Four years ago, my wife went back to school to further her career. After two years of working and school, we agreed it would be better for her to go to school full time. So for two years, we've been on one income and accumulating debt. But after she graduates, her income will go up, the debt will get paid off and if all goes well, eventually we'll be better off than we would have been if she didn't go back to school. So I figure I'm currently worse off, but potentially better off in the future.

I'm assuming you're assuming they're assuming.

The problem is that there's no suitable output from a code review. Other tasks are definable, e.g., delivering code that meets the requirements. A code review doesn't work like that. It's a nice thing to do for your peers to sufficiently examine their code in a review. But nobody gets kicked for doing a half-assed review. They do get kicked for missing a delivery. So when rubber meets the road, a thorough code review tends not to happen.

> Despite urging by the Yemen-based al Qaida leader Anwar Al Anlaki, Karim rejected the use of a sophisticated code program[...]

I don't think a guy with a job description of "blow yourself up" cares what HQ thinks.

(Alan Turing, Isaac Newton, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Francis Bacon, Henry David Thoreau...)

Hedley: "You said Alan Turing twice."

Applicant: "I like Alan Turing."

The Epson QX-10, QX-16 and Equity computers were standard issue for Drew University (drew.edu) undergrads starting in 1984. They've got to have a box of old disks in a dark corner of the computer center.