How Technology Is Changing How We Treat 먹튀커뮤니티

Whether you are looking for a first mortgage or even to refinance your home, proving your income is not always possible. Many mortgage lenders will require proof of income, but if you can't provide this or your proof does not take into account all the money you effectively earn it could be a problem. This is where no income verification mortgages can provide a great alternative, for a number of different situations.

™

There are many reasons why a non verified mortgage is best for any individual. This could be that they are self employed, and proving their regular income is difficult. You may get paid cash under the table, or you may earn an income from another non-traditional source. Whatever the reason, using a non-income verified loan means that you do not need to prove the amount of money that you earn. You may still be required to sign a document stating what you make on average each month.

This kind of mortgage will still require you to be a reliable borrower. Mortgage lenders will check your credit score to establish the risk you pose. They may give you slightly less favorable rates, since they cannot assess your risk by knowing the exact amount you earn. You may also be required to pay a higher down payment and take out mortgage insurance.

It is worth searching and spending a little time comparing different mortgage brokers' rates. This will ensure you get the very best deal and loan terms for your mortgage. Like traditional mortgages, no income verification mortgages come with a wide range of terms and specifications - make sure you understand them completely before signing up.

The standard answer to the QA testing interview question of: 'What is the difference between verification and validation?' is as follows:

Verification answers the question "Are we building this (software) product correctly?

Validation answers the question "Are we building the correct (software) product?

image

Whilst there are variations on the definitions of these two terms, within the broad software QA and testing fields, there is general consensus that verification refers to correctness whilst validation refers to the value of the final product.

image

Applying these general definitions to software testing, we see that the practical differences apply to the context and goals of the testing, rather than any difference in software testing methods or tools. The context and goals of 'validating' software is the end user or customer context whilst the context of software verification is 'meets the specification'. Indeed many software products are built correctly, that is they meet standards and specifications, but they fail to meet the real end user (i.e. customer) requirements.

image

Ultimately validation is the focus of what the customer is paying for and whoever does validation represents the voice of the customer (or end user in the case of software applications developed for internal use). In practical terms this means separating the software quality control teams (i.e. test teams) into two broad groups, one that has intimate knowledge of the customer context of the finished product and another group that has strong knowledge of how a software product 먹튀커뮤니티 should be produced.

By way of example consider an accounting application that records general ledger bookings. The business requirements would be produced which outline the business (accounting) rules to be followed. From the business requirements a technical specification would be produced which would document the behavior (i.e. program specification) of the 'to be' delivered software.

In the above example software validation would include the initial walkthrough of the business requirements, with the business representatives, to 'validate' that the requirements do in fact reflect what the application is required to do for the business. When the final application has been developed any testing against the business requirements is also a validation activity. The walkthrough of the technical specification to make sure it contains all the functionality of the business requirements is a verification activity. Also the testing of the delivered software against the technical specification is also a verification activity.

In essence validation can only be done by people with knowledge of how the delivered software is going to be used whilst verification can be done by anyone who can read a specification (or standard) and determine if it is correct. Although we use the phrase 'only', this is not to demean the value of the verification team but rather to convey the fact that strictly speaking the act of verification only requires knowledge of standards and specifications.

In practical terms the degree of complexity of the business requirements will determine whether or not a specialized software validation team needs to exist. If there is considerable complexity and effort in understanding the business requirements then the business analyst would typically take on the role of software validation. In instances of high business complexity the analyst would specialize in given business areas in order to breakdown the problem domain.

Given a business facing team, to perform validation, a supporting team of software testers could be formed to perform verification. The advantages of splitting off the verification team, for large complicated projects, are concerned with efficiency (cost) and effectiveness (on communicating the business requirements to developers).

Many organizations will offshore the verification of a software application but keep the validation onshore (e. g. in the US) as this arrangement optimizes cost whilst respecting the value of communicating the true voice of the customer.

Regardless of how a QA team is organized, identifying validation and verification activities (together with skills and resources to optimally perform them) will yield higher degrees of productivity in the development of software that is truly fit for the intended purpose.