antonovka2
I agree. I found it depressing that your comment was down-voted to the negatives.
In my opinion, San Francisco is a beautiful place for creators.
Of course, tempered rational arguments rarely drive significant traffic, and lackluster traffic doesn't drive sales.
The submission title is a direct quote from the article: The decline of the MBA will cut off the supply of bullshit at source
Second, this article has the facts wrong. MBAs from top schools aren't having trouble finding jobs, nor have those jobs started paying way less.
I don't have the statistics to support or refute this claim, but the article discussed a massive glut of graduating MBAs, not just the top of the class from "top schools". I'm not sure if you actually read the article, or simply penned a knee-jerk defensive response to the harsh wording.
It seems like most negative arguments regarding "unit tests" start by defining them as a small subset of what can be usefully tested, and then arguing against the value of testing such an incomplete subset.
I don't see the point of drawing such an arbitrary line. I leverage "unit" tests to automatically test units of code as completely as possible (not just 'verify features'), and I expect the same of tests that others write.
You're a bit more likely to do it during a time you've set aside to fully consider potential failure scenarios.
Thinking about correctly testing software is generally one of the best ways to improve your understanding of the problem.
I quite often find bugs during unit testing simply because I'm forced to think about how the software will break, rather than thinking about how it will (or should) work.
I think of it as being quite similar to waiting overnight to proof-read your own paper. You need to be in the context of the reader, not the writer, or your brain will skim over most mistakes.
In addition to there being no written rule against it, I've openly and regularly hauled digital video and still cameras across campus without ever hearing any complaint from the omnipresent security guards.
How do you think people work on iPhoto/iMovie/FCP? Check out cameras from a locked facility?
That said, this article is total ridiculous bunk. Gizmodo has been trolled.
Or a "gestapo". The security is very well run, however.
However, while the encodings are absolutely sufficient to represent these data structures -- if you so choose -- my experience dictates that keeping serialized messages typed and as simple as possible is advantageous from the perspective of long-term maintenance and interoperability.
A poor analogy:
- AT&T sells the iPhone.
- AT&T sells the service.
ergo,
- AT&T is responsible for providing quality service to the iPhone.
Or, alternatively, it's going to lead to an entire generation's total acceptance of human foibles as it becomes clear just how universally human our failings truly are.
If you don't expect your service provider to fail, you don't know anything about service providers.
Everybody fails.
Our colocation facility has redundant generator systems. They're tested regularly, and have handled failures previously. Yet, when the power went out, three of the backup generators failed, and our site (as well as Craigslist, Yelp, and others) was out for 45 minutes.
The cause? A bug in the backup generator's software: http://365main.com/status_update.html
Shit happens. Sometimes it's not your fault. You still need to prepare for it.
You are responsible for reading your statement and ensuring that all activity is valid, much in the same way that you are responsible for ensuring the viability of your recovery strategy.
Reason 2: Many of us host something somewhere. How many do backups?
Anyone who wants to keep their data badly enough to pay (time, money) to do so. Coding Horror is a popular technology blog, and there's a significant cost in traffic and credibility when it fails.
Jeff Atwood lacked cognizance of the risks and made an incredibly poor technical and business decision in failing to validate correctness of his backups and implement a suitable recovery strategy.
RedHat's model it's clearly more effective than simple charity, but I don't see a difference between RedHat and any other OSS-reliant contributing vendor. As an example, Juniper funds FreeBSD development based on sales/support of their high-end networking products, and contributed the MIPS port included in FreeBSD 8:
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/news/article.php/3...
Blue Coat contributed the new L2/L3 SMP-improved rewrite:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3835746
The main difference is that these companies make their money by incorporating FreeBSD into their products, are not required to provide all the source to their products, and thus can contribute back improvements as they see fit.
* LLVM and clang (MIT) - http://llvm.org/
* libdispatch, aka GCD (Apache) - http://libdispatch.macosforge.org/
* launchd (Apache) - http://launchd.macosforge.org/
* OpenBSM (BSD) - http://www.trustedbsd.org/openbsm.html
* mDNSResponder (Apache/BSD) - http://developer.apple.com/opensource/internet/bonjour.html
Nearly all the code to the base system is available under the non-BSD APSL, but the fact is that most of it just isn't useful to the BSDs, and if it were, Apple would likely be open to contributing the code under an alternative license (eg, they re-licensed launchd under the Apache license):