news.verizon.net
06-26-2003, 10:04 AM
GREAT WAY TO MAKE MONEY-READ THIS!!!!!!
Monday, 17-Aug-98 01:09:13
130.85.97.152 writes:
HOW TO TURN $6 INTO $6,000!!!!!!
READING THIS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE!
I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it. A little
while back, I was browsing through newsgroups, just like you are now,
and came across an article similar to this that said you could make
thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of
$6.00! So I thought, Yeah right, this must be a scam,but
like most of us, I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said
that you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in the
article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom of
the list at #6, and post the article in at least 200 newsgroups.
(There are thousands) No catch, that was it. So after thinking it
over, and talking to a few people first, I thought about trying it. I
figured: what have I got to lose except 6 stamps and $6.00,
right? Then I invested the measly $6.00. Well GUESS WHAT!!...
within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! I was shocked! I
figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in. In my
first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had
made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over
$10,000.00 and it's still growing. This is now my fourth week and I
have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it's still coming in
rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I have spent more
than that on the lottery!! Let me tell you how this works and most
importantly, why it works....Also, make sure you print a copy of this
article NOW, so you can get the information off of it as you need it.
I promise you that if you follow the directions exactly, that you
will start making more money than you thought possible by doing
something so easy!
Suggestion: Read this entire message carefully! (print it out or
download it.) Follow the simple directions and watch the money come in!
It's easy. It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00 (Plus postage)
IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not
illegal; and it is virtually no risk - it really works!!!!
If all of the following instructions are adhered to, you will receive
extraordinary dividends.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please follow these directions EXACTLY, and $50,000 or more can be
yours in 20 to 60 days. This program remains successful because of
the honesty and integrity of the participants. Please continue its
success by carefully adhering to the instructions.
You will now become part of the Mail Order business. In this business
your product is not solid and tangible, it's a service. You are in
the business of developing Mailing Lists. Many large corporations are
happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. However, the money made
from the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made from
people like you and me asking to be included in that list.
Here are the 4 easy steps to success:
STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on
each piece of paper;PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST. Now
get 6 US $1.00 bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of
paper so the bill will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent
thievery). Next, place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal
them. You should now have 6 sealed envelopes, each with a piece of
paper stating the above phrase, your name and address, and a $1.00
bill. What you are doing is creating a service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY
LEGAL! You are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for
it! Like most of us I was a little skeptical and a little worried
about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S.
Post Office (1-800-725-2161) and they confirmed that it is indeed
legal! Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:
#1) Jeff Millan
1113 N. 19 ½
McAllen,TX 78501
#2) R. Overton
P.O. Box 18818
So. Lake Tahoe, CA 96151
#3) KEVIN LEE
8377 APT. I MONTGOMERY RUN RD.
ELLICOTT CITY MD 21043
#4) Stephanie Hicks
1283 Evening Canyon
Henderson NV 89014
#5) Matt Madracki
P.O. Box 1529
Sutton West, Ontario
L0E 1R0
#6)Ronald Andrews
2100 beekman place apt.1m
new york,ny 11225
STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move
the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR
Name as number 6 on the list.
STEP 3: Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as
close to original as possible. Now, post your amended article to at
least 200 newsgroups. (I think there are close to 24,000 groups) All
you need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more money you make!
This is perfectly legal! If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18
Sec. 1302 & 1341 of the Postal lottery laws.
Keep a copy of these steps for yourself and, whenever you need money,
you can use it again, and again.
PLEASE REMEMBER that this program remains successful because of the
honesty and integrity of the participants and by their carefully
adhering to the directions. Look at it this way. If you are of
integrity, the program will continue and the money that so many
others have received will come your way.
NOTE: You may want to retain every name and address sent to you,
either on a computer or hard copy and keep the notes people send you.
This VERIFIES that you are truly providing a service. (Also, it might
be a good idea to wrap the $1 bill in dark paper to reduce the risk of mail
theft.)
So, as each post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed,
six members will be reimbursed for their participation as a List
Developer with one dollar each. Your name will move up the list
geometrically so that when your name reaches the #1 position you will
be receiving thousands of dollars in CASH!!! What an opportunity for
only $6.00 ($1.00 for each of the first six people listed above) Send
it now, add your own name to the list and you're in business!
---DIRECTIONS ----- FOR HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS------------
Step 1) You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do your own
posting. Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this letter and
drag your cursor to the bottom of this document, and select 'copy'
from the edit menu. This will copy the entire letter into the
computer's memory.
Step 2) Open a blank 'notepad' file and place your cursor at the top
of the blank page. From the 'edit' menu select 'paste'. This will
paste a copy of the letter into notepad so that you can add your name
to the list.
Step 3) Save your new notepad file as a .txt file. If
you want to do your postings in different settings, you'll always
have this file to go back to.
Step 4) Use Netscape or Internet explorer and try searching for
various newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites,
discussions.)
Step 5) Visit these message boards and post this article as a new
message by highlighting the text of this letter and selecting paste
from the edit menu. Fill in the Subject, this will be the header that
everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in a
particular group, click the post message button. You're done with
your first one! Congratulations...THAT'S IT! All you have to do is
jump to different newsgroups and post away, after you get the hang of
it, it will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup!
**REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE!!
BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A
MINIMUM OF 200**
That's it! You will begin receiving money from around the world within days!
You may eventually want to rent a P.O.Box due to the large amount of mail
you
will receive. If
you wish to stay anonymous, you can invent a name to use, as long as
the postman will deliver it.
**JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.**
Now the WHY part:
Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5 replies (a very low example). So
then I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter. Now, each of the 5
persons
who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200
postings, each with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond to each
of the original 5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each
make 200 MINIMUM posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I
will bring in an additional $125.00! Now, those 125 persons turn
around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3 and only receive 5
replies each, I will make an additional $626.00! OK, now here is the
fun part, each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200 letters with
my name at #2 and they each only receive 5 replies, that just made me
$3,125.00!!! Those 3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200
newsgroups with my name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200
newsgroups react I will receive $15,625,00! With an original
investment of only $6.00! AMAZING! When your name is no longer on the
list, you just take the latest posting in the newsgroups, and send
out another $6.00 to names on the list, putting your name at number 6
again. And start posting again. The thing to remember is: do you
realize that thousands of people all over the world are joining the
internet and reading these articles everyday?, JUST LIKE YOU are
now!! So, can you afford $6.00 and see if it really works?? I think
so... People have said, "e;what if the plan is played out and no
one sends you the money? So what! What are the chances of that
happening when there are tons of new honest users and new honest
people who are joining the internet and newsgroups everyday and are
willing to give it a try? Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new
users, every day, with thousands of those joining the actual
internet.
Remember: play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will really
work.
"Tom Plunket" <tomas@fancy.org> wrote in message
news:jsboev4a82sth3t9rttf11pvrqhf9jq5vd@4ax.com... Marcel Weiher wrote:> Alas, that is wrong. First, the granularity isn't that fine,> second, anti-aliasing text has different, more specific/strict> requirements than anti-aliasing a curve. Third, "properly"> in this case is still subjective.'Properly' doesn't appear subjective to your antialiasing code. I am not (at present) doing the anti-aliasing, and yes, it *is* subjective. Heck, Apple even has 4 different (user-visible) anti-aliasing settings. Well, if you're doing the antialiasing, check to see that you're doing it right. If Apple is doing it, trust that they have a test suite that 'proves' that they're doing it right.Unfortunately I don't know the rules of antialiasing text, butpresumably there are some rules that can be encoded. No. There are *methods* that can be encoded that will anti-alias text. However, wether these will be adequate is fully subjective, and necessarily so. There is no way you can have "objectively" correct anti-aliasing (or color management, for that case), because both are intimately tied to the human visual system, and therefore inherently subjective. So? (And yes, that really is more of an acceptance test than a unit test.) And if it's not your code you just accept that it works.You're right. I still think that anything can be developedtest-first. ;) And you ignore the realities of the case. Ahh, of course. I guess I shouldn't bother trying to help then, huh?> >You draw a line from here to there. Does it end up in the frame> >buffer like it's supposed to?>> The question is how to define "likt it's supposed to"? Quartz,> for example, is highly anti-aliased, so minute rounding errors> will produce slightly different bits in the output....so your tests are forgiving of variation in the low-orderbits. Not a problem. Sure it is a problem. In a post, ignoring the actual problems can be accomplished easily. In the Real World(tm), it is a bit harder... Nice slight. If you truly want to compare coding creds, we should do it in email. For the record, I do work "in the Real World."Ok, I suppose that there are several components between "SourceBitmap" and "Electron Beam on Tube". Again, each step isdeterministic, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice..." So you're saying that you want a test that feeds a file to your code and verifies that the monitor lights up properly? Wow. You are arguing from first principles. Sure, principally computers are deterministic. And yes, I can use that fact by fixing the output once it has been generated. However, that isn't "test first", it is "test second". The whole point of XP-style testing is that you test small deterministic bits of code, so of course I'm arguing from first principles. If you don't want to write tests at this granularity, then fine, but IMHO you're going to end up bashing your head against a wall.so with test data make sure that the output of that step is whatyou're looking for. As I have explained before, this can be done, but only with a variation of "Guru checks output" -> "Guru writes test that verifies output is still what he checked". This has two failings: (1) it isn't "test first", (2) it can lead to hyperactive + spurious test failures. As I have explained before, you're about two orders of magnitude away from the easy solution. My use of 'test data' and 'output' are to imply 'function parameters' and 'return value', but maybe they don't have those in your Real World. Still, it is the best approach I have seen so far for the problem at hand. Yes, because you are wholly ignoring the advice that both Phlip and I are giving you.> >At the same time, I would guess that most if not all PDF> >generators are deterministic.>> Sure, but that doesn't mean they don't produce variation.Either your tool produces different output from run to run, or itdoesn't. Once again, that isn't the issue. The issue is that behavior- preserving transformations cause wild variationss in the output, and that it is not possible to create the test-case without alredy having the code to be tested. How is this "test first"? It isn't. "Testing" is not specified by having one or two or ten 'test cases' that each have a million variables slightly different from the other test cases. "Testing" means varying atomic bits of your data flow and validating that the proper changes happen. I said it is not feasible to have the "expected output" available before writing the generator: (1) it cannot be done manually (2) you cannot use a different generator (presuming you have one). What's the problem with function-level testing then?Your lack of trust perhaps stems from not believing that anybodyis doing test first on "hard" problems. I don't see this as a "lack of trust". I see a *practical problem* to which you have offered no practical solution other than handwaving. I myself have done test-firts on problems that I consider hard. What hand-waving? You mean suggesting that you test each function, or that you test that the stream going to the compressor is what you expect? Or is it just the fact that I've suggested that whole-application testing of a PS-PDF generator seems way harder than I'd want to do in one step? How can I trust your perception of the problems at hand and their possible solution when just about everything you've said about the problem that isn't commonplace has been wrong? Good question. I guess you're living in a different world than me. If everything I know is wrong, it's amazing that I pump out working code with the velocity that I do, but I realize that you're certain that your current project is harder than anything I might be working on. Your loss.some of my biggest early TDD successes were manipulations of3-dimensional geometric data. One application in particular tookarbitrary 3D models and reduced the polygon count on thesemodels, and the tests that were built around this application didindeed provide enough of a good feeling that the output modelsufficiently represented the input model, Was it possible to hand-construct test-cases? Isn't that what I've been talking about all along? Yes. It is *always* possible to hand-construct trivial test cases. It takes some time, and it's not "real world" data, but it is representative enough in each case to assure you that your code is doing what it's supposed to. In my case, test cases ran between 4 and 32 polygons iirc, but real data had hundreds to thousands of polygons. Or what did you do to verify? It would be interesting to find out what you did, in order to see if any of it is applicable to the situation at hand. I hand-generated input, and hand-generated the output that I wanted from each step of the process. Since I wrote all of the code, I could also do whole-process testing, but if you're depending on 3rd party code to do anything interesting then that option is probably not all that valid.It was this software that really cemented the ideas about TDD inmy mind. Quite possibly they have been cemented a bit to rigidly... Heh, whatever dude. Yes, I have had the same experience, and therefore would *like* to do more tdd. Alas, I haven't found a way to *easily* write tests for these particular problems, unlie other problems where it was, in fact, much easier. Sometimes coming up with the tests is hard, but once you have the tests, the code is easy.If you use zlib then you just expect that it works. I can't do that. I have to test the entire thing... Baby steps, please. Test a bit, test a different bit, test yet another bit.Test the data that's being fed to it. That's woefully incomplete (though a part of the tests can be with compression turned off). If it's incomplete, then add tests. Start with the easy ones though! Oh, please! The problem is not the float going from 0.1 to 0.0999 (0.9999 was a typo), that is trivial to check. The problem is that what we are testing is a system that encodes these floats + commands as a specific series of ASCII bytes, possibly compressed. Test that the command strings, that you send in your test cases, are coming back correct. Don't compress them in that function. Compress the returned value and then uncompress it and make sure it's the same. And comparing the ASCII string representation of "0.1" and "0.09999", there simply is no "range". I only get a "range" if I parse the ASCII text back into a float. What's the problem with parsing ASCII text into a float again? Every language in common use has relatively trivial ways of doing that.Why reparse the output when you can simply check it before youwrite it in the first place? BECAUSE WRITING IT IN A PARTICULAR FORMAT IS THE TASK THAT I AM TESTING. Clearer now? ;-) No, I still fail to see why you don't want to test that each step is generating valid data.Well you've got to make up your mind then. Either a wide rangeof outputs are acceptable, or they're not. My point continues tobe that you need to test at a *much* finer granularity. I am aware of wanting to test at a much finer granularity. The problem is that the exact things I want/need to test are the exact things that you want to ignore. Hmm. My experience (hand-waving, I know) is that you test the fine-grain, and then move to the next step and test a slightly coarser grain if appropriate. Having the fine-grain tests in place (and schemes to build the data) usually leads to trivial testing of the coarser grains.> Quantify "look good" and put it in a unit test. Now tell me> again that it is easy.Why bother? Because if you did you would understand why the problem is a bit more difficult than you seem to think, and why loosening the spec that way actually makes it harder... Hmm. My experience in 3D graphics does not have this problem. The tests can "prove" that the images are showing up properly, even if I'm not taking some arbitrarily large and complex model and testing that I get the exact correct thing on the display. I'm not actually interested in pixel-level precision anyway, because if the resolution or bit depth changes, my tests are busted. I *am* interested in 'fuzzy' things, but I just worry about the things I can test, and to date, everything's been working just dandy. Likewise- I'm not writing the video drivers. I don't write the operating system. I'm not writing the blitter, and I haven't implemented the memory. I test the stuff that I know I can count on (my code), and the other stuff I hope gives results "close enough" to what I'm expecting, and it just goes. I suppose the day could come when something popped up where the tests passed and the real data failed, or vice-versa, but I'll deal with that when I've got the problem before me and not worry about it until then.You didn't say you were writing a PDF displayapplication. No. But the PDF file *defines* what the result should look like, and does so precisely. Exactly. All you should care about, as a developer of PDFgenerators, is that the output PDF is one correct output for theinput data. Yes and no. Yes, it has to be one of the correct outputs. No, this implies a lot more than you seem to think. Additionally you may want to account for bugs in popular readers. Alas, that is a topic unto itself. However, why would I not understand how much my statement implies? It seems to imply a lot to me, notably that whole-application testing is not a great candidate for your first line of tests. -tom!
Monday, 17-Aug-98 01:09:13
130.85.97.152 writes:
HOW TO TURN $6 INTO $6,000!!!!!!
READING THIS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE!
I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it. A little
while back, I was browsing through newsgroups, just like you are now,
and came across an article similar to this that said you could make
thousands of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of
$6.00! So I thought, Yeah right, this must be a scam,but
like most of us, I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said
that you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in the
article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom of
the list at #6, and post the article in at least 200 newsgroups.
(There are thousands) No catch, that was it. So after thinking it
over, and talking to a few people first, I thought about trying it. I
figured: what have I got to lose except 6 stamps and $6.00,
right? Then I invested the measly $6.00. Well GUESS WHAT!!...
within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! I was shocked! I
figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in. In my
first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had
made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over
$10,000.00 and it's still growing. This is now my fourth week and I
have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it's still coming in
rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I have spent more
than that on the lottery!! Let me tell you how this works and most
importantly, why it works....Also, make sure you print a copy of this
article NOW, so you can get the information off of it as you need it.
I promise you that if you follow the directions exactly, that you
will start making more money than you thought possible by doing
something so easy!
Suggestion: Read this entire message carefully! (print it out or
download it.) Follow the simple directions and watch the money come in!
It's easy. It's legal. And, your investment is only $6.00 (Plus postage)
IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not
illegal; and it is virtually no risk - it really works!!!!
If all of the following instructions are adhered to, you will receive
extraordinary dividends.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please follow these directions EXACTLY, and $50,000 or more can be
yours in 20 to 60 days. This program remains successful because of
the honesty and integrity of the participants. Please continue its
success by carefully adhering to the instructions.
You will now become part of the Mail Order business. In this business
your product is not solid and tangible, it's a service. You are in
the business of developing Mailing Lists. Many large corporations are
happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. However, the money made
from the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made from
people like you and me asking to be included in that list.
Here are the 4 easy steps to success:
STEP 1: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on
each piece of paper;PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST. Now
get 6 US $1.00 bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of
paper so the bill will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent
thievery). Next, place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal
them. You should now have 6 sealed envelopes, each with a piece of
paper stating the above phrase, your name and address, and a $1.00
bill. What you are doing is creating a service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY
LEGAL! You are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for
it! Like most of us I was a little skeptical and a little worried
about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S.
Post Office (1-800-725-2161) and they confirmed that it is indeed
legal! Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:
#1) Jeff Millan
1113 N. 19 ½
McAllen,TX 78501
#2) R. Overton
P.O. Box 18818
So. Lake Tahoe, CA 96151
#3) KEVIN LEE
8377 APT. I MONTGOMERY RUN RD.
ELLICOTT CITY MD 21043
#4) Stephanie Hicks
1283 Evening Canyon
Henderson NV 89014
#5) Matt Madracki
P.O. Box 1529
Sutton West, Ontario
L0E 1R0
#6)Ronald Andrews
2100 beekman place apt.1m
new york,ny 11225
STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move
the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR
Name as number 6 on the list.
STEP 3: Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as
close to original as possible. Now, post your amended article to at
least 200 newsgroups. (I think there are close to 24,000 groups) All
you need is 200, but remember, the more you post, the more money you make!
This is perfectly legal! If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18
Sec. 1302 & 1341 of the Postal lottery laws.
Keep a copy of these steps for yourself and, whenever you need money,
you can use it again, and again.
PLEASE REMEMBER that this program remains successful because of the
honesty and integrity of the participants and by their carefully
adhering to the directions. Look at it this way. If you are of
integrity, the program will continue and the money that so many
others have received will come your way.
NOTE: You may want to retain every name and address sent to you,
either on a computer or hard copy and keep the notes people send you.
This VERIFIES that you are truly providing a service. (Also, it might
be a good idea to wrap the $1 bill in dark paper to reduce the risk of mail
theft.)
So, as each post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed,
six members will be reimbursed for their participation as a List
Developer with one dollar each. Your name will move up the list
geometrically so that when your name reaches the #1 position you will
be receiving thousands of dollars in CASH!!! What an opportunity for
only $6.00 ($1.00 for each of the first six people listed above) Send
it now, add your own name to the list and you're in business!
---DIRECTIONS ----- FOR HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS------------
Step 1) You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do your own
posting. Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this letter and
drag your cursor to the bottom of this document, and select 'copy'
from the edit menu. This will copy the entire letter into the
computer's memory.
Step 2) Open a blank 'notepad' file and place your cursor at the top
of the blank page. From the 'edit' menu select 'paste'. This will
paste a copy of the letter into notepad so that you can add your name
to the list.
Step 3) Save your new notepad file as a .txt file. If
you want to do your postings in different settings, you'll always
have this file to go back to.
Step 4) Use Netscape or Internet explorer and try searching for
various newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites,
discussions.)
Step 5) Visit these message boards and post this article as a new
message by highlighting the text of this letter and selecting paste
from the edit menu. Fill in the Subject, this will be the header that
everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in a
particular group, click the post message button. You're done with
your first one! Congratulations...THAT'S IT! All you have to do is
jump to different newsgroups and post away, after you get the hang of
it, it will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup!
**REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE!!
BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A
MINIMUM OF 200**
That's it! You will begin receiving money from around the world within days!
You may eventually want to rent a P.O.Box due to the large amount of mail
you
will receive. If
you wish to stay anonymous, you can invent a name to use, as long as
the postman will deliver it.
**JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.**
Now the WHY part:
Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5 replies (a very low example). So
then I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter. Now, each of the 5
persons
who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200
postings, each with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond to each
of the original 5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each
make 200 MINIMUM posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I
will bring in an additional $125.00! Now, those 125 persons turn
around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3 and only receive 5
replies each, I will make an additional $626.00! OK, now here is the
fun part, each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200 letters with
my name at #2 and they each only receive 5 replies, that just made me
$3,125.00!!! Those 3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200
newsgroups with my name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200
newsgroups react I will receive $15,625,00! With an original
investment of only $6.00! AMAZING! When your name is no longer on the
list, you just take the latest posting in the newsgroups, and send
out another $6.00 to names on the list, putting your name at number 6
again. And start posting again. The thing to remember is: do you
realize that thousands of people all over the world are joining the
internet and reading these articles everyday?, JUST LIKE YOU are
now!! So, can you afford $6.00 and see if it really works?? I think
so... People have said, "e;what if the plan is played out and no
one sends you the money? So what! What are the chances of that
happening when there are tons of new honest users and new honest
people who are joining the internet and newsgroups everyday and are
willing to give it a try? Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new
users, every day, with thousands of those joining the actual
internet.
Remember: play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will really
work.
"Tom Plunket" <tomas@fancy.org> wrote in message
news:jsboev4a82sth3t9rttf11pvrqhf9jq5vd@4ax.com... Marcel Weiher wrote:> Alas, that is wrong. First, the granularity isn't that fine,> second, anti-aliasing text has different, more specific/strict> requirements than anti-aliasing a curve. Third, "properly"> in this case is still subjective.'Properly' doesn't appear subjective to your antialiasing code. I am not (at present) doing the anti-aliasing, and yes, it *is* subjective. Heck, Apple even has 4 different (user-visible) anti-aliasing settings. Well, if you're doing the antialiasing, check to see that you're doing it right. If Apple is doing it, trust that they have a test suite that 'proves' that they're doing it right.Unfortunately I don't know the rules of antialiasing text, butpresumably there are some rules that can be encoded. No. There are *methods* that can be encoded that will anti-alias text. However, wether these will be adequate is fully subjective, and necessarily so. There is no way you can have "objectively" correct anti-aliasing (or color management, for that case), because both are intimately tied to the human visual system, and therefore inherently subjective. So? (And yes, that really is more of an acceptance test than a unit test.) And if it's not your code you just accept that it works.You're right. I still think that anything can be developedtest-first. ;) And you ignore the realities of the case. Ahh, of course. I guess I shouldn't bother trying to help then, huh?> >You draw a line from here to there. Does it end up in the frame> >buffer like it's supposed to?>> The question is how to define "likt it's supposed to"? Quartz,> for example, is highly anti-aliased, so minute rounding errors> will produce slightly different bits in the output....so your tests are forgiving of variation in the low-orderbits. Not a problem. Sure it is a problem. In a post, ignoring the actual problems can be accomplished easily. In the Real World(tm), it is a bit harder... Nice slight. If you truly want to compare coding creds, we should do it in email. For the record, I do work "in the Real World."Ok, I suppose that there are several components between "SourceBitmap" and "Electron Beam on Tube". Again, each step isdeterministic, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice..." So you're saying that you want a test that feeds a file to your code and verifies that the monitor lights up properly? Wow. You are arguing from first principles. Sure, principally computers are deterministic. And yes, I can use that fact by fixing the output once it has been generated. However, that isn't "test first", it is "test second". The whole point of XP-style testing is that you test small deterministic bits of code, so of course I'm arguing from first principles. If you don't want to write tests at this granularity, then fine, but IMHO you're going to end up bashing your head against a wall.so with test data make sure that the output of that step is whatyou're looking for. As I have explained before, this can be done, but only with a variation of "Guru checks output" -> "Guru writes test that verifies output is still what he checked". This has two failings: (1) it isn't "test first", (2) it can lead to hyperactive + spurious test failures. As I have explained before, you're about two orders of magnitude away from the easy solution. My use of 'test data' and 'output' are to imply 'function parameters' and 'return value', but maybe they don't have those in your Real World. Still, it is the best approach I have seen so far for the problem at hand. Yes, because you are wholly ignoring the advice that both Phlip and I are giving you.> >At the same time, I would guess that most if not all PDF> >generators are deterministic.>> Sure, but that doesn't mean they don't produce variation.Either your tool produces different output from run to run, or itdoesn't. Once again, that isn't the issue. The issue is that behavior- preserving transformations cause wild variationss in the output, and that it is not possible to create the test-case without alredy having the code to be tested. How is this "test first"? It isn't. "Testing" is not specified by having one or two or ten 'test cases' that each have a million variables slightly different from the other test cases. "Testing" means varying atomic bits of your data flow and validating that the proper changes happen. I said it is not feasible to have the "expected output" available before writing the generator: (1) it cannot be done manually (2) you cannot use a different generator (presuming you have one). What's the problem with function-level testing then?Your lack of trust perhaps stems from not believing that anybodyis doing test first on "hard" problems. I don't see this as a "lack of trust". I see a *practical problem* to which you have offered no practical solution other than handwaving. I myself have done test-firts on problems that I consider hard. What hand-waving? You mean suggesting that you test each function, or that you test that the stream going to the compressor is what you expect? Or is it just the fact that I've suggested that whole-application testing of a PS-PDF generator seems way harder than I'd want to do in one step? How can I trust your perception of the problems at hand and their possible solution when just about everything you've said about the problem that isn't commonplace has been wrong? Good question. I guess you're living in a different world than me. If everything I know is wrong, it's amazing that I pump out working code with the velocity that I do, but I realize that you're certain that your current project is harder than anything I might be working on. Your loss.some of my biggest early TDD successes were manipulations of3-dimensional geometric data. One application in particular tookarbitrary 3D models and reduced the polygon count on thesemodels, and the tests that were built around this application didindeed provide enough of a good feeling that the output modelsufficiently represented the input model, Was it possible to hand-construct test-cases? Isn't that what I've been talking about all along? Yes. It is *always* possible to hand-construct trivial test cases. It takes some time, and it's not "real world" data, but it is representative enough in each case to assure you that your code is doing what it's supposed to. In my case, test cases ran between 4 and 32 polygons iirc, but real data had hundreds to thousands of polygons. Or what did you do to verify? It would be interesting to find out what you did, in order to see if any of it is applicable to the situation at hand. I hand-generated input, and hand-generated the output that I wanted from each step of the process. Since I wrote all of the code, I could also do whole-process testing, but if you're depending on 3rd party code to do anything interesting then that option is probably not all that valid.It was this software that really cemented the ideas about TDD inmy mind. Quite possibly they have been cemented a bit to rigidly... Heh, whatever dude. Yes, I have had the same experience, and therefore would *like* to do more tdd. Alas, I haven't found a way to *easily* write tests for these particular problems, unlie other problems where it was, in fact, much easier. Sometimes coming up with the tests is hard, but once you have the tests, the code is easy.If you use zlib then you just expect that it works. I can't do that. I have to test the entire thing... Baby steps, please. Test a bit, test a different bit, test yet another bit.Test the data that's being fed to it. That's woefully incomplete (though a part of the tests can be with compression turned off). If it's incomplete, then add tests. Start with the easy ones though! Oh, please! The problem is not the float going from 0.1 to 0.0999 (0.9999 was a typo), that is trivial to check. The problem is that what we are testing is a system that encodes these floats + commands as a specific series of ASCII bytes, possibly compressed. Test that the command strings, that you send in your test cases, are coming back correct. Don't compress them in that function. Compress the returned value and then uncompress it and make sure it's the same. And comparing the ASCII string representation of "0.1" and "0.09999", there simply is no "range". I only get a "range" if I parse the ASCII text back into a float. What's the problem with parsing ASCII text into a float again? Every language in common use has relatively trivial ways of doing that.Why reparse the output when you can simply check it before youwrite it in the first place? BECAUSE WRITING IT IN A PARTICULAR FORMAT IS THE TASK THAT I AM TESTING. Clearer now? ;-) No, I still fail to see why you don't want to test that each step is generating valid data.Well you've got to make up your mind then. Either a wide rangeof outputs are acceptable, or they're not. My point continues tobe that you need to test at a *much* finer granularity. I am aware of wanting to test at a much finer granularity. The problem is that the exact things I want/need to test are the exact things that you want to ignore. Hmm. My experience (hand-waving, I know) is that you test the fine-grain, and then move to the next step and test a slightly coarser grain if appropriate. Having the fine-grain tests in place (and schemes to build the data) usually leads to trivial testing of the coarser grains.> Quantify "look good" and put it in a unit test. Now tell me> again that it is easy.Why bother? Because if you did you would understand why the problem is a bit more difficult than you seem to think, and why loosening the spec that way actually makes it harder... Hmm. My experience in 3D graphics does not have this problem. The tests can "prove" that the images are showing up properly, even if I'm not taking some arbitrarily large and complex model and testing that I get the exact correct thing on the display. I'm not actually interested in pixel-level precision anyway, because if the resolution or bit depth changes, my tests are busted. I *am* interested in 'fuzzy' things, but I just worry about the things I can test, and to date, everything's been working just dandy. Likewise- I'm not writing the video drivers. I don't write the operating system. I'm not writing the blitter, and I haven't implemented the memory. I test the stuff that I know I can count on (my code), and the other stuff I hope gives results "close enough" to what I'm expecting, and it just goes. I suppose the day could come when something popped up where the tests passed and the real data failed, or vice-versa, but I'll deal with that when I've got the problem before me and not worry about it until then.You didn't say you were writing a PDF displayapplication. No. But the PDF file *defines* what the result should look like, and does so precisely. Exactly. All you should care about, as a developer of PDFgenerators, is that the output PDF is one correct output for theinput data. Yes and no. Yes, it has to be one of the correct outputs. No, this implies a lot more than you seem to think. Additionally you may want to account for bugs in popular readers. Alas, that is a topic unto itself. However, why would I not understand how much my statement implies? It seems to imply a lot to me, notably that whole-application testing is not a great candidate for your first line of tests. -tom!