I mean we had a statie here in Mass literally shoot someone while hunting and didn't get charged. (Long story short he didn't identify what he was shooting at, thought a lady's dog was a deer and ended up hitting her. Last I checked any responsible hunter would not only know what he's shooting at, which this guy didn't do, but he'd also know what part of the animal he was shooting so it would die quickly without needless suffering. This guy took a half blind shot into some bushes because he thought he saw a tail.) The guy is still a statie and yes, still has a gun.

I mean it worked for Windows Vista. (I'll always wonder if they didn't have to rename it would we have gotten what became Windows 7 as a service pack.)

and of course I get ignored. I'm still pissed that I told them for the trade show demo we should use the older version which actually works and not the latest version which has a couple of show stopper bugs.(Given that 3 days is unrealistic for me to fix that and have QA test it.) Of course in their infinite wisdom they not only should we go with the new version(ooh, it's got new features, we don't care what they actually are it has them) but that I should add another new feature to it. (Lets just say they should have took my advice.)

Hey, I could bring up how they had the great idea to release software during a literal blizzard.(Yes, that really happened and yes it really was a blizzard. This did not go well.)

So "Cat Scan" was too bad of a pun?

It sounds great in theory but I've worked places recently where developers decided they didn't need to do code reviews or follow coding standards or use source control

Would be develop a way to make air, water, and sunlight into petroleum without needing all the time it takes nature to do the same thing.

My understanding is that the main way in pretty much every war one plane shot down another plane isn't via dog fighting but pretty much dicta boelcke, IE the victim was shot down before he had any idea he was getting attacked. (In other words "Shoot him in the fucking back.")

Why wouldn't you pretty much use this in every fighter plane we use. (I mean besides having to come up with upgraded electronics for the F-15, F-16, F-18, ETC) Why tie it to the F-35?

thing with you but I've seen similar stuff with self taught "experts". Let's see, I've seen experts that didn't know what the real difference between a list and array were, let alone knew what a map was. (CS 102 stuff.) Would always try to reinvent the wheel whether it was writing their own quick sort instead of using the built in one or building their own formatting routines that make the same strings as the ones already available in the class they're using. Then there's the whole issue of doing object oriented code because they're using C++ but having no concepts of some pretty basic OO ideas. (Like encapsulation or inheritance. Everything is public and everything is implemented multiple times it classes that really should be derived from one basic class.) Of course I'm guessing yours said the same stuff like "Oh my code is linear, if we need it to run faster get a faster computer." (It wasn't, it was order N^2)

I saw a report on I think 60 minutes probably 10 or 15 years ago where the black community was up in arms because they were losing out on scholarships. The complaint was they were losing them to the children of recent immigrants from Africa, a group that hadn't gone through the history of slavery because their ancestors didn't live in the US. (The whole point as far as they were concerned was this was to give a leg up to people that as a class had suffered through slavery and racism and recent African immigrants were not in this group but qualified for the scholarships and took them away from the people they were intended for.) To add insult to injury the recent African immigrants tended to be fairly successful and that lead to the complaint they didn't need the help anyway. But like you wrote, these immigrants were a self selecting group who went through all that hassle and they were more likely to be successful in the end.(It looks to me as though any group that intentional migrates will tend to do well because they're the driven to find success while people that are forced to migrate probably won't.)

It was one of a couple of TG-16 games they did on the Sega-CD. Funny thing was even though Lords of Thunder was basically the same game as the Duo-CD version the Sega-CD version of Dungeon Explorer was a totally new game.

from the Sega CD version of Dungeon Explorer .(There's an obscure reference.)

If everything I've read about it is true(and I mentioned this in another article here on /.) you literally can't get more than 40 hours of work out of people anyway. Oh sure, the first couple of weeks they do more work but then they get tired and slow and make mistakes. After a few weeks of that they're working more than 40 hours but aren't producing any more work. Go ahead, read stuff like Peopleware where they point this out. (That working overtime makes no sense, you don't get anything but pissed off employees.) Before anybody asks, no I don't work more than 40 hours a week. (And yes one of the big reasons is I'm old enough to recognize I don't get any more work done if I do. Plus the fact you do it and your manager quickly abuses it.)

Wait, you've seen them actually clean it up? I guess I have bad luck then because what happens in my experience is the company just keeps building up tech debt and think they'll never have to pay it down. (You know, like an idiot maxing out his credit card because he figures he only has to pay part of it off at the end of the month. It's practically forever before the whole bill is due:) ) Guess I'm gun shy since my experience is managers abuse it. (IE do the half ass version and then don't get time to clean it up until it collapses on a customer which is of course dev's fault.)

Just to be clear I've seen what you say work if it's along the lines of keep out features that aren't needed and we kept track that those features aren't there.(As you say tech debt or in this case reduced feature set.) What I haven't seen work is "We want all the features, we'll just do a half assed version of it and not keep track of the tech debt." turn out well. (I bring it up a lot but I always have this story of a communications protocol where my company tried to take the toy "proof of concept" version that made no attempt to implement large necessary portions of the protocol. Pretty much that was written under the directive of "Get a proof on concept in a day for a protocol that should have taken a week or 2 to implement." Basically the entire "handshake" portion was written with the idea that it would always work since there was no time to actually implement it. Not true in reality.) They spent weeks after that trying to get it to work and it still has serious issues. (It would have been quicker to just do it right in the first place. Of course now it gets dumped on me so I'm annoyed.)