text:
Mikele Leigertwood

Mikele Benjamin Leigertwood (born 12 November 1982) is a former professional footballer who played as a defensive midfielder. Born in England, he represented the Antigua and Barbuda national team at international level.

Wimbledon
Born in Enfield, Leigertwood began his career with Wimbledon. After progressing through the ranks at Wimbledon, he was one of a number of youngsters called up to the first team by the manager Terry Burton in September 2001. After his loan spell at Leyton Orient ended, he was given his first game for Wimbledon at the end of the 2001–02 season in a 1–0 defeat against Barnsley.

In November 2001, Leigertwood was loaned out to Leyton Orient and made his professional debut in a 3–0 win over Oxford United. His performances quickly led to the extension of his loan spell at Leyton Orient on two occasions. Leigertwood went on to make eight appearances for Leyton Orient before returning to his parent club.

At the start of the 2002–03 season, Leigertwood began to establish himself in the starting eleven for the side. However, it wasn't until 1 October 2002 that he scored his first goal for Wimbledon against Portsmouth in the League Cup. Leigertwood continued to hold down a first team spot until he suffered injuries in early March. While on the sidelines, he signed a contract extension that tied him to the club until 2006. He returned from injury on 7 April 2003, starting a 1–0 win over Sheffield United. By the end of the 2002–03 season, Leigertwood had made thirty–three appearances, scoring once in all competitions.

At the start of the 2003–04 season, Wimbledon entered administration. Up until his departure from the club, Leigertwood started every match in the first half of the season. On 26 August 2003, he scored his first goal of the season in a 3–2 loss against Norwich City. and his second of the season on 25 October 200, in a 3–1 loss against Watford. When leaving Wimbledon, he had played 65 games, scoring three times.

Crystal Palace
He transferred to Crystal Palace for £155,000 in January 2004, becoming the first permanent signing of Iain Dowie. Upon joining Crystal Palace, Leigertwood revealed he had turned down move to other clubs in order to join The Eagles.

Leigertwood made his Crystal Palace debut as a late substitute in a 6–3 win over Stoke City on 14 February 2004. After making his debut, he played in 10 league games during the remainder of the 2003–04 season, helping Crystal Palace secure promotion to the FA Premier League after defeating West Ham United in the play-off final to win promotion to the Premiership.

In the 2004–05 season, Leigertwood didn't make his first start of the season until 26 October 2004 in a 2–1 win over South London rivals, Charlton Athletic in the third round of the League Cup. Following his first appearance of the season, Leigertwood began to enjoy a run of first team football. On 22 January 2005, he scored his first goal for the club against Tottenham Hotspur. Leigertwood spent the rest of the 2004–05 season playing in defence and midfield, but he was unsuccessful in helping to prevent Crystal Palace from being relegated from the Premier League on the final day of the season. By the end of the 2004–05 season, Leigertwood had made 23 appearances, scoring once.

In the 2005–06 season, Leigertwood continued to feature in the first team, playing four matches for the side. However, he was kept out by an ankle injury for two months. and did not return to first team action 22 November 2005, coming on as a late substitute in a 1–0 win over Coventry City. After making his return to the first team, Leigertwood held his place until he suffered a thigh injury in mid–January. After recovering from a thigh injury, Leigertwood retained his place for the rest of the season. Around this time, the club began negotiations with Leigertwood over a new contract. However, it was reported in the British newspaper that he had refused to sign. At the end of the 2005–06 season, which saw Palace miss out on a return to the Premier League after losing 1–0 to Watford in the play-offs, Leigertwood went on to make thirty appearances in all competitions. Shortly after the play-offs, he was offered a new contract by the club.

Sheffield United
After Palace's relegation Crystal Palace, he joined Sheffield United on a three-year deal after the Blades paid a fee of £. Although Leigertwood was out of contract, compensation was due as he was under 24 years of age at the time.

Leigertwood made his Sheffield United debut as a 75th-minute substitute in a 1–1 draw against Liverpool in the opening game of the season, quickly establishing himself a first team regular, until he suffered an ankle injury in early December. It wasn't until on 30 December 2006 when he made his return from injury, coming on as a substitute in the 63rd minute in a 1–0 win over Arsenal. His return was short–lived, however, when Leigertwood suffered an ankle injury that kept him out for months and was subsequently plagued with injuries later in the 2006–07 season. Sheffield United were relegated from the Premier League after losing 2–1 to Wigan Athletic in the last game of the season, making it the second time that Leigertwood had suffered relegation from the Premier League. By the end of the 2006–07 season, he had made nineteen appearances for the side.

At the start of the 2007–08 season, Leigertwood made four appearances, despite struggling to hold down a first team place since the club's relegation from the Premier League.

Queens Park Rangers
Leigertwood joined Queens Park Rangers for a fee of £900,000 on 31 August 2007.

Leigertwood made his Queens Park Rangers debut the next day on 1 September 2007, starting a 3–0 loss against Southampton. He scored his first Queens Park Rangers goal in a 1–1 draw against Leicester City. A week later, on 22 September, Leigertwood was sent– ff in the 81st minute of a 1–1 draw against Watford for a second bookable offence. Leigertwood scored his second goal for the club in a 2–0 win over Hull City on 3 November 2007. A month later, on 27 December 2007, he was sent off for the second time that season in the final minutes f a 2–1 loss against Plymouth Argyle, as a result of which Leigertwood served a three match suspension. He scored three more goals in the 2007–08 season, including a brace in a 3–0 win over Stoke City on 2 March 2008. Leigertwood became a first team regular for the side, finishing his first season at the club with forty appearances and scoring five times in all competitions.

In the 2008–09 season, Leigertwood continued as a first team regular, playing either as right–back or in midfield. Leigertwood started the season well when he set up three goals in as many matches between 23 August 2008 and 14 September 2008. Leigertwood received a red card and four match ban in a match against Birmingham City on 28 October 2008 for a challenge on Lee Carsley. His performance at Queens Park Rangers attracted interest in the January transfer window, when he was reportedly "wanted by three clubs ready to shell out a £1m-plus" for him. It wasn't until on 17 January 2009 when Leigterwood scored his first goal of the season, in a 2–0 win over Derby County. Two months later on 17 March 2009, he scored his second goal of the season, in a 1–0 win over Swansea City. By the end of the 2008–09 season, Leigertwood had made forty–six appearances, scoring twice in all competitions.

In the 2009–10 season, Leigterwood started the season well when he scored his first goal of the season in a 1–1 draw against Nottingham Forest on 23 August 2009. His second goal came on 26 September 2009 in a 5–2 win over Barnsley. His 100th appearance for the club came on 30 October 2009 in a 2–1 loss against Leicester City. He continued to regain his first team place for the side. Leigterwood also captained the side in the number of matches in the absence of Martin Rowlands. Leigterwood scored two goals in two matches on 19 December 2009 and 26 December 2009. Shortly after, he signed a three–year contract, keeping him at the club until 2012. In a 1–0 win over Peterborough United on 6 February 2010, he was sent off for a professional foul on Tommy Rowe. Two months later on 24 April 2010, Leigertwood scored his fifth goal of the season in a 1–0 win over Barnsley. Despite missing several matches due to injury and suspension, he went on to make forty–five appearances, scoring five times in all competitions.

In the 2010–11 season, Leigertwood found his playing time at Queens Park Rangers reduced and mostly came on as a substitute. As a result, he fell out of favour with Neil Warnock. By the time of his departure, he had made nine appearances for the side in the 2010–11 season. During his time at Queens Park Rangers, he made 141 appearances and scored 12 goals.

Reading

Leigertwood went on loan to Reading for two months on 23 November 2010. On 27 November 2010, he made his Reading debut, coming off in the 77th minute in a 0–0 draw against Leeds United. Leigertwood quickly became a first team regular for the side. After a series of consistently good performances, this was extended to the end of the 2010–11 season. He scored his first goal for the club against Stevenage in the FA Cup on 29 January 2011. A week later Leigertwood added another goal to his tally with a 21st minute deflected strike against Cardiff City in a 2–2 draw. During the match, Leigertwood punched Michael Chopra "after a confrontation involving both sets of players, but immediately admitted his part in the melee" and served a three match suspension. After serving his suspension, his performance earned him the Reading Post AHG Group-sponsored Player of the Month award for February. He helped the side reach fifth place and qualify for the Championship play–offs. Leigertwood played all three matches in the Championship play–offs, as Reading lost 4–2 against Swansea City in the Championship play-off final. Despite missing out several matches due to injury and suspension, he went on to make twenty–nine appearances, scoring twice in all competitions.

In May 2011, it was announced that Reading had signed Leigertwood on a three-year contract. Leigertwood's first game after signing for the club on a permanent basis was the opening game of the season, a 2–2 draw against Millwall. After joining the club on a permanent basis, he quickly established him in the starting eleven. However, his performances at the start of the season came under criticism from Reading supporters. Despite this, Leigertwood's first goal of the 2011–12 season came at home to Southampton in a 1–1 draw on 22 October 2011. Leigertwood started in every match until he suffered a thigh injury that saw him miss three matches. After returning to the first team from injury, he quickly regained his first team place for the side. His second goal of the campaign came at home to Leicester City in a 3–1 win, and this was followed up with strikes against Blackpool and West Ham United as Reading surged towards promotion with an incredible run of games of which Leigertwood was an important figure in. After returning from a knee injury, he returned to the starting line-up, where he key role Leigertwood had played was rewarded when he scored the winning goal in a 1–0 victory at home to Nottingham Forest, which secured Reading's promotion back to the top flight after a four-year absence. At the end of the 2011–12 season, he went on to make forty–two appearances, scoring five times in all competitions.

In the 2012–13 season, Leigertwood regained his first team place, with the club playing in the Premier League. In early–October, however, he suffered ankle injury that saw him sidelined for one match. After returning from injury, he scored his first Premier League goal for Reading in a 3–3 draw with Fulham with a superb strike from 20 yards on 27 October 2012. Three days later, on 30 October 2012, he scored his second goal for the club, in the League Cup campaign, as Reading lost 7–5 against Arsenal in a match in which Arsenal were 4–0 down before coming back to win 7–5 after extra-time. After being sidelined in early–2013 due to injury, Leigterwood then captained the side for the first time and scored his third goal of the season, in a 4–0 win over Sheffield United in the third round of the FA Cup. He continued to be in the starting line-up until he was dropped from the first team for the rest of the 2012–13 season, as Leigterwood went on to make thirty–four appearances and scoring three times in all competitions. Metro named Leigertwood among the Premier League's worst XI of the season.

Prior to the 2013–14 season, Leigertwood suffered an ankle injury during pre–season, having been under the knife since May. In September 2013, he returned to training after recovering from the ankle injury. Upon returning to training from injury, Leigterwood's return was praised by Manager Nigel Adkins. However, his return was short–lived and his injury plagued was plagued throughout 2013 and early 2014. By March, Leigterwood returned to training. After a year out injured, Leigertwood made his Reading return on 8 April 2014. In the follow–up match, however, he came on as a substitute for Danny Williams in the 61st minute but was sent off for a second bookable offence in a 1–1 draw against Leicester City. After missing out two matches, Leigertwood went on to play the final two matches for the side. By the end of the 2013–14 season, Leigertwood had made four appearances for the side.

On 6 May 2014, Leigertwood was released from Reading, along with five other players and in July joined Nottingham Forest on trial. Whilst on trial, Leigertwood sustained a hip injury which forced him to retire from the game, although this was not officially confirmed until the following year.

International career
Leigertwood is eligible to represent Antigua and Barbuda. Willie Donachie, Antigua and Barbuda's manager, tried to bring Leigertwood into the squad for a World Cup qualifier in June 2008, but the player had a wedding to attend. He was also eligible to represent Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

While serving a four match ban after receiving a red card against Birmingham City on 28 October 2008, he accepted a call up for the 2008 Caribbean Championship to represent Antigua and Barbuda. He made his international debut on 5 November 2008 in a 3–2 loss against Trinidad and Tobago and scored his first goal in their next match against Guyana. In November 2010, he returned to the national team and participated in the second stage of the 2010 Caribbean Championship, playing in all three matches.

Post–playing career
After retiring from professional football, Leigertwood took up a coaching role at Maccabi London Lions as their Sunday Team Coach.

On 19 July 2016 Leigertwood returned to Reading as Academy Loan Manager.

International

 * Scores and results list Antigua and Barbuda's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Leigertwood goal.

Personal life
In March 2010, Leigertwood was involved in Kick It Out's latest campaign, which aimed to raise awareness of homophobia in football. During his time at Reading, he became the Royals' 'Reading Stars' ambassador.

Growing up, he supported Arsenal. Leigertwood is good friends with Jobi McAnuff, the two having known each other since school and been teammates at Wimbledon, Crystal Palace and Reading. He has two children.

Honours
Crystal Palace
 * English First Division play-offs (1): 2004

Queens Park Rangers
 * Football League Championship (1): 2010–11

Reading
 * Football League Championship (1) : 2011–12

title: Mikele Leigertwood


text:
Software quality

In the context of software engineering, software quality refers to two related but distinct notions:

 * Software's functional quality reflects how well it complies with or conforms to a given design, based on functional requirements or specifications. That attribute can also be described as the fitness for the purpose of a piece of software or how it compares to competitors in the marketplace as a worthwhile product. It is the degree to which the correct software was produced.
 * Software structural quality refers to how it meets non-functional requirements that support the delivery of the functional requirements, such as robustness or maintainability. It has a lot more to do with the degree to which the software works as needed.

Many aspects of structural quality can be evaluated only statically through the analysis of the software's inner structure, its source code (see Software metrics), at the unit level, and at the system level (sometimes referred to as end-to-end testing ), which is in effect how its architecture adheres to sound principles of software architecture outlined in a paper on the topic by Object Management Group (OMG).

Some structural qualities, such as usability, can be assessed only dynamically (users or others acting on their behalf interact with the software or, at least, some prototype or partial implementation; even the interaction with a mock version made in cardboard represents a dynamic test because such version can be considered a prototype). Other aspects, such as reliability, might involve not only the software but also the underlying hardware, therefore, it can be assessed both statically and dynamically (stress test).

Using automated tests and fitness functions can help to maintain some of the quality related attributes.

Functional quality is typically assessed dynamically but it is also possible to use static tests (such as software reviews).

Historically, the structure, classification, and terminology of attributes and metrics applicable to software quality management have been derived or extracted from the ISO 9126 and the subsequent ISO/IEC 25000 standard. Based on these models (see Models), the Consortium for IT Software Quality (CISQ) has defined five major desirable structural characteristics needed for a piece of software to provide business value: Reliability, Efficiency, Security, Maintainability, and (adequate) Size.

Software quality measurement quantifies to what extent a software program or system rates along each of these five dimensions. An aggregated measure of software quality can be computed through a qualitative or a quantitative scoring scheme or a mix of both and then a weighting system reflecting the priorities. This view of software quality being positioned on a linear continuum is supplemented by the analysis of "critical programming errors" that under specific circumstances can lead to catastrophic outages or performance degradations that make a given system unsuitable for use regardless of rating based on aggregated measurements. Such programming errors found at the system level represent up to 90 percent of production issues, whilst at the unit-level, even if far more numerous, programming errors account for less than 10 percent of production issues (see also Ninety–ninety rule). As a consequence, code quality without the context of the whole system, as W. Edwards Deming described it, has limited value.

To view, explore, analyze, and communicate software quality measurements, concepts and techniques of information visualization provide visual, interactive means useful, in particular, if several software quality measures have to be related to each other or to components of a software or system. For example, software maps represent a specialized approach that "can express and combine information about software development, software quality, and system dynamics".

Software quality also plays a role in the release phase of a software project. Specifically, the quality and establishment of the release processes (also patch processes), configuration management are important parts of an overall software engineering process.

Motivation
Software quality is motivated by at least two main perspectives:

 * Risk management: Software failure has caused more than inconvenience. Software errors can cause human fatalities (see for example: List of software bugs). The causes have ranged from poorly designed user interfaces to direct programming errors,  see for example Boeing 737 case or Unintended acceleration cases  or Therac-25 cases. This resulted in requirements for the development of some types of software, particularly and historically for software embedded in medical and other devices that regulate critical infrastructures: "[Engineers who write embedded software] see Java programs stalling for one third of a second to perform garbage collection and update the user interface, and they envision airplanes falling out of the sky.". In the United States, within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the FAA Aircraft Certification Service provides software programs, policy, guidance and training, focus on software and Complex Electronic Hardware that has an effect on the airborne product (a "product" is an aircraft, an engine, or a propeller). Certification standards such as DO-178C, ISO 26262, IEC 62304, etc. provide guidance.
 * Cost management: As in any other fields of engineering, a software product or service governed by good software quality costs less to maintain, is easier to understand and can change more cost-effective in response to pressing business needs. Industry data demonstrate that poor application structural quality in core business applications (such as enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM) or large transaction processing systems in financial services) results in cost, schedule overruns and creates waste in the form of rework (see Muda (Japanese term)).  Moreover, poor structural quality is strongly correlated with high-impact business disruptions due to corrupted data, application outages, security breaches, and performance problems.
 * CISQ reports on the cost of poor quality estimates an impact of:
 * $2.08 trillion in 2020
 * $2.84 trillion in 2018
 * IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report 2020 estimates that the average global costs of a data breach:
 * $3.86 million

ISO
Software quality is the "capability of a software product to conform to requirements." while for others it can be synonymous with customer- or value-creation or even defect level. Software quality measurements can be split into three parts: process quality, product quality which includes internal and external properties and lastly, quality in use, which is the effect of the software.

ASQ
ASQ uses the following definition: Software quality describes the desirable attributes of software products. There are two main approaches exist: defect management and quality attributes.

NIST
Software Assurance (SA) covers both the property and the process to achieve it:

 * [Justifiable] confidence that software is free from vulnerabilities, either intentionally designed into the software or accidentally inserted at any time during its life cycle and that the software functions in the intended manner
 * The planned and systematic set of activities that ensure that software life cycle processes and products conform to requirements, standards, and procedures

PMI
The Project Management Institute's PMBOK Guide "Software Extension" defines not "Software quality" itself, but Software Quality Assurance (SQA) as "a continuous process that audits other software processes to ensure that those processes are being followed (includes for example a software quality management plan)." whereas Software Quality Control (SCQ) means ''"taking care of applying methods, tools, techniques to ensure satisfaction of the work products toward quality requirements for a software under development or modification." ''

Other general and historic
The first definition of quality history remembers is from Shewhart in the beginning of 20th century: "There are two common aspects of quality: one of them has to do with the consideration of the quality of a thing as an objective reality independent of the existence of man. The other has to do with what we think, feel or sense as a result of the objective reality. In other words, there is a subjective side of quality."

Kitchenham and Pfleeger, further reporting the teachings of David Garvin, identify five different perspectives on quality:
 * The transcendental perspective deals with the metaphysical aspect of quality. In this view of quality, it is "something toward which we strive as an ideal, but may never implement completely". It can hardly be defined, but is similar to what a federal judge once commented about obscenity: "I know it when I see it".
 * The user perspective is concerned with the appropriateness of the product for a given context of use. Whereas the transcendental view is ethereal, the user view is more concrete, grounded in the product characteristics that meet user's needs.
 * The manufacturing perspective represents quality as conformance to requirements. This aspect of quality is stressed by standards such as ISO 9001, which defines quality as "the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements" (ISO/IEC 9001 ).
 * The product perspective implies that quality can be appreciated by measuring the inherent characteristics of the product.
 * The final perspective of quality is value-based. This perspective recognizes that the different perspectives of quality may have different importance, or value, to various stakeholders.

"The problem inherent in attempts to define the quality of a product, almost any product, was stated by the master Walter A. Shewhart. The difficulty in defining quality is to translate the future needs of the user into measurable characteristics, so that a product can be designed and turned out to give satisfaction at a price that the user will pay. This is not easy, and as soon as one feels fairly successful in the endeavor, he finds that the needs of the consumer have changed, competitors have moved in, etc."

"Quality is a customer determination, not an engineer's determination, not a marketing determination, nor a general management determination. It is based on the customer's actual experience with the product or service, measured against his or her requirements -- stated or unstated, conscious or merely sensed, technically operational or entirely subjective -- and always representing a moving target in a competitive market."

"The word quality has multiple meanings. Two of these meanings dominate the use of the word: 1. Quality consists of those product features which meet the need of customers and thereby provide product satisfaction. 2. Quality consists of freedom from deficiencies. Nevertheless, in a handbook such as this it is convenient to standardize on a short definition of the word quality as 'fitness for use'."

Tom DeMarco has proposed that "a product's quality is a function of how much it changes the world for the better." This can be interpreted as meaning that functional quality and user satisfaction are more important than structural quality in determining software quality.

Another definition, coined by Gerald Weinberg in Quality Software Management: Systems Thinking, is "Quality is value to some person."

Other meanings and controversies
One of the challenges in defining quality is that "everyone feels they understand it" and other definitions of software quality could be based on extending the various descriptions of the concept of quality used in business.

Software quality also often gets mixed-up with Quality Assurance or Problem Resolution Management or Quality Control or DevOps. It does over-lap with before mentioned areas (see also PMI definitions), but is distinctive as it does not solely focus on testing but also on processes, management, improvements, assessments, etc.

Measurement
Although the concepts presented in this section are applicable to both structural and functional software quality, measurement of the latter is essentially performed through software testing. Testing is not enough: According to one study, "individual programmers are less than 50% efficient at finding bugs in their own software. And most forms of testing are only 35% efficient. This makes it difficult to determine [software] quality."

Introduction

Software quality measurement is about quantifying to what extent a system or software possesses desirable characteristics. This can be performed through qualitative or quantitative means or a mix of both. In both cases, for each desirable characteristic, there are a set of measurable attributes the existence of which in a piece of software or system tend to be correlated and associated with this characteristic. For example, an attribute associated with portability is the number of target-dependent statements in a program. More precisely, using the Quality Function Deployment approach, these measurable attributes are the "hows" that need to be enforced to enable the "whats" in the Software Quality definition above.

The structure, classification and terminology of attributes and metrics applicable to software quality management have been derived or extracted from the ISO 9126-3 and the subsequent ISO/IEC 25000:2005 quality model. The main focus is on internal structural quality. Subcategories have been created to handle specific areas like business application architecture and technical characteristics such as data access and manipulation or the notion of transactions.

The dependence tree between software quality characteristics and their measurable attributes is represented in the diagram on the right, where each of the 5 characteristics that matter for the user (right) or owner of the business system depends on measurable attributes (left):
 * Application Architecture Practices
 * Coding Practices
 * Application Complexity
 * Documentation
 * Portability
 * Technical and Functional Volume

Correlations between programming errors and production defects unveil that basic code errors account for 92 percent of the total errors in the source code. These numerous code-level issues eventually count for only 10 percent of the defects in production. Bad software engineering practices at the architecture levels account for only 8 percent of total defects, but consume over half the effort spent on fixing problems, and lead to 90 percent of the serious reliability, security, and efficiency issues in production.

Code-based analysis
Many of the existing software measures count structural elements of the application that result from parsing the source code for such individual instructions tokens control structures (Complexity), and objects.

Software quality measurement is about quantifying to what extent a system or software rates along these dimensions. The analysis can be performed using a qualitative or quantitative approach or a mix of both to provide an aggregate view [using for example weighted average(s) that reflect relative importance between the factors being measured].

This view of software quality on a linear continuum has to be supplemented by the identification of discrete Critical Programming Errors. These vulnerabilities may not fail a test case, but they are the result of bad practices that under specific circumstances can lead to catastrophic outages, performance degradations, security breaches, corrupted data, and myriad other problems that make a given system de facto unsuitable for use regardless of its rating based on aggregated measurements. A well-known example of vulnerability is the Common Weakness Enumeration, a repository of vulnerabilities in the source code that make applications exposed to security breaches.

The measurement of critical application characteristics involves measuring structural attributes of the application's architecture, coding, and in-line documentation, as displayed in the picture above. Thus, each characteristic is affected by attributes at numerous levels of abstraction in the application and all of which must be included in calculating the characteristic's measure if it is to be a valuable predictor of quality outcomes that affect the business. The layered approach to calculating characteristic measures displayed in the figure above was first proposed by Boehm and his colleagues at TRW (Boehm, 1978) and is the approach taken in the ISO 9126 and 25000 series standards. These attributes can be measured from the parsed results of a static analysis of the application source code. Even dynamic characteristics of applications such as reliability and performance efficiency have their causal roots in the static structure of the application.

Structural quality analysis and measurement is performed through the analysis of the source code, the architecture, software framework, database schema in relationship to principles and standards that together define the conceptual and logical architecture of a system. This is distinct from the basic, local, component-level code analysis typically performed by development tools which are mostly concerned with implementation considerations and are crucial during debugging and testing activities.

Reliability
The root causes of poor reliability are found in a combination of non-compliance with good architectural and coding practices. This non-compliance can be detected by measuring the static quality attributes of an application. Assessing the static attributes underlying an application's reliability provides an estimate of the level of business risk and the likelihood of potential application failures and defects the application will experience when placed in operation.

Assessing reliability requires checks of at least the following software engineering best practices and technical attributes:

 * Application Architecture Practices
 * Coding Practices
 * Complexity of algorithms
 * Complexity of programming practices
 * Compliance with Object-Oriented and Structured Programming best practices (when applicable)
 * Component or pattern re-use ratio
 * Dirty programming
 * Error & Exception handling (for all layers - GUI, Logic & Data)
 * Multi-layer design compliance
 * Resource bounds management
 * Software avoids patterns that will lead to unexpected behaviors
 * Software manages data integrity and consistency
 * Transaction complexity level

Depending on the application architecture and the third-party components used (such as external libraries or frameworks), custom checks should be defined along the lines drawn by the above list of best practices to ensure a better assessment of the reliability of the delivered software.

Efficiency
As with Reliability, the causes of performance inefficiency are often found in violations of good architectural and coding practice which can be detected by measuring the static quality attributes of an application. These static attributes predict potential operational performance bottlenecks and future scalability problems, especially for applications requiring high execution speed for handling complex algorithms or huge volumes of data.

Assessing performance efficiency requires checking at least the following software engineering best practices and technical attributes:
 * Application Architecture Practices
 * Appropriate interactions with expensive and/or remote resources
 * Data access performance and data management
 * Memory, network and disk space management
 * Compliance with Coding Practices (Best coding practices)

Security
Software quality includes software security. Many security vulnerabilities result from poor coding and architectural practices such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting. These are well documented in lists maintained by CWE, and the SEI/Computer Emergency Center (CERT) at Carnegie Mellon University.

Assessing security requires at least checking the following software engineering best practices and technical attributes:
 * Implementation, Management of a security-aware and hardening development process, e.g. Security Development Lifecycle (Microsoft) or IBM's Secure Engineering Framework.
 * Secure Application Architecture Practices
 * Multi-layer design compliance
 * Security best practices (Input Validation, SQL Injection, Cross-Site Scripting, Access control etc.)
 * Secure and good Programming Practices
 * Error & Exception handling

Maintainability
Maintainability includes concepts of modularity, understandability, changeability, testability, reusability, and transferability from one development team to another. These do not take the form of critical issues at the code level. Rather, poor maintainability is typically the result of thousands of minor violations with best practices in documentation, complexity avoidance strategy, and basic programming practices that make the difference between clean and easy-to-read code vs. unorganized and difficult-to-read code.

Assessing maintainability requires checking the following software engineering best practices and technical attributes:

 * Application Architecture Practices
 * Architecture, Programs and Code documentation embedded in source code
 * Code readability
 * Code smells
 * Complexity level of transactions
 * Complexity of algorithms
 * Complexity of programming practices
 * Compliance with Object-Oriented and Structured Programming best practices (when applicable)
 * Component or pattern re-use ratio
 * Controlled level of dynamic coding
 * Coupling ratio
 * Dirty programming
 * Documentation
 * Hardware, OS, middleware, software components and database independence
 * Multi-layer design compliance
 * Portability
 * Programming Practices (code level)
 * Reduced duplicate code and functions
 * Source code file organization cleanliness

Maintainability is closely related to Ward Cunningham's concept of technical debt, which is an expression of the costs resulting of a lack of maintainability. Reasons for why maintainability is low can be classified as reckless vs. prudent and deliberate vs. inadvertent, and often have their origin in developers' inability, lack of time and goals, their carelessness and discrepancies in the creation cost of and benefits from documentation and, in particular, maintainable source code.

Size
Measuring software size requires that the whole source code be correctly gathered, including database structure scripts, data manipulation source code, component headers, configuration files etc. There are essentially two types of software sizes to be measured, the technical size (footprint) and the functional size:

 * There are several software technical sizing methods that have been widely described. The most common technical sizing method is number of Lines of Code (#LOC) per technology, number of files, functions, classes, tables, etc., from which backfiring Function Points can be computed;
 * The most common for measuring functional size is function point analysis. Function point analysis measures the size of the software deliverable from a user's perspective. Function point sizing is done based on user requirements and provides an accurate representation of both size for the developer/estimator and value (functionality to be delivered) and reflects the business functionality being delivered to the customer. The method includes the identification and weighting of user recognizable inputs, outputs and data stores. The size value is then available for use in conjunction with numerous measures to quantify and to evaluate software delivery and performance (development cost per function point; delivered defects per function point; function points per staff month.).

The function point analysis sizing standard is supported by the International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG). It can be applied early in the software development life-cycle and it is not dependent on lines of code like the somewhat inaccurate Backfiring method. The method is technology agnostic and can be used for comparative analysis across organizations and across industries.

Since the inception of Function Point Analysis, several variations have evolved and the family of functional sizing techniques has broadened to include such sizing measures as COSMIC, NESMA, Use Case Points, FP Lite, Early and Quick FPs, and most recently Story Points. Function Point has a history of statistical accuracy, and has been used as a common unit of work measurement in numerous application development management (ADM) or outsourcing engagements, serving as the "currency" by which services are delivered and performance is measured.

One common limitation to the Function Point methodology is that it is a manual process and therefore it can be labor-intensive and costly in large scale initiatives such as application development or outsourcing engagements. This negative aspect of applying the methodology may be what motivated industry IT leaders to form the Consortium for IT Software Quality focused on introducing a computable metrics standard for automating the measuring of software size while the IFPUG keep promoting a manual approach as most of its activity rely on FP counters certifications.

CISQ defines Sizing as to estimate the size of software to support cost estimating, progress tracking or other related software project management activities. Two standards are used: Automated Function Points to measure the functional size of software and Automated Enhancement Points to measure the size of both functional and non-functional code in one measure.

Identifying critical programming errors
Critical Programming Errors are specific architectural and/or coding bad practices that result in the highest, immediate or long term, business disruption risk.

These are quite often technology-related and depend heavily on the context, business objectives and risks. Some may consider respect for naming conventions while others – those preparing the ground for a knowledge transfer for example – will consider it as absolutely critical.

Critical Programming Errors can also be classified per CISQ Characteristics. Basic example below:
 * Reliability
 * Avoid software patterns that will lead to unexpected behavior (Uninitialized variable, null pointers, etc.)
 * Methods, procedures and functions doing Insert, Update, Delete, Create Table or Select must include error management
 * Multi-thread functions should be made thread safe, for instance servlets or struts action classes must not have instance/non-final static fields
 * Efficiency
 * Ensure centralization of client requests (incoming and data) to reduce network traffic
 * Avoid SQL queries that don't use an index against large tables in a loop
 * Security
 * Avoid fields in servlet classes that are not final static
 * Avoid data access without including error management
 * Check control return codes and implement error handling mechanisms
 * Ensure input validation to avoid cross-site scripting flaws or SQL injections flaws
 * Maintainability
 * Deep inheritance trees and nesting should be avoided to improve comprehensibility
 * Modules should be loosely coupled (fanout, intermediaries) to avoid propagation of modifications
 * Enforce homogeneous naming conventions

Operationalized quality models
Newer proposals for quality models such as Squale and Quamoco propagate a direct integration of the definition of quality attributes and measurement. By breaking down quality attributes or even defining additional layers, the complex, abstract quality attributes (such as reliability or maintainability) become more manageable and measurable. Those quality models have been applied in industrial contexts but have not received widespread adoption.

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

title: Software quality


text: User talk:67.175.214.233

title: User talk:67.175.214.233


text:
Mike Reid (actor)

Michael Reid (19 January 1940 – 29 July 2007) was an English comedian, actor, author and occasional television presenter. He played the role of Frank Butcher in the soap opera EastEnders and hosted the children's game show Runaround. He was known for his gravelly voice and strong London accent.

Early life
Michael Reid was born at Salvation Mothers Hospital, Hackney in 1940, the son of Ellen Louvian ( Ives) and Sidney Reid. The Blitz caused his family to move to Tottenham where he attended Rowland Hill School.

Career
Reid's first work in entertainment was as a stand-up comedian in clubs and aboard cruise liners in the early 1960s. He then became an extra playing uncredited roles in television series such as Doctor Who (in The Myth Makers and The War Machines), The Saint and Department S. He was fired from working as Roger Moore's underwater stunt double in The Saint after drawing attention to Moore's thinning hair. He also worked as a stuntman for films such as Casino Royale (1967) and The Dirty Dozen (1967).

He then became one of the original stars of The Comedians, a popular TV series of the 1970s produced by Johnnie Hamp for the Manchester-based Granada Television, which consisted entirely of short slots by mature comedians. Being the only obviously London comic in a line-up made up predominately of Northern English and Northern Irish comedians, Reid stood out. As a comedian, Reid's well-known catchphrases included 'Terrific' (pronounced with the emphasis on each syllable), 'Turn It In' and 'Move Yer Arris'.

He capitalised on his initial success with a one-off hit record, a novelty version of "The Ugly Duckling" recorded for Pye. In 1975, it reached number 10 in the UK singles chart. In 1975, he also became the host of the ITV children's TV quiz show Runaround. Runaround ended in 1981.

In 1987, he joined the cast of popular BBC television soap opera EastEnders as Frank Butcher, for which he gained much popularity over the years. He initially joined the series as a semi-regular character, first appearing in September of that year, but was so popular that during 1988 he became a full-time cast member as his character became landlord of the Queen Vic pub, buying it from Den Watts (Leslie Grantham) during 1988. The part of Butcher earned Reid the public persona of being pessimistic, which he enjoyed acting against, such as in television adverts for the soft drink Oasis. His character was involved in many popular storylines over the years; perhaps the most famous of these storylines was his character's long turbulent relationship with Pat Wicks (played by Pam St. Clement), and later his short-lived marriage to Peggy Mitchell (played by Barbara Windsor).

In April 1994, by which time the character of Frank Butcher was one of the most popular on British television, Reid took a long break from the show, due to stress from acting out a depression storyline for the show. Later that year, he starred alongside other fellow EastEnders actors Barbara Windsor and John Altman in his classic adult pantomime Pussy in Boots, a spin-off of Puss in Boots.

His return to EastEnders was aired on Christmas Day 1995. Frank was initially reintroduced as a recurring character and after several brief stints on the show, he returned as a full-time character in May 1998. His character was part of many big storylines over the next two years. At the beginning of 2000, it was reported that Reid was suffering from heart problems. In May 2000, he announced that he would be leaving the soap for good due to exhaustion from the long filming schedules. He was persuaded to stay on the show for a further five months to give his character a dramatic exit. His departure was aired on 2 November 2000 when he famously departed after his affair with ex-wife Pat Evans was discovered by his current wife Peggy Mitchell. That year, he appeared in the popular British gangster film Snatch playing crooked diamond trader Doug "The Head" Denovitz. He went on to appear in several low-budget British films over the next few years such as Hey Mr DJ (2005) and Moussakka and Chips (2005), as well as a Spanish film titled Oh Marbella (2003).

Reid made brief returns to EastEnders in late January 2002 to appear in three episodes filmed in Spain, followed by a spin-off special episode titled "Perfectly Frank" in September 2003 and made his final comeback for a few episodes in December 2005. That month, Reid appeared on The Paul O'Grady Show and made it clear that he had no interest in any possible future re-appearances in EastEnders. The following year, he rejected another offer to return to the series.

Reid was semi-retired from show business by this time, and lived in a villa in Spain. He returned to acting in early 2007, appearing in two episodes of the long-running ITV police drama series The Bill, in which he played the part of corrupt businessman Brian Stevens. This was his last broadcast television appearance at that time, though he had filmed a reality series for ITV entitled The Baron before his death; the network was undecided as to whether it would be aired, but the programme started airing on 24 April 2008 on ITV1. Reid was the eventual winner, facing off against Suzanne Shaw after the departure of the other contestant, Malcolm McLaren. Reid was thus bestowed with the title of Baron of Troup, a genuine and hereditary barony, though one conveying no privilege aside from the use of the title itself. Reid had also completed filming as a gangster in the independent British film Jack Says four days before his death. The film was released on DVD on 22 September 2008. His character, The Guv'nor, also features in the graphic novel prequel Jack Said.

Stand-up routines
Throughout his career, Reid performed at many venues, but only a few shows were recorded for release on VHS and/or DVD. These titles are:

 * Mike Reid Live & Uncensored (only available on VHS) (1992)
 * Mike Reid Live & Uncensored 2 (only available on VHS) (1994)
 * Live at the London Palladium (available on VHS & DVD) (1997)
 * Some of That (only available on VHS) (1997)
 * Pussy in Boots – An Uncensored Live Adult Show (with Barbara Windsor) (only available on VHS) (1998)
 * Alive & Kidding (only available on VHS) (1998)
 * Seriously Funny (available on VHS & DVD) (2000)
 * Live at the Queen Vic (only available on VHS) (2002)
 * Being Frank – The Guvnor's Last Stand (available on VHS and DVD) (2008)

Reid recorded many cover versions of classic songs. In 2006, his version of Adriano Celentano's nonsense song "Prisencolinensinainciusol" enjoyed a renaissance, spurred by a campaign group on social-networking website Facebook in 2010.

Personal life
In 1971, he married his longtime live-in partner Shirley (née Allder); they had twin sons Mark and Michael.

In 1990, Reid suffered tragedy when his son Mark committed suicide by dousing himself with petrol after years of suffering with mental health problems. Just four months after Mark's death, Mark's daughter died from cot death. Reid coped by ploughing himself into work, but he said years later "People must see me on the TV or in cabaret laughing, singing, cracking gags and imagine that time has healed the pain and the scars. If only they knew. My son is locked away (inside) – not forgotten, just hidden away in what part we keep our private grief. Otherwise I couldn't function."

Reid was known to be opposed to plans to introduce blasphemy laws, for the effect this would have on satire, comedy and free speech.

Reid was a friend of fellow actor and stand-up comedian Freddie Starr: together they introduced their sometime bodyguard, the bareknuckle fighter Lenny McLean, to acting. McLean went on to appear in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

During the 1970s, Reid was president of Chelmsford City.

Death
Reid died in Marbella, Spain, on 29 July 2007, aged 67. A heavy smoker, he was suspected of having suffered a heart attack. Two weeks before he died, he had received a full medical examination and been given a clean bill of health. The 30 July 2007 EastEnders episode featured a dedication to him following the end credits.

Reid's funeral was held on Tuesday 14 August 2007 at Little Easton Parish Church, Essex, and was attended by over 250 people, including his former EastEnders co-stars Pam St Clement, Sid Owen, Michael Greco, June Brown, Barbara Windsor, Sophie Lawrence, Bobby Davro and other members of the EastEnders cast. His body was cremated the following day at Chelmsford Crematorium, and his ashes were later buried in the graveyard of St Mary the Virgin Church at Little Easton, in Essex.

Reid's family decided to allow fans to attend his funeral, and his widow Shirley also invited them to speak. Reid's former co-stars in EastEnders were all given the day off work to attend his funeral.

Posthumous events
In November 2007, just over three months after Reid's death, the BBC announced that his EastEnders character Frank Butcher would be killed off in April 2008. The week had been dubbed "Frank Week". In the EastEnders episode shown on 1 April 2008, Frank's funeral was held. Frank's children, Ricky, Diane and Janine also made a comeback. In the episode in which Frank's funeral took place, Reid appeared in archive clips during flashbacks in Pat Butcher's head. He was also heard saying "Take care of yourself, babe" to Pat at the very end of the episode, a flashback of the words Frank had spoken taken from the end of the last-ever scene Reid performed in EastEnders, originally broadcast in December 2005.

Selected filmography

 * Doctor Who: The War Machines episode (1966) .... Soldier (uncredited)
 * The Saint (1966) .... Secret police officer (uncredited)
 * Mister Ten Per Cent (1967) .... Doorman (uncredited)
 * The Dirty Dozen (1967) .... Sergeant at War Games HQ (uncredited)
 * Quatermass and the Pit (1967) .... Possessed man in crowd (uncredited)
 * Up the Junction (1968) .... Policeman outside court (uncredited)
 * The Champions (1969).... Security guard (uncredited)
 * The Looking Glass War (1969) .... Policeman Guarding Leiser (uncredited)
 * The Adding Machine (1969) .... Yard guard
 * Department S (1969) .... The Trojan Tanker French driver (uncredited)
 * The Comedians (1971) .... Presenter
 * Steptoe and Son (1972) .... Compere
 * Runaround (1975–1976, 1978–1981) .... Presenter
 * ''Noah's Castle (1979)
 * Worzel Gummidge (1980) .... Fairground Owner
 * Minder (1982) .... Vernon
 * Big Deal (1986) ... Peter Davis
 * EastEnders (1987–2000, 2002, 2005) .... Frank Butcher (780 episodes)
 * Big Break (1990) .... Presenter
 * Pussy in Boots (1994) ..... Big Dick
 * Cracker (1994) .... Jimmy Jukes
 * The Detectives (1995) .... Ronnie Richardson
 * Snatch (2000) .... Doug 'The Head' Denovitz
 * EastEnders: Perfectly Frank (2003) .... Frank Butcher
 * The Secret Show (2006) .... Mr Atom (Voice)
 * The Bill (2007) .... Brian Stevens
 * Jack Says (2008) ... The Guv'nor (final film role)

title: Mike Reid (actor)


text:
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

Background
The United States Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the oftentimes bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the United States Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts enumerated in these amendments are built upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights 1689, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215). Although James Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government.

In the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments; such protections were instead provided by the constitutions of each state. After the Civil War, Congress and the states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which included the Due Process Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. While the Fifth Amendment had included a due process clause, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment crucially differed from the Fifth Amendment in that it explicitly applied to the states. The Privileges or Immunities Clause also explicitly applied to the states, unlike the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was not designed to protect individuals from the actions of state governments. In Twining v. New Jersey (1908), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Due Process Clause might incorporate some of the Bill of Rights, but continued to reject any incorporation under the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Incorporation
The doctrine of incorporation has been traced back to either Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago (1897) in which the Supreme Court appeared to require some form of just compensation for property appropriated by state or local authorities (although there was a state statute on the books that provided the same guarantee) or, more commonly, to Gitlow v. New York (1925), in which the Court expressly held that States were bound to protect freedom of speech. Since that time, the Court has steadily incorporated most of the significant provisions of the Bill of Rights. Provisions that the Supreme Court either has refused to incorporate, or whose possible incorporation have not yet been addressed, include the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits.

Incorporation applies both procedurally and substantively to the guarantees of the states. Thus, procedurally, only a jury can convict a defendant of a serious crime, since the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right has been incorporated against the states; substantively, for example, states must recognize the First Amendment prohibition against a state-established religion, regardless of whether state laws and constitutions offer such a prohibition. The Supreme Court declined to apply new procedural constitutional rights retroactively against the states in criminal cases in Teague v. Lane,.

Rep. John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, advocated that the Fourteenth applied the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way, despite the dissenting argument in the 1947 case of Adamson v. California by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black that the framers' intent should control the Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (he included a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham's congressional testimony). Although the Adamson Court declined to adopt Black's interpretation, the Court during the following twenty-five years employed a doctrine of selective incorporation that succeeded in extending against the States almost all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights. The Bill of Rights thus imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as an anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply entrenched legal protection for various civil liberties and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court for example concluded in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) case that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities. As the Court noted, the idea of the Bill of Rights "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." This is why "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." The 14th Amendment has vastly expanded civil rights protections and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Selective versus total incorporation
In the 1940s and 1960s the Supreme Court gradually issued a series of decisions incorporating several of the specific rights from the Bill of Rights, so as to be binding upon the States. A dissenting school of thought championed by Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas supported that incorporation of specific rights, but urged incorporation of all specific rights instead of just some of them. Black was for so-called mechanical incorporation, or total incorporation, of Amendments 1 through 8 of the Bill of Rights. Black felt that the Fourteenth Amendment required the States to respect all of the enumerated rights set forth in the first eight amendments, but he did not wish to see the doctrine expanded to include other, unenumerated "fundamental rights" that might be based on the Ninth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment was excluded from total incorporation as well, due to it already being patently concerned with the power of the states. Black felt that his formulation eliminated any arbitrariness or caprice in deciding what the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect, by sticking to words already found in the Constitution. Although Black was willing to invalidate federal statutes on federalism grounds, he was not inclined to read any of the first eight amendments as states' rights provisions as opposed to individual rights provisions. Justice Black felt that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to apply the first eight amendments from the Bill of Rights to the states, as he expressed in his dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California. This view was again expressed by Black in his concurrence in Duncan v. Louisiana citing the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause: "'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States."

Due process interpretation
Justice Felix Frankfurter, however, felt that the incorporation process ought to be incremental, and that the federal courts should only apply those sections of the Bill of Rights whose abridgment would "shock the conscience," as he put it in Rochin v. California (1952). Such a selective incorporation approach followed that of Justice Moody, who wrote in Twining v. New Jersey (1908) that "It is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law." The due process approach thus considers a right to be incorporated not because it was listed in the Bill of Rights, but only because it is required by the definition of due process, which may change over time. For example, Moody's decision in Twining stated that the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination was not inherent in a conception of due process and so did not apply to states, but was overruled in Malloy v. Hogan (1964). Similarly, Justice Cardozo stated in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) that the right against double jeopardy was not inherent to due process and so does not apply to the states, but that was overruled in Benton v. Maryland (1969). Frankfurter's incrementalist approach did carry the day, but the end result is very nearly what Justice Black advocated, with the exceptions noted below.

Incorporation under privileges or immunities
Some have suggested that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be a more appropriate textual basis than the due process clause for incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It is often said that the Slaughter-House Cases "gutted the privileges or immunities clause" and thus prevented its use for applying the Bill of Rights against the states. In his dissent to Adamson v. California, however, Justice Hugo Black pointed out that the Slaughter-House Cases did not directly involve any right enumerated in the Constitution:

"[T]he state law under consideration in the Slaughter-House cases was only challenged as one which authorized a monopoly, and the brief for the challenger properly conceded that there was 'no direct constitutional provision against a monopoly.' The argument did not invoke any specific provision of the Bill of Rights, but urged that the state monopoly statute violated 'the natural right of a person' to do business and engage in his trade or vocation."

Thus, in Black's view, the Slaughterhouse Cases should not impede incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Some scholars go even further, and argue that the Slaughterhouse Cases affirmatively supported incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states. In dicta, Justice Miller's opinion in Slaughterhouse went so far as to acknowledge that the "right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances ... are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution," although in context Miller may have only been referring to assemblies for petitioning the federal government.

In the 2010 landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. However, Justice Thomas, the fifth justice in the majority, criticized substantive due process and declared instead that he reached the same incorporation only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. No other justice attempted to question his rationale. This is considered by some as a "revival" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, however as it is a concurring opinion and not the majority opinion in the case, it is not binding precedent in lower courts; it is merely an indication that SCOTUS may be inclined, given the proper question, to reconsider and ultimately reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases.

In the 2019 case Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court, citing McDonald, ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas did not join this opinion; in a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, he once again declared that he would reach the same incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Justice Gorsuch took an in-between position. He joined the opinion of the Court, but wrote a short concurrence acknowledging that the Privileges or Immunities Clause might be the better vehicle for incorporation—but ultimately deciding that nothing in the case itself turned on the question of which clause is the source of the incorporation.

Possible consequences of the Privileges or Immunities approach
In the Timbs decision, one of Justice Thomas's stated reasons for preferring incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause was what he perceived as the Court's failure to consistently or correctly define which rights are "fundamental" under the Due Process Clause. In Thomas' view, incorporation through Privileges or Immunities would allow the Court to exclude rights from incorporation which had erroneously been deemed fundamental in previous decisions.

Another difference between incorporation through Due Process versus Privileges or Immunities is that the text of the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers only to the privileges or immunities of "citizens," while the Due Process Clause protects the due process rights of "any person." It is possible that a switch to Privileges or Immunities incorporation would limit protections of the rights of non-citizens against state governments.

Specific amendments
Many of the provisions of the First Amendment were applied to the States in the 1930s and 1940s, but most of the procedural protections provided to criminal defendants were not enforced against the States until the Warren Court of the 1960s, famous for its concern for the rights of those accused of crimes, brought state standards in line with federal requirements. The following list enumerates, by amendment and individual clause, the Supreme Court cases that have incorporated the rights contained in the Bill of Rights. (The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it "is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." The Tenth Amendment is also not listed; by its wording, it is a reservation of powers to the states and to the people.)

Amendment I
Guarantee against establishment of religion Guarantee of free exercise of religion Guarantee of freedom of speech Guarantee of freedom of the press Guarantee of freedom of assembly Guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances Guarantee of freedom of expressive association
 * This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Everson v. Board of Education,.
 * This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut,.
 * This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York,  and Stromberg v. California,.
 * This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York,  Near v. Minnesota,.
 * This provision has been incorporated against the states. See De Jonge v. Oregon,.
 * This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Edwards v. South Carolina,.
 * This right, though not in the words of the first amendment, was first mentioned in the case NAACP v. Alabama,  and was at that time applied to the states. See also Roberts v. United States Jaycees,, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."

Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms

 * This right has been incorporated against the states. Described as a fundamental and individual right that will necessarily be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, see McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Self Defense is described as "the central component" of the Second Amendment in McDonald, supra., and upheld District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S (2008) concluding the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago (2010). "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," McDonald, supra..

Amendment III
Freedom from quartering of soldiers
 * This provision has been incorporated against the states within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but has not been incorporated against the states elsewhere. The Supreme Court has not yet heard an appeal about applying this protection in all states.

In 1982, the Second Circuit applied the Third Amendment to the states in Engblom v. Carey. This is a binding authority over the federal courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, but is only a persuasive authority over the other courts in the United States.

The Tenth Circuit has suggested that the right is incorporated because the Bill of Rights explicitly codifies the "fee ownership system developed in English law" through the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the Fourteenth Amendment likewise forbids the states from depriving citizens of their property without due process of law. See United States v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485, 1510 n.1 (10th Cir. 1988).

Amendment IV
Unreasonable search and seizure
 * This right has been incorporated against the states by the Supreme Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio,, although there is dicta in Wolf v. Colorado, , saying the "core" of the Fourth Amendment applied to the States.
 * The remedy of exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence, the exclusionary rule, has been incorporated against the states. See Mapp v. Ohio. In Mapp, the Court overruled Wolf v. Colorado in which the Court had ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states.

Warrant requirements
 * The various warrant requirements have been incorporated against the states. See Aguilar v. Texas,.
 * The standards for judging whether a search or seizure undertaken without a warrant was "unreasonable" also have been incorporated against the states. See Ker v. California,.

Amendment V
Right to indictment by a grand jury Protection against double jeopardy Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination Right to Due Process of Law
 * This right has been held not to be incorporated against the states. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Benton v. Maryland, . However, this is generally limited by the doctrine of dual sovereignty, according to which a conviction, or acquittal, in federal court does not prevent a conviction in state court for the same crime, and a conviction in a court of one state does not prevent a conviction for the same action in a court of another state. See Bartkus v. Illinois,, Heath v. Alabama, , Gamble v. United States (2019).
 * This right has been incorporated against the states.
 * Self Incrimination in Court See Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), Malloy v. Hogan,.
 * Miranda See Miranda v. Arizona,.
 * A note about the Miranda warnings: The text of the Fifth Amendment does not require that the police, before interrogating a suspect whom they have in custody, give him or her the now-famous Miranda warnings. Nevertheless, the Court has held that these warnings are a necessary prophylactic device, and thus required by the Fifth Amendment in order to introduce a suspect's statements against him or her as part of a prosecutor's case-in-chief whether in state or federal court. The Court has held in Vega v. Tekoh that failure to provide Miranda warnings does not, by itself, violate the Fifth Amendment.

 * This right has not formally been incorporated, with the Court reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment already protects due process of law against state violation. It first defended the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting due process of law at the state level in Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, at 45 (1894).

Protection against taking of private property without just compensation
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).

Amendment VI
Right to a speedy trial Right to a public trial Right to trial by impartial jury Right to a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred Right to notice of accusations Right to confront adverse witnesses Right to compulsory process (subpoenas) to obtain witness testimony Right to assistance of counsel
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Klopfer v. North Carolina,.
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See In re Oliver,.
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Duncan v. Louisiana,, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in non-petty cases. See also Parker v. Gladden, , where the Supreme Court ruled "that the statements of the bailiff to the jurors are controlled by the command of the Sixth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It guarantees that 'the accused shall enjoy the right to a trial, by an impartial jury ....'"   However, the size of the jury vary between federal and state courts.  Even so, the Supreme Court has ruled that a jury in a criminal case may have as few as six members.  Williams v. Florida, .  Furthermore, there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile delinquency proceedings held in state court.  See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, . The Supreme Court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) that a unanimous jury vote requirement for criminal convictions is further incorporated against the states, overturning the prior Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) which had allowed states to make this determination on its own.
 * This right has not been incorporated against the states. See Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3rd Cir. 1980). In Zicarelli v. Gray, 543 F.2d 466 (3d Cir. 1976), a lower federal court "assumed" that state governments could not violate the vicinage right. The Supreme Court has not yet heard a case concerning application of this federal right to the state level.
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See In re Oliver, . See also Rabe v. Washington,.
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Pointer v. Texas,.
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Washington v. Texas,.
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Powell v. Alabama, for capital cases, see Gideon v. Wainwright,  for all felony cases, and see Argersinger v. Hamlin,  for imprisonable misdemeanors. In subsequent decisions, the Court extended the right to counsel to any case in which a jail sentence is imposed.
 * However, the right to petition a federal court for relief against ineffective assistance of state-level council has not been incorporated against the states if the evidentiary basis for such a procedure was not introduced into the state trial record. See Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022).

Amendment VII
Right to jury trial in civil cases Re-Examination Clause
 * This right has not been incorporated against the states. See Dohany v. Rogers,, Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1876). In Walker, Justice Morrison Waite ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not compel states to provide jury trials for civil matters because states "are left to regulate trials in their own courts in their own way. A trial by jury in suits at common law pending in the State courts is not, therefore, a privilege or immunity of national citizenship."
 * This right has not been incorporated against the states. See The Justices v. Murray, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 274 (1870), and Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, . The right prevents federal courts from retrying a civil jury case without following common law procedures, but not state courts. As the Court ruled in Justices, "the seventh amendment could not be invoked in a State court to prohibit it from re-examining, on a writ of error, facts that had been tried by a jury in the court below."

Amendment VIII
Protection against excessive bail Protection against excessive fines Protection against cruel and unusual punishments
 * This right may have been incorporated against the states. In Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971), the Court stated in dicta: "Bail, of course, is basic to our system of law, and the Eighth Amendment's proscription of excessive bail has been assumed to have application to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." In Murphy v. Hunt,, the Court did not reach the issue because the case was dismissed as moot. Bail was included in the list of incorporated rights in McDonald footnote 12, citing Schilb.
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Timbs v. Indiana (2019), in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority "For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties."
 * This right has been incorporated against the states. See Robinson v. California, . This holding has led the Court to suggest, in dicta, that the excessive bail and excessive fines protections have also been incorporated. See Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520, 1529 (2008).

Reverse incorporation
A similar legal doctrine to incorporation is that of reverse incorporation. Whereas incorporation applies the Bill of Rights to the states through the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, equality before the law is required under the laws of the federal government by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. For example, in Bolling v. Sharpe,, which was a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, the schools of the District of Columbia were desegregated even though Washington is a federal enclave. Likewise, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, an affirmative action program by the federal government was subjected to strict scrutiny based on equal protection.

title: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights


text:
Talk:Bernard Arnault

One of the worse
This is one of the worse articles I have seen on wiki. How did he get rich? I heard something about Louis Vitton on the rich list but nothing here. Childhood? etc etc the TRUTH 01:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. TerriersFan 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The background article refers to his father, and "the company". But neither are named. Who was his father, and what was the company? Was it family owned, etc?124.197.15.138 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) He is 3rd in the worlds richist billionaires not 4th--86.148.30.221 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Bold text--86.148.30.221 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)--86.148.30.221 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In ELEVEN YEARS this article has not improved in its background information, in fact it's degraded. Who the fuck is policing this page to keep this man's background hidden? Every month someone is removing all of the information about his father and background. 2604:2000:1281:45D1:1D2A:66AA:405F:545E (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so no one was stopping you from contributing. Anyway, I have just expanded the "Early life" section. Edwardx (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could I add that he has enjoyed sensual pleasures to the maximum extent, (splurging on cars, villas, holidays, luxuries, women, wine, drink etc.)? If it is constructive. 210.212.162.179 (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Bernard the Belgian
If we see him as a non-naturalised Belgian, how many generations would he be away from Belgium? --82.134.28.194 (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

X1969
What does "X1969" mean, as found in the article? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bernard Arnault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.europolitics.info/lvmh-says-takes-control-of-spain-s-loewe-artr172336-5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407131517/https://secure.onlineprocessing.biz/mr5/netflix.us.en/index.php?s=24309 to https://secure.onlineprocessing.biz/mr5/netflix.us.en/index.php?s=24309&item=54629

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocking minority
There is a new disambiguation article, Blocking minority, which may be relevant to this article (specifically to LVMH share purchases) since the term is used here without much explanation. Improvement and development will be welcome there. --Red King (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Merci patron!
So... no mention of this and other criticism? The section on the Belgian nationality seems incomplete at best. 2001:1C02:1901:ED00:DD1:1C6A:E786:22B7 (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Please feel free to WP:BEBOLD and add information if you think it is missing. We all help improve Wikipedia in that way. Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 15:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability for wealth in general, not for briefly becoming the richest person in the world
In case someone wants to actually discuss this, his recent and brief position as the wealthiest person in the world is not what he's notable for, and should not replace summarizing statements about his position as one of the wealthiest persons in the world. --Hipal (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Nor for being the richest person in Afro-Eurasia. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Needs an update
No longer richest person, also, update projections for 2022 97.119.238.249 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

what he does?
Brand 2600:8805:4312:BC00:BE0D:F220:4260:1411 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Add post-nominals in infobox
Please add the Post Nominals OMRI and COAL in the infobox. Is that possible for you to do? Like with article Dalida, where the post nominals are shown in the infobox, can someone add them to Arnualt's infobox? 70.50.199.125 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Richest again
According to the Wikipedia page on the richest people (linked in the article), he is, in 2024, back on top. N.o.bouvin (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment ça va
Bonjour 102.67.225.242 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 * je besoin de aider 102.67.225.242 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bernard Arnault


text:
User talk:195.188.173.95

September 2020
Hello, I'm Synoman Barris. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been [ disallowed by an edit filter] because they did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page, which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Also feel free to ask for assistance at the Help Desk whenever you like to. Thank you. Megan☺  Talk to the monster  13:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zongzi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mvqr (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Asartea. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Equator have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  13:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Equator, you may be blocked from editing.   Chlod (say hi!) 13:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

title: User talk:195.188.173.95