CodePlex's actions will be bad. He does that in the first paragraph.
The rest of the article he spends analyzing specific statements and actions of Microsoft, CodePlex, and the employees of both and making arguments as to why those actions and statements should be worrying to people who share Stallman's Free Software philosophy. Whether one disagrees with either the philosophy or the conclusions, it is ridiculous to dismiss the post as content-free.
I don't know whether you are clueless enough that you really think your description is accurate, or if you just think so little of your readers here that you expect them to believe it.
The context was Stallman noting it as (when viewed along with the fact that the background of other board members) a basis for wariness about CodePlex, but dismissing it as a basis for concluding that CodePlex's actions will be bad, before going on to focus on specific actions and statements of Microsoft and CodePlex are to point to areas where those statements, rather than the identities of its board members, were reasons for concern.
The paragraph referring to Icaza as an "apologist" is, in full:
This is not a pejorative use. It is pointing to a relevant source of bias as a basis for concern that future actions might be tainted by that bias, and then also stating that that bias is not alone a basis for concluding that future actions by the biased actor will be bad.
It's also the only reference to de Icaza in the article; both Icaza's claim that the article is content free and his claim that it features are personal attack on him ring rather hollow. One might disagree with the importance of the Free Software philosophy that Stallman embraces, and (even if one does not) one might validly disagree with his painting of the particular actions cited in the article as reasons for concerns about Mirosoft/CodePlex's intentions with regard to Free Software, but it is ludicrous to paint the article as content free, and even more ludicrous to paint to the reference to the relationship of board members including Icaza to Microsoft as a "personal attack" on Icaza.
The only way for people on the outside to help steer a company in the right direction is to vote with their dollars and make sure that it is clear why they are doing it. For-profit companies go where the money leads, or they fail and are replaced with ones that do.
The "upper middle class" is usually the quintile above the middle quintile and below the top quintile (indeed, the one source cited in the article that actually links class terms to income quintiles uses it that way.) But the high-five-figure (~$88,000 or ~$91,000, depending on which of the figures cited in that article you use) "to well over $100,000" (actually unbounded on the top) group identified in the article is the top quintile (20%) of households, and somewhat less than that of population.
Even if the first part was an accurate description, this doesn't describe facts from which the conclusion stated would be justified. There are other reasons for suspecting that Apple's userbase is largely above median income, but the fact that their share of the market is within a few percentage points of the percentage of the population in the group you describe as "upper middle class", even if you slice up income groups to make that true, doesn't support that conclusion in the slightest.
If you slice up the population right, you can find an income group at any point on the spectrum that is approximately the same size relative to the whole population as the Apple share is to the whole computing market. This means absolutely nothing.
Github gives everyone free accounts for open source development. But Github popularity isn't a measure of much of anything about a language, its more useful to tell you which communities Github has gained popularity in than which languages are widely used.
Its very simple.
Correct, because the question for which a resolution is demanded in the more general, transitive use, is generally not the one that was already the subject of debate, as it would be in the more specific, intransitive use.
Correct. Assuming the conclusions amongst your premises is the intransitive use of the phrase "begs
the question". Doing so demands a resolution of the same question that was at issue initially. While this is not the origin of the phrase "begs the question" in its transitive use, it is an accurate description of the situation described in the transitive use and consistent with the common English usage of the words in the phrase, and it shows how the transitive use may have been generalized from the intransitive use.
Except that it doesn't. The intransitive use is no more (and probably less) confusing encountered with experience with the transitive use than it is with no experience with either use; the reason the intransitive use is confusing on first encounter, with or without knowledge of the transitive use, is that (aside from being viewed as a specific case of the transitive use with a non-obvious implicit object) the construction isn't really connected to the current English uses of the words that make it up when encountered outside of the phrase.
If I had to prefer one use -- which I don't, plenty of words and phrases have different meanings in intransitive and transitive senses, and transitive and intransitive uses are readily disambiguated by the sentence strucutre -- I'd prefer the one that was consistent with the meanings of the words outside of the construction, especially since the other one doesn't have any benefit in clear communication (not even in terms of compactly expressing an idea that would otherwise require a longer phrase, since "assuming the conclusion", which doesn't require any words used outside of their normal sense, isn't any less concise than "begging the question".)
I'm pretty sure prototypes (and maybe one or two production implementations) of systems which can transmit analog and digital streams (including, in either form, audio+video streams) between points without cables have existed for a while.
Yes, the intransitive construction "begs the question' does. The transitive constructions "begs the question <question>" is also in common use, and has a different meaning regarding calling for a resolution of a question. The meaning of the transitive form is essentially a generalization of the intransitive form such that the intransitive form is identical to the transitive form with the assumed object being the question actually at issue in the debate. This is a rather elegant rationalization of the poor translation into English of the dubious translation into Latin of the Greek phrase that ultimately turned into "begging the question".
Arguing that the use of the transitive construction is wrong because of the well-established technical definition of the intransitive construction is, IMO, one of the most inane forms of misguided linguistic prescriptivist pedantry commonly seen, as the two are distinct constructions which are impossible to confuse with each other, and have meanings that are related the way one would expect the meanings of transitive and intransitive phrases to relate to each other (even though the more general, transitive form, is generalized from the more specific, intransitive form in a way which reflects the normal use of the English words in the phrase rather than etymology of the transitive form.)
And you'd probably be wrong. You don't generally have a right to have other companies facilitate your business, and them choosing not to business with you, except in a very narrow range of forbidden reasons and circumstances, isn't a basis for liability even if it "interferes with" your business.
"Is it code?"
Yes, tests are only as good as whoever builds them.
Not really. Most programmers I have known were quite capable of understanding that a piece of code they are writing should produce certain values in certain cases and yet writing code at times which would not do that.
Knowing what the code should do in concrete cases is a prerequisite to being able to write code that does it other than by pure coincidence, but it certainly doesn't guarantee you that it will work.
Nor does it guarantee you that when the requirements change (or someone else has to refactor your code), the correct behavior on the requirement taht didn't change won't get broken because you won't remember the behavior that should have been seen in the particular edge case or because the person refactoring the code is someone else.
Having a unit test that preserves the present understanding of what the code should do, OTOH, does guarantee that, even if you are someone else does forget (or remember but code improperly to account for) the behavior in that particular edge case in the future, there'll be a big red flag hanging out telling them they need to fix it.
I've never heard of one, though languages that feature built-in design-by-contract features are not-entirely-dissimilar from that. But that could be the basis of an interesting idea to build into a test suite designed for any language (at least, any OO language) -- so that a mixin or interface or superclass can have designated "heritable" unit tests associated with it, and those tests are applied against classes that use the mixin, implement the inteface, or inherit from the superclass, to validate that not only is the right "structure" provided, but that the right behavior is provided.
Dynamic languages have been around for a long time, too. Lisp is more than a decade older than C.
If you can't understand a behavioral requirement enough to write an automated test that would verify that code meets the requirement, you certainly don't understand the requirement well enough to write code that meets it, either.
It would seem to me that it would be at (or, really, just before) the beginning of writing real code to meet real, defined requirements. Its conceivable there might be some benefit do some prototyping aimed at exploring and nailing down ambiguous requirements before that, though even there you might want to have basic automated tests to verify the code being used as a prototype behaves correctly in terms of what it is intended to demonstrate.
If you file a counternotice, then the service provider must restore the material it took down to retain the benefit of the liability shield in the DMCA against any action you might bring against them for taking it down.
This actually has no bearing on the legal burden of proof between the person who claims they own the copyright and the person who is accused of violating it, it only matters to the service provider and who they are immunized against liability to.
Of course, most service providers care a lot more about complying with the takedown provisions when served a takedown notice by a big company than they care about restoring access when they receive a counternotice from an individual user, because they are lot more afraid of being sued by a big company than an individual user. (And, because, their users are people with whom they already have contractual arrangements set up very carefully by their legal departments to avoid any basis for liability in the first place, so they don't usually feel like they need the DMCA liability shield against their users; copyright owners with whom they have no carefully craft agreement designed to negate most conceivable bases for liability would be a different story even if they didn't generally have bigger budgets for legal battles.)
No, it doesn't.
The DMCA safe harbor provision means that, if they restore the material upon receipt of a proper counter notice, then they have no liability to the user for taking it down. The DMCA does not say that they have to restore the material that was the subject of a takedown when they get a counternotice, and it does not create any liability to the user for failing to restore the material. It merely does not create a shield from any liability they would otherwise have if they don't restore the material in response to a counternotice. But unless there is a basis for liability somewhere else, the absence of a liability shield doesn't hurt them at all.
As I understand, the main things checked usually to determine death (assuming there are no known
reasons to suspect that these will be misleading) are:
* Pulse
* Breathing
* Pupil response
This will only affect the first of those. I'd think a big danger if medical personnel weren't aware of the implant (for whatever reason) is taking improper treatment based on the lack of pulse rather than declaring her dead.
No, it doesn't mean that.
It would seem to indicate that the problem isn't that the number of instructional hours is insufficient, but it does not mean that the problem isn't "how long" US kids are in school, either in hours per day or days per year or both.
That US students are in school fewer days and that they are in school more hours per school day could both be problematic; its quite possible that fewer hours of school per day but more total days would tend to produce better results.
Or write a client that pretended to be a server and use the federation protocol directly.
Its a success (for Microsoft) because lots of people bought it, not because it works well and provides value to the users.
Is there any means which has ever been used to communicate sensitive information -- including contracted couriers, the USPS, telephones, and in-person oral conversations -- that has not "had security issues in the past"?
The universe of analysis in the paper suggesting the $1 Trillion savings is not the software industry, but all information and communications technology investment, which doesn't all (or even mostly) flow through the software industry, as much ICT is spent on things other than packaged software by companies that are themselves outside of the software industry. The estimate of the total annual ICT investment per year in the paper is $3.4T.
The savings projected is not just (or even primarily) the reduced license fees, but rather increased cost-efficiency of OSS development and the reduced losses from failed projects.