Search Results

Search found 388 results on 16 pages for 'law of demeter'.

Page 1/16 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Getting around US law

  - by Anne Nonimus

  Hello. Let's suppose that someone is interested in starting a website that might be in violation of some US laws (such as copyright, gambling, pornography, etc.). I know this question isn't in the best taste, so I can understand if it is closed or deleted. Please consider, however, that not everything against US law is considered immoral or unethical to some people. I was reading how many online poker services are based in the Cayman Islands to get around US law. Are there other countries with good hosting services to avoid prosecution by US law? Many laws enforceable in the US are also enforceable in many other jurisdictions (copyright for one), so it would be interesting to know if there are safe havens for sensitive websites.

  Read the article

• Non-intentional hosting of material that is protected by copyright law

  - by spacemonkey

  I am interested how copyright law works in the case of Rapidshare, Youtube and etc. Just hypothetically speaking, what if I create a website for uploading and sharing MP3 files, and some users start uploading songs in MP3 format that are protected by copyright laws. Can I get sued for this? Knowing that it wasn't me who uploaded that content? Thanks! PS. also maybe there is some good source where I could read about law cavities related to copyright material?

  Read the article

• Web Development Law/Ownership of Website

  - by Jackson Buddingh

  I'm a budding web developer, and I wondered if it was illegal to edit a website for a client to include a link that says 'encourage the owner of this site to pay their web developer' and follows up with a pre-made email encouraging the man to pay me. Here are the conditions: I've completed the work for the contract. I've asked to be paid, and tried to set up meetings with the owner. I've informed the owner of the site that my work will not continue unless I am paid. I should have been paid nearly a month ago (12/27) Any thoughts other than small claims? This is my first web-development job!

  Read the article

• Where to store users consent (EU cookie law)

  - by Mantorok

  We are legally obliged in a few months to obtain consent from users to allow us to store any cookies on the users PC. My query is, what would be the most effective way of storing this consent to ensure that users don't get repeat requests to give consent in the future, obviously for authenticated users I can store this against their profile. But what about for non-authenticated users. My initial thought, ironically, was to store given consent in a cookie..?

  Read the article

• Rails: The Law of Demeter [duplicate]

  - by user2158382

  This question already has an answer here: Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion 4 answers I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Does the EU cookie law apply to an EU site that is hosted outside of the EU?

  - by mickburkejnr

  I have been reading up about this EU cookie law, and have also had in depth conversations with my girlfriend who is a solicitor/lawyer and with colleagues while building websites. While we are now working towards implementing a way to abide by the EU law, I have thought of something which no one really knows the answer to and has caused a few arguments. It's my understanding that any website in the EU must abide by these cookie laws, which is understandable. However, say if I were to have a .co.uk or .eu domain name pointing to a website which is hosted in America for example, do I still need to abide by the EU laws even though the website is hosted outside of the EU? One person I have asked has said that because the domain name is .co.uk or .eu (a European TLD) then the website is still accountable under EU law. Another person I have asked has said because the actual website is held outside of the EU, it doesn't actually have to bother with this law.

  Read the article

• Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

  - by user2158382

  I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Law of Demeter confusion [duplicate]

  - by user2158382

  This question already has an answer here: Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion 4 answers I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Linked List is now Patented?

  - by John Isaiah Carmona

  Linked list Ming-Jen Wang Patent number: 7028023 Filing date: Sep 26, 2002 Issue date: Apr 11, 2006 Application number: 10/260,471 A computerized list is provided with auxiliary pointers for traversing the list in different sequences. One or more auxiliary pointers enable a fast, sequential traversal of the list with a minimum of computational time. Such lists may be used in any application where lists may be reordered for various purposes. Does this mean that I need to acquire permission before using a linked list in my codes? What about the codes I write from my previous apps that uses a linked list? What about the framework that implements the linked list?

  Read the article

• Python fit polynomial, power law and exponential from data

  - by Nadir

  I have some data (x and y coordinates) coming from a study and I have to plot them and to find the best curve that fits data. My curves are: polynomial up to 6th degree; power law; and exponential. I am able to find the best fit for polynomial with while(i < 6): coefs, val = poly.polyfit(x, y, i, full=True) and I take the degree that minimizes val. When I have to fit a power law (the most probable in my study), I do not know how to do it correctly. This is what I have done. I have applied the log function to all x and y and I have tried to fit it with a linear polynomial. If the error (val) is lower than the others polynomial tried before, I have chosen the power law function. Am I correct? Now how can I reconstruct my power law starting from the line y = mx + q in order to draw it with the original points? I need also to display the function found. I have tried with: def power_law(x, m, q): return q * (x**m) using x_new = np.linspace(x[0], x[-1], num=len(x)*10) y1 = power_law(x_new, coefs[0], coefs[1]) popt, pcov = curve_fit(power_law, x_new, y1) but it seems not to work well.

  Read the article

• How to modify code so that it adheres to the Law of Demeter

  - by guazz

  public class BigPerformance { public decimal Value {get;set;} } public class Performance { public BigPerformance BigPerf {get; set}; } public class Category { public Performance Perf {get;set; } } If I call: Category cat = new Cateogry(); cat.Perf.BigPerf.Value = 1.0; I assume this this breaks the LoD? If so, how do I remedy this if I have a large number of inner class Properties?

  Read the article

• How will we be able to produce websites without using cookies with the new law? [closed]

  - by Theresa Forster

  Possible Duplicate: How do I comply with the EU Cookie Directive? Under this new EU law we are not allowed to use any cookies without asking first, I for one need to use a cookie to register the user logged on, as if not with a cookie they can log on more than once and breach the license terms of the software. so i find myself asking what can we use instead of cookies to perform this task?

  Read the article

• How best to take a users signature online? (UK law orientated) [closed]

  - by Ben Griffiths

  Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I can't seem to find any of the other SE sites that would fit better (unless there's a law one?) I'm building an application that will replace an existing paper based form, and this form would normally be signed by the person filling it in. Looking around, it's hard to find a good definitive resource to explain what I can and cannot accept as far as a signature goes. It looks like some UK government online forms accept just your name typed into a box, but I've also heard you should back up with an email - so that process would be type name into a box along with providing an email address, send out an email, then make them click a link within the email to finally complete the verification. Involving email seems very long winded and leaves the system open to spam filters blocking emails, forgotten emails that just sit in inbox's etc. So, does anyone have any knowledge in this department? Personally, I'd love to just get them to type their name into a box and be done with it!

  Read the article

• Quick Steps to Setting Up a Law Firm Website

  Here are some quick tips for creating a pro law firm website that will get found online. The first stage is choosing a domain for your law firm website. Your first instinct in picking a domain might be to choose a branded domain based on the name of your firm.

  Read the article

• Mississippi Passes Data Breach Notification Law

  The Magnolia State this week became the latest to pass a law requiring businesses to immediately notify customers when their data has been compromised.

  Read the article

• moore's law and quadratic algorithm

  - by damon

  I was going thru a video (from coursera - by sedgewick) in which he argues that you cannot sustain Moore's law using a quadratic algorithm.He elaborates like this In year 197* you build a computer of power X ,and need to count N objects.This takes M days According to Moore's law,you have a computer of power 2X after 1.5 years.But now you have 2N objects to count. If you use a quadratic algorithm, In year 197*+1.5 ,it takes (4M)/2 = 2M days 4M because the algorithm is quadratic,and division by 2 because of doubling computer power. I find this hard to understand.I tried to work thru this as below To count N objects using comp=X , it takes M days. -> N/X = M After 1.5 yrs ,you need to count 2N objects using comp=2X -> 2N/(2X) -> N/X -> M days where do I go wrong? can someone please help me understand?

  Read the article

• Wrappers/law of demeter seems to be an anti-pattern...

  - by Robert Fraser

  I've been reading up on this "Law of Demeter" thing, and it (and pure "wrapper" classes in general) seem to generally be anti patterns. Consider an implementation class: class Foo { void doSomething() { /* whatever */ } } Now consider two different implementations of another class: class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething() { _foo.doSomething(); } } And the ways to call said methods: callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(); // Version 2 } At first blush, version 1 seems a bit simpler, and follows the "rule of Demeter", hide Foo's implementation, etc, etc. But this ties any changes in Foo to Bar. For example, if a parameter is added to doSomething, then we have: class Foo { void doSomething(int x) { /* whatever */ } } class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething(int x) { _foo.doSomething(x); } } callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(5); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(5); // Version 2 } In both versions, Foo and callingMethod need to be changed, but in Version 2, Bar also needs to be changed. Can someone explain the advantage of having a wrapper/facade (with the exception of adapters or wrapping an external API or exposing an internal one).

  Read the article

• Law of Demeter in MVC regarding Controller-View communication

  - by Antonio MG

  The scenario: Having a Controller that controls a view composed of complex subviews. Each one of those subviews is a separated class in a separate file. For example, one of those subviews is called ButtonsView, and has a bunch of buttons. The Controller has to access those buttons. Would accessing those buttons like this: controllerMainView.buttonsView.firstButton.state(); be a violation of the LOD? On one hand, it could be yes because the controller is accessing the inner hierarchy of the view. On the other, a Controller should be aware of what happens inside the view and how is composed. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• SCO Files Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law, or For a New Trial

  <b>Groklaw:</b> "SCO has filed its "renewed" motion for judgment "as a matter of law", with its supporting memorandum. They ask the judge to rule over the heads of the jury and decide that the jury "simply got it wrong" when it ruled that SCO didn't get the copyrights in 1995 from Novell. In the alternative, they'd like a new trial."

  Read the article

• NetFlow Gives International Law Firm Network Visibility

  When international law firm Troutman Sanders realized it wasn't getting the best information from its network, it turned to NetFlow and Scrutinizer from Plixer International.

  Read the article

• Quebec broke law in buying Microsoft software

  <b>CBC News:</b> "Quebec's government broke the law by buying software from Microsoft without considering offers from other vendors, the province's Superior Court has ruled."

  Read the article

• A New Law Could Change the Way You Build Database Applications

  <b>SQL Server Magazine:</b> "Massachusetts recently passed a sweeping new data security law that will have a profound impact on the way the United States, and perhaps the rest of the world, manages and develops data-centric applications. Oddly, most people in the business don't seem to know about it."

  Read the article

• How does this code break the Law of Demeter?

  - by Dave Jarvis

  The following code breaks the Law of Demeter: public class Student extends Person { private Grades grades; public Student() { } /** Must never return null; throw an appropriately named exception, instead. */ private synchronized Grades getGrades() throws GradesException { if( this.grades == null ) { this.grades = createGrades(); } return this.grades; } /** Create a new instance of grades for this student. */ protected Grades createGrades() throws GradesException { // Reads the grades from the database, if needed. // return new Grades(); } /** Answers if this student was graded by a teacher with the given name. */ public boolean isTeacher( int year, String name ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // The method only knows about Teacher instances. // return getTeacher( year ).nameEquals( name ); } private Grades getGradesForYear( int year ) throws GradesException { // The method only knows about Grades instances. // return getGrades().getForYear( year ); } private Teacher getTeacher( int year ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // This method knows about Grades and Teacher instances. A mistake? // return getGradesForYear( year ).getTeacher(); } } public class Teacher extends Person { public Teacher() { } /** * This method will take into consideration first name, * last name, middle initial, case sensitivity, and * eventually it could answer true to wild cards and * regular expressions. */ public boolean nameEquals( String name ) { return getName().equalsIgnoreCase( name ); } /** Never returns null. */ private synchronized String getName() { if( this.name == null ) { this.name == ""; } return this.name; } } Questions How is the LoD broken? Where is the code breaking the LoD? How should the code be written to uphold the LoD?

  Read the article

• Broad Tech Coalition Calls for Net Privacy Law Overhaul

  Unlikely allies Microsoft, Google, AT&T and a host of often-feuding advocacy groups and think tanks join forces in call for update to ECPA to reflect cloud computing and location services.

  Read the article

• Broad Tech Coalition Calls for Net Privacy Law Overhaul

  Unlikely allies Microsoft, Google, AT&T and a host of often-feuding advocacy groups and think tanks join forces in call for update to ECPA to reflect cloud computing and location services.

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >