So a beautiful egg then?
I dont like eggs they make me ill

You look beautiful!

BUT IT SMELLS! SOOOO MUCH!!!

Travel dictionary? You could visit Bud on the oilrig!

Are you sure that Mad Paddy McTavish would agree with you?

Given how foggy it was on Monday, for all we know, the pilot got lost and Radiac is actually somewhere entirely different. Where else do creekyjet fly to?

So does Radiac, so it doesn't matter too much :)

Edinburgh smells :(

Very handsome indeed :)

Looks good!

OMFG j00 u53 teh aimbots, th3y R 4 teh n00bs. j00 R c4mping f4gg0t wth teh aimbots. j00 R teh SuX0r1z0rssss!!!1!!!1!11one

People keep saying that if you've nothing to hide, then the Big Brother surveillance, National ID card, 90-day detention without charge and other such charitable initiatives must be ok too.

TCMI!!!!!!!!!

It depends. I've used code freely available on the internet which has no licence in a closed-source application. I don't particularly feel a need to credit the author of that code. If you write code, and then make it freely available without any sort of licence, you're basically making it public domain. The code isn't owned by anyone, and anyone can use it for anything they like.

On the other hand, if the code is licensed, then you have to ask what exactly it is that is licensed. The GPL says:

The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

I think it's important to clarify what a program is. On one level, it's a general idea. One a completely different level, it's the actual code. To me, the bit that is licensed is something in the middle - you can't licence the whole task that a program performs (e.g. Enable the editing of a text document) just as you can't licence the exact code (e.g. Response.Write("Hi There")). What is licensed is the 'way of doing something'. If I wrote a function which performed a task and released that under licence, then it's the method, or order of instructions that is licensed. This could be ported into any other language and would still be under licence, because it's still performing the task in the same way. The actual code describes what this method is, so copying all of the code is breaching the licence, but there's no reason why you can't take a line from the code.

This is where the definition needs to be. You can't licence a function that is already performed by a particular language. For example, I can't licence the function which outputs a string. If I release some code under licence, that's got to be a way of doing something which hasn't been done before in the way that I'm doing it. Anyone who then performs that task in the same way, even if they use different code, could be seen as breaching the licence. The idea is that you wrote your new code whilst looking at the old code, and therefore stealing its idea. Is this workable? I'm not sure.

All of this depends on the probability of two people writing some code which perform a function in exactly the same way being tiny. Which is tricky.

All of this reminds me about what pharmaceutical companies do. They can’t copyright or patent a drug simply because that’s just a chemical, and you can’t copyright something that has a chance of existing naturally, because then all sorts of odd things happen. What they can (and do) copyright is the method by which they made the drug. Any company can come along and make that same drug, but they have to make it in a different way. Code is a little bit like this. You can make the same program, but you’ve got to do it a different way. If you’re working independently, the chances are that you will do it differently.

Hummm……

Tests are for wusses who doubt their genius at coding.

:p

Over 2000! Holy fricking crap!

I need to look at that to see how he's organised them.

I seem to be repeating myself *a lot* in my unit tests. Looks like I might be writing about 150 unit tests for my current component at work. Unit tests are great. I seem to be testing the same things for quite a few methods. And it's not just something I notice, but some more senior members of my team too.

Test driven development rocks! More TDD in opensource for sure.