Exactly. Unit tests do not prove the absence of bugs. They prove the existence of bugs.

> I also feel that I am going to come out of school not having the expertise required in a single language to land a good job.

You HAVE to practice writing software on seperate/personal projects while in school.

It doesn't matter what they teach in a CS degree program, if you don't work on personal projects, you'll never be a great software developer.

In other words, what they teach in the program is irrelevant. A Bachelors degree in Computer Science does not give anyone expertise required to land a good job. the It is what you do outside of class that gives you the expertise required to land a good job.

>> Unfortunately, this is how things work. Personally, I wouldn't want it any other way. If Amazon doesn't do this, then we are looking at the beginning of paying local taxes for online purchases. This is the only major draw for the consumer, because its a bit riskier, especially for larger purchases (tougher to return).

> And there in lies the problem. You just don't want to pay any taxes and you still want all the services that are provided to you by your local and state governments. You are completely shortsighted and self absorbed. When you do all of your business via mail order, and pay no taxes, what happens to your state and municipal government then?
>
> Did you ever think about that, or were you too caught up in the idea that your tax free shopping loophole was going away?

I make my living from consumer confidence in shopping online, so I'm going to tend to support policies and laws that encourage that.

Then I pay for the portion of government services by paying income tax. Its seemed to be working so far. I prefer income taxes to sales taxes. I'm usually happy to vote for local and state income and property tax increases.

Sorry for the repost, f'ed up formatting and I cant figure out how to edit my post:

Obviously not going to change your mind, but from my perspective:

> Oh? They couldn't boycott NC themselves?

Who are "themselves"? Obviously, as an entity you mean Amazon... but what exactly do you expect them to do? Amazon would have to go to North Carolina and find constituents to "boycott" NC. These boycotters are not going to do this for Amazon out of the kindness of their hearts, so they would have to pay. Why should Amazon have to pay for that? Why would they even want to get involved? Thats what these partners are supposed to do. And without this fire under their a$$, it would have never happened.

> 'I'm not going to let you sell my stuff because your state did something bad sorry it hurts you, by the way, I don't really want to get hurt myself, so I'm going to keep selling all day long and continue making money while you don't.'

Yes. This is business. If theres a thorn in your side, you remove it. You're not going to miss the thorn. Also, if you leave the thorn there, its going to get much, much worse. On top of that, undoubtedly its going to increase costs and there will be loss of business for Amazon. They are not going to be able to come out of this unscathed.

> If they wanted to do the right thing, they'd stop selling in NC completely, but that would cost them money, far easier to use the little pawns in a bad economy to do your bidding.

Unfortunately, this is how things work. Personally, I wouldn't want it any other way. If Amazon doesn't do this, then we are looking at the beginning of paying local taxes for online purchases. This is the only major draw for the consumer, because its a bit riskier, especially for larger purchases (tougher to return).

> Theres a word for this sort of treatment ...

Right. Its called "good business".

Obviously not going to change your mind, but from my perspective: > Oh? They couldn't boycott NC themselves? Who are "themselves"? Obviously, as an entity you mean Amazon... but what exactly do you expect them to do? Amazon would have to go to North Carolina and find constituents to "boycott" NC. These boycotters are not going to do this for Amazon out of the kindness of their hearts, so they would have to pay. Why should Amazon have to pay for that? Why would they even want to get involved? Thats what these partners are supposed to do. And without this fire under their a$$, it would have never happened. > 'I'm not going to let you sell my stuff because your state did something bad sorry it hurts you, by the way, I don't really want to get hurt myself, so I'm going to keep selling all day long and continue making money while you don't.' Yes. This is business. If theres a thorn in your side, you remove it. You're not going to miss the thorn. Also, if you leave the thorn there, its going to get much, much worse. On top of that, undoubtedly its going to increase costs and there will be loss of business for Amazon. They are not going to be able to come out of this unscathed. > If they wanted to do the right thing, they'd stop selling in NC completely, but that would cost them money, far easier to use the little pawns in a bad economy to do your bidding. Unfortunately, this is how things work. Personally, I wouldn't want it any other way. If Amazon doesn't do this, then we're looking at the beginning of paying local taxes for online purchases. This is the only major draw for the consumer, because its a bit riskier, especially for larger purchases (tougher to return). > Theres a word for this sort of treatment ... Right. Its called "good business".

Here is proof positive of prior art:

http://search.cpan.org/~kulchenko/SOAP-Lite-0.55/

15 Apr 2002

SOAPsh.pl - Interactive shell for SOAP calls