One of the Wolves

Wow. That title almost crosses the line.

I wrote the following at about 2:30 a.m. the other night so I wouldn’t forget it the next morning:

• A boundary is a theoretical division between two entities.
• All boundaries are theoretical. Those that mask themselves as physical can always be viewed more closely, to the point where the whole of the boundary is divided into sub-boundaries. Where there’s this division, there’s a theoretical boundary.

For instance:

Draw a line in the sand. The line is a physical boundary, right? Zoom in, as if with a camera, until the edges of line are outside of your field of view. What do you see now? Sand, right? Tiny pieces of sand. Each with its own boundary, distinct from the others. Zoom in more. Now you see a grain of sand. And even more. Atoms. And now, what boundaries are there?

Is it safe to say a physical boundary is really boundary of boundaries, that in itself is a boundary of boundaries? If not, then where do we draw the line (no pun intended)? To me, we draw that line when we make a theoretical division between the items that make up the boundary. At this point, we care less about what’s really physical — each piece of sand, each atom — and instead care about the theoretical: i.e., the line you shouldn’t cross. That’s the boundary.

Part of me now wants to replace the word “theoretical”, above, with the word “cognitive,” though I’m not sure the effect is much greater.

I have a feeling the basis for this view of boundaries is rooted in one of the major philosophies. Something like, “We can not properly understand the utility of a chair unless we recognize that the physical object is in fact a chair.” In other words: until we give that physical object boundaries, hence the theoretical.

Note: This probably isn’t an orignal thought. Recognition goes to the original attendees of WHET with whom these musings started.

Inferences, Testing

My email’s up — as well as this site — so everything should be hunky dory. If you sent me a message between Friday and Monday, I likely didn’t get it. Please resend.

Uncategorized

I have no idea if you can see this. My website and personal email have been going up and down for the last couple days, likely due to a new server upgrade gone wrong. Inquiries haven’t really elicited any response from my host, so if I’m not responding to your email, you know why.

If you’ve been checking the site — though I hear people use RSS nowadays — let me know if you’ve seen outages. Not sure about you but it’s been pretty rocky from my end.

Have a good weekend!

Experiences

Good news! The Association for Software Testing’s scholarship SIG has just released their first scholarship. They will be giving out money, free registration to next year’s CAST, and free memberships in AST to outstanding undergraduates who show excellence in software testing.

Are you an undergraduate? Do you know bright students who may be interested? We are currently taking applications and encourage all to apply. Deadline is November 30th!

http://scholarship.associationforsoftwaretesting.org

AST, CAST, Testing

I’ll admit I could be reaching a little far on this one. Even so, I think the relationship is there.

I’m in Oregon new helping my dad recover from a broken hip. While chasing someone out of his backyard, he jumped a fence and broke his hip upon landing. Though the circumstances of me being home are less than ideal, I was able to gain some insight while driving with him.

We went to the doctor’s office. Dad had to get his sutures taken out — for those who don’t know, metal stitches — and he led me there turn by turn. I didn’t think at all about where I was going, he just told me the way.

A week or so later, we went again, this time for a prescription refill. Dad was fully prepared to lead me there again, but unexpectedly after a couple turns, he received a phone call from an important person. Because his focus was elsewhere, I was on my own.

What I realized from these two driving trips was how related memory and attention are to cognitive engagement. Because there was no need for me to pay attention the first time (Why should I? I had Geeves in the passenger seat.) I had trouble getting there the second time. I did end up at the right place, but I had to rack brain for the slightest amount of recall.

And here’s where the possibly far-reaching transfer comes in: Geeves represents a very detailed manual test script. I don’t think, I just do exactly what it says. Driving directions a la Google, however, are more like a checklist: With Google, I have to pay attention to all the idiosyncrasies of driving not needed when there’s someone else leading me. Questions like,  Have I gone too far? Have I not gone far enough? Where am I in relation to where I need to go? Did I make the right turn? — all unneeded questions when your only task is to “keep going straight until you’re told to turn again.” And again. And again. Now jump through the door.

Quick side note: A GPS device got me across country a year ago, although the only thing I remember is getting pulled over.

Inferences, Testing fluffy bunnies, Testing