text:
State of the Union

The State of the Union Address (sometimes abbreviated to SOTU) is an annual message delivered by the president of the United States to a joint session of the United States Congress near the beginning of most calendar years on the current condition of the nation. The State of the Union Address generally includes reports on the nation's budget, economy, news, agenda, progress, achievements and the president's priorities and legislative proposals.

The address fulfills the requirement in Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution for the president to periodically "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." During most of the country's first century, the president primarily submitted only a written report to Congress. After 1913, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th U.S. president, began the regular practice of delivering the address to Congress in person as a way to rally support for the president's agenda, while also submitting a more detailed report. With the advent of radio and television, the address is now broadcast live in all United States time zones on many networks.

The speech is generally held in January or February, and an invitation to the president is extended to use the chamber of the House by the speaker of the House. Starting in 1981, Ronald Reagan, the 40th U.S. president, began the practice of newly inaugurated presidents delivering an address to Congress in the first year of their term but not designating that speech an official "State of the Union".

Representation in the State of the Union Addresses
State of the Union Addresses serve as a critical platform for political leaders to address the nation, shaping perceptions and policies on issues of paramount importance. Analyzing such addresses reveals the intricate dynamics of representation in American politics. A study elucidates how gender intersects with political allegiance, indicating a Democratic party inclination towards women's interests, especially liberal ones. Meanwhile, the prevalence of color blindness rhetoric, emphasizing individuality over systemic racism, catering to a predominantly white populace. There are deeply entrenched gender norms, spotlighting the masculine aura surrounding the presidential office. Notably, Rotramel (2016) underscores the transformative power of inclusive language, as exemplified by President Obama's historic acknowledgment of LGBT rights in a State of the Union address. Metaphorical framing elucidate how political leaders strategically shape perceptions, invoking moral imperatives to garner support. These citations collectively underscore the multifaceted nature of representation in State of the Union Addresses, encapsulating the complexities of gender, race, and rhetoric in American politics.

Formality
The practice arises from a duty of the president under the State of the Union Clause of the U.S. Constitution: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

Though the language of the clause is not specific, since the 1930s, the president has made this report annually in late January or early February. Between 1934 and 2024 the date has been as early as January 3, and as late as March 7.

While not required to deliver a speech, every president since Woodrow Wilson, with the notable exception of Herbert Hoover, has made at least one State of the Union report as a speech delivered before a joint session of Congress. Before then, most presidents delivered the State of the Union as a written report.

Since Franklin Roosevelt, the State of the Union is given typically each January before a joint session of the United States Congress and is held in the House of Representatives chamber of the United States Capitol. Newly inaugurated presidents generally deliver an address to Congress in February of the first year of their term, but this speech is not officially considered to be a "State of the Union".

What began as a communication between president and Congress has become in effect a communication between the president and the people of the United States. Since the advent of radio, and then television, the speech has been broadcast live in all United States time zones on most networks, preempting scheduled programming. Since at least the 1960s, in order to reach the largest audience, the speech has typically been given at 9 p.m. (Eastern Time, UTC-5).

History

George Washington delivered the first regular annual message before a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1790, in New York City, then the provisional U.S. capital. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of delivering the address in person, regarding it as too monarchical (similar to the Speech from the Throne). Instead, the address was written and then sent to Congress to be read by a clerk until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson re-established the practice despite some initial controversy, and an in-person address to Congress has been delivered nearly every year since. However, there have been exceptions to this rule, with some messages being given solely in writing, and others given both in writing and orally (either in a speech to Congress or through broadcast media). The last president to give a written message without a spoken address was Jimmy Carter in 1981, days before his term ended after his defeat by Ronald Reagan.

For many years, the speech was referred to as "the President's Annual Message to Congress". The actual term "State of the Union" first emerged in 1934 when Franklin D. Roosevelt used the phrase, becoming its generally accepted name since 1947.

Prior to 1934, the annual message was delivered at the end of the calendar year, in December. The ratification of the 20th Amendment on January 23, 1933, changed the opening of Congress from early March to early January, affecting the delivery of the annual message. Since 1934, the message or address has been delivered to Congress early in the calendar year.

The Twentieth Amendment also established January 20 as the beginning of the presidential term. In years when a new president is inaugurated, the outgoing president may deliver a final State of the Union message, but none has done so since Jimmy Carter sent a written message in 1981. In 1953 and 1961, Congress received both a written State of the Union message from the outgoing president and a separate State of the Union speech by the incoming president. Since 1981, in recognition that the responsibility of reporting the State of the Union formally belongs to the president who held office during the past year, newly inaugurated presidents have not officially called their first speech before Congress a "State of the Union" message.

Warren Harding's 1922 speech was the first to be broadcast on radio, albeit to a limited audience, while Calvin Coolidge's 1923 speech was the first to be broadcast across the nation. President Roosevelt's address in 1936 was the first delivered in the evening, but this precedent was not followed again until the 1960s. Harry S. Truman's 1947 address was the first to be broadcast on television. In 1968, television networks in the United States for the first time imposed no time limit for their coverage of a State of the Union address. Delivered by Lyndon B. Johnson, this address was followed by extensive televised commentary by, among others, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Milton Friedman. Bill Clinton's 1997 address was the first broadcast available live on the World Wide Web.

Ronald Reagan's 1986 State of the Union Address was the first to have been postponed. He had planned to deliver the speech on January 28, 1986, but it was delayed for a week following the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that morning. Reagan instead addressed the nation from the Oval Office about the disaster.

In 1999, Bill Clinton became the first president to deliver an in-person State of the Union address while standing trial for impeachment; the speech occurred the same day that Clinton's defense team made its opening statement in Clinton's impeachment trial, though he did not mention the proceeding.

On January 23, 2019, the 2019 State of the Union speech by Donald Trump, originally planned for January 29 was canceled after an exchange of letters with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in which she stated she would not proceed with a vote on a resolution to permit him to deliver the speech in the House chamber until the end of 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown. This decision rescinded an earlier invitation from the speaker, reportedly the first time in American history that a Speaker had "disinvited" the president from delivering the address. They later agreed to hold the speech on February 5.

Delivery of the speech
Because the address is made to a joint session of Congress, the House and Senate must each pass a resolution setting a date and time for the joint session. Then, a formal invitation is made by the speaker of the House to the president typically several weeks before the appointed date.

Invitations
Every member of Congress can bring one guest to the State of the Union address. The president may invite up to 24 guests to be seated in a box with the First Lady. The speaker of the House may invite up to 24 guests in the speaker's box. Seating for Congress on the main floor is by a first-in, first-served basis with no reservations. The Cabinet, Supreme Court justices, members of the Diplomatic Corps, and military leaders (the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Commandant of the Coast Guard) have reserved seating.

Protocol of entry into the House chamber
By approximately 8:30 p.m. on the night of the address, the members of the House have gathered in their seats for the joint session. Then, the Deputy Sergeant at Arms addresses the speaker and loudly announces the vice president and members of the Senate, who enter and take the seats assigned for them.

The speaker, and then the vice president, specify the members of the House and Senate, respectively, who will escort the president into the House chamber. The Deputy Sergeant at Arms addresses the speaker again and loudly announces, in order, the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate Justices, and the Cabinet, each of whom enters and takes their seats when called. The justices take the seats nearest to the speaker's rostrum and adjacent to the sections reserved for the Cabinet and the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Just after 9:00 pm, as the president reaches the door to the chamber, the House Sergeant at Arms stands just inside the doors, faces the speaker, and waits until the president is ready to enter the chamber. When the president is ready, the Sergeant at Arms announces the entrance, loudly stating the phrase: "Mister [or Madam] Speaker, the president of the United States!"

As applause and cheering begin, the president slowly walks toward the speaker's rostrum, followed by members of the congressional escort committee. The president's approach is slowed by pausing to shake hands, hug, kiss, and autograph copies of the speech for Members of Congress. After taking a place at the Clerk's desk, the president hands two envelopes containing copies of the speech to the speaker and vice president.

After continuing applause from the attendees has diminished, the speaker introduces the president to the representatives and senators, typically stating: "Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States." This leads to a further round of applause and, eventually, the beginning of the address by the president. The speaker may opt not to introduce the president, as was demonstrated in 2019 and 2024.

Designated survivor and other logistics
Customarily, one cabinet member (the designated survivor) does not attend the speech, in order to provide continuity in the line of succession if a catastrophe disables the president, the vice president, and other succeeding officers gathered in the House chamber. Additionally, since the September 11 attacks in 2001, a few members of Congress have been asked to relocate to undisclosed locations for the duration of the speech to form a rump Congress in the event of a disaster. Since 2003, each chamber of Congress has formally named a separate designated survivor.

Both the speaker and the vice president sit at the speaker's desk, behind the President for the duration of the speech. If either is unavailable, the next highest-ranking member of the respective house substitutes. Once the chamber settles down from the President's arrival, the speaker officially presents the President to the joint session of Congress. The president then delivers the speech from the podium at the front of the House Chamber.

For the 2011 address, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado proposed a break in the tradition of seating Republicans and Democrats on opposite sides of the House; this was in response to the 2011 Tucson Shooting in which Representative Gabby Giffords was shot and wounded in an assassination attempt. Approximately 60 legislators signed on to Udall's proposal; a similar plan for the 2012 address garnered bipartisan seating commitments from more than 160 lawmakers. Efforts to intersperse the parties during the State of the Union have since waned, and by the 2016 address, seating had largely returned to the traditional partisan arrangement.

Content of the speech
The contents of the speeches typically contain information and status updates of the country and federal government during the incumbent president's administration. It has become customary to use the phrase "The State of the Union is strong," sometimes with slight variations, since President Ronald Reagan introduced it in his 1983 address. It has been repeated by every president in nearly every year since, with the exception of George H. W. Bush. Gerald Ford's 1975 address had been the first to use the phrasing "The State of the Union is...", though Ford completed the sentence with "not good."

Since Reagan's 1982 address, it has also become common for presidents of both parties to honor special guests sitting in the gallery, such as American citizens or visiting heads of state. During that 1982 address, Reagan acknowledged Lenny Skutnik for his act of heroism following the crash of Air Florida Flight 90. Since then, the term "Lenny Skutniks" has been used to refer to individuals invited to sit in the gallery, and then cited by the president, during the State of the Union.

State of the Union speeches usually last a little over an hour, partly because of the large amounts of applause that occur from the audience throughout. The applause is often political in tone, with many portions of the speech being applauded only by members of the president's own party. As non-political officeholders, members of the Supreme Court or the Joint Chiefs of Staff rarely applaud in order to retain the appearance of political impartiality. In recent years, the presiding officers of the House and the Senate, the speaker and the vice president, respectively, have departed from the neutrality expected of presiding officers of deliberative bodies, as they, too, stand and applaud in response to the remarks of the president with which they agree.

Opposition response
Since 1966, the speech has been followed on television by a response or rebuttal by a member of the major political party opposing the president's party. The response is typically broadcast from a studio with no audience. In 1970, the Democratic Party put together a TV program with their speech to reply to President Nixon, as well as a televised response to Nixon's written speech in 1973. The same was done by Democrats for President Reagan's speeches in 1982 and 1985. The response is not always produced in a studio; in 1997, the Republicans for the first time delivered the response in front of high school students. In 2010, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response from the House of Delegates chamber of the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond, in front of about 250 attendees.

In 2004, the Democratic Party's response was delivered in Spanish for the first time, by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. In 2011, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann also gave a televised response for the Tea Party Express, a first for a political movement. In 2024, the Republican Response was delivered by Senator Katie Britt on March 8 (Women's International Day) from her kitchen table. The first Independent response was delivered by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Significance
Although much of the pomp and ceremony behind the State of the Union address is governed by tradition rather than law, in modern times, the event is seen as one of the most important in the US political calendar. It is one of the few instances when all three branches of the US government are assembled under one roof: members of both houses of Congress constituting the legislature, the president and Cabinet constituting the executive, and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court constituting the judiciary. In addition, the military is represented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while foreign governments are represented by the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps. The address has also been used as an opportunity to honor the achievements of some ordinary Americans, who are typically invited by the president to sit with the First Lady.

Local versions
Certain U.S. states have a similar annual address given by the governor. For most of them, it is called the State of the State address. In Iowa, it is called the Condition of the State Address; in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the speech is called the State of the Commonwealth address. The mayor of the District of Columbia gives a State of the District address. American Samoa has a State of the Territory address given by the governor. Puerto Rico has a State Address given by the governor. In Guam, the governor delivers an annual State of the Island Address.

Some cities or counties also have an annual State of the City Address given by the mayor, county commissioner or board chair, including Sonoma County, California; Orlando, Florida; Gwinnett County, Georgia; Cincinnati, Ohio; New Haven, Connecticut; Parma, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Seattle, Washington; Birmingham, Alabama; Boston, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Buffalo, New York; Rochester, New York; San Antonio, Texas; McAllen, Texas; and San Diego, California. The Mayor of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in Nashville, Tennessee gives a speech similar called the State of Metro Address. Some university presidents give a State of the University address at the beginning of every academic term. Some elementary and secondary schools and school districts also hold a "State of the School(s)" address at the beginning of each calendar year. Private companies usually have a "State of the Corporation" or "State of the Company" address given by the respective CEO. As well, the commissioners of some North American professional sports leagues, in particular Major League Soccer and the Canadian Football League, deliver annual "State of the League" addresses, usually in conjunction with events surrounding their respective leagues' championship games.

The State of the Union model has also been adopted by the European Union. In France, president Emmanuel Macron initiated a similar event in 2017, again in 2018, but the practice did not continue the following years.

In Spain, the Congress of Deputies adopted the tradition under the name "Debate on the State of the Nation" in 1983. The Prime Minister gives an address for an undetermined length of time, and afterwards each of the parliamentary groups have the chance to respond in an address with a maximum length of thirty minutes. These are sorted by the amount of deputies that each parliamentary group holds, thus starting with the Leader of the Opposition. Since its creation, it has taken place in every non-election year except for 2021, where Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was forced to cancel it due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Historic speeches

 * President James Monroe first stated the Monroe Doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress on December 2, 1823. It became a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets, and would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.
 * The Four Freedoms were goals first articulated by Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech, he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
 * During his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944, FDR proposed the Second Bill of Rights. Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness". This was technically a "Message" and not a speech, as Roosevelt had "a case of the grippe" and could not come; there was no joint session, and a Senate clerk read the message. (Although he did manage to read it as a Fireside Chat over the radio, from his office that same day.)
 * During his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson introduced legislation that would come to be known as the "War on Poverty". This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.
 * During his State of the Union address on January 15, 1975, Gerald R. Ford very bluntly stated that "the state of the Union is not good: Millions of Americans are out of work...We depend on others for essential energy. Some people question their Government's ability to make hard decisions and stick with them; they expect Washington politics as usual." Ford said he did not "expect much if any, applause. The American people want action, and it will take both the Congress and the president to give them what they want. Progress and solutions can be achieved, and they will be achieved."

 * During his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, President Bush identified North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as representing significant threats to the United States. He said, "States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world". In this speech, he would outline the objectives for the War on Terror.

title: State of the Union


text:
Software bug

A software bug is a bug in computer software.

A computer program with many or serious bugs may be described as buggy.

The effects of a software bug range from minor (such as a misspelled word in the user interface) to severe (such as frequent crashing).

Software bugs have been linked to disasters. Software bugs in the Therac-25 radiation therapy machine were directly responsible for patient deaths in the 1980s. In 1996, the European Space Agency's US$1 billion prototype Ariane 5 rocket was destroyed less than a minute after launch due to a bug in the on-board guidance computer program. In 1994, an RAF Chinook helicopter crashed, killing 29; was initially blamed on pilot error, but was later thought to have been caused by a software bug in the engine-control computer. Buggy software caused the early 21st century British Post Office scandal.

In 2002, a study commissioned by the US Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that "software bugs, or errors, are so prevalent and so detrimental that they cost the US economy an estimated $59 billion annually, or about 0.6 percent of the gross domestic product".

Since the 1950s, some computer systems have been designed to detect or auto-correct various software errors during operations.

Terminology
Mistake metamorphism (from Greek meta = "change", morph = "form") refers to the evolution of a defect in the final stage of software deployment. Transformation of a "mistake" committed by an analyst in the early stages of the software development lifecycle, which leads to a "defect" in the final stage of the cycle has been called 'mistake metamorphism'.

Different stages of a mistake in the development cycle may be described as mistake, anomaly, fault, failure, error, exception, crash, glitch, bug, defect, incident, or side effect.

Controversy
Sometimes the use of bug to describe the behavior of software is contentious due to perception. Some suggest that the term should be abandoned; replaced with defect or error.

Some contend that bug implies that the defect arose on its own and push to use defect instead since it more clearly connotates caused by a human.

Some contend that bug may be used to coverup an intentional design decision. In 2011, after receiving scrutiny from US Senator Al Franken for recording and storing users' locations in unencrypted files, Apple called the behavior a bug. However, Justin Brookman of the Center for Democracy and Technology directly challenged that portrayal, stating "I'm glad that they are fixing what they call bugs, but I take exception with their strong denial that they track users."

Prevention

Preventing bugs as early as possible in the software development process is a target of investment and innovation.

Language support
Newer programming languages tend to be designed to prevent common bugs based on vulnerabilities of existing languages. Lessons learned from older languages such as BASIC and C are used to inform the design of later languages such as C# and Rust.

Languages may include features such as a static type system, restricted namespaces and modular programming. For example, for a typed, compiled language (like C):

float num = "3";

is syntactically correct, but fails type checking since the right side, a string, cannot be assigned to a float variable. Compilation fails forcing this defect to be fixed before development progress can resume. With an interpreted language, a failure would not occur until later at runtime.

Some languages exclude features that easily lead to bugs, at the expense of slower performance the principle being that it is usually better to write simpler, slower correct code than complicated, buggy code. For example, the Java does not support pointer arithmetic which is generally fast, but is considered dangerous; relatively easy to cause a major bug.

Some languages include features that add runtime overhead in order to prevent some bugs. For example, many languages include runtime bounds checking and a way to handle out-of-bounds conditions instead of crashing.

A compiled language allows for detecting some typos (such as a misspelled identifier) before runtime which is earlier in the software development process than for an interpreted language.

Techniques
Programming techniques such as programming style and defensive programming are intended to prevent typos.

For example, a bug may be caused by a relatively minor, typographical error (typo) in the code. For example, this code executes function foo only if conditionis true.

if (condition) foo;

But this code always executes foo:

if (condition); foo;

A convention that tends to prevent this particular issue is to require braces for a block even if it has just one line.

if (condition) { foo; }

Enforcement of conventions may be manual (i.e. via code review) or via automated tools.

Specification
Some contend that writing a program specification which states the behavior of a program, can prevent bugs.

Some contend that formal specifications are impractical for anything but the shortest programs, because of problems of combinatorial explosion and indeterminacy.

Software testing
One goal of software testing is to find bugs.

Measurements during testing can provide an estimate of the number of likely bugs remaining. This becomes more reliable the longer a product is tested and developed.

Agile practices
Agile software development may involve frequent software releases with relatively small changes. Defects are revealed by user feedback.

With test-driven development (TDD), unit tests are written while writing the production code, and the production code is not considered complete until all tests complete successfully.

Static analysis
Tools for static code analysis help developers by inspecting the program text beyond the compiler's capabilities to spot potential problems. Although in general the problem of finding all programming errors given a specification is not solvable (see halting problem), these tools exploit the fact that human programmers tend to make certain kinds of simple mistakes often when writing software.

Instrumentation
Tools to monitor the performance of the software as it is running, either specifically to find problems such as bottlenecks or to give assurance as to correct working, may be embedded in the code explicitly (perhaps as simple as a statement saying ), or provided as tools. It is often a surprise to find where most of the time is taken by a piece of code, and this removal of assumptions might cause the code to be rewritten.

Open source
Open source development allows anyone to examine source code. A school of thought popularized by Eric S. Raymond as Linus's law says that popular open-source software has more chance of having few or no bugs than other software, because "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". This assertion has been disputed, however: computer security specialist Elias Levy wrote that "it is easy to hide vulnerabilities in complex, little understood and undocumented source code," because, "even if people are reviewing the code, that doesn't mean they're qualified to do so." An example of an open-source software bug was the 2008 OpenSSL vulnerability in Debian.

Debugging
Debugging can be a significant part of the software development lifecycle. Maurice Wilkes, an early computing pioneer, described his realization in the late 1940s that “a good part of the remainder of my life was going to be spent in finding errors in my own programs”.

A program known as a debugger can help a programmer find faulty code by examining the inner workings of a program such as executing code line-by-line and viewing variable values.

As an alternative to using a debugger, code may be instrumented with logic to output debug information to trace program execution and view values. Output is typically to console, window, log file or a hardware output (i.e. LED).

Some contend that locating a bug is something of an art.

It is not uncommon for a bug in one section of a program to cause failures in a different section, thus making it difficult to track, in an apparently unrelated part of the system. For example, an error in a graphics rendering routine causing a file I/O routine to fail.

Sometimes, the most difficult part of debugging is finding the cause of the bug. Once found, correcting the problem is sometimes easy if not trivial.

Sometimes, a bug is not an isolated flaw, but represents an error of thinking or planning on the part of the programmers. Often, such a logic error requires a section of the program to be overhauled or rewritten.

Some contend that as a part of code review, stepping through the code and imagining or transcribing the execution process may often find errors without ever reproducing the bug as such.

Typically, the first step in locating a bug is to reproduce it reliably. If unable to reproduce the issue, a programmer cannot find the cause of the bug and therefore cannot fix it.

Some bugs are revealed by inputs that may be difficult for the programmer to re-create. One cause of the Therac-25 radiation machine deaths was a bug (specifically, a race condition) that occurred only when the machine operator very rapidly entered a treatment plan; it took days of practice to become able to do this, so the bug did not manifest in testing or when the manufacturer attempted to duplicate it. Other bugs may stop occurring whenever the setup is augmented to help find the bug, such as running the program with a debugger; these are called heisenbugs (humorously named after the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

Since the 1990s, particularly following the Ariane 5 Flight 501 disaster, interest in automated aids to debugging rose, such as static code analysis by abstract interpretation.

Often, bugs come about during coding, but faulty design documentation may cause a bug. In some cases, changes to the code may eliminate the problem even though the code then no longer matches the documentation.

In an embedded system, the software is often modified to work around a hardware bug since it's cheaper than modifying the hardware.

Management

Bugs are managed via activities like documenting, categorizing, assigning, reproducing, correcting and releasing the corrected code.

Tools are often used to track bugs and other issues with software. Typically, different tools are used by the software development team to track their workload than by customer service to track user feedback.

A tracked item is often called bug, defect, ticket, issue, feature, or for agile software development, story or epic. Items are often categorized by aspects such as severity, priority and version number.

In a process sometimes called triage, choices are made for each bug about whether and when to fix it based on information such as the bug's severity and priority and external factors such as development schedules. Triage generally does not include investigation into cause. Triage may occur regularly. Triage generally consists of reviewing new bugs since the previous triage and maybe all open bugs. Attendees may include project manager, development manager, test manager, build manager, and technical experts.

Severity
Severity is a measure of impact the bug has. This impact may be data loss, financial, loss of goodwill and wasted effort. Severity levels are not standardized, but differ by context such as industry and tracking tool. For example, a crash in a video game has a different impact than a crash in a bank server. Severity levels might be crash or hang, no workaround (user cannot accomplish a task), has workaround (user can still accomplish the task), visual defect (a misspelling for example), or documentation error. Another example set of severities: critical, high, low, blocker, trivial. The severity of a bug may be a separate category to its priority for fixing, or the two may be quantified and managed separately.

A bug severe enough to delay the release of the product is called a show stopper.

Priority
Priority describes the importance of resolving the bug in relation to other bugs. Priorities might be numerical, such as 1 through 5, or named, such as critical, high, low, and deferred. The values might be similar or identical to severity ratings, even though priority is a different aspect.

Priority may be a combination of the bug's severity with the level of effort to fix. A bug with low severity but easy to fix may get a higher priority than a bug with moderate severity that requires significantly more effort to fix.

Patch
Bugs of sufficiently high priority may warrant a special release which is sometimes called a patch.

Maintenance release
A software release that emphasizes bug fixes may be called a maintenance release to differentiate it from a release that emphasizes new features or other changes.

Known issue
It is common practice to release software with known, low-priority bugs or other issues. Possible reasons include but are not limited to:

 * A deadline must be met and resources are insufficient to fix all bugs by the deadline

 * The bug is already fixed in an upcoming release, and it is not of high priority

 * The changes required to fix the bug are too costly or affect too many other components, requiring a major testing activity

 * It may be suspected, or known, that some users are relying on the existing buggy behavior; a proposed fix may introduce a breaking change

 * The problem is in an area that will be obsolete with an upcoming release; fixing it is unnecessary

 * "It's not a bug, it's a feature" A misunderstanding exists between expected and actual behavior or undocumented feature

Implications
The amount and type of damage a software bug may cause affects decision-making, processes and policy regarding software quality. In applications such as human spaceflight, aviation, nuclear power, health care, public transport or automotive safety, since software flaws have the potential to cause human injury or even death, such software will have far more scrutiny and quality control than, for example, an online shopping website. In applications such as banking, where software flaws have the potential to cause serious financial damage to a bank or its customers, quality control is also more important than, say, a photo editing application.

Other than the damage caused by bugs, some of their cost is due to the effort invested in fixing them. In 1978, Lientz et al. showed that the median of projects invest 17 percent of the development effort in bug fixing. In 2020, research on GitHub repositories showed the median is 20%.

Cost
In 1994, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center managed to reduce their average number of errors from 4.5 per 1000 lines of code (SLOC) down to 1 per 1000 SLOC.

Another study in 1990 reported that exceptionally good software development processes can achieve deployment failure rates as low as 0.1 per 1000 SLOC. This figure is iterated in literature such as Code Complete by Steve McConnell, and the NASA study on Flight Software Complexity. Some projects even attained zero defects: the firmware in the IBM Wheelwriter typewriter which consists of 63,000 SLOC, and the Space Shuttle software with 500,000 SLOC.

Benchmark
To facilitate reproducible research on testing and debugging, researchers use curated benchmarks of bugs:
 * the Siemens benchmark
 * ManyBugs is a benchmark of 185 C bugs in nine open-source programs.
 * Defects4J is a benchmark of 341 Java bugs from 5 open-source projects. It contains the corresponding patches, which cover a variety of patch type.

Types
Some notable types of bugs:

Design error
A bug can be caused by insufficient or incorrect design based on the specification. For example, given that the specification is to alphabetize a list of words, a design bug might occur if the design does not account for symbols; resulting in incorrect alphabetization of words with symbols.

Arithmetic
Numerical operations can result in unexpected output, slow processing, or crashing. Such a bug can be from a lack of awareness of the qualities of the data storage such as a loss of precision due to rounding, numerically unstable algorithms, arithmetic overflow and underflow, or from lack of awareness of how calculations are handled by different software coding languages such as division by zero which in some languages may throw an exception, and in others may return a special value such as NaN or infinity.

Control flow
A control flow bug, a.k.a. logic error, is characterized by code that does not fail with an error, but does not have the expected behavior, such as infinite looping, infinite recursion, incorrect comparison in a conditional such as using the wrong comparison operator, and the off-by-one error.

Interfacing

 * Incorrect API usage.
 * Incorrect protocol implementation.
 * Incorrect hardware handling.
 * Incorrect assumptions of a particular platform.
 * Incompatible systems. A new API or communications protocol may seem to work when two systems use different versions, but errors may occur when a function or feature implemented in one version is changed or missing in another. In production systems which must run continually, shutting down the entire system for a major update may not be possible, such as in the telecommunication industry or the internet. In this case, smaller segments of a large system are upgraded individually, to minimize disruption to a large network. However, some sections could be overlooked and not upgraded, and cause compatibility errors which may be difficult to find and repair.
 * Incorrect code annotations.

Concurrency

 * Deadlock a task cannot continue until a second finishes, but at the same time, the second cannot continue until the first finishes.
 * Race condition multiple simultaneous tasks compete for resources.
 * Errors in critical sections, mutual exclusions and other features of concurrent processing. Time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTOU) is a form of unprotected critical section.

Resourcing

 * Null pointer dereference.
 * Using an uninitialized variable.
 * Using an otherwise valid instruction on the wrong data type (see packed decimal/binary-coded decimal).
 * Access violations.
 * Resource leaks, where a finite system resource (such as memory or file handles) become exhausted by repeated allocation without release.
 * Buffer overflow, in which a program tries to store data past the end of allocated storage. This may or may not lead to an access violation or storage violation. These are frequently security bugs.
 * Excessive recursion which—though logically valid—causes stack overflow.
 * Use-after-free error, where a pointer is used after the system has freed the memory it references.
 * Double free error.

Syntax

 * Use of the wrong token, such as performing assignment instead of equality test. For example, in some languages x=5 will set the value of x to 5 while x==5 will check whether x is currently 5 or some other number. Interpreted languages allow such code to fail. Compiled languages can catch such errors before testing begins.

Teamwork

 * Unpropagated updates; e.g. programmer changes "myAdd" but forgets to change "mySubtract", which uses the same algorithm. These errors are mitigated by the Don't Repeat Yourself philosophy.
 * Comments out of date or incorrect: many programmers assume the comments accurately describe the code.
 * Differences between documentation and product.

"Bugs in the System" report
The Open Technology Institute, run by the group, New America, released a report "Bugs in the System" in August 2016 stating that U.S. policymakers should make reforms to help researchers identify and address software bugs. The report "highlights the need for reform in the field of software vulnerability discovery and disclosure." One of the report's authors said that Congress has not done enough to address cyber software vulnerability, even though Congress has passed a number of bills to combat the larger issue of cyber security.

Government researchers, companies, and cyber security experts are the people who typically discover software flaws. The report calls for reforming computer crime and copyright laws. "The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act criminalize and create civil penalties for actions that security researchers routinely engage in while conducting legitimate security research, the report said."

In popular culture

 * In video gaming, the term "glitch" is sometimes used to refer to a software bug. An example is the glitch and unofficial Pokémon species MissingNo.
 * In both the 1968 novel 2001: A Space Odyssey and the corresponding 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, a spaceship's onboard computer, HAL 9000, attempts to kill all its crew members. In the follow-up 1982 novel, 2010: Odyssey Two, and the accompanying 1984 film, 2010, it is revealed that this action was caused by the computer having been programmed with two conflicting objectives: to fully disclose all its information, and to keep the true purpose of the flight secret from the crew; this conflict caused HAL to become paranoid and eventually homicidal.
 * In the English version of the Nena 1983 song 99 Luftballons (99 Red Balloons) as a result of "bugs in the software", a release of a group of 99 red balloons are mistaken for an enemy nuclear missile launch, requiring an equivalent launch response, resulting in catastrophe.
 * In the 1999 American comedy Office Space, three employees attempt (unsuccessfully) to exploit their company's preoccupation with the Y2K computer bug using a computer virus that sends rounded-off fractions of a penny to their bank account—a long-known technique described as salami slicing.
 * The 2004 novel The Bug, by Ellen Ullman, is about a programmer's attempt to find an elusive bug in a database application.
 * The 2008 Canadian film Control Alt Delete is about a computer programmer at the end of 1999 struggling to fix bugs at his company related to the year 2000 problem.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Software bug


text:
Battle of Lechfeld

The Battle of Lechfeld also known as the Second battle of Lechfeld was a series of military engagements over the course of three days from 10–12 August 955 in which the Kingdom of Germany, led by King Otto I the Great, annihilated the Hungarian army led by Harka Bulcsú and the chieftains Lél and Súr. With the German victory, further invasions by the Magyars into Latin Europe were ended.

The Hungarians invaded the Duchy of Bavaria in late June or early July 955 with 8,000–10,000 horse archers, infantry, and siege engines, intending to draw the main German army, under Otto I, into battle in the open field and destroy it. The Hungarians laid siege to Augsburg on the river Lech. Otto I advanced to relieve the city with an army of 8,000 heavy cavalry, divided into eight legions.

As Otto I approached Augsburg on 10 August, a Hungarian surprise attack destroyed the Duchy of Bohemia rearguard legion. The Hungarian force stopped to plunder the German camp and Conrad, Duke of Lorraine led a counter-attack with heavy cavalry, dispersing the Hungarians. Otto I then brought his army into battle against the main Hungarian army that barred his way to Augsburg. The German heavy cavalry defeated the lightly armed and armored Hungarians in close combat, but the latter retreated in good order. Otto I did not pursue, returning to Augsburg for the night and sending out messengers to order all local German forces to hold the river crossings in Eastern Bavaria and prevent the Hungarians from returning to their homeland. On 11 and 12 August, the Hungarian defeat was transformed into disaster, as heavy rainfall and flooding slowed the retreating Hungarians and allowed German troops to hunt them down and kill them all. The Hungarian leaders were captured, taken to Augsburg and hanged.

The German victory preserved the Kingdom of Germany and halted nomad incursions into Western Europe for good. Otto I was proclaimed emperor and father of the fatherland by his army after the victory and he went on to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 962 largely on the basis of his strengthened position after the Battle of Lechfeld.

Historical sources
The most important source is a monograph commissioned by Ulrich of Augsburg, which describes the series of actions from the German point of view. Another source is the chronicler Widukind of Corvey, who provides some important details.

Background
In 947, Berthold, Duke of Bavaria, a competent military leader passed away and was succeeded by Henry I, brother of King Otto I. For this reason, the Hungarians have attacked Bavaria, says Aventinus, however they weren't able to penetrate deep into East Francia. In the following years, the Germans started to threaten Transdanubia, with border fights erupting at the Enns river. According to Hrotsvitha, Henry brought back lots of booty and prisoners from the Avars (Hungarians). In 952, Otto put even Italy under the protection of the Bavarian army, and westward invasions of the Magyars discontinued for a short time. The next year saw an internal war breaking out in Francia under the leadership of the king's son Liudolf, Duke of Swabia, and son-in-law Conrad, Duke of Lorraine, mainly because of the occupation of Italy. In 954, the brothers called in the Hungarians, who arriving in the Rhineland, upset the territory. According to a chronicler, they devastated France miserably. The warriors returned from the successful adventure safely through Burgundy and Northern Italy.

The year 955 started badly for King Otto. Despite his best efforts, the archbishop of Salzburg joined the enemy. Harold was blinded and exiled to Tyrol, while his wealth was taken by Henry's vassals, upsetting many more Bavarian counts, who took up arms against the king. In spite of the growing of the resistance, Otto gained a shining victory at Mühldorf, proceeding to siege Regensburg. Much of the city had already burned down, however its folk withstood Otto's siege machines for long before giving up in their hunger, as no external help arrived. The internal situation hardly improved after the defeat of the rebellion, as the nephews of Prince Hermann of Saxony frequently raided the duchy, allying with Polabian principalities. In early July Otto received Hungarian legates, who claimed to come in peace, but who the Germans suspected were actually assessing the outcome of the rebellion. After a few days, he let them go with some small gifts.

Soon, couriers from Otto I's brother Henry I, Duke of Bavaria, arrived to inform Otto I in Magdeburg of a Hungarian invasion. According to Ulrich, "they devastated the land of Noricum from the Danube to the Black Forest, which goes to the mountainous regions". According to Widukind, "he (Otto) started the march against the enemy like he wouldn't get tired in the previous war, only taking some of the Saxons by him, as the Slavic war threatened them". Saxony was distant from Augsburg and its environs, and considerable time would have elapsed waiting for his arrival. Ulm was chosen as the place to unite the anti-Hungarian forces. The battle took place six weeks after the first report of an invasion, and historian Hans Delbrück asserts that they could not have possibly made the march in time. The King ordered his troops to concentrate on the Danube, in the vicinity of Neuburg and Ingolstadt. He did this in order to march on the Hungarian line of communications and catch them in their rear while they were raiding northeast of Augsburg. It was also a central point of concentration for all the contingents that were assembling. Strategically, therefore, this was the best location for Otto I to concentrate his forces before making the final descent upon the Hungarians.

There were other troops that had an influence on the course of the battle. On previous occasions, in 932 and 954 for example, there had been Hungarian incursions that had invaded the German lands to the south of the Danube, and then retreated back to their native country via Lotharingia, to the West Frankish Kingdom and finally, through Italy. That is to say, a wide sweeping U-turn that initially started westward, then progressed to the south, and then finally to the east back to their homeland; and thus escaping retribution in German territory. The King was aware of the escape of these Hungarians on the above-mentioned occasions, and was determined to trap them. He therefore ordered his brother, Archbishop Bruno, to keep the Lotharingian forces in Lotharingia. With a powerful force of knights pressing them from the west, and an equally strong force of knights chasing them from the east, the Hungarians would be unable to escape.

Located south of Augsburg, the Lechfeld is the flood plain that lies along the river Lech. The battle appears as the second Battle of Augsburg in Hungarian historiography. The first Battle of Lechfeld happened in the same area forty-five years earlier.

Prelude
Gerhard writes that the Hungarian forces advanced across the Lech to the river Iller and ravaged the lands in between. They then withdrew from the Iller and placed Augsburg, a border city of Swabia, under siege. Augsburg had been heavily damaged during a rebellion against Otto I in 954. The city was defended by Bishop Ulrich. He ordered his contingent of soldiers to not fight the Hungarians in the open and reinforce the main south gate of the fortress instead. He motivated them with the 23rd Psalm ("Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death"). While this defense was going on, the King was raising an army to march south. Simon of Kéza mentions that the Hungarians harassed Augsburg with attacks all day and night. That means before the real siege they wished to take the city by rushes.

After admitting that this tactic doesn't work, a major action took place on 8 August at the eastern gate, which the Magyars tried to storm in large numbers, suspecting that it has weak defense because of its difficult accessibility. Ulrich led his professional milites soldiers out into the field to engage the enemy in close combat. Ulrich writes of himself that he was unarmed, wearing only a stola while mounted on a warhorse, and all the arrows and stones bypassed him. According to him, the Hungarians could enter the gates anytime, however they lost their commander during the attack, and withdraw to their camp taking the body. At first the defenders thought that the Hungarians were victorious and resuming the siege, only to realize that they were going back to the other side of the Lech.

During the night, the defenders took positions in all towers and the Hungarians completely surrounded the city with siege engines and infantry, who were driven forward by the whips of the Hungarian leaders. Next day, when the fights barely started they were informed by the traitor Berchtold of Risinesburg that Otto I deployed his troops near. The siege was suspended, and the Hungarian leaders held a war council. As the Hungarians departed, Count Dietpald of Dillingen used the opportunity to lead soldiers to Otto I's camp during the night.

Opposing forces
According to Widukind, Otto I had at his disposal eight legiones (divisions) that included three from Bavaria, two from Swabia, one from Franconia under Duke Conrad and one well-trained legion from Bohemia, under a prince of an unknown name, son of Boleslaus I. The eighth division, commanded by Otto I, and slightly larger than the others, included Saxons, Thuringians, and the King's personal guard, the legio regia. The King's contingent consisted of hand-picked troops. A late Roman legion had 1,000 men, so Otto I's army may have numbered 7,000–9,000 troops. Augsburg was defended by professional milites (soldiers).

The Hungarians, also known as the Magyars, had a very different structure and fighting style than the Ottonian military. The Magyars preferred fighting at a distance with mounted archers over fighting in close combat with melee weapons, furthermore, the Magyars wore much lighter armor than Otto I's men. While there is some debate as to the number of mounted archers included in the Magyar forces, historians believe there was anywhere between 8,000–10,000 mounted archers. While this fighting style was effective, especially during raids against small villages and small military forces, historians have pointed out some weaknesses. One such weakness is the difficulty that came with raising horses that were suited for battle. Not only do horses require a large area to graze, but training them to be comfortable in battle takes a significant amount of time. This weakness was the biggest factor that limited the number of mounted archers available for the Hungarians. Another weakness is the fact that the bows used by the Magyars proved ineffective during inclement weather like rain. Without the ability to play to their strength, the Magyars would be forced to rely on melee combat, which was another weakness for them.

Battle
On 9 August, the German scouts reported that the Hungarian army was in the vicinity. Otto I deployed his army for battle the next day. It's likely that Otto and Ulrich had communicated in the previous days, and that's why the king knew that the city needed a relief force quickly. He departed from Ulm at least by day 7. The order of march of the German army was as follows: the three Bavarian contingents, the Frankish contingent under Duke Konrad, the royal unit (the center), the two contingents of Swabians and the Bohemian contingent guarding the supply train in the rear. The Bavarians were placed at the head of column, according to Delbrück, because they were marching through Bavarian territory and they therefore knew the territory best. All of these were mounted. They could make take the maximum distance of 25 kilometers per day. The German army marched through woodland that protected them from the Hungarian arrowstorm but also made it more difficult to see the Hungarian movements. According to the chronicler Widukind of Corvey, Otto I "pitched his camp in the territory of the city of Augsburg and joined there the forces of Henry I, Duke of Bavaria, who was himself lying mortally ill nearby, and by Duke Conrad with a large following of Franconian knights. Conrad's unexpected arrival encouraged the warriors so much that they wished to attack the enemy immediately." The arrival of Conrad, the exiled Duke of Lotharingia (Lorraine), and Otto I's son-in-law, was particularly heartening because he had recently thrown in his lot with the Magyars, but now returned to fight under Otto I; in the ensuing battle he lost his life. A legion of Swabians was commanded by Burchard III, Duke of Swabia, who had married Otto I's niece Hedwig. Also among those fighting under Otto I was Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia. Otto I himself led the legio regia, stronger than any of the others in both numbers and quality.

The main Hungarian army blocked Otto I's way to Augsburg. A contingent of Hungarian horse-archers crossed the river west of Augsburg and immediately attacked the Bohemian legion from the flank. The Bohemians were routed and the two Swabian legions were badly damaged. The Hungarians stopped to plunder the German baggage train and Duke Conrad the Red used the opportunity to attack the vulnerable Hungarians and shatter them. Conrad returned to Otto I with captured Hungarian banners. Conrad's victory prevented the German army from being encircled.

Otto I rallied his men with a speech in which he claimed the Germans had better weapons than the Hungarians. Otto I then led the German army into battle with the main Hungarian force, defeating them. How the main Ottonian military defeated the Hungarians, however, is somewhat unclear. This is because Widukind's account of the battle is remarkably short and lacking in detail, which is surprising considering the significance of the battle. This has left some historians to speculate how the battle played out based on the strategies outlined in Vegetius's Epitome of Military Science, which heavily influenced Ottonian strategy. According to these historians, while the infantry approached the center of the Magyar formation, Conrad's cavalry, posted on the left wing and protected on its flank from nearby cliffs, would stay out of range of the Hungarian archers but would also attempt to draw them more to their right. Meanwhile the royal legion, under Otto I's personal leadership, engaged the enemy from the right. Although the King's forces suffered losses from the archers, this gave the royal legion the opportunity to directly assault the Magyars in close combat, which was not the Magyar's area of strength. Conrad's forces would then wheel in from Otto I's left wing, putting the Hungarians in danger of being enveloped. Seeing the day going against them, the Hungarians retreated in ordered formations across the Lech to the east. Otto I's army pursued, killing every captured Hungarian. The Germans took the Hungarian camp, liberating prisoners and reclaiming booty.

However, Otto I did not chase the Magyars much longer that day and for several reasons. This proved to be a wise decision. Although the Hungarians suffered heavy losses, so did the king's forces. Three legions, in the rear of the relief column, had been decimated. Furthermore, because of their heavy equipment, Otto I's men were no doubt more affected by the stifling heat than their lightly armored opponents. Simply put, the King and his men were in no position to pursue and destroy the Magyars that day, leaving the initial battle a draw. The Magyars were also known to pull off feigned retreats, when they would lure their opponents into more advantageous positions, like open fields, then they would turn and defeat them. A notable example occurred in 910 against East Frankish forces. This time the King instead opted to spend the night after the battle in Augsburg. On 11 August he specifically issued the order that all river crossings were to be held. This was done so that as many of the Hungarians as possible and specifically their leaders, could be captured and killed. This strategy proved successful, as Duke Henry of Bavaria captured a number of their leaders and killed them. Some Hungarians tried to flee across an unknown river but were swept away by the current. Some sought refuge in nearby villages. The destruction of the Hungarian army continued on 12 August, when heavy rainfall and flooding allowing the German troops, operating from nearby fortifications, to kill almost all the fleeing Hungarian soldiers. The majority of these fortifications had been built and fortified during the reign of Otto I's father, Henry I of Saxony, as part of his defense-in-depth strategy against enemy invaders. If these had not been in place, it is very likely that the Hungarians could have completed an orderly retreat once the floodwaters receded and the Battle of Lechfeld would have remained a draw.

The captured Magyars were either executed, or sent back to their ruling prince, Taksony, missing their ears and noses. The Hungarian leaders Lél, Bulcsú and Súr, who were not Árpáds, were executed after the battle. Duke Conrad was also killed, after he loosened his mail armour in the summer heat and one arrow struck his throat.

Aftermath
Upon destruction of the Hungarian forces, the German army proclaimed Otto I father of the fatherland and emperor. In 962, on the strength of this, Otto I went to Rome and had himself crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope John XII.

The Hungarian leaders Bulcsú, Lehel and Súr were taken to Regensburg and hanged with many other Hungarians.

The German annihilation of the Hungarian army definitively ended the attacks of Magyar nomads against Latin Europe. The Hungarian historian Gyula Kristó calls it a "catastrophic defeat". After the defeat, the Hungarians reached the end of almost a century as Europe's dominant military.

After 955, the Hungarians completely ceased all campaigns westwards. In addition, Otto I did not launch any further military campaigns against them; their leader Fajsz was dethroned following their defeat, and was succeeded as Grand Prince of the Hungarians by Taksony.

Analysis
This battle has been viewed as a symbolic victory for the knightly cavalry, who would define European warfare in the High Middle Ages, over the nomadic light cavalry that characterized warfare during the Early Middle Ages in Central and Eastern Europe.

Paul K. Davis writes, the "Magyar defeat ended more than 90 years of their pillaging western Europe and convinced survivors to settle down, creating the basis for the state of Hungary."

title: Battle of Lechfeld


text:
Steve McConnell

Steven C. McConnell is an author of software engineering textbooks such as Code Complete, Rapid Development, and Software Estimation. He is cited as an expert in software engineering and project management.

Career
McConnell graduated with a bachelor's degree in philosophy, minoring in computer science, at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington, and a master's degree in software engineering from Seattle University. He then pursued a career in the desktop software industry, working at Microsoft, Boeing, the Russell Investment Group and several other Seattle area firms. At Microsoft, McConnell worked on TrueType as part of Windows 3.1. At Boeing, he worked on a Strategic Defense Initiative project.

McConnell published his first book, Code Complete, in 1993.

From 1996 to 1998, he was the editor of the "Best Practices" column in the IEEE Software magazine. From 1998 to 2002, he served as the editor-in-chief of the magazine.

The New York Times has quoted McConnell stating that there are "15 to 50 defects per 1,000 lines of code in delivered software" on average.

title: Steve McConnell


text:
User:Jagged

Things of quality have no fear of time.

For some reason I tend to enjoy researching information. Maybe it is the "thrill of the chase". This is probably why I have tackled so much of the September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Casualties listings.

I also tend to see things from a unique viewpoint so I am very likely to edit something that the original author thought was benign but I saw was wrong. I will always explain myself so I hope that not too many people get ticked off.

title: User:Jagged


text:
Talk:History of Burgundy

LDC -- Help -- I didn't understand your comment...what did I do wrong, and how do I keep from doing it? Are you talking about the acute accents? JHK

Removed content
I removed the following section, recently added by 202.7.190.130. It appears to be a chunk of text taken from some other source (though a search hasn't turned up anything). In general, the information is redundant and not written in good Wikipedia style (too many damned adjectives!), but I'm putting it here in case anyone feels that any or all of the information (properly Wikified, please!) needs to go back in. (The last line is obviously junk.) --Dcfleck 13:45, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

General
```` Bourgogne is a peaceful rural région at the heart of France, which has a rich and unique history. In English La Bourgogne is written as Burgundy. The name Burgundy originated in the 400’s when the Burgundians moved into Gaul from Germany in the 5th century A.D. These people established a kingdom that covers most of present-day South-Eastern France. At the height of its later power in the 14th and 15th centuries, Burgundy controlled vast territories in present-day Netherlands, Belgium, and northeast France. King Louis XI incorporated Burgundy into the French crown lands in 1477.

Burgundy is also home to a wealth of famous Romanesque churches and stately renaissance homes.

Bourgogne is world famous for it’s prestigious wine growing areas and wine producing areas. Its wines are complex Pinot noirs and Austere Chardonnays. The Pinot Noir grapes are the basis of their red wines and their white wines come from the Chardonnay grapes. Most of the vineyards are found in the attractive area called the Côte d'Or.

Interesting fact: The Ezzy Family has been traced back to Burgundy!

MY ESSAY
Erm Hi! I wrote this burgundy essay thing.I don't know who this person is who claim's it's theirs because it is part of my essay which I put in wikipedia to help people. I have proof. I am an Ezzy and the last sentence is not junk, thank you very much!

--202.7.190.131 11:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Ezzy! Once you contribute something to Wikipedia, others will change the text. It will be altered, for instance, to a more encyclopedic style. That's why the last sentence was called 'junk': it is not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. --JoanneB 11:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Map requested
A map would be helpful, especially one that would illustrate the text in the introductory paragraph and the History section. Jim 16:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree ==Alcuin 03:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree 85.138.1.15 15:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

End of Burgundy
I've got a two questions, the answers to which I think should be encorporated into this page. First of all, Burgundy was a rising power in the 15th c., why was it so easily dismantled? Other regions have lost kings and recovered or at least maintained a seperate identity after being absorbed by a larger kingdom. Secondly, other than food is there any differences in Burgundian cultuere, and how do the people of the region feel about the differences, I mean is it like Normandy or Brittany, or like Corsica, or is it fully integrated into French culture that there is no difference between this region and others other than the food?

As many part of France, 500 years of centralisation from "Paris" has ensured that local differences are eradicated as much as possible. As such, in French History, Burgundy and its Dukes are mainly seen as traitors and murderers (Joan of Ark). Kids in school within Burgundy are taught French History, not local History.. Through time, this obviously diminishes the pride and sense of belonging. The article, according to the official version, does not accurately explain the events of 1477 and how the then king of France invaded the duchy despoiling the inheritance of his god daughter.

As to the question of after 1477... Well Burgundy very much retained its own parliament for the next 300 years. Several revolts occurred against the central power, but all were very bloodily dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.80.171 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

corrections and amplifications
I've made a few historical corrections and clarifications. If you have any questions please let me know. I welcome comment.

An American, I've lived in Burgundy for 25 years and possess a very extensive library concerning the region, with over 2000 documents, reflecting my interest in its history, institutions, art and culture.

DavytheFatBoy (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Burgundy


text:
User talk:Jagged

September 11, 2001
Thanks for adding info to the Casualties page...each story should be told. --The Cunctator

 * I didn't even know about the Vegas loss till I scanned the list today. Figured since I live in Vegas I should take it upon myself to add it. ---Jagged

All we need is for a few more people to do that, just pick their hometown and find the casualties. (Depressing in one way, uplifting in another.) --The Cunctator

I just wanted to thank you again for your commitment...I guess I shouldn't be disappointed that you're just about the only other person to be doing this. I'm trying to figure out ways to improve the site and promote it, and convince our fellow Wikipedians to add entries. I really think that's the most important part of the site. --The Cunctator

United States Congress
Ah, much better for United States Congress. I just caught that someone only put in one state and I was too busy getting the others written up to worry about making it pretty. ---Jagged (on DanKeshet/Talk)

 * You did the hard work of filling in the numbers of reps. All I did was shift 'em about. :)  Good work both of you on the S11 pages.  I'm simply amazed... --DanKeshet

Stock Exchange
Hi Jagged. I don't mean to step on your toes moving the stock exchange page where it was; but please see naming conventions. --Larry Sanger (also currently, temporarily, in Vegas!)

No problem, I caught that afterwards but got distracted from changing it at the time. ---Jagged

MGM Grand
I reverted your renovation change The Signature at MGM Grand, May 2006| since this is not really a renovation to the MGM Grand. As I understand it, this is a different hotel/timeshare run by MGM Mirage. I also expect that The signature's article may be sent to AfD unless it is improved since it does not appear noteable as it currently exists. Vegaswikian 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I guess it depends on the reasoning for the "renovations" attribute. The Signature is being built on MGM Grand property. - Jagged 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

MGM Mirage Template
Thanks for you work so far on the MGM Mirage template, but with these type of templates we try to make them as small as possible so that is why I removed the line breaks under Nevada. I hope you understand. --Ben 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot Anschluss
Oops! My bad on that: have you fixed them all already, or should I go back and double-check? I believe the problem here was having used membership in a subcat of, which in the wild and woolly manner of the category "system", obviously re-includes some Las Vegan categories and articles at some depth or other. I should really have used instead, to be more conservative, which I'd double-checked, as I generally try to do, for only containing relevant sub-cats:  not sure why I ended up using the broader category. Sorry for the inconvenience. Alai 04:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Navy ship disambiguations
Thanks for disambiguating Manus. I've got a list of easily confused Navy terms, mostly geographical, but I don't know how to scan articles and make changes. If you'd like to have the list, I'd be pleased to email it to you. Right now it's an Excel workbook. Lou Sander 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Disambiguation link repair - You can help!"
You changed Lee Hall to Lee Hall with this edit summary. But Lee Hall, VA is not a disambiguation page, but a redirect. What was the point of these edits? --NE2 23:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that without a better reason (such as turning Lee Hall, VA into a disambiguation page) for the reasons described at Redirect. Thank you. --NE2 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Commonweal" is not "Commonwealth"
I reverted your "correction" in the Starship Troopers (novel) plot summary. The two terms, while related, are not synonomous; and it was correct as it stood.--Orange Mike 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Just wondering what purpose is served by removing the space between the colon and category name. - Dudesleeper 10:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Apparently I clicked the talk page of the wrong user. The edit was made by a bot. - Dudesleeper 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

why redirect "Witch's wheel" to "ceder's point"?
this is a famous ride world wide (I've done it both in Norway and Israel) and thus I would think it deserves it's own article.. why did you merge it ? --Acidburn24m 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties
Thanks for contributing to the List of treaties article. I would appreciate any other contributions you might have pertaining to treaties in general. If you want, please sign your name at WikiProject Treaties if you are interested in writing treaty articles, editing them, etc. If not, thanks anyway for your help. Later. Deucalionite 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jagged! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New interesting article
Check this out: Battle of Jarosław, and please, make it better :) Pan Wikipedia 13:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your old user and talk pages
I've have merged all the deleted history from Jagged and Talk:Jagged (which are now actual articles), to User:Jagged and User talk:Jagged. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 06:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado
The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. WikiProject Colorado is updating many Colorado articles. Many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you wish, you may join WikiProject Colorado at WikiProject Colorado/Members. If you have any questions, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Don't forget the Wikipedia 10th Anniversary event in Boulder tomorrow. Yours aye, Buaidh  21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to the Great Colorado Wiknic 2015
Who: All Wikipedia and Wikimedia users in Colorado and their families are invited. New users are specifically encouraged to attend.

What: The Great Colorado Wiknic 2015.

When: Sunday afternoon, July 5, 2015, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our Attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Your hosts:  Buaidh  and  BikeSally  15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC) (You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

Wiknic
Don't forget the Colorado Wiknic this Sunday afternoon. We hope to see you there. Buaidh 16:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to the Great Colorado Wiknic
Who: All Wikipedia and Wikimedia users and their families and friends are invited.

What: The Great Colorado Wiknic 2016.

When: Sunday afternoon, June 26, 2015, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive e-mail notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Sponsor: WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally (You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

Colorado Wiknic rescheduled to August 7
See details at Meetup/Colorado/Wiknic/2016, the June date has been postponed.--Pharos (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Rescheduled Colorado Wiknic
The Great Colorado Wiknic 2016 has been rescheduled from June 26 to August 7 due to a conflict with Wikimania 2016. My apologies for the inconvenience. I hope you can join us on Sunday afternoon, August 7. Yours aye, Buaidh  21:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Colorado Wiknic
Who: All Wikipedia and Wikimedia users and their families and friends are invited.

What: The Great Colorado Wiknic 2016.

When: Sunday afternoon, August 7, 2015, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive e-mail notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Sponsor: WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally (You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

Delivered:01:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Seventh Annual Colorado Wiknic
Who: All Wikipedia and other Wikimedia users and their families and friends are invited.

What: The Seventh Annual Colorado Wiknic.

When: Sunday afternoon, June 25, 2017, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive e-mail notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Sponsors: The Wikimedians of Colorado & WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally (You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.) Message sent: 00:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Eighth Annual Colorado Wiknic
Who: All Wikipedia and Wikimedia users and their families and friends are cordially invited.

What: The Eighth Annual Colorado Wiknic.

When: Sunday afternoon, July 15, 2018, from 12:00 noon to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive e-mail notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Sponsors: The Wikimedians of Colorado & WikiProject Colorado

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally (Delivered: 12:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)  You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the Wikimedia Colorado event invitation list.)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to the Ninth Annual Colorado Wiknic
Who: All Wikipedia users and their families and friends are cordially invited.

What:

When: Sunday afternoon, July 14, 2019, from 12:00 noon to 4:00 pm MDT.

Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.

Please add your username to our so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our to receive e-mail notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.

Sponsors:  and

Your hosts: Buaidh & BikeSally  We hope to see you. (You can unsubscribe from future invitations to Wikimedia Colorado events by removing your name from the ) PS: The  has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to comment at

 * Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The future of Portal:Colorado
On June 25, 2019, Portal:Colorado was nominated for deletion. (Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Colorado.) We have upgraded the portal and added several new features including selected Colorado articles, biographies, and images. If you believe the Colorado portal is valuable to Wikipedia, please help us upgrade and maintain the portal. Add your suggestions for improvement to Portal talk:Colorado. You may nominate additions at: Yours aye, Buaidh  talk contribs 17:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Portal:Colorado/Selected article
 * Portal:Colorado/Selected biography
 * Portal:Colorado/Selected image
 * Portal:Colorado/Selected mountain
 * Portal:Colorado/Did You Know

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Colorado at 17:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notifications, please remove your username from the mailing list.

WikiProject Colorado Zoom meeting 05/12/2021
WikiProject Colorado will hold a Zoom meeting at 7:30 PM MDT on Wednesday, May 12, 2021, for those interested in working on Colorado Wikipedia articles. Your suggestions and comments are appreciated. Information about some of the things we need to do is located at and

Topic: WikiProject Colorado May 2021 Time: May 12, 2021 07:30 PM MDT

Join Zoom Meeting https://us04web.zoom.us/j/78055623422?pwd=VUtPQVZrZzU1ZWVhZ0F1MExIeUQ2UT09

Meeting ID: 780 5562 3422 Passcode: WP:CO MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado Summer Zoom Meeting
WikiProject Colorado will hold a brief online meeting at 7:30 PM MDT on Tuesday, August 10, 2021. See what your fellow users have been up to and share your interests and suggestions. Some requests are listed at and

Topic: WikiProject Colorado Summer Zoom Meeting Time: August 10, 2021 07:30 PM MDT

Join Zoom Meeting https://us04web.zoom.us/j/74506020308?pwd=eTFPSlkzOUg0bTE2SVdXUnl2SVY4Zz09

Meeting ID: 745 0602 0308 Passcode: Colorado

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

2020 United States Census for Colorado
I've posted the results of the 2020 United States Census for Colorado at WikiProject Colorado/2020 Census. You may wish to update your existing Colorado articles with this data.

Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Colorado at 11:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Brief online meeting of WikiProject Colorado
What's up with Wikipedia and WikiProjectColorado? Join us for a brief online meeting at 7:30 PM MDT Tuesday evening, November 9, 2021 at https://meet.google.com/wyz-dfek-fdp

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado online meeting 02/08/2022
What's up with Wikipedia and WikiProject Colorado? Join us for an online meeting from 7:30 to 8:30 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 8, 2022, at meet.google.com/ksx-wksh-eba

If you don't want to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado online meeting 05/17/2022
WikiProject Colorado will hold a short online meeting from 7:30 to 8:30 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 17, 2022, at meet.google.com/zwd-ojag-enp

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado online meeting 08/16/2022
WikiProject Colorado will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 16, 2022, at meet.google.com/bqn-jhaw-ewc. Anyone interested in Colorado is encouraged to attend.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Colorado online meeting 11/15/2022
WikiProject Colorado will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 15, 2022, at meet.google.com/yoe-aphc-wey. Anyone interested in Colorado articles, history, or photographs is encouraged to attend.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting
Wikipedia users in the United States Mountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Colorado Collaboration invitation
WikiProject Colorado invites you to participate in our current collaboration to locate and document the following two original 1861 Colorado Territory county seats: If you have any questions, please contact User:Buaidh (talk or e-mail).
 * Parkville, Colorado, the original county seat of Summit County, Colorado.
 * San Miguel, Colorado, the original county seat of Costilla County, Colorado.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Colorado collaboration
We wish to thank everyone who contributed to our two prior Colorado collaborations to document the Amache National Historic Site and our three lost original county seats of Parkville, St. Vrain, and San Miguel. We invite you to help with our new collaboration to document the seven following former county seats: If you have any questions, please contact Buaidh  talk e-mail
 * California Ranch, Colorado near Franktown – Douglas County seat 1864 to 1874
 * Dayton, Colorado near Twin Lakes – Lake County seat 1866 to 1868
 * Hahns Peak, Colorado – Routt County seat 1878 to 1912
 * Lourette, Colorado – Lake County seat 1863 to 1866
 * San Juan City, Colorado – Hinsdale County seat February 10, 1874 to 1875
 * Ula, Colorado at 38.15°N, -105.5019°W – Custer County seat March 9, 1877 to 1878
 * Wason, Colorado near 37.8931°N, -106.8428°W – Mineral County seat March 27, 1893 to 1893

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting 05/09/2023
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 9, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, geography, articles, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting 08/08/2023
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 8, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in articles, history, geography, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We may try to organize one or more Wiknics. Guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

US Mountain West online meeting November 14
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our . Thanks.

-MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Denver gathering
We will hold a casual Wikipedia gathering at the Gonzales Library at 1498 North Irving Street in Denver, on Sunday afternoon, February 11, 2024, from 2:30 to 4:00 PM MST. See details at Meetup/Denver.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Mountain West Online Meeting
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 13, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our . Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jagged


text:
Jess (programming language)

Jess is a rule engine for the Java computing platform, written in the Java programming language. It was developed by Ernest Friedman-Hill of Sandia National Laboratories. It is a superset of the CLIPS language. It was first written in late 1995. The language provides rule-based programming for the automation of an expert system, and is often termed as an expert system shell. In recent years, intelligent agent systems have also developed, which depend on a similar ability.

Rather than a procedural paradigm, where one program has a loop that is activated only one time, the declarative paradigm used by Jess applies a set of rules to a set of facts continuously by a process named pattern matching. Rules can modify the set of facts, or can execute any Java code. It uses the Rete algorithm to execute rules.

License
The licensing for Jess is freeware for education and government use, and is proprietary software, needing a license, for commercial use. In contrast, CLIPS, which is the basis and starting code for Jess, is free and open-source software.

Code examples
Code examples: Sample code:

Related systems

 * CLIPS: public-domain software tool to build expert systems
 * ILOG rules: business rule management system
 * JBoss Drools: business rule management system (BRMS)
 * Prolog: general purpose logic programming language
 * OpenL Tablets: business centric rules and BRMS
 * DTRules: decision table based, open-source rule engine for Java

Further sources

 * ISBN 1-930110-89-8

title: Jess (programming language)


text:
User:OprgaG/RFCs

RFC with humour (usually on April 1):

 * RFC 527 - "ARPAWOCKY"
 * RFC 748 - "Telnet Randomly-lose option"
 * RFC 1097 - "Telnet subliminal-message option"
 * RFC 1149 - "A standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers"
 * RFC 1216 - "Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts"
 * RFC 1217 - "Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR)"
 * RFC 1313 - "Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio"
 * RFC 1437 - "The Extension of MIME Content-Types to a New Medium"
 * RFC 1438 - "Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of Boredom (SOBs)"
 * RFC 1605 - "SONET to Sonnet translation"
 * RFC 1606 - "A Historical Perspective On The Usage Of IP Version 9"
 * RFC 1607 - "A View from the 21st Century"
 * RFC 1925 - "The Twelve Networking Truths"
 * RFC 2100 - "The Naming of Hosts"
 * RFC 2321 - "RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork Troubleshooting Agent."
 * RFC 2322 - "Management of IP numbers by peg-dhcp."
 * RFC 2323 - "IETF Identification and Security Guidelines."
 * RFC 2324 - "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)"
 * RFC 2325 - "Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2."
 * RFC 2549 -

title: User:OprgaG/RFCs