I recently had the (mis)fortune of managing a small project from start to finish. Here's how it should have gone:
Business Requirements -> UI/UX design -> Development -> Review and Revision -> Implementation

Here's how it actually went:
Business Requirements (BR for brevity) assuming advanced (impossible) AI -> UI/UX/Dev meeting -> New realistic BR -> UI/UX/Dev mockup and approval -> Development Committments made -> Solution approved by UI/UX -> Implementation and Financial Committments made (with new BR "minor adjustments") -> UI/UX/Dev meeting to explain why BR "minor adjustments" are impossible with Implemented Solution -> Blame, paper trails, resumes updated, late night cowboy coding -> New Solution -> UI/UX/Dev meeting results in UI/UX "minor adjustments" -> Emergency Spagetti Coding -> UI/UX/Dev meeting results in UI/UX "minor adjustments" -> Much Balmer Peak coding, Terrifying Debugging -> UI/UX/Dev meetings results in UI/UX "minor adjustments" -> Spagetti code disassembled, rewritten for sanity (more late night Balmer Peak coding) -> UI/UX meetings finally result in a final stable Soution

I adamently wish I knew how to adjust the process so that the "should have gone" cycle would actually happen but there are hurdles I haven't found a way around because all too often:

1. Business Requirements writers don't know what is really possible because they don't understand the data or programming possibilities
2. Users don't know what they really want because they can only imagine what they already know with added buttons
3. Developers commit to plans blind to what future changes will be required
4. User Interface designers don't realize the limitations of development, the data, or what the users will actually do

I'm not particularly surprised and after being rear ended myself, I now drive much differently and pay a lot more attention to what's going on behind me. Several times since that accident, I've avoided having others because I changed the way I drive. In particular, I take a LOT longer to slow down than I used to. If you stop on our freeways when the cars in front of you stop, there is a good chance the person behind you won't. The trick is to slow down for a while before you have to stop so that they have time to look up and start paying attention again while your brake lights are on. Maybe you're already doing that, but a lot of people assume that having accidents that aren't their fault also means they don't need to change their behavior. (Sometimes there is nothing you can do to avoid it, and I totally get that, but ... three times?)

Besides, I can't tell if you're just sharing your story or actually trying to disagree with something. The number of crashes? That doesn't have anything to do with what people report. Maybe the number of deaths? That doesn't have anything to do with what people report. The only thing left is the Erie study, but I get the feeling you didn't read it. I suspect you didn't even read the simple article about it that I linked to. You can just say "I don't care, the facts don't support my fantasy" or maybe you can specifically explain what about the study is wrong.

Actually, it hasn't only now become a problem. If anything, the other problems have decreased to the point that it's finally significant enough to focus on. Traffic fatalities have gone down at the same time as the use of gadgets have gone up. In fact, you're 5 times as likely to be in a distracted driving accident due to daydreaming as you are to be in one due to mobile phone use. The bans don't work, they just give lawmakers something to do that has the appearance of addressing the real problem while they ignore what really works because what really works doesn't get votes.

Lie: Texting is making the roads more dangerous than they used to be. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, "In 2011, traffic deaths fell 2% to 32,367 from the previous year, making traffic deaths in 2011 at the lowest level since 1949 -- and a 26% decline since 2005."

Lie: Texting is causing the majority of distracted driving accidents. In the news today, "According to the report, which was published earlier this week, 62 percent of the drivers studied were 'generally distracted or lost in thought.' Conversely, the study found that only 12 percent of those examined were using their cell phones - either texting, talking, or dialing.

Lie: The solution to texting accidents is a ban A "study by researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) finds no reductions in crashes after laws take effect that ban texting by all drivers. In fact, such bans are associated with a slight increase in the frequency of insurance claims filed under collision coverage for damage to vehicles in crashes."

Opinion: We're focusing on the wrong problem. I spend about two hours a day commuting and get to observe both great and courteous drivers and and also dangerous and rude drivers. People like to focus on banning gadgets because it gives a false sense of hope, they hope that the answer is simple and safer roadways can be had by stopping people from doing something. My opinion is that safer driving comes by education, training, testing and enforcement. I believe that gadget bans are as ineffective as the distracted driving laws that are ignored already. Focusing on a specific detail like a phone causes people to do the same thing they would without the ban, but they do it in a more clandestine way which actually makes the real problem, distraction, worse.

Don't take my word for these facts. Search for statistics about traffic fatalities and for the study done by Erie Insurance Group. Here are a couple links to get you started:

• Wikipedia - List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year
• Daily Mail - Keep your mind on the road
• Highway Loss Data Institute - Texting bans don't reduce crashes; effects are slight crash increases

Yup. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Just because people have urges to act like animals, doesn't mean we should. In fact we have rules and laws to keep us from giving into those urges. That was part of my point.

I suspect that you drew that one phrase from the larger context because you wanted to make the point that hunting and killing animals is bad, but rather you made the point that it is unnecessary because you prefer an honest tone instead of a belligerent one. I'd agree with you on both counts actually in most situations. Personally, I don't own a hunting gun (or bow) or hunt for sport because my environment (urban) doesn't make it a useful activity. But I add the qualifier "in most situations" because it isn't always true. You added the qualifier "most" as well and I suspect for the same reason.

The featured article is about the attempt to limit the damage of a non-native invasive species. In this particular instance, the only practical method of limiting the damage is to kill as many of the invasive animals as possible. I am not arguing that it is a good thing to kill them, but rather that in order to preserve the environment we treasure, it is an unfortunate necessity. I admit that I can see the appeal of hunting even if it isn't a strong appeal to me personally and therefore I can see how appealing to hunters to participate is a useful methodology.

I did grow up in a rural environment and was and remain exposed to many hunters. For many hunters, the actual kill is more of a proof of your skill as a hunter than a necessity, but it does provide the benefit of food for many of them. In trade for investments in time, getting a hunting license, requisite training and certification, and the necessary equipment, many of them provide a year's worth of meat for their families with their skills. I can also tell you from personal experience that the challenge of planning a hunt and the process of stalking is something that appeals to most of them. I actually managed to stalk within arms reach of a deer once, and it was thrilling. I had no desire or plan to kill anything because there was no benefit for me, yet the confirmation of my prowess and being able to see them so closely in the wild is one of my fonder memories.

That's a secondary point though. My first and hopefully less subtle point was that it is absurd to draw the conclusions or make the generalities found in the post I to which I was replying.

[Checked a mirror, yup, canines.]

I didn't choose, but I am an animal. By most definitions, yes, we are in fact animals. We have all the instincts of carnivores, an urge to stalk, an urge to hunt and yes, an urge to kill prey.

Now if I stalk around the house and pounce on things, my family looks at me a little funny because of society or whatever. But if I buy a permit and a bow and go after deer, that's totally acceptable.

If I'm wandering around the savanna in my PJs and get taken out by a pride of lions, then nobody is going to be blaming the lions, calling them gutless cowards, asking them how brave they're going to be when somebody kills them. They're lions, that's what they do and we're perfectly fine with that.

If anything, it's human hunters that are on the highroad here. We have rules about when and how we're allowed to kill other animals (and each other.) We're at the top of a food chain, and rather than just killing whatever we can, we restrict ourselves. I can't think of any other predator that does that. That's kind of an intelligent thing and telling a bunch of gun toting predators that they have to do things your way kind of takes guts.

So yeah, pretty much the opposite of everything you said. Wait, were you being deliberately ironic? It'd be funny if you'd included something that actually had ... well humor in it.

There is a bit of a difference and it is a significant one. Phone books don't have the content of today's news. I can go to Google and search for "Pizzeria news" and see headlines and brief news snippits. I can't do that with the phone book. If I want to get Pizzeria News using the phone book, I have to call my local newspaper company. Google cuts out the need to make that call for a lot of people.

Now there are some things that are fairly compared to phone books and some things that aren't but the news people have a complaint that isn't fairly addressed unless Google stops showing anything but a link to the news agency. (Which might be a fair and reasonable response actually.)

Still they news agencies absolutely could have set to not have Google spider and they choose not to because they don't want Google to stop. I think that sums up the real issue right there.

Sorry to reply to myself, but I should have included this:
It's Official: Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans

Interesting. I was with you up until you got to "just compare the European and Asian railroads to American ones" because you don't account for any of the drastically different environments or outcomes. Without some reference, it's a completely unreasonable comparison.

The US freight rail system is widely held as the best in the world and it seems like that should make it reasonable for us to ramp up passenger rail. So I looked into it. I'm still enamored with the idea of reliable and reasonable public transport, but my hopes have been somewhat dampened by the realities after I started reading on the subject.

Wanna read a little? Here are a couple articles that each cover good and bad.
 

• 
     
• What America can learn from Europe's high speed rail
     
• High speed rail great fro Europe but less so for the US
   

In the end, I actually find myself rooting against rail but not because I don't believe it could work. I root against it because the history I see of US pork barrel politics.

That code reminds me of... well mine. Sorry about that. Odds are it isn't actually mine, but there have been a few coding sessions where I was a little heavy on the Merlot and %s/originalvariable/whatimeannow/g. Once it runs and looks like the output is good, you sleep. When you revisit your code, generally much later, to fix something minor, you discover that the worst coder in the world has apparently been going through your elegant programs with a randomizer and a blindfold. Touch one thing and suddenly you're cursing that freak with a passion.

I've got one such project going right now and I think I'm in the third or fourth rewrite attempt since I gave up on fixing past-me's functional but fragile apparent attempt to win an obfuscated coding contest. I mean it looks like it makes sense but I keep running into these functions that don't look like they should be where they are and I have a fuzzy memory of putting them there and why, but when I try to do things the right way I get locked out of my firewall, kill my VPN or crash browsers. (Yes, you guessed it, manipulating iptables dynamically and I am indeed over my head sometimes.) Thankfully it is in what I'd call pre-pre-release state. If I had to maintain this stuff for a client right now, I'd be having a very bad week.

Budget! I can do it cheap too. It'll only cost about 40 million, 1 million for research and development to make a very realistic looking stargate, another 1 million to get the right magician involved and pay for his silence, a few thousand for a pig, a grinder and high powered pneumatic cannon, a couple million to ensure that 'davidwr' can be depended on to stay gone after the demo and the remainder to pay for my plastic surgery, new identity and personal lifetime vacation.

Talk about a challenge. I love these requests because you can pretty much talk about what it would take to develop solutions that are beyond current technology. (Some extravagant requests are doable with just an insane rather than the impossible budget this one will take.)

the time for getting messages between widely separated places on the planet.

You need to do it faster than 299,792,458 m/s? Okay, but we'll have to invest in some serious R&D. In 1998 Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever worked out a possible solution, but to have a good chance of solving it in our lifetime as a practical application will require a budget in the quadrillion range or at least a team of research engineers who are going to cost our company trillions to finance. Now's a good time too, because we can pick up the SSC as an exploratory tool at a discount. Can you get me that budget to work with, because I'd love to manage the project!

Thanks man.

If a few more people were interested in actually presenting facts, there might not be controversy in the first place.

Honestly I've been very reluctant to accept AGW. There are plenty of people of people I respect who are sure that it is exaggerated or completely false. I hear them recount their points over and over and each article or soundbite in favor of their perspective gets discussed with enthusiasm.

I've done my own research and found that most people who write in favor of AGW do so without actually checking the science. They tend to be an abusive and dismissive group. That doesn't actually persuade me that AGW is bogus, I'm willing to accept that truth can be supported by assholes, but it does make it hard to find information. It is a lot easier to find deniers using facts and referencing studies. Again, that doesn't convince me since plenty of whackjobs think they have reliable sources.

I've heard the Mars talking point plenty of times and recall some doubt after looking it up myself, but it would have been nice to see a link to information rather than abuse.

Would you take a mop out of the closet and scrub a floor at the office if you noticed it dirty?

Yes. If it needed done.

Do what needs done. Use your time wisely. If you manage both of those things, then you're doing more than most people.

On my first day, my boss, who is past retirement age and still keeps up with current technology, stopped to pick up trash from the floor. I noticed. It impressed the hell out of me and the lesson stuck. Here is a guy at the top of a company who still takes time to do what he can in any capacity to make sure that what needs done gets done, no matter how menial. Today he set up a workstation, not because it needed his personal time but because he likes to know how things are being done. He has staff that he depends on to manage setting up the workstations (and servers and manage contracts and interact with vendors and develop in house applications.) Still, he wants to learn how our images are working, what we build them with and what we have to set up on individual machines. He carries tremendous responsibility in the company and makes decisions that account for a large portion of the company budget. His mistakes cost us tremendous amounts of money and time and his good decisions save us tremendous time and money. This same guy takes time to fix a printer when he is at hand and it needs someone with only the most rudimentary mechanical skill. I've seen him study the bios on a PC when he has staff that he could assign to become experts. He makes it obvious that no task is too small or too menial to do if it needs doing.

We have different IT philosophies in some significant areas and he drives me absolutely crazy sometimes. Still, I respect somebody that does what needs done. Everybody respects the guy that does what needs done when it needs done. The majority of his time is spent managing, researching and reporting, but he makes time to learn new things and spends time on tasks he could assign somebody to assign somebody to do because he cares to know what is going on and why.

xTrashcat:

1. What is the average age of your workplace?
   We range from 18 to late 60s, average is probably 45.
2. How easily do your coworkers accept and absorb new technology?
   I'd guess maybe 5% jump on learning new tech, 70% learn it with mild reluctance and 25% actively hate having to deal with it.
3. Are most IT environments like this, where people refuse to learn anything about new technology they don't like, or did I just get stuck with a batch of stubborn case-screws?
   I've worked in five IT environments. Every instance had some people who hated new tech and a rare few who embraced learning about it.

Your group doesn't sound special, it just sounds like the mentality is one of entrenchment against dealing with unnecessary new skills. It probably stems from a lack of reward in the past, but such views can be slowly won over with patience.

Do what needs doing. Learn about the new BIOS settings if that's what is called for. When you're of age to be "that old guy in IT" you can be like my boss, the guy who does what needs to be done.

Your explanation was good, but it didn't use a car metaphor so it kinda confused me. Now I feel obligated to offer one:

• I accept the premise that practically everyone needs transport sometimes
• The luxury sedan part of the Everyone Transported act sounds good
• The heated seats provision sounds good
• The GPS for all is great
• All car payments come with free gas is good
• I do NOT LIKE that my car payment tripled

Humm...

I'm against the act, but not because of the mandate/tax. I'm not against the provisions. The idea that health insurance and health care could use some legislative improvement is acceptable to me. I am against the idea that the only way to solve the problems is to force an entire nation to use one idea instead of letting 50 governments try solutions.

"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master."
- George Washington