If you are doing micromanagement via 'agile,' then you are favoring processes over individuals, which goes directly against the agile manifesto. The daily standup is for teammembers to communicate amongst themselves, not for a daily status report to managers, which is why the manager is not supposed to be present, to prevent it from degenerating (also, you're supposed to stand up to prevent it from degenerating).

Micromanaging is almost always counterproductive, in any management method. I understand where you are coming from though, I have a manager currently who is using estimates to push people harder, standups as status meetings, and generally uses agile to micromanage. I've been working on mentoring him to do better, but managers can be stubborn.

btw the reason to do agile even with experienced people is to gain focus, increase communication, and partition responsibilities (someone has to figure out the requirements, for example). There are plenty of ways to do this, The Mythical Man Month points out that with a small, experienced team, almost any development methodology will work, but agile is one methodology.

Yes, if we did that, we wouldn't need to worry about net neutrality because there would always be another ISP.

For Agile to work well, you need to have experienced, capable team members, who can manage themselves. When you have team members who can't manage themselves, the purpose of the manager is to help them learn the skills they need to manage themselves. Everyone can take turn being scrummaster, for example, and the manager's job is to help teach the less competent programmer how to do that.

lol I hope it's tricky for more reasons than that. If Ted Cruz becomes president, the best I can hope for is entertainment.

In addition to what others have said.....

In America, unlike some other countries, congresspeople are free to vote however they like, regardless of party. So a lot of times you'll see a few democrats voting with republicans and vice versa. Because America is so big and diverse, frequently parties are not unified in opinion, for example, a senator in rural west-Virginia might be pro-union, but also anti-gun-control,

That's why they had so much trouble passing Obamacare even while controlling both branches of congress: because they were trying to convince every democrat to vote for it. Some didn't want to vote for it because of abortion, others for other reasons.

The party can't stop congresspeople from crossing party lines, but sometimes they retaliate by not giving them campaign money (which the congressperson may or may not need).

The way to counter this free market talk is to counter it with talk of free markets.

Talk about how many municipalities don't allow more than one provider. This is anti-capitalist, anti-free market, and not necessary (as has been shown by Google fiber). Get the Republicans focused on fixing that problem, and they will feel like they are doing something good AND they will be actually doing something good.

I don't think it's unconstitutional for the president to refuse to enforce laws. That's kind of a good thing, because it gives him power to not prosecute whistleblowers, for example. Or if congress passes any other stupid, punitive law, it's one extra check that keeps people from losing their freedoms as a result.

On the other hand, if Ted Cruz becomes president, things could get wildly crazy as a result of this precedent. "President Cruz has decreed he will not enforce laws requiring people to pay taxes, and pardons all tax cheats." Or some variation of that.

Think so? Getting from California to Cuba will still be a pain. Tourists will still head there from the west coast.

Going through Canada or Mexico, it takes longer to get to Cuba than it does to get to England. If flights go directly to Cuba, then it will be a few hour flight from New York to Cuba, something you can do in a weekend. Tourism from America will go way up, just like it was before the embargo.

That's the sort of thing that happens when you can route profits to yourself, but loses only go to shareholders (note that is true of most of us with stock in our companies: if the company makes a ton of money, your stock becomes valuable. If the company loses a lot of money, eh, you still get your salary. Which is why the silicon-valley startup industry is full of con-artists and liars).

Venezuela has shortages because of price controls. That's a well-understood economic principle.

Castro has been blogging. Website probably not located in Cuba, but it seems legit?

Why? Don't they have toothpaste in Cuba? I thought they were like a medical paradise.

Democracy requires people to educate themselves. Democracy will never be better than the people who live in it. People don't go out of their way to educate themselves beyond mass media, so the candidate needs to advertise a lot on mass media or lose.

I'm not sure 99% of people would oppose surveillance. The mass media has been talking about it for years, nearly everyone knows about it. They just don't mind if the government spies on them.

Any sale of goods, provision of service, or transaction has implied requirements by the vendor to not "damage" the recipient or bystanders. When such vendor is remiss in delivering services as such, OR try to cover up malfeasance, that is a civil harm. When it physically damages individuals, or otherwise legally defined, it is a crime. In most cases, damages are resolved in the civil courts.

Microsoft's products are so pervasive in our society, their ability to be penetrated by hackers threatens bank accounts, personnel records, medical records, and in rare cases, infrastructure. Where Microsoft is "negligent", they can be sued. Its only a matter of time.

And unknown flaw lurking for years does not make Microsoft liable for negligence. A KNOWN flaw, which Microsoft does not move on, will eventually be grounds for civil damages. If it ends up killing people, its possible for it go criminal trial.