First, we have the ball then we have the window crashing forward.

Remember Prickly Pear.

They're brand new technology. Databases are really hard.

But I'm glad to say that I think we know the cause of all these conditions, and that cause is NDD

Now, Biff, I never noticed that the car had any blind spot before when I would drive it.

But it's flawed.

Next example.

We want to make sure that the defect is actually error, that is it is wrong.

So all we need in this situation is to look at the governing condition, and lo and behold, we do have a defect.

And the first story is called

To correct the defect, such that it no longer produces an infection but actually makes the program behave correctly.

Before you fix the defect, you should be sure that the defect actually is the defect.

Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed and the anomaly revealed as both beginning and end.

Errors are typically unwanted and unintended. Failures are error. A defect is also an error.

Second, every execution of a defect causes an infection. That's actually not the case.

Tragic heroes are usually leaders or powerful characters, but the tragic hero is also majorly flawed and that flaw usually leads him down the path to a horrible and tragic death.

Computers are obedient to a fault.

As I say, it sounded good. But when we came to go into the thing, we saw that there was a flaw.

We process you for a whole year.

So we've seen the list of callers, the location of the assertion of the program, and the failing assertion itself.

What is this?

And I'm showing you the signal from the chip here, and I'm showing you for the block of retroviral oligos.

A pause there

With your faults

Like a mistake?

And right now most of the preparedness is deeply flawed.

Third, defects in the field are hard to track, which means an assertion gives you a chance to find the defect before it goes into the field, in particular, in combination with thorough testing.

Why?

So, we're sitting around and thinking,

Vosk's time travel device had a drawback.

Her timing was fatally flawed.

You don't know that this is a defect.

They also run the risk of vitamin D deficiency, if they have desk jobs, like that guy.

This notion of causality is important in debugging because when you fix a defect we want to make sure to think first.

I think that it likely that there was a major fault in the lookout.

Are you blind, McFly? How else do you explain that wreck out there?

You running a glitch in the program or something?

This is the problem of testing.

But the problem was, you see, my idea had one fatal flaw, and that flaw was this.

So we have a whole battery of new constructions that are developing, and yet it's easy to think, well, something is still wrong.

In debugging, we also have such a cause effect chain from the defect to the infection that is, an error in the state and finally to the failure, which can be observed by a user.

So, we put tumors and now we have over 100 tumors on our array.

Musicians like to make jokes about it, they say things like, Oh, the viola, where bad violinist goes to die .

This system has obvious defects.

This one... is a bit... defective.