|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 08:15 AM EST |
Teenagers grab snippets of code that they find on the internet and
throw it into their editor, often semi-ignorant of what the original piece of
code does.
[cf: Cargo Cult
Programming] They test it out and see if it fits and does what is desired.
And then they modify it, half expecting their modifications to not compile but
knowing that they can fix whatever grammatical quirks they accidentally
introduce by futzing with it enough. They piece code together like it's a
collage, testing out each puzzle piece to see if it fits and then smiling when
the Frankenprogram produces the desired end result.
These are the
programmers of the future, and it is a terrifying prospect!
Programs generated
in this way will crash or produce random results on any input which is
unexpected or even slightly unusual. Performance and memory consumption will be
hideous: the program has only been tested on the smallest cases and no attention
has been paid to execution complexity. The programs will be impossible to
analyse: maintenance and enhancement will mean simply adding more patches and
grafting more ugly code onto what is already an unsightly mess. Any
well-designed, properly engineered system will rapidly degrade into another
unmaintainable mess when these programmers get their hands on it.
But the
worst problem is that these "Frankenprograms" will be absolutely riddled through
and through with security holes: which no amount of testing and patching will be
able to close. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mvs_tomm on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 03:46 PM EST |
It was funny reading the comments. All but a few spouting the same line about
Samsung not being able to create anything of their own. Some said that the
Galaxy phones ARE iPhones.
It's not surprising, given that the article is in Apple Insider.
Tom Marchant[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 04:18 PM EST |
Alas, I cannot find where I read this years ago when Bill Gates started his
'charitable foundation'.
But it is like this:
i) BG and chums start Microsoft - we all know the history here.
ii) BG' Mum and Dad are lawyers, and suggest that rather than SELL software,
license it.
iii) MS license software rather than 'sell it'
OK, we all know that.
Next, a lot of of the Gate's family money goes into Pharma's as investments as
they make more and more money.
Pharms's, for little investment make truck loads of money selling drugs
(cartels, like MS ended up). Sure, the R&D costs a lot, but once done and
dusted (with patents to ensure no one else can offer better drugs cheaper), the
money recovered is at least 100x more (or even more).
So, when you see the Gates 'Trust' giving cures away (or call it water), they do
not give away free water. They 'donate' a sum of money to a 'pharma' which
allows them to off-set the price of other pharma's and sell cheaper drugs (the
poor Countries still have to buy them, but at a lower price).
Of course, Gates family owns the pharma's they give money too. More profit.
And exempt from tax, I expect.
So Bill Gates. You are a liar and cheat.
Nick
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 12:22 AM EST |
Newspick
The public interest
cannot be realized if the inherent difficulty of proving actual damages leaves
the
copyright holder without an effective remedy for
infringement
Huh? It's too hard for the plaintiff to work out how
much they lost, so we'll give them the maximum. Where else does this
rule
apply?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
